Meantime

Then why doesn't it say mooring? Plus there is no time limit. I would more suggest it means sitting watching the world go by, or fishing etc. If indeed it does mean that the parishioners can moor there for free, then goodbye Ranworth as a visitors mooring once they realise they can all moor for free. The title deed covenants would supersede any BA byelaws about it being a 24hr mooring. The loading and unloading statement would seem to limit the amount of free time that parishioners can actually moor at the staithe.

These days, in England, parishioner means a resident of the parish, which in turn means the smallest unit of local Government. So basically if you live in the area represented by the Ranworth parish councilor you would be considered a parishioner of Ranworth. However, it is interesting to note that the title deed actually says it is free for parishioners to use for pleasure, loading and unloading of goods or for drawing water from the Broad. There is nothing to say it is free for parishioners to moor there. So yet another BA misinterpretation, or misrepresentation.

Before you all get too carried away in quoting chapter and verse, please bear in mind that document is from 2018 and that the BPA are as quoted from their own website "The BPA is a not-for-profit membership association representing the UK’s parking and mobility sector." If looking to make worthwhile comparisons or looking for ways to defend a MCN you would be far better looking at the info I quoted earlier in this thread, much of which comes from the recently introduced Governments Private Parking Code of Practice which can be found here However be aware that as of 7th of June 2022 it has been withdrawn because the car parking firms including the BPA have an issue and are making legal challenges to the way the Government has tried to reduce the maximum amounts they can charge if you receive a ticket. The whole car parking cowboy industry feels under threat and are making a legal challenge, however much of what is in the Government reforms would I'm sure make a good defense if you received a MCN, which as we all know doesn't have the equivalent of the BPA or an appeals body such a POPLA since the BA are breaking new ground here in emulating the car park cowboys, nut for moorings.

Looking good Ian, I thought it was being painted Red though!

So couldn't the same be said of any sailing regatta which brings many sailboats close together, often in races, and pretty much every weekend somewhere on The Broads during the season. Perhaps the answer is to just ban any organised fun event including cruise in companies?

For what its worth the organisers have told the competitors to stay out of the way of other boat traffic and to not take the racing line. In addition the event has been organised with the full knowledge of The Broads Authority, which in turn means that the events organiser will have full public liability insurance for the event. The BA have a very useful 60 page guide on their website for those who are looking to organise events on the Broads, which have to be notified to the BA as per Byelaw 86 Fun Events. The guide can be found here The BA have published the following useful info on their Facebook page. Upcoming high-traffic events on the waterways Please be aware that there may be high levels of river traffic during the following events. The navigation is open as usual but be mindful that it may be extremely busy on the water during this time, please be considerate of other river users and enjoy the spectacle. Paddle Skedaddle SUP/Kayak Race - Saturday 13 May 2023, 09:00am to 2:00pm Competitors will start at Sutton Staithe, heading over Barton Broad, past How Hill, Ludham and onto the River Bure. They will then head onto the River Thurne, past Thurne Mill, through Repps and Potter Heigham, then onward to Martham Ferry Bridge, up to Somerton where they turn around and head back to the finish line again at Martham Ferry Bridge. More information: https://www.norfolkoutdooradventures.co.uk/the-paddle... Three Rivers Race (sailing) Saturday 3 and Sunday 4 June 2023, starts approx 11:00am (Sat) Over 100 sailing boats will be racing on the Rivers Bure, Ant and Thurne during the first weekend of June in this 24hr race, plus additional support craft. These rivers will be extremely busy, with certain pinch points possible at Horning (the start), Ludham Bridge, Potter Heigham Bridge and other narrow-width areas. Please be mindful of the high number of crafts on the river and be aware of sailing vessels tacking (zig-zagging) across the rivers. For a course map see: https://www.yachtsandyachting.com/photo/165633 For more information on 3RR see: https://www.3rr.uk/ The Broads Authority and Rangers are fully aware of both events. Any questions, advice or concerns please contact Broads Control on 01603 756056 or Broads.Control@broads-authority.gov.uk

But is it likely? These are very experienced paddle boarders. Over the last few years I have seen quite a few paddle boarders around the Broads of seemingly all experiences from those who paddle faster than I'm cruising, to those who stand up wobbling on their board, to those who cannot stand so sit on the board and paddle. I think I can count on one hand the number I have seen in the water, and to date none of the ones who have all the gear and appear to know what they're doing. So to go back to your not so very unlikely situation, if one ends up in the water it is more than likely going to be as a result of a helm not realising the rules of the river and giving way to those with the tide underneath them at the bridge, following each other like lemmings and not leaving enough space to the boat in front, or using to much throttle and creating too much wash. With a good ebb through Ludham bridge it is possible to hold station below the bridge with just the rudder and the occasional very short burst of forward to hold station. Strong winds make it more difficult, but still very achievable. I've waited before for about 10 minutes whilst four Hunters boat struggled to quant through the bridge against the tide.

To some extent I can see how that would work. Pre mooring charge someone turns up at 4pm, goes into the pub for dinner that day and then after breakfast potters about and makes the most of their 24hrs leaving mid afternoon. With the new charges you need to leave by 10am the next day or pay the extra daytime mooring charge. I can see that leading to a whole turnover of boats around the 10am time and therefore a whole new set of lunchtime customers, some staying for the night, or being replaced by another set of overnight customers. I still don't agree with the charge personally, but do try and analyse things from everyone's perspective, not just my own.

Being in a race doesn't absolve anyone from their statutory duties to observe the rules of the river and look after theirs and everyone else's safety. Boats should give way to boats with the tide underneath them when traversing bridges. Given that high water at Ludham Bridge on Saturday will be around 8am they should be coming down the Ant with the ebb and would have right of way under the bridge regardless.

My guess would be because the whole course is relatively non tidal and there is a good road from their camp site to their start point. If they are starting at 9am and must aim for 2.5 hours completion most will be clear of the Ant by 11am at the latest.

To be fair I don't have an issue with the Paddle Skedaddle. Like I said earlier, just wish they arranged it for three weeks later. Could have spectated both the Three Rivers Race and this at the same time. Now that would have made the lower Ant interesting! Power boat racing on Oulton Broad, The Three River Race, Water skiing all have a long tradition and history attached to them. It has to be remembered that tradition had to start somewhere with the first running of the activity. In years to come maybe they'll be celebrating the long tradition of the annual Paddle Skedaddle. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but either way good luck to them.

If only The Lowestoft and Oulton Broad Motor Boat Club had thought of that first. We could have had power boat racing on Oulton Broad.

It's a shame they didn't organise it for three weeks later. Some might have completed the course in record time!

But which is your favourite and don't say all four Gary Myers was the first, but there has been three all the way up to 2016.

Well if you'd rather have the Milk Tray man! and I thought we were friends

If that is your belief, then I guess only time will tell if and when you test it or report it. For my part people need to take emotion out of any decision they make. I don't want to pay the mooring fee, I don't feel the BA should be implementing a charge and I'm annoyed and upset that they are. That's my emotive reaction. Then there's the logical part. Do they have a right to charge?, could they charge? Look at the facts that are known or verifiable and the sources of that research. Even the BA's own staithes report was put together by three historians, not lawyers. So what would stand up in court? The logical part of me says grudgingly that if done right, the BA do have the right to charge. I don't like it, but honestly believe they do have the right. Then there's the current situation. The current clumsy attempt at implementing private contract law, and my armchair lawyer hat says they haven't got it right and could be challenged on many grounds. It's up to everyone to consider all the options and decide on their own course of action. The one thing I do know for sure if that nothing put on this thread so far, including my own ramblings gives the correct and full picture that anyone could rely on to win in a court of law. So you pays your money, or not, and takes your choice. My local council has recently purchased the local shopping centre. Along with that they now own a public car park. They have implemented car parking charges on their land and handed administration over to one of the car parking firms who are using private contract law to enforce the parking charges for those who do not pay. The local council is not using byelaws to enforce the charge. They are not issuing Penalty Charge Notices. The car parking firm is issuing Parking Contravention Notices. On the surface there is very little difference between the two situations, IF done right. Currently the BA's signs are too small and wrong, but if corrected..............

Very true, but I was talking about small change as Ian was suggesting. The Coinage Act 1971 covers what is legal tender. (1B) Other coins, if made current by a proclamation under section 3 of this act, shall be legal tender in accordance with the provision made by that proclamation or by any later proclamation made under that section. Coins means coins made by the Mint.

Its a financial civil matter, the Police would simply suggest you pay and go to court, or you withhold payment and wait to be taken to court. They would only get involved if the person collecting the money issued any physical threat to you, which is extremely unlikely to happen.

Maybe he's been looking at the weather forecast at that secret holiday location he's going to whisk you away to!

To be honest, you either agree with and pay the charge or pay it under protest, or you don't pay the charge. Being awkward by paying in pennies would put you on the back foot if you took things to court. I think I'm also right in saying that the 1p is only legal tender up to 20p. Beyond that it is only legal if the seller and buyer both reach agreement. So in effect you could be shooting yourself in the foot if you paid £10 in pennies and the BA took it. Edited to add the following; Legal tender in this country is as follows, For £2 and £1 coins, any amount For 50p and 20p coins up to £10 For 10p and 5p coins up to £5 For 2p and 1p coins up to 20 pence. Here's the catch. Paying an invoice with non - legal tender coins leaves the door open for the debtor to be sued for non payment.

Except the Euro isn't legal tender here so they don't have to accept it in the first place.

So assuming we are talking about Ranworth then, you have to remember that although it has historically been free to moor there, you have been doing so with permission. The BA 24hr mooring signs make it plain that you are being allowed to do so with the express permission of the land owner and providing you follow their terms and conditions, i.e no longer than 24hrs. This alone would stop anyone from being able to argue that prescriptive rights to moor as and when they want have been gained. You have been able to moor free of charge, but not whenever, for as long as you want. You are therefore acknowledging that this piece of land has ownership and you are being allowed to use it with permission, whether stated or not. You also have to remember that public, does not mean free. There are many examples of this, not least public conveniences which are often anything but free. So assuming we are talking about Ranworth and the BA attempting to charge, then I would take option D or option E D) Refuse to pay the mooring fee, explain fully why and take pictures of the area and signage. Taking pictures of the employee is not needed. I would then await any MCN and pay it under protest. I would then issue a small claim for the full amount plus any costs associated with making the claim. If I won it would prove that the BA were wrong to be making such a charge in the first place and that their MCN was also wrong. My credit record would be intact and the whole sorry saga would have been debated and resolved one way or the other. E) Similar to the above, except pay the mooring fee under protest. Take pictures of the area and signage and then issue the small claim for the return of the mooring fee. Again if I won it would indicate that the BA were wrong to charge. If I lost it would indicate that they do have a right to charge. Edited to add, that with both the above I would ask for details of the appeals process as I plan to fully appeal either the mooring fee, the MCN, or both.

However there is still a distinct difference between Ranworth and Reedham. The 1910 Finance Act maps and documents gave the Reedham Quay area parcel number 337 with both owner and occupier as unknown. In 1978 at a hearing held under the Commons Registration Act the land was recognised as common land with the owner being Broadland District Council. This is where the two differ. The BA hold the title in full for Ranworth which is not recognised as common land, therefore common land rights do not apply. As already said right of access across does exist. Furthermore, when gifting the land in 1050 Mr Cator specifically inserted a covenant to ensure it remained free for parishioners to use for pleasure, loading and unloading etc. No mention was made of mooring for extended periods. By default if free access is given to one group in perpetuity it therefore follows that free access is not necessarily granted to others.

Fred, do you have a link to the deliberations of William Mackenzie? I think you'll find that Reedham Quay is common land managed by Broadland District Council who issued a lease to the BA. I would imagine it is a different case to Ranworth where there has been a clear chain of ownership over many decades.

I largely agree and I think we are both on the same page, the only difference is that I think the BA could, but shouldn't charge if they get things right, currently I don't think they have. I'm also not sure if in a staff of over 100 everything is JP's fault ;-) I'm sure there are others equally as capable of making bad decisions!