Overstaying On 24 Hour Moorings

[MauriceMynah]

I notice on another forum (no, not  that one, the other one) a thread about a boat substantially overstaying on the Sutton staithe 24 hour mooring and remember back a while when I had lent my boat to a friends family only to have Nyx left there. This had me wondering. I wonder what the score is if a person has good reason (or at least excuse) for leaving a boat thus.

So, I put this hypothetical question to members for their opinions and points of view. I would also like to hear the official ruling.

We shall say that I have the company of an adult who we shall say is blind or for some other reason is unable to handle a boat. I receive an urgent phone call that requires my immediate attention. I have to abandon my boat at a 24 hour mooring leaving the other person aboard looking after the boat. I am gone a full week.

What is my position in law? 

[CambridgeCabby]

As far as your position in law applies you would be in direct breach of the Broads Authority Rules by overstaying the supposedly strict 24 hour mooring regulations.

In practice , and I’m using the term with the assumption it actually exists , “common sense” would prevail and the ranger would be sympathetic to your (or the remainers) plight .

 

 

[Paladin]

Navigation bye law 88:

"(1) Every person contravening any of these Byelaws without reasonable excuse shall on summary conviction for every such breach be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under these Byelaws it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove:
(a) that he/she took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence;
or
(b) that he/she had a reasonable excuse for the act or failure to act."

[MauriceMynah]

Thanks CC, that's what I thought.

Thanks Pally, for correcting my thoughts.

I wonder if the boat at Sutton Staithe has any "reasonable excuse"

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Navigation bye law 88:

"(1) Every person contravening any of these Byelaws without reasonable excuse shall on summary conviction for every such breach be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(2) In any proceedings for an offence under these Byelaws it shall be a defence for a person charged to prove:
(a) that he/she took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence;
or
(b) that he/she had a reasonable excuse for the act or failure to act."

Yes that's the letter of the law ( bylaws) and who wouldn't expect you to quote just that , however that's not how it works in real life , if you get o n touch with BA immediately they will help you out , I know this having had a head gasket go on me and an alternator both of which required parts , talk to BA immediately don't quote bylaw 72 as someone tried !  .

I hope you have reported this particular vessel paladin since its in your immediate area ie Sutton , I very much doubt its a live aboard but I understand it can run its engine so a breakdown would have to be gearbox or anything after that and its been there a number of days , not all life aboard boater's are responsible for the overstaying ! .

Getting back to the original question if you have a problem ring BA , talk to the head of ranger services or to the rangers preferably the former though , that way all the rangers on that stretch of river know the situation .

Above all always make the call to ranger services after things are sorted to say thank you , that's highly important as the rules are there if they wish to implement them , though as said they tend to work with you if they can , but wind them up ( bylaw 72 again,) and they will use the law and that causes lots of problems for those who  legitimately breakdown or for what ever reason can't respond immediately .

BA get a lot of bad press for this n 99% of the time they are doing the right thing , but hey its simple talk to them how hard can it be ? 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Thanks CC, that's what I thought.

Thanks Pally, for correcting my thoughts.

I wonder if the boat at Sutton Staithe has any "reasonable excuse"

Doubtful given the engine runs but could easy be something else , as my post depends if he's bothered to talk to BA , if not he deserves a contravention notice , and if he doesn't get one the ranger deserves hauling infont of his boss for failure to act .

[Paladin]

18 minutes ago, Ricardo said:

Yes that's the letter of the law ( bylaws) and who wouldn't expect you to quote just that ...

I hope you have reported this particular vessel paladin since its in your immediate area ie Sutton , I very much doubt its a live aboard but I understand it can run its engine so a breakdown would have to be gearbox or anything after that and its been there a number of days , not all life aboard boater's are responsible for the overstaying ! .

The OP asked "What is my position in law?", so that is the questioned I answered.

I don't see why I should have reported the vessel, as I haven't actually seen it. I don't make reports on second-hand information.

[vanessan]

Wouldn’t it take time for the BA to physically do something? For all we know some sort of notice/caution/warning may already have been issued. Does anybody actually know if anything has happened? It would surely take some time for the vessel to be removed, I would imagine there would be quite a few procedures to be followed before that could happen. I have seen a boat left at a 24 hour mooring for a long period but it did have a ‘BA aware’ notice on display. 

[MauriceMynah]

Yes, Pally did quote the letter, but that was one of the things I wanted to know. The problem Ricardo, is that I wanted to know what, if any, wriggle room there was, and it seems like for once the rules have been written in such a way that common sense can apply without a ranger having to risk disciplinary action being taken against him.

If the owner/person on board the boat at Sutton has put forwards a good reason for his extended presence, then the matter has been dealt with. It is debateable as to whether we, the public, should be made aware of the circumstances. It may be a highly personal reason, but good enough to satisfy the ranger.(or his boss) .

As to your point about keeping the rangers informed. I agree completely. I too have benefited from the assistance of the rangers purely because I informed them of the situation at the time so they didn't have to come looking for me.

You however Ricardo, would have no excuse for not keeping the rangers informed. You've got a pigeon .  :-)

[Bluebell]

As I understand it, if the boat we are talking about is an old Broom by the water point, a notice has been issued. Somebody was onboard last night, but that is not to say there is not a valid excuse for overstaying. I don’t know all (any) of the circumstances.

[LizG]

It's not a large Broom resembling an Admiral with a chimney I wonder?

[MauriceMynah]

I couldn't tell from the pics, but I don't think it's that one.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paladin said:

The OP asked "What is my position in law?", so that is the questioned I answered.

I don't see why I should have reported the vessel, as I haven't actually seen it. I don't make reports on second-hand information.

Yes you did answer it in the legality of it but I answered it in the reality of the situation there's a massive difference . and I never suggested you should report it based on second hand information but I'm shocked that you don't know its there .

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

Yes, Pally did quote the letter, but that was one of the things I wanted to know. The problem Ricardo, is that I wanted to know what, if any, wriggle room there was, and it seems like for once the rules have been written in such a way that common sense can apply without a ranger having to risk disciplinary action being taken against him.

If the owner/person on board the boat at Sutton has put forwards a good reason for his extended presence, then the matter has been dealt with. It is debateable as to whether we, the public, should be made aware of the circumstances. It may be a highly personal reason, but good enough to satisfy the ranger.(or his boss) .

As to your point about keeping the rangers informed. I agree completely. I too have benefited from the assistance of the rangers purely because I informed them of the situation at the time so they didn't have to come looking for me.

You however Ricardo, would have no excuse for not keeping the rangers informed. You've got a pigeon .  :-)

No no excuse at all iv a phone n Dave the pigeon has his own runway on top of yare towers , that's if he can remember the way 

[Paladin]

20 hours ago, Ricardo said:

Yes you did answer it in the legality of it but I answered it in the reality of the situation there's a massive difference . and I never suggested you should report it based on second hand information but I'm shocked that you don't know its there .

But the OP asked for the legal situation. Actually, the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence would include a situation in which the boater has either spoken to the local ranger, or Yare House, and was given the OK to overstay. If a later complaint was made and ‘someone’ decided to take official action, the permission could be quoted as a defence.

Contrary to the belief in some quarters, I actually have a life, which doesn’t require me to patrol 24hr moorings.

[MauriceMynah]

Ok, I admit I'm now playing devils advocate just a bit here, but Suppose the owners had thought that the sign applied to hire craft only, and I do mean Genuinely believed.

It could be argued that "Ignorance is no excuse" and all that but could that ignorance be seen as a reasonable excuse as mentioned in the by-law.

The reason I ask this is that at the back of my mind I seem to recollect that this boat has a new owner, and even further at the back I think the new owner is also new to the broads and boat ownership, so the possibility is there.

[Hylander]

Having read that he resides in the Wet Shed at Rchardsons he can hardly plead ignorance of the 24hr rule.  

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Sorry M I don't understand your logic. 

[Guest]

On 22/04/2018 at 17:03, Paladin said:

But the OP asked for the legal situation. Actually, the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence would include a situation in which the boater has either spoken to the local ranger, or Yare House, and was given the OK to overstay. If a later complaint was made and ‘someone’ decided to take official action, the permission could be quoted as a defence.

Contrary to the belief in some quarters, I actually have a life, which doesn’t require me to patrol 24hr moorings.

Paladin I have already said you quoted the law , all I did was quote the reality , I certainly haven't accused you of patrolling the river banks perhaps you may be better in addressing Mr Weston who most certainly has.  I don't give a dam who patrols what river bank or who reports who I'm legal and that's all I need .

Over staying is allowed in certain circumstances and I would certainly put a notice on my boat and indeed have to help others that may think I'm taking the Mick and I have always sort BA's permission to get things sorted if required , clearly this vessel has a home mooring I don't hence need the help of BA sometimes , strangely they are quite happy about that n the reason for that is I help them .

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guest
Edited after Moderators discussion

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Sorry M I don't understand your logic. 

I can he's a seasoned boater so should know n to be completely honest isn't it something you research when choosing where to locate your boat or local rules n regs or was that just me that did that ? 

[MauriceMynah]

Oh, I didn't know he was a seasoned boater. I started boating on the broads when I was 10 so all these things I was brought up with. It was obvious to me however, that he was not conversant with the broads (from Miles's comment) and so, I have no idea where he gained his boating experience, and thus, equally no idea if he is used to areas where hire craft are so prevalent., I stand enlightened.

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Oh, I didn't know he was a seasoned boater. I started boating on the broads when I was 10 so all these things I was brought up with. It was obvious to me however, that he was not conversant with the broads (from Miles's comment) and so, I have no idea where he gained his boating experience, and thus, equally no idea if he is used to areas where hire craft are so prevalent., I stand enlightened.

 

MM I stand by my point if you go and put s boat I'm a location or take one over in a particular location the very least you can do is check the local regs seasoned or not .

[Hylander]

Seasoned boater or a complete novice,  unless you cannot read,  how can anyone not be aware of the rules.

 

 

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

I asked if it were possible that he might have Genuinely  thought that BA signs applied only to hire craft.

I further wondered if this erroneous belief, however genuine, would be held by the rangers as a reasonable reason for disregarding the sign.

I do not support him for overstaying, but nor will I condemn him without all the facts. As I am unlikely to get those facts, I shall have to be content with giving him the benefit of the doubt. I tend to do that with people.

[Hylander]

Pity someone at the mooring had not  got into conversation with the boat owner then he/she would have been put straight.