.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Meantime
-
Posts
4,040 -
Joined
-
Days Won
48
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Meantime
-
-
I think the speed limit itself is somewhat irrelevant, it is the change in speed limit downwards that attracts your attention. When travelling up to Coltishall I see the 3mph sign at Belaugh and adjust my speed down to the point where drive is just about engaged. I see the change in speed limits as more of a reminder to slow down, than to actually try doing 3mph. On leaving Coltishall if it has been raining heavily and the current is ebbing then it is impossible for me to do 3mph through belaugh with drive just engaged.
Going back to what actually started this thread, Sutton Staithe I rarely go thru there with drive constantly engaged, it feels too fast and too close to the other boats. I enter just on tick over and depending on how many boats are already moored will knock it into neutral and back into drive as needed.
Commonsense says that you just need to be careful, you don't need a speed limit sign. Lets be honest the dyke up to Neatishead is 3mph, but who would attempt to get into and down the length of the mooring at Neatishead at 3mph. It's just not possible if its busy, yet we don't ask for a 2mph sign there.
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:
There are already 3mph stretches at Belaugh and Dilham so dont know why it would require any special measures.
Fred
Because those two areas are already covered by the Speed Limit Byelaws. Sutton Staithe is in a 4mph area and would need a change of the byelaws if the speed limit is to be changed.
Under the section for River Ant. Dilham Dyke from Brick Kiln Bridge to its confluence with the River Ant. 3mph, that covers Dilham.
Belaugh is not up the Ant, but on the Bure, however from 229 metres (250 yards) upstream to 229 metres (250 yards) downstream of Belaugh Staithe 3mph.
Again on the Bure Coltishall - from Horstead Mill to 914 metres (1000 yards) downstream of the Rising Sun public house and from Coltishall Lock to the confluence of the Lock Cut with the River Bure 3mph.
-
39 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
Golly gosh, the Mynah's going to post something sensible !
A friend of mine asked one of the rangers if it would be possible to put a 3mph limit at the start of the 24hr moorings at Sutton Staithe.
He was told that this would require an act of Parliament.
This strikes me as a little odd, but have no idea how to verify it, and even if it did, would it not still be a worthwhile thing to do.
However, and I'm probably mistaken here, I have it at the back of my mind that a 3mph limit used to exist here some years ago. Can anyone verify that?
I agree that enforcement might be tricky and I do see the irony of telling some people off for not moving then having another go at them for moving too fast, but that's another thing.
Dear reader, what think you ?
Speed limits are covered by the 1992 byelaws attached. Page 17 defines the speed limits for the river Ant and I cannot see anything regarding Sutton Staithe being 3mph, so by default it would be 4mph. However as well as speed limits reasonable care and wash also applies so if you're too close to another boat or in danger of hitting another boat then 3mph is too fast!
As far as I'm aware modifying the byelaws or creating new byelaws does not need an act of Parliament. It needs the Authority concerned to draft the amendment and then place them before the relevant Secretary of State who has 30 days to respond.
I would have thought it could be handled under the Byelaws (Alternative Procedure) (England Regulations 2016)
The first step would be to canvass the Broads Authority and show there is a need for a change. If enough people contacted them and they felt a change was warranted then they could initiate the process culminating in approval from the Secretary of State.
This all probably means that in reality it won't happen unless a number of serious incidents are reported which are a result of people going through there too fast.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Gracie said:
How very dare you
I had absolutely nothing to do with it thank you very much
I mean seriously MT, what are you on? What does the rest of your post even mean? 
x
I have absolutely no idea!
I was hoping you could tell me with the aid of some wine 
-
1
-
-
Water
in Broads Chat
7 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:May I please suggest that the phrase "Shareholders bonus" and similar is used with a little more thought, and not to imply "fat cat shareholders"
I think people may find that with things like utilities and oil companies, the majority of "shareholders " are pension funds. So attacks on these "fat cats" are attacks on the pensions for the elderly and infirm... and me!
Indeed the same is true of the greedy commercial landlords! In truth many of the out of town shopping centres and the likes of Lakeside and Bluewater are owned by pension funds whose performance shores up many private pensions.
-
2
-
-
Looking at some error logs I had recently, I think Gracie might have had something to do with it?
Wine Installer v1.0 Warning !! wine binary (still) found, which may indicate a (conflicting) previous installation. You might want to abort and uninstall Wine first. (If you previously tried to install from source manually, run 'make uninstall' from the wine root directory) We need to install Wine as the root user. Do you want us to build Wine, 'su root' and install Wine? Enter 'no' to build Wine without installing: (yes/no) yes Running configure... checking build system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu checking host system type... x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes checking for gcc... gcc checking whether the C compiler works... yes checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out checking for suffix of executables... checking whether we are cross compiling... no checking for suffix of object files... o checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes checking for gcc option to accept ISO C89... none needed checking for g++... g++ checking whether we are using the GNU C++ compiler... yes checking whether g++ accepts -g... yes checking for cpp... cpp checking whether gcc -m32 works... no configure: error: Cannot build a 32-bit program, you need to install 32-bit development libraries. Configure failed, aborting install.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Happened on the phone this morning and just now when I tried on the PC.
-
1
-
-
I could be wrong but given that the BA have already stated;
The Broads Authority is a Best Value Authority as confirmed above. Although the Authority is not bound by Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 in setting its charges, therefore the Authority has a wide discretion, we confirm that the charges are based on cost recovery only and the Authority follows local government principles in doing so. This includes following the revised Best Value Statutory Guidance (2015).
Which I take to mean they will only recover the actual costs associated with the recovery and will only take action where there is a fair chance of being able to recover those costs and the mooring fee.
I suspect the issuing of a MCN will be rarer than the sighting of the Bittern. A lot of the car parking cowboy firms rely on the majority being frightened into paying a PCN as soon as it arrives and often don't bother to chase up those who don't, or sell them off to a debt recovery firm.
I haven't done the maths but my guess is that over 99.9% of people have paid the fee. The BA will judge that to be a success and not throw money at chasing the very small minority unless it becomes a major number.
-
12 minutes ago, MargeandParge said:
Has anyone read the small print on a hire boat contract as when you hire a car they usually need access to a credit card to cover parking and any speeding offences.
Kindest Regards Marge and Parge
Again speeding offences are criminal matters, mooring fees are civil with completely different powers of recovery.
The "contract" is formed and accepted by the "person" mooring reading the terms and conditions at the mooring and staying. Who the "person" performing the mooring is and accepting the contract can be as difficult to find out as you want to make it. The BA have no powers to make the registered keeper disclose this fact after the event. Please bear in mind it might not even be the registered keeper performing the mooring or in charge of the vessel at that time. The BA staff on site unless a full ranger with the appropriate written authorisation can not demand you provide your details. I'm pretty sure even a full ranger cannot demand your details unless their is a reasonable suspicion of a byelaw having been broken. The mooring fees as already clarified by the BA are a civil not criminal matter.
I could well envisage a situation where feeling unwell I retire to my cabin, only to wake up and find the crew with me have moored at Ranworth and refused or forgotten to pay the mooring fee. Not feeling well and in my cabin I was clearly not in charge of the vessel, one of my crew were. If as registered keeper I was sent a MCN, I would decline to pay it as I was not in charge of the vessel at the time and did not enter into the contract. The BA do not have the powers to force me to name the person in charge of the vessel at the time, unless a criminal act has been committed. Indeed depending on how unwell I was at the time I may have no idea who was in charge.
-
7 minutes ago, annv said:
I wonder if any body will make up some and use false no plates, easy to do unlike car plates. John
Not advisable as unlike non payment of the mooring fee, false reg numbers would be a Byelaw and therefore criminal offense.
-
1 minute ago, grendel said:
this was my question, while they may have ready access to the information , under GDPR are they legally allowed to use it for that purpose?
Again it doesn't matter. (off course misuse of data under GDPR does matter, but is irrelevant here) The contract is between the person who moors the boat and the BA. The BA can contact the registered keeper, but they cannot force them to provide details of who was in charge of the boat on that day.
-
4 minutes ago, vanessan said:
I think we’ll have to disagree on this one. If a hirer refuses to pay, the BA has to rely on the hire company for details. If a private boat owner refuses, all the info is readily to hand for them.
How, the registered keeper may not be even on the boat and therefore not responsible. The BA do not have the power or authority to make the registered keeper provide the details of who was at the helm on that day, since it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
-
1 hour ago, vanessan said:
It all leaves the private boat owner rather at a disadvantage doesn’t it! I wonder how many hirers have refused to pay.
According to the report only 7 boats have refused to pay, all of which were privately owned and 3 hire boats moved off again as soon as being told about the charge. Not sure why the BA felt the need to make the distinction in the report.
Off course it is understandable that hire boaters are less likely to realise that their hire yard has already paid a toll for the boat annual usage which in turn goes towards paying for the upkeep of the mooring. Also even less likely to realise that the association that used to represent the hire yards Blakes gave that land free of charge, making the Broads Authority morally bankrupt by charging.
Private boaters are no more or less disadvantaged in this matter. The person entering the "contract" if the person who moors the boat at Ranworth. This may or may not be the registered keeper. Generally speaking the BA personnel at Ranworth have no authority to demand your name and address, they can only take the name of the boat and reg number, from which they can ascertain the registered keepers name and address. They can write to the registered keeper, but they do not have the special dispensation given to car parking firms to force the registered keeper to reveal who was in charge of the boat at that time, nor can they fine the registered keeper if they don't reveal those details.
-
2
-
-
On 20/05/2023 at 10:23, Meantime said:
Something has been nagging me ever since I saw it, and in light of my post above, it is nagging me even more. Is the 24hr surveillance a new thing at Ranworth? When was it introduced? and why? Will it appear at other 24hr moorings? Has there been anti social behaviour there to warrant it?
I did point this out earlier on in the thread. I wonder what crime wave prompted the installation of 24hr CCTV, or was it installed at our expense to catch whoever moors a boat?
However, that is only part of the story, they still need to find a name and address from somewhere, or someone to identify you!
Perhaps it's a timely reminder that you only need to give your details when asked to an authorised officer who produces, if requested, written evidence of his authority- (apologies for the gender description, but I am quoting from the 2009 Broads Authority Act as passed in the Houses of Parliament)
The above would appear to exclude voluntary rangers and visitor centre staff unless they have the appropriate written evidence!
-
1 hour ago, Heron said:
I suspect that Richardsons boats are all recorded in BA records as being Registered Keeper ...Richardsons. Other boat owners exist on the Broads hiring to customers.
If many hirers refused to pay and and the boat hire operators were lumbered with having to pay up and then recover the mooring fee, and their costs from the hirers, the BA would soon be told where they can go.
It seems to me this would quickly become unworkable.
Reputational damage for the BA just gets worse and worse.
But this is precisely the crux of the matter. The registered keeper cannot be held liable unlike in a car park, and the registered keeper does not have to reveal the name of the person who was helming at the time of the mooring. Indeed data protection would prevent the hire company from revealing the identity of the hirer unless there was a criminal bye law contravention, and as the Broads Authority have already revealed it is a civil matter, so no hire company should feel compelled to disclose the hirers name under those circumstances, and again there is no guarantee that the hirer was the person who performed the mooring, it may have been one of their crew. Mr. Loophole would have a field day.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:
Sorry but this whole thread reads like the worst possible tabloid press article.
The only facts we have are that the Hemsby lifeboat and the coastguard have been called out. Everything else is inviting speculation.
"No more news yet " is not news.
Indeed, in fact in the absence of anything substantial I've had a look around and found the following missing person report on the Norfolk Police website.
If anyone is in the area then perhaps they could keep a look out. Hope he is found soon and safe and well.
-
1
-
-
So to bring this topic back on track and by way of an update, on the 18th May I put in a freedom of information request to enquire A) How many people had refused to pay, and B) How many people had been sent a MCN for non payment of the mooring fee.
As many of you will be aware there has since been a BA progress report containing similar information and links to the report have been placed on this thread, however it wasn't until today that I got a reply to my enquiry with as suspected a link to the published report.
The report stated that there had been 7 boats refusing to pay, so that answered my first question, but it does not state how many people have been sent a MCN for non payment.
So a reply was sent requesting clarification on this and asking for comment on two further points.
The answer is that no MCNs have been issued to date for non payment of the mooring fee.
I did also ask for comment on the following;
I wonder if you or one of your colleagues would also like to comment on the use of the word “fine” in section 1.5 of the notice displayed at the mooring site. I believe that under contract law you are allowed to make a charge for reasonable costs in relation to the recovery of the unpaid fee, but are not allowed to levy a fine! Indeed you would need a clearly defined breach of a byelaw in order to levy a fine.
Which received the following reply;
Non-payment of the mooring charge at Ranworth is not a Byelaw offence, byelaw breaches are criminal matters and may be dealt with in Criminal Court. Non-payment of these mooring charges is a civil matter. Regarding any ‘fine’ for non-payment, please see the answer below.
The second item I'd asked for comment on was as follows;
In section 2.2 of the report there is a rather misleading statement that claims that “The courts have upheld the right for a penalty fee to be imposed for non-payment in these circumstances” Is that really the case, or by “these circumstances” are you actually referring to the similar practise of enforcing car parking charges on private land? Which off course is subject to various bits of legislation and regulated by various trade associations such as BPA as well as appeals bodies such as POPLA. So, with that in mind can you tell me which associations covering the charging of mooring on private land the Broads Authority belongs to and which appeals body a receiver of a MCN can refer the matter to for adjudication?
This in turn got the following response;
The use of the quay is subject to the unilateral acceptance of the advertised contractual terms. The terms are advertised by being displayed on signs visible to the boat user when mooring and a copy is also handed to the helm upon arrival at the mooring. Non-payment gives rise to a claim for breach of contract and/or damages for trespass, under these circumstances courts have upheld the right for a penalty fee to be imposed for non-payment. The Broads Authority is a Best Value Authority as confirmed above. Although the Authority is not bound by Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 in setting its charges, therefore the Authority has a wide discretion, we confirm that the charges are based on cost recovery only and the Authority follows local government principles in doing so. This includes following the revised Best Value Statutory Guidance (2015).
You will note from the above that again the direct questions have been skirted around with regards to any established appeals process or appeals bodies where it relates to mooring on private land. The above answers leave me in no doubt what so ever that the BA are following the long established processes used by the car parking firms to recover non payment of car park charges.
I have for some time now held the belief that IF the Broads Authority did everything correctly they would have the right to charge for mooring and to recover non payment, They have played catch up and modified their signage and are most probably in near compliance and able to apply contract law in the same way as car parking firms do, however, the ace up the sleeve that applies to car parking firms does not apply to the Broads Authority. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies to the Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges. It specifically gives rights to car parking firms to force the registered keeper of a car to disclose the driver of the vehicle for the fine to be issued to them, and if they refuse then the registered keeper becomes liable for the fine even if they were not driving.
By all means make your high profile stands against the payment of the mooring fee, but just be aware that last part may come back to bite you if you want to rely on the defense of being the registered keeper, but not the person who moored and refused to pay the mooring fee. That is off course if you actually receive a MCN in the first place.
-
6
-
3
-
-
It would have been Wild Craft beers. I believe Paul has an arrangement with them where they supply the beer and keep the lines cleaned etc.
It is well worth taking the walk to the brewery which is based on a farm in Smallburgh.
From The Cross Keys head as if your going to The Crown. Continue on past The Crown until you see a road on the right, strangely on Google maps it is called Hall Road, but the sign at the turning says Church Road leading to Hall Road. Go down there and you'll see a gate on the right and a sign that says something like no access, exit only. If on foot you can go in this way and up the drive until you reach some farm outbuildings and this is where the brewery and gift shop is. If in car then continue on a little further and turn right where the signs direct you.
We were lucky enough to head up there just after the last May bank holiday weekend when they'd had a beer festival. We bought some supplies and they were selling off the last of the beer from the tapped barrels at £1 a pint.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ray said:
Presumably as an important part of the navigation it must be kept open but could hire boats one day be restricted?
I can imagine ways in which this could be beneficial to the BA like concentrating resources and amenities in the north.
I don't see how that would work! The BA have a statutory duty to all boaters, private, hire, motorboat and sail, whichever part of the Broads they happen to frequent.
-
1
-
-
The BA press machine springs into overtime again!!!
-
2
-
-
During my last visit to the boat I witnessed two boats with the most reckless of crews. Their boats were way too tall for the bridges and they had no engine at all!!!
Ok that was a bit tongue in cheek! We had just headed South to North and were just passing the yacht station at slack water as two Hunters boats came sailing down the Bure and were starting to drop their sails and masts in preparation for a safe transit under the bridges and presumably a journey South. I know some Hunters boats now have electric quants, but the wooden quant poles were being prepared, so they were going for the traditional method. It was a joy to see and one we could so easily have missed without proper planning.
We arrived at the boat on the 27th May for a weeks holiday. We had several choices as our plan was to spend the week North and catch the 3RR before returning South. We could get up at a silly hour and travel to the Broads and cast off in time to catch the Saturday morning slack water, but that's no way to start a holiday. We could take our time getting to The Broads and load up and cast off and head North a few hours after slack water, but again this didn't seem like the ideal way to start the holiday. Instead we arrived at our leisure, cast off and took a slow trundle down to Burgh Castle against the flood and moored up for the night. A leisurely walk to The Fishermen's Inn, followed by a walk to The Queens Head Burgh Castle and then finally a walk to The Kings Head for another pint and dinner, then back to the mooring. A lie in next morning followed by a leisurely breakfast and then cast of in perfect time to reach the yacht station at slack water and witness those two beauties transiting North to South. It's all in the planning really!
-
3
-
-
On 07/06/2023 at 17:34, Wussername said:
A unique event. Enjoyed with a glass of sparkling Prosecco or perhaps a glass of a vintage Blanc de Blanc.
Never, ever, over a computer screen.
You have to be there to witness scenes such as this!
-
4
-
-
43 minutes ago, jeffbroadslover said:
Would I be wrong in assuming that with fewer moorings to maintain there will be a refund of part of this year's tolls ?
Jeff
No what it will mean is an excuse to put the tolls up next year to pay for new replacement moorings, you've been warned!!!!
-
9 minutes ago, annv said:
Hi Yes £2000=00 a year is good BUT! add £160,000=00 ( this years price) to this over 5yars is not good value. How much did the Dyke cost i wonder when owner ship changed recently. Perhaps BA missed a opportunity there as electricity is close by. John
The £2000 per year is for the current mooring location which has good piling. It was the alternative location which had no piling and where it would need to be installed at a cost of £160,000. Yet again another Red Herring.
-
1
-
I mean seriously MT, what are you on? What does the rest of your post even mean? 
x
I was hoping you could tell me with the aid of some wine 
Too Sensible By Half
in Broads Chat
Posted
At the risk of stating the obvious, why should I, that's the hire yards job to teach the hirers to be respectful of the boat they've hired and other peoples property. If 4 or 3mph seems to fast, or your too close to another boat then slow down!!!!! It is largely plain commonsense.
If you see people walking across the old bridge at Potter do you stick to the speed limit or do you slow down and be prepared to stop! It's the same principle!