Open Wallet Surgery (maybe)

[CambridgeCabby]

48 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Packham responds:

https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news/frequently-asked-questions-navigation-charges-2023?fbclid=IwAR3UcVSvNDB00-zxUXeBwhERW8YSW4lWBDszZvunYyMF4ILMyvgNmpu-lUk

Very interesting ,

funny how easy it is to answer a question when you ask them yourself 

[floydraser]

My first reaction was fair play for responding to all the questions being thrown about in social media, in a public way without empowering any one person or group.

Second reaction, shame there doesn't seem to be any agenda for attracting new people to the Broads, just deal with those already here. A bit short sighted I think.

[Vaughan]

I have only read this through once : I shall go through it again tomorrow morning.

There are things which "shout at me" immediately :

The mooring charges will bring in around 100K extra revenue.  Two days ago it was 40K.  Sounds like a bit of a moving target.

Will toll increases lead to fewer private boats on the Broads?   

"During the last recession, numbers of private boats actually increased".  Of course they did!!  As boatyards went out of business, there was a glut of cheap secondhand hire boats on the market.  Nothing new about that!  It was the same in the 60s, and in the 70s.  If those new owners are like me, however, they may be thinking of selling their boats, right now.

They have had a DEFRA grant for a plant cutting machine.

Why?  Water quality is the responsibility of the EA, not the BA. Water quality has improved beyond measure over the last 30 years, which is why there is so much more weed.  And the BA have had nothing to do with that improvement.  It was down to the boatyard owners who installed the pumpout system, and the local councils who improved town sewage works.  If they now have a new weed cutter, then go and cut the weed on Hickling Broad!  Ah, but we can't do that because the Green elements say it is "rare" so we have to preserve it!

They have more rangers in order to control antisocial behaviour. This is a civil matter of public order, which is down to the Broadsbeat Police and not the Broads Authority.

As to all the things that are not mentioned in this response, I am sure we are all thinking about those.

 

 

[rightsaidfred]

33 minutes ago, floydraser said:

My first reaction was fair play for responding to all the questions being thrown about in social media, in a public way without empowering any one person or group.

Second reaction, shame there doesn't seem to be any agenda for attracting new people to the Broads, just deal with those already here. A bit short sighted I think.

Sorry to disagree but as has been said elsewhere this was a pre-written script.

Fred

[CeePee1952]

Just wondering if the hire boat yards will amend their info brochures/ski[ppers manual/website info etc to reflect the new costs for mooring at the places where charges have been introduced/increased? Will payment be by card or cash at Ranworth and Reddham? Some might think that this is a minor point but still involves time and maybe money to change the info!  As an aside, we will not now be mooring at Ranworth in April - good excuse to try overnighting on the mudweight (never experienced it!) if we do visit Ranworth.

Chris

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Sorry to disagree but as has been said elsewhere this was a pre-written script.

Fred

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Fred. I didn't say I agree with everything it says; some of it may be BS but it is a response, it's polite and it's as good as we could expect. I can see what JP is doing and as I have said before, he's a very clever bloke. He's always at least one step ahead. A clue could be where you wrote "pre-written".

[FlyingFortress]

I notice they have also slipped in a £3 charge for using a motor powered tender as well at Ranworth 🫣😫

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Fred. I didn't say I agree with everything it says; some of it may be BS but it is a response, it's polite and it's as good as we could expect. I can see what JP is doing and as I have said before, he's a very clever bloke. He's always at least one step ahead. A clue could be where you wrote "pre-written".

You seemed to think it was a direct response to individual questions while many believe it was scripted to circumvent questions, apologies if  I am wrong.

Fred

[Matt]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

 

The mooring charges will bring in around 100K extra revenue.  Two days ago it was 40K.  Sounds like a bit of a moving target.

 

 

April to October which I guess means Easter to October half term which is around 200 days. £500 every single day. I guess its possible.

I notice it’s “revenue”. Collecting that money is not going to be cost free….

 

 

[grendel]

I do wonder whether they will try and illegally charge one of the parishoners at Ranworth as it is very clear in the land title that mooring at the staithe will be free for them at least.

[rightsaidfred]

1 minute ago, grendel said:

I do wonder whether they will try and illegally charge one of the parishoners at Ranworth as it is very clear in the land title that mooring at the staithe will be free for them at least.

I wonder if they are going to persue a claim for £3 through the small claims court, what is the price of a stamp these days, I also noticed in the termonology they will invite anyone who dosnt want to pay to go to a free mooring elsewhere, answers to that on a postcard please.

Fred

[grendel]

Quote

Q - Is the Authority allowed to introduce new charges at Reedham and Ranworth?

A – Yes. There are no restrictions which prevent charging. The Reedham moorings are owned by Broadland District Council and the Broads Authority has sought permission from them to implement charges. The introduction of charges does not require any planning consent as there is no change in land use.

I see that the Broads Authority say there are no restrictions that prevent charging- well how about covenant C2 of the title deed NK293218 on the land registry.

Quote

By a Conveyance dated 20 October 1950 made between (1) Henry John Cator (Grantor) and (2) Henry Frank Brooker and Others (Trustees) the land tinted yellow on the title plan was conveyed subject as follows:- "This conveyance is subject to the right of the Grantor and of the Parishioners of Ranworth aforesaid to use the said Staith free of charge (a) for pleasure (b) for loading or unloading of goods brought by water but not for stacking or storing goods and (c) for drawing water from Ranworth Broad for domestic and agricultural purposes with

or without the use of pumps tanks lorries and other engines implements and vehicles PROVIDED ALWAYS no damage is done to the said Staithe in the course of any such operation and to all other existing rights if any of the said Parishioners over the said Staithe. There is reserved to the Grantor for the benefit of his adjoining piece of land coloured blue on the said plan a right of way at all times with or without vehicles or agricultural machines over the land hereby conveyed There is excepted for the benefit of the owners and occupiers of the enclosure numbered 224 on the said Ordnance Survey Map a right of way at all times and for all purposes with or without vehicles and animals over the land hereby conveyed" NOTE: Neither the land coloured blue nor enclosure number 224 was further defined on the plan supplied on first registration.

which clearly states that they cannot charge the Grantor (the Cators) or the parishoners of Ranworth for use of the Staithe.

That seems to me to be a clear restriction on charging a certain group of people @BroadsAuthority do you have an answer to the question of charging the Parishoners of Ranworth at the staithe as it is clearly contrary to the covenant in the title deeds.

when the proprietorship register B3 from 2003-05-13 clearly states that.

Quote

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

 

[grendel]

so if you reside within the boundary of the parish of ranworth

then you should be at least querying the right to charge.

[Meantime]

Quote "Q - What powers does the Authority have if people refuse to pay the charges?

A – Non-payment of a mooring charge would be recoverable via a Civil Court action if the situation warranted such action, in the same way that driving away from a forecourt without paying for fuel would be."

For small claims of up to £300, the court fee is £35, so £25 more than the mooring fee, however putting that to one side for a moment, who would they make the claim against? The registered owner of the boat? The helm who actually moored the boat on that particular occasion? Since it's a civil matter what power do they have to demand your name and address for service of such a claim? I moor my boat and claim that I have borrowed the boat from the registered keeper and my name is Mickey Mouse 1 Disney Towers, now send me the bill, and if I don't pay take me to the small claims court. Good luck with that one.

By the way driving away from a forecourt without paying for fuel is stealing goods, a world of difference to refusing to pay for a service twice.

Quote "Charges will be introduced at Reedham and Ranworth where staff help people to moor. "

So does one assume that if you don't use their help there will be no charge?

Maybe just maybe it is time to make a stand. Imagine if 20 boats all turned up on the first day the charges come into force and all refused to pay, and the EDP just happened to be there having been alerted before hand!!!

Quote "Specific by-laws are not required."

That's nice to know, because presumably the byelaws that control the free 24hr BA moorings do not apply. Anyone fancy a week at Ranworth taxi rank for £70 

[grendel]

I would imagine that if they do not check whether you are a parishoner of Ranworth before charging you, it could open up all sorts of legal questions if you then refused to pay and they took it to court, this is why the question is so important, it should also note this on any signs at the moorings in case anyone were to question why the boat moored next to them was not charged and they were.

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

it should also note this on any signs at the moorings in case anyone were to question why the boat moored next to them was not charged and they were.

Wouldn't those signs need planning permission?

I do agree with you that it should be on the signs, as should the full tariff and times they apply and penalties for not paying. No signs and why would anybody pay some bloke who walks up in a uniform and demands payment!!!! Put up signs without planning and I can see there also being an issue if it ever went to court.

[rightsaidfred]

15 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Wouldn't those signs need planning permission?

I do agree with you that it should be on the signs, as should the full tariff and times they apply and penalties for not paying. No signs and why would anybody pay some bloke who walks up in a uniform and demands payment!!!! Put up signs without planning and I can see there also being an issue if it ever went to court.

No penalties as they dont have the powers to issue fines or fixed penalty notices, as it's not a criminal act they cant prosecute through a magistrates court.

Fred

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, grendel said:

By a Conveyance dated 20 October 1950 made between (1) Henry John Cator (Grantor) and (2) Henry Frank Brooker and Others

Just FYI, Frank Brooker was the MD of Blakes (Norfolk Broads Holidays) Ltd, always known as "Jim".  The others would have been the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Yacht Owners' Association.

[floydraser]

10 hours ago, Meantime said:

 "Charges will be introduced at Reedham and Ranworth where staff help people to moor. "

So if you are now paying a service (how ever many times!) does this mean if the mooring goes wrong and you bash into another boat, you can now blame the staff member and all claims are directed towards his employer?

I think being a staff member where these new charges are coming in is not going to be a pleasant occupation.

[Meantime]

16 minutes ago, floydraser said:

So if you are now paying a service (how ever many times!) does this mean if the mooring goes wrong and you bash into another boat, you can now blame the staff member and all claims are directed towards his employer?

One of the reasons I don't use the ranger at Reedham is because they tend to haul the front in straight against the concrete quay heading. I only moor at Reedham if I arrive against an incoming or slack tide because I can step over from the helm and straight onto the quayside with both ropes in hand. I normally have both ropes connected together ready for solo mooring and if they grab the rope at the front they end up pulling the whole lot in the water.

They should only help where it is needed, and to date I've never needed their help. They don't man Burgh Castle, Polkey's Mill or The Berney Arms, so if your used to mooring at those, then Reedham is no worse. So why should I pay for not using their services at Reedham.

[BroadAmbition]

Charges will be introduced at Reedham and Ranworth where staff help people to moor.

Therefore if I berth unaided I don't have to pay? 

Griff

[Maxwellian]

4 hours ago, Meantime said:

One of the reasons I don't use the ranger at Reedham is because they tend to haul the front in straight against the concrete quay heading.

They did that to me last year, had the decency to apologise though.

[ranworthbreeze]

I will moor at Reedham Ferry but not at Reedham, far two much concrete for my liking.

 

 

[YnysMon]

2 hours ago, ranworthbreeze said:

I will moor at Reedham Ferry but not at Reedham.

 

 

The last few times we’ve passed Reedham Ferry the quay heading seems to have been progressively deteriorating . It’s not too bad upstream of the ferry on the stretch nearest to the pub, but beyond that bit, even upstream, the quay looks a bit dodgy. Personally, I’d rather pay a fee at Reedham. That’s probably unlikely though. We’ve stopped off there a few times, but never for an overnight mooring. 

[Mouldy]

49 minutes ago, YnysMon said:

The last few times we’ve passed Reedham Ferry the quay heading seems to have been progressively deteriorating . It’s not too bad upstream of the ferry on the stretch nearest to the pub, but beyond that bit, even upstream, the quay looks a bit dodgy. Personally, I’d rather pay a fee at Reedham. That’s probably unlikely though. We’ve stopped off there a few times, but never for an overnight mooring. 

Concrete quay heading at Reedham.  Brings out a horrible rash in gel coat if the fenders are in the wrong place.