[I Guess It Is Raining]

40 minutes ago, Gracie said:

Hmm, I wonder if MT is free, I mean the Milk Tray man of course  x

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

[Ranworth Update]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

To save keep going round in circles we are going to have to agree to disagree.

However there is a specific Byelaw regarding 24hr moorings which even then they don't seem able to enforce.

There is also a Byelaw and legislation within the Broads Act for the collection of tolls, there is neither regarding  charging for mooring, I know there is a charge at Yacht Stations that is now established over time but that may or may not have been challengeable at the onset.

Regarding photographing the individual the sign says pay in the information centre, if you do that voluntarily no problem, if they approach you for payment they are complicit in the extortion.

Fred

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..............

[Ranworth Update]

2 minutes ago, twowrights said:

There's lots of YouTube videos showing people paying at petrol stations with £20 and £50, and £100 coins. After much arguing, and often police involvement, the petrol stations back down and accept payment as they argue they're not legal tender, they are. They buy the coins from eBay for less than face value.  

One guy, Julian Chamberlain, was arrested on suspicion of fraud, no charges followed and he sued the police and was awarded £5000 compensation. 

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.

[Ranworth Update]

1 minute ago, floydraser said:

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't you have to prove some kind of criminal intent? I think the police may laugh at extortion, menace and fraud. This is the action of an organisation at war with it's own customers but they would just claim "Sorry, we were wrongly advised by our legal team". JP would deflect the blame eslewhere of course.

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.

[I Guess It Is Raining]

1 hour ago, Hylander said:

My other half keeps on about El Nino coming and with it a heat wave.       I am sure he must have been looking at the weather for Mauritius.

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

[Ranworth Update]

32 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Okay in that case.Pay in penny's,over pay by a penny asking for change. 

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.

[Ranworth Update]

45 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Perhaps option  c or another option d.Pay in euro cents even one cent to much,asking for change  together  with a letter of complaint disagreement of mooring charges and asking for a receipt. 

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

[Ranworth Update]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am as I have done for the last 40 years  peacefully enjoying a free public facility when Mr Nasty comes along and starts demanding payment for this same facility,

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.

[Ranworth Update]

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.

[Ranworth Update]

25 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The deliberations of William Mackenzie KC in regard to a similar status at Reedham have been well published on here and elsewhere.

Fred

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.

[Ranworth Update]

18 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The whole issue including the extortion by threat of a fine stinks of bluff and bluster typical of JP.

Fred

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!

[Ranworth Update]

37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As I understand it they charged for stopping, there is no charge for the water there just a request for a donation,

Are you sure there is no charge for water? Take the yacht stations for instance, water is free for yacht station customers, otherwise a £3 charge applies. So it would be fair to assume there are levying the same charge at Ranworth now that they are charging for the mooring.

39 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Regarding the parking companies I would hope that a responsible public authority wouldn't want to be seen in the same light,

You'll get no argument from me there, I've already said I think the BA are morally bankrupt in what they are trying to do.

41 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I understand private companies rarely if ever bother persuing this anymore  as it usually gets thrown out of court given the limited powers the companies have under current legislation.

Most of the appeals for car parking are handled by POPLA. For 2020 41% were cancelled, but that still means that 59% were upheld.

The BA are entering are embarking on a strange course of action, because they are seeking to emulate the car park cowboys, but that industry also has in place trade bodies and an established appeals process, none of which is in place for charges for mooring, so very ill thought out.

I really wish David Harris was still the BA's solicitor as I'm sure they would not be as foolhardy as they appear to be these days. 

[Ranworth Update]

3 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The purpose of using the right of way and common land was in relation to it being a public not private staithe, as for charging A they have charged people to stop for water and whereas local authorities have legislation in place to allow for charging and to apply penalties for non compliance the BA do not have the power to set or issue penalties (fines) within their constitution.

Fred

But have they charged for the stopping to take on water, or have they charged for the water, there is a difference.

With regards to fines, you are correct they can not issue a fine, and in the same way as car park operators cannot issue a fine, they could issue a legally recoverable invoice for breach of conditions under private contract law.

I'll repeat again, currently I don't think they are legally compliant in that respect, But if they get the appropriate, large enough and clear enough signage, with planning permission, I think they could charge and recover the cost of the mooring charge and admin fee should they have to pursue it through court, in exactly the same way as car park operators do.

I don't think its morally right, and I don't think they should be charging to moor there, but just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean they can't if they do things correctly.

I think those that have currently refused to pay will either not be pursued or if they defend it would win as things currently stand. That is just my opinion, and I do not encourage anyone to rely on what I have posted.

However we have seen how the BA have already learnt and moved the goal posts with the additional, in my opinion, too small A4 notice about entering into a contract. They will get it right eventually and when they do, would be able to enforce payment.

My personal view would be to make payment under protest and then pursue them through the small claims for the money back. It will cost very little to do and once the first payment has been returned you can publicise that and effectively their ability to charge is dead in the water until they do things correctly.

[Ranworth Update]

1 minute ago, rightsaidfred said:

The difference is the Yacht stations have always carried a charge the Public Staithes have always been free, as for car parks they are covered by specific legislation and are available to anyone regardless of whether they have paid council tax for that area, any one using the public staithes are legally obliged to have paid the toll.

Fred 

The payment of the toll though is for your right to navigate the Broads network, not for free use of all the BA's assets.

And public does not mean free or unlimited access. Many public buildings close of an evening, or charge for entry.

And you still haven't addressed the difference between a right of way, which clearly exists and the right to occupy free of charge. Like I said there might be a public right of way across a framers field, but it doesn't mean you could camp free of charge overnight.

Staithes are for the loading and unloading of goods. Parish moorings are for the longer term mooring of parishioners own boats.

Your basic rights, the ability to moor for up to 24 hours is not being changed or obstructed. I'm guessing your ability to use it as a staithe, i.e to load or unload goods or passengers wouldn't be charged. 

As things currently stand the BA own the land. They are not restricting its use as a staithe as far as I can see, They are introducing a charge for its use as a short term mooring, not as a staithe, there is a difference between the two. It now looks like they are introducing that charge under private contract law and intend to enforce non payment under such law. It is in that respect where they are falling far short of what a court would demand. If in time they get the appropriate, proper signage in place, with planning permission then I personally think they will be successful in enforcing it.

It was me that asked the question sometime back and got assurances from John Packman that there would be no charge to stop and deposit rubbish at the yacht stations. In fact I was told you would get 15 minutes free to do so. I haven't asked, but I'm guessing the same would apply at Ranworth, in which case its use as a public staithe is not being charged for.

[Ranworth Update]

56 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The point of contention here is that like public Rights of Way and Common Land that have a protected status irrespective of ownership, the staithe by way of unhindered free of charge public use for at least the last 70 years has the definition of being a Public Staithe

I believe you are conflating two issues here though. A public right of way, even one gained by prescription wouldn't enable you to occupy of trespass. By that I mean that a public right of way may have been gained over time across a farmers field, but that wouldn't enable you to pitch a tent and camp on it. A public right of way may have been gained across a piece of land adjacent to a road, but that wouldn't enable you to park your car for free.

Your access to the staithe isn't being blocked and I'm sure if you moored to deposit rubbish in the compound, or to drop off passengers, or even to make a delivery to one of the businesses at the staithe you wouldn't be charged. This is your right of access. However whilst you have a right to pass across the land, that doesn't mean it extends to mooring free of charge for an extended period of time.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the BA's actions at all. I think it stinks what they have and are doing, and currently I don't think its being implemented legally, but I think if they get it right and do things correctly there does exist the possibility for them to charge.

The yacht stations are funded from the public money, the tolls, and they have always charged. What is the difference between the cost of the lease for the yacht station and say the cost of the lease for How Hill, or Ludham Bridge? Or are you saying the yacht stations should be free as well? OK so the yacht stations are staffed but their wages come out of the toll account, not the mooring fees collected. The mooring fees end up in the navigation account, but are not solely collected for paying the wages.

Local councils are public bodies funded with public money. They still charge for the use of public car parks. 

[Rescue Service News.]

Excuse the pun, but I think that boat has sailed. Since the tip off to the Police, they have investigated and made their decision! I would think it now needs a change in the law to allow them to comply.

For what it's worth I actually have mixed feelings about the individual who made the tip off. A status quo had existed for 20 years, so why rock the boat? On the other hand, just imagine nothing had changed and at some point in the future their was an accident involving one of the vehicles whilst responding to a shout and using Blue lights! Would have been a very interesting insurance claim, and no doubt the Police would have had to investigate and uphold the law to the possible detriment of the crew member. 

No real winners here as far as I can see, just a situation that somehow needs to be resolved.

[Ranworth Update]

Andrew, In answer to your question, there's the legal response and the moral response. 

Legally the BA own the land as far as I can see and therefore are free to do as they wish as long as they observe the charges placed upon the title. In short and bear in mind I'm not a lawyer, but I see no reason why they couldn't levy a charge for mooring*

Morally the land was gifted to them by Blakes who assumed somewhat incorrectly that the BA would ensure it remained a free mooring for ever. So morally the BA is totally bankrupt, but we knew that anyway.

* I can see no reason why the BA cannot make a charge under private contract law, but their somewhat clumsy attempt to copy the car park cowboys falls well short of what would stand up in a court of law, as far as I can tell. The same is also true for any other mooring the BA own, or lease, subject off course to any charges or covenants levied on that title. If and when they sort proper and clear signage, and planning permission, then I think they could charge, but that doesn't mean I agree they should charge.

[Ranworth Update]

43 minutes ago, Wussername said:

I understand. 

Would you be kind enough to elaborate on your well meaning comment:

 

With certain conditions. 

The main conditions being as follows;

No building or structure to be erected on the land.

A right of way exists for the owner of the adjoining land.

Parishioners are entitled to use the staithe free of charge for pleasure, loading and unloading goods and for drawing water from Ranworth Broad.

[Ranworth Update]

Precisely which is why they were told in 2014 that they couldn't introduce charges for Reedham Quay. I don't see that anything has changed in that situation except for the fact they haven't actually finished negotiating a new lease for Reedham yet!!!

[Ranworth Update]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

How many more 'public moorings' do the BA own?

Next year there will be even more being charged for!

If that's the case, then we won't be back ever again

and I've been coming since 1963.

Beware! they don't need to own a mooring to charge for it. They only hold leases for Norwich, Great Yarmouth and I believe are in negotiation for Reedham still.

There are probably others, but ones I know about that they own are;

2 stretches at Berney Arms

Acle Bridge moorings

Ranworth staithe 

[Ranworth Update]

12 hours ago, Wussername said:

Who owns the staithe?

Answer that will allow me to proceed to my next question. But not until.

The simple answer as Grendel has said, is the The BA own the land, it comes with certain conditions, but they still own it.

[Ranworth Update]

12 hours ago, grendel said:

I wonder if the church are aware and are recieving their tithe from the mooring fees paid?

I would imagine that all the time no income was being generated, no tithe would have been due.

Not at all correct I'm afraid.

The tithe or tenth was a system where the farmer would give a tenth of their produce to the tithe owner, this was often stored in the tithe barn, in many cases the tithe owner was the church.

The 1836 Tithe Act replaced the giving of a tenth of the produce from the land with a monetary value called the Rent Charge.

The Tithe Act of 1936 a century later sought to abolish the Tithe system completely. Under the act it was ascertained who was entitled to receive the Rent Charge and who was liable to pay the Rent Charge. The Government then paid compensation to those entitled to receive Rent Charge as a one off payment. Those liable to pay the Rent Charge had to setup redemption stock, which was basically an annuity payable each year for 60 years to the Government, and thus the tithe system would have ended in 1996. It was actually ended prematurely by the 1977 Finance Act.

However, Chancel Repair Liability has not been abolished and persists to this day. Part of the 1936 Tithe Act was to ascertain who was liable to pay it, and what the percentage was they would pay towards any chancel repair. The title deed for Ranworth staithe doesn't state what the percentage is, but it will be contained within the 1936 records somewhere. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it listed on the title deed on many of the houses and pub in Ranworth if they were built on former land owned by the church.

Interestingly, a church can make a claim for the full cost of chancel repairs against any of land owners who are liable. It is then down to that land owner to recover a share from all the other liable land owners, as was demonstrated by the Wallbank case which they fought and lost resulting in them having to pay £230,000 towards repairs and the subsequent loss of their farm to pay for it.

Chancel Repair Liability used to have an overriding status which meant that the rights existed even if it hadn't been declared on the title deeds. In 2002 PCCs were given 10 years to register Chancel Repair Liability with the land register as after 12th October 2013 it looses overriding status. Where is has been registered liability persists. Where it hasn't been registered you could still be liable if the church can prove that historically you should have been, however upon the first transfer for money of a property that hasn't been registered, it can no longer be registered, therefore any future liability ceases. This is the difference that removing overriding status makes.

 

[Rescue Service News.]

8 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Do they really need blue lights?

Its a good question and got me thinking. Doctors often have Green lights I believe. Other vehicles often have Orange lights to warn of a hazard and will use those lights to filter through traffic on their way to recover or clear a crashed vehicle.

As already pointed out Hemsby lifeboat vehicles wouldn't be moving fast if they are towing a life boat, but would like to make their presence known and for traffic to move out the way for them.

Wouldn't Orange flashing lights achieve that? If I was stuck in a traffic jam and saw a vehicle with Orange flashing lights trying to get through the traffic, it would attract my attention. If I then saw it had reflective markings and lifeboat on the side I'd be pulling to one side if it was safe to do so.

[Rescue Service News.]

Ever since this story broke, I've had a nagging question at the back of my mind, and try as I might, it just won't go away!

If you are on a boat on The Broads, in need of assistance and The Hemsby lifeboat is not able to get there as fast as it possibly can, which would you rather happen?

A) It doesn't attend at all

B) It gets there as fast as is legally possible without Blue lights?

Arguably the law needs to be updated, but in the meantime I would have hoped it would have been B)

One last point, what's the insurance situation if a vehicle not legally entitled to use Blue lights is involved in, or causes an accident. The Police also have a tough job at times!

[Rescue Service News.]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

I didn’t say anybody was exempt from the law…..

I know, I was agreeing with you.