Meantime

Nice try, but I suspect any court would deem the helmsperson to be the person responsible for mooring the boat with others helping under their instruction / guidance. However as pointed out the extra powers given to land owners under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 making the registered keeper liable for any parking charge under certain situations, do not extend to the owners of moorings. So any contract entered into with the BA will be with the helm doing the mooring, and the burden will be on the BA to prove who performed the mooring. So for instance if I lend my boat to three friends and they moor at Ranworth, I might receive a MCN in the post if they don't pay, but I am not responsible for the charge, and do not have to specify who performed the mooring, in deed I probably wouldn't know, the burden of proof would lie with the BA.

Posted on the BRAG thread, but reposted here where it is more relevant: 11 hours ago, Wussername said: My understanding is that you cannot be fined in the event of failing to conform to a contractual obligation. You can however be pursued in a civil court of law. 12 hours ago, rightsaidfred said: Secondly the BA cannot issue fines full stop There is a difference between issuing a fine, or penalty, and it being legally enforceable. When private car parking firms issue a Parking Charge Notice it might mention a charge you have to pay and even offer a reduced price if paid within a certain period of time. This fine, or penalty is not legally enforceable at that point in time. However if the car parking firm takes you to the small claims court under civil law and gets the judgement against you, then it becomes legally enforceable. Fines, or penalties issued as a Penalty Charge Notice, by Police, Local Authorities are legally enforceable from the moment they are issued, although you normally get a period to appeal them. I own a leasehold flat and as a part of the lease there is a section which allows the Landlord to charge interest at the bank base rate + 5% on service charges which are not paid within 30 days of being due. This is the fine, or penalty applied under civil law. It is not legally enforceable, but the landlord will still issue an invoice with the interest added on if the service charge is not paid. If it is still not paid and the Landlord goes to the small claims court and they decide in their favour then it is legally enforceable at that point. I will end up paying a penalty for late payment. Think of the MCN as your invoice / fine / penalty for not paying your mooring fee on time, when it was demanded. It is not legally enforceable until you get taken to the small claims court and get a judgement against you, assuming off course that the BA have the correct grounds to win such a judgement. What's in a word Fine or Mulct the term more commonly used in civil law is a penalty of money that a court of law can decide has to be paid. It can be determined case by case or often announced in advance. If you don't pay the mooring fee of £10, £5 or £3 and receive a MCN or fine, it is not legally enforceable at that point. However if you don't pay the "invoice" and get taken to the small claims court and the BA win (I personally doubt if they would with the present signs) then you could be instructed by a court which would be legally enforceable to pay the mooring fee, the £60 plus court costs. I think at that point few would argued that they haven't been penalised or fined. Despite the fact that private car parking firms cannot issue legally enforceable fines, take a look at the following .gov webpage and look at the language the Government uses to describe the penalties that car parking firms issue. Government Website It is the industry trade bodies that advise against the use of the word fine on a Parking Charge Notice to their members, not a legal requirement not to use it. To the best of my knowledge there is no such trade body or organisation that advises about boat mooring fees or fines.

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?

Further useful info: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned private sector wheel clamping and vehicle removal where there was no lawful authority to do so. However as a balance it gave extra power to landowners to manage parking on their land. It does this by allowing the landowner to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for unpaid parking charges. Up until this point many a Parking Charge Notice was overturned because the land owner couldn't prove who the driver had been at the time the car was parked. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the bit that gives these extra powers to land owners. By parking on private land you enter into a contract and by breaking the terms of that contract you can be issued with an "invoice" which the registered vehicle keeper is liable for, however they are no longer allowed to clamp you. Here is the important bit: Schedule 4 specifically applies to recovery of unpaid parking charges. There is no equivalent for the recovery of unpaid mooring charges. Therefore the old tried and tested method of having a Parking Charge Notice overturned prior to the introduction of the 2012 act by making the land owner prove who was driving the car at the time should still work when it comes to mooring charges. The landowner, the BA will have to prove who moored the boat and therefore liable for entering into the contract with the BA, the registered keeper will not automatically be liable if they were not the person who moored the boar, or even not on board. The burden of proof will lie with the BA. Making high profile stands on this issue may not be your best course of action.

There is a difference between issuing a fine, or penalty, and it being legally enforceable. When private car parking firms issue a Parking Charge Notice it might mention a charge you have to pay and even offer a reduced price if paid within a certain period of time. This fine, or penalty is not legally enforceable at that point in time. However if the car parking firm takes you to the small claims court under civil law and gets the judgement against you, then it becomes legally enforceable. Fines, or penalties issued as a Penalty Charge Notice, by Police, Local Authorities are legally enforceable from the moment they are issued, although you normally get a period to appeal them. I own a leasehold flat and as a part of the lease there is a section which allows the Landlord to charge interest at the bank base rate + 5% on service charges which are not paid within 30 days of being due. This is the fine, or penalty applied under civil law. It is not legally enforceable, but the landlord will still issue an invoice with the interest added on if the service charge is not paid. If it is still not paid and the Landlord goes to the small claims court and they decide in their favour then it is legally enforceable at that point. I will end up paying a penalty for late payment. Think of the MCN as your invoice / fine / penalty for not paying your mooring fee on time, when it was demanded. It is not legally enforceable until you get taken to the small claims court and get a judgement against you, assuming off course that the BA have the correct grounds to win such a judgement. What's in a word Fine or Mulct the term more commonly used in civil law is a penalty of money that a court of law can decide has to be paid. It can be determined case by case or often announced in advance. If you don't pay the mooring fee of £10, £5 or £3 and receive a MCN or fine, it is not legally enforceable at that point. However if you don't pay the "invoice" and get taken to the small claims court and the BA win (I personally doubt if they would with the present signs) then you could be instructed by a court which would be legally enforceable to pay the mooring fee, the £60 plus court costs. I think at that point few would argued that they haven't been penalised or fined. Despite the fact that private car parking firms cannot issue legally enforceable fines, take a look at the following .gov webpage and look at the language the Government uses to describe the penalties that car parking firms issue. Government Website It is the industry trade bodies that advise against the use of the word fine on a Parking Charge Notice to their members, not a legal requirement not to use it. To the best of my knowledge there is no such trade body or organisation that advises about boat mooring fees or fines.

I think your spill checker is playing up!

Oh I do hope that's not some form of euphemism but just a trip up the Bure you were planning

What it demonstrates is that the existing new signage alone is neither sufficient in size or quantity for you to be aware off as you moor. Handing the piece of paperwork to you makes you aware. I would simply say like I do with most junk mail, no thanks, don't need one, not interested thank you.

It's alright, it was just starting to feel slightly like an interrogation I'm aware of BRAG and what they're trying achieve, I'm also aware of feeling about them on other FB groups. I'm following all publicly available info on the subject. I'm neither working with or against BRAG, just watching on with interest.

But isn't that part of the problem with the BA, it not being democratic and elected, so it does matter! I'm not against what BRAG are doing, but they are not doing it in my name. I haven't voted for them. So they are a campaign group, which I'm not a member of, and good luck to them. I'm not really sure what your trying to get from me with these posts on this thread and the Ranworth one?

They are not an elected body, they are a campaign group. The committee may have been elected by members of the group, but they are not an elected body. If I've understood correctly you need to join the group to vote, and can be evicted from the group, so hardly democratic.

Did you ask her what the published appeals process is, and which body you appeal to?

It does appear that BRAG have managed to get the door open to DEFRA and I wish them well. I do struggle a little though with the concept of an unelected body campaigning for reform of an unelected body!

Does that mean Mrs Nog is on the pints then?

Not really, since I'm not a member of BRAG, I'm not really following what they're doing, but am aware they exist. I believe their remit is for far wider reform than just whether the BA should charge for mooring at Ranworth. I believe my current goal which is to debate whether the BA could charge to moor, have currently got it right or wrong and whether I need to worry about paying, and how I defend myself if I don't are completely different to the wider aims BRAG.

Do I need to?

Would that be an Adnams Ghostship and a large G+T?

I've never seen the sort of signage used at Ranworth in other private mooring sites or at sites where there has been a long accepted policy of charging. By and large people don't have a problem paying these charges and I guess for the odd person who did contest the charge no action would be taken. Ranworth is so different because it has caused serious discontent on the basis it has for a long time been free and the organisation charging is the same one that collects the tolls to provide for such facilities. The BA was also gifted the site and you would expect it was the original intention to gift it so that it remained free for ever, sadly that was not added into any transfer at the time.

This thread appears to have gone a little quiet, but some of us are still pondering and doing research. I have two freedom of information requests and a general query outstanding with the BA but in the meantime I wonder what peoples thoughts are on the first part of the sign, section 1.1 If my boat is moored at Ranworth, who has entered into the contract with the BA? and how would they get those details? Assuming, they assume, the registered keeper is the one mooring, then will they use the data kept about my boat to retrieve this information, and is that a valid use of that data under data protection laws? Can the registered keeper of a boat enter into a contract if he is not at the helm, but onboard the boat? He didn't moor the boat, but was merely a passenger on his own boat. Is he obliged to spill the beans to the BA on who was actually mooring and thus entering into the contract with the BA. Can the registered keeper of a boat enter into a contract if he is not even onboard the boat when it is moored at Ranworth. Thinking more about hire boats here. If they refuse to pay, then I guess the BA would contact the hire yard for the hirers details, but do they have to provide those details for just any reason, or only valid reasons where a suspected infringement of a byelaw has occurred. Remember the hire yards also have data protection laws to abide to, but even then that might only provide the lead hirers details, and was it them that actually moored the boat and thus entered into the contract with the BA. So many questions, so few answers, so many potential loopholes. So very ill though out, which is why I suspect the BA are running just to stand still. How long before the current signs are altered? Anyone want to start a sweepstake?

Not at all, I question things time and time again. My own opinion has changed dramatically during the course of this thread. I don't blindly believe and need sensible debate and persuasion to come to a decision. I've said throughout the course of this thread that I don't believe morally that the BA should be charging to moor there. I've read every post carefully and lots of other information and I'm erring on the side of they "could" however have a right to charge. So I ask questions. I said not so long back that no one could rely on anything posted on this thread as a defense against a MCN including my own posts.

So in which case, how or why do they charge to moor at the yacht stations? However byelaw 61 is the one that allows mooring for specific periods, it doesn't specifically mention 24hrs though, it mentions a notice displayed at or near to the mooring. It is the notice that specifies 24hrs. Section (2) goes on to mention not mooring in contravention of any prohibition or restriction contained in the notice referred to above. So is the payment or non payment of a mooring fee a valid prohibition or restriction that needs to be complied with? It is stated on the sign that there is a charge. And yet, by putting on the sign that the mooring is free to Parishioners, would tend to imply that they do believe they still need to honour the covenants, even as a public authority!

Is that strictly true? Whilst there is nothing in the byelaws that allows them to impose charges, there is similarly nothing in the byelaws that prevents them from imposing a charge. Indeed there is not actually a reference to the 24hr limit on moorings mentioned in the byelaws, and there is certainly no reference to free moorings! Is it possible to prohibit the mooring of a vessel unless a mooring fee is paid? because if it is, then they are probably covered by the byelaws.

However the title deeds in particular show the Proprietor as being The Broads Authority and then a little later it states, The transfer to the proprietor contains a covenant to observe and perform the covenants referred to in the Charges Register and of indemnity in respect thereof. Public authority or not, they would still have to abide by the covenants. When the Broads Authority accepted the covenant they also accepted the burden of the covenant.

Not splitting of hairs, just people only reading the bit of the text that suits them and taking it out of context. We are talking about a piece of land here. The title deed says that Parishioners can use the staithe free of charge; A) For pleasure B) For loading or unloading of goods brought by water but not for stacking or storing of goods and, C) For drawing water from Ranworth Broad for domestic and agricultural purposes etc etc A Pleasure clearly has no definition or time limit, so if you interpret it as using it to moor, then clearly they could moor there all year round free of charge. Be careful what you wish for!!! B Clearly relates to water usage of the staithe by boat, which would involve a short term mooring. C Clearly relates to pumping water out of the Broad to take away from the staithe on land. If A and B both relate to the use of the staithe as a mooring, then there would be no need to separate them. It would simply say can be used to moor, or to load or unload goods.

There are just so many holes in that sign! "To make payment of the relevant charge, you should go to the Ranworth Visitor Centre upon arrival. If the Visitor Centre is closed when you arrive, payment should be made prior to your departure. Cash or card is acceptable." So if I have read that correctly, it means that if I arrive at 18:30 and find the Visitor Centre closed, I cannot leave until 9am the next day, or whenever the Visitor Centre opens.