Meantime

It would appear The Ferry Horning has cancelled the band tonight and had to close again due to the water's returning!

I think its near enough 6ft under the bridge at present

The registration number, the bit before the - should always be unique for each vessel. To hire out boats on The Broads you need the following; 1. A hire boat operators license costing £25 and you must abide by the hire boat operators license conditions. 2. A hire boat (vessel) license costing £17 per boat and you must abide by the hire boat (vessel) license conditions. 3. You must also maintain a schedule of hire boats you hire out. For each boat you must list the boat name, reg no, make or class, loading capacity to include the number of persons and weight, and finally the report ref number for the stability test and indicating whether the report is for the class of boat, or for the individual boat. The loading capacity number is the important one for the next bit. The hire boat vessel license conditions contain the following section; 5. Each vessel is licensed to carry the number of persons indicated against that Vessel in the Schedule. a. The number of persons that the Vessel is licensed to carry must be conspicuously displayed on the Vessel using a notice or notices provided by the Authority. On any hire boat I have seen, this is the number after the dash, which is after the reg number. b. A Vessel must not carry any number of persons in excess of that permitted by this License. So the number after the dash is the licensed number of persons allowed on the boat. It will never be higher than the stability tests would allow, but I'm certain is often lower (at the discretion of the operator) in order to limit the number of people allowed on board. This is why the same class of boat can have different limits on the number of people allowed on board depending on the hire yards wishes. One that stands out is one of the old Swancraft boats with luxury for two on the back, which is limited to two people on board by its license, certainly not by stability testing.

When I queried that with the BA, that all relates to hire craft, passenger craft or draft used for reward. It does not apply on the Broads when you have a group of friends onboard your own vessel for no payment. Essentially the safety of the people on board will always rest with the Master of the vessel, but there is no limit to the number you can have on board. How your insurance might view things if there was an incident is a different matter, but the BA or more specifically the safety officer, who I think was Adrian Vernon at that time, said no offence had been committed.

The limit is what the hire boat is licensed for, the number after the dash, which can often be lower than the stability tests would allow. It is the arbitrary decision of the hire yard if they want to choose a lower figure than the stability tests would allow. This prevents more people being on board than the hire yard want, even if the stability tests would allow more. The maximum figure for a hire boat would be 12. For a private boat there is no upper figure. I queried this with the BA after seeing a private boat underway above Bishops Bridge and counted at least 24 people on board, many standing around the toe rail with drinks in their hand.

My understanding is that the last number after the dash is the maximum number of people allowed to be onboard the boat. This is determined by the lower of the following two numbers; 1. The maximum amount of people the boat's stability tests have shown the boat can safely cope with. Generally used in the case of picnic or day boats. 2. The maximum amount of people the hire yard want on board any particular boat. This can largely be based around the number of berths onboard, but also to stop people picking up down the river once away from the yard, especially on Premium boats.

Its amazing sometimes how rumours grow arms and legs! Sometimes facts help. The mooring hasn't become a dayboat only mooring and there is a lease in place until the 26th March 2025. It is my understanding that the local businesses are keen to see some or all or the mooring become short stay moorings to increase turnover of customers. I wonder where they got that idea from? The BA's claims about Ranworth ring any bells anyone? Anyway most of the speculation came about as a result of the following piece in the minutes of the Horning Parish Council's meeting back in May. Broads Authority - The Parish Council was pleased to receive John Packman, Chief Executive of the Broads Authority, and Angie O'Connor Assets Manager of the Broads Authority to the meeting in May. Mrs O'Connor confirmed that the staithe lease was due for renewal on 26/3/2025. The Parish Council would be working with the BA on the lease. Mr Packman explained the justification behind the increase in navigation fees. He explained the consequences of inflation, salary increases of staff, increased need for new safety measures, reduction in boats and smaller boats becoming larger boats. Mr Packman suggested that his colleague Rob Leigh would be pleased to engage with the Council concerning business and commerce in the village, and how they could work together to support local business in Horning. A discussion was held regarding short term moorings, which Mr Packman said the Broads Authority may be able to support.

Why does the phrase "never a truer word spoken in jest" keep springing to mind!

But what about if you like being bitten on the bum

That's common. The less time your car spends on the road, the less chance of an accident, however beware of intentionally under estimating to save money. If they can prove you have done so they will pay out less in the event of a claim! The devil is in the detail and the small print. If you realise during your policy that you have under estimated your mileage then you are meant to contact and tell your insurance company so they can arrange an uplift for the rest of the year. I've always over estimated to be on the safe side, but never thought to ring them near to the year end and ask for a refund as I've done less mileage than estimated. You'd probably find they will give you a small refund completely wiped out by some admin fee!!

I'm not sure I follow the question fully. The BA can request the hirer details if a Byelaw has been, or is suspected of being breached, i.e. the boat was reported for suspected speeding, or wash offences, or a suspected hit and run. How they would then use that data is covered by GDPR. Even if they were entitled to use data obtained in that way to issue an MCN to the lead hirer, they would have to prove that the lead hirer was at the helm at the time, or even on the boat. The lead hirer may have been in his cabin incapacitated with a stomach bug, or sleeping off a lunchtime session. They may even have been on one of the other two boats in the party. I'd be surprised if there was anything in the hiring T+C's that said the lead hirer had to remain on the boat he hired at all times when under way. I've often seem people run or walk along a bank and meet their boat further along the river. Maybe the lead hirer of the boat in question had been dropped of at South Walsham and decided they fancied a walk from South Walsham to Ranworth and would meet the boat there. The rights given to car park operators under Section 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not apply to moorings, therefore they cannot issue an MCN to the lead hirer, or force the lead hirer to reveal who actually was at the helm at the time of the mooring. It will be the person at the helm who will be deemed to have entered into the civil contract with the BA.

Well actually Marshman you have inadvertently gone to the crux of the matter, the slave labour that assembles these things would probably be glad to earn a Dollar a day!!! Don't get me started on Temu!

Can you imagine the cost of a BSS if it had to check that every item fitted to a boat had passed the EU CE mark! The BSS checks what it says it will check in the regs, nothing less, nothing more. People have to take some basic responsibility for their own safety and realise there is a reason why some heaters cost £100 and others cost over a £1000.

I think the bit you missed out there, is to the untrained eye. Apart from the poor build quality, Chinese heaters are assembled and shipped, not run up and tested for faults like other brands do. The CE marking on Chinese heaters is not the normal CE mark we are used to, but stands for Chinese Export and is deliberately designed to be misleading and let people think it meets the EU CE mark. I wonder if anyone has checked with their insurance company about how they feel about them, and whether they might judge your insurance to be invalid if you fit one. I replaced my Mikuni heater of unknown age, already on the boat when I purchased it, which lasted me 15 years, with another from Mikuni Heating. 5 years and it hasn't skipped a beat. Best of all it heats the boat really well and I only ever run it on full power to give it a blow through every few months, other than that it would be too hot. Best bit of dealing with people that know what their doing is that the new exhaust skin fitting was slightly smaller than the old one, which would have meant drilling new screw holes and leaving one or two old ones showing. The diameter of the exhaust on the new one and the part of the skin fitting it fitted to were slightly different sizes meaning I couldn't keep the old fitting. Well actually I did, because the nice people at Mikuni Heating asked me to ship my old one to them, they welded a short piece of stainless steel tube onto it, of the correct diameter to fit the new exhaust pipe. It arrived back to me all nicely polished and no charge. Good old fashioned customer service from a bricks and mortar business in this country. Apart from seeing companies like this survive in the face of a flood of cheap Chinese tat, I also value my life.

That all relates to observance and enforcement of the Byelaws. Rob Rogers has already clarified for me earlier on this year; " 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." It would be a breach of their designated powers to use rights given to them under the Byelaws and Broads Act to request information from you in relation to a civil matter. A bit like me asking a Police friend of mine if they could use the Police National Computer to get me the name and address of someone who constantly parks on my drive so that I can get my solicitor to pursue a civil action against the culprit.

I believe that if you contact the BA with a boat reg number and ask for the owners details, they will correctly refuse. I understand they will depending on the circumstances allow you to send them a letter which they will forward to the registered keeper they have on file, thus protecting the registered owners details. I'm not sure why the BA should think, or expect any other company to act differently in a civil matter!

That they didn't break down as much as the Jewels!

Can a helm be a master of a vessel? Its not my Authority Act, its The Broads Authority Act 2009 and it applies to the Master of a vessel, not a minor.

It would be whoever is at the helm and performing the mooring who would be deemed to have entered into a civil contract for mooring. As far as the Broads Authority Act 2009 is concerned, the Master of the vessel means any person whether the owner, master hirer or other person lawfully or unlawfully having or taking command or charge or management of the vessel for the time being.

Whilst I don't believe a byelaw has to have been broken for a ranger with proper authority to demand the Master of a vessel's particulars, arguably he must record that information in some way, and that data should be subject to GDPR and not misused or abused.

It probably would, however the exemption provided by Section 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 gave the right to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle for the fine whether or not they were the driver. If the registered keeper didn't want to pay, all they had to do was provide the details of who was driving. This won't apply to the BA even if they did misuse the data they have on record for registered boat owners. They cannot force Barnes to pay, and they cannot force Barnes to disclose who was the hirer as Barnes would breach GDPR. For a private owner, if the BA misuse their data and write to the registered keeper, or keepers, they cannot fine them just for being the registered keeper, and likewise they cannot force the registered keeper to disclose who was at the helm at the time. Their best chance of success is getting the details of the helm at the time of mooring, which you are only obliged to provide to a ranger upon them showing if requested, written evidence of his authority, this would eliminate most of the information centre staff who most likely do not have that authority. I would also ask what byelaw has been broken before supplying the information, although I don't believe under the Broads Authority Act 2009 that a byelaw has to have been broken for them to make the request to a Master of a vessels for their name and address. Any Master who fails to give their name and address and if required the owners name and address when properly requested is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. But I repeat this has to be a request from a properly authorised ranger who provides written evidence of his authority. If you were unlucky enough to be welcomed by a full ranger at Ranworth, then you would need to give your name and address and in that case, my advice would be to pay the mooring fee. If they haven't managed to secure that information at point of mooring, then they are unlikely to be able to get it after the event, or bring a successful civil prosecution for a MCN.

As a concession to the Car Park Operators, Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allows them to chase the registered keeper of a vehicle for payment of a fine whether or not they were the driver, unless they provide details of who was actually driving the car. HOWEVER, that is specific for Parking Contravention Notices. Although the BA are trying to implement similar practices to the car parking cowboys by issuing Mooring Contravention Notices under civil contract law, they are not afforded the right under the above act as it is not a vehicle parking offence. As it is a civil matter the BA have no right to demand your particulars unless it is in relation to a Byelaw offence. Barnes are doing the correct thing in not supplying the names, because otherwise they WILL be in contravention of GDPR data protection law. Link to Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The above act made it illegal for car parking firms to clamp vehicles on private land, but as a concession, Section 4 gave them the right to chase the registered vehicle owner for the fine, or details of who was driving. It does not apply to mooring.

Pipe Line doesn't appear to be a public footpath, but a track of some sort. If it is passable to access the Green dotted line (public footpath) then using a combination of paths and roads the radar museum is quite accessible from there and about 2 miles to either end of Horning depending on which paths and roads you take.

Its a what3words location. Click here for location

I suspect because they have had no breakdowns this year. They are not on first name terms with any of the Barnes mechanics, indeed they don't even know if they exist, and hopefully that continues.