Ranworth Mooring Fees?

[grendel]

Would this mean that if the Broads authority used their own database of registered owners in pursuit of a civil offence that they would internally breach gdpr?, as the details supplied have not been listed for access for such a usage?

 I believe any details kept have to have the usage to which they are put carefully controlled, and usage for other purposes would be a breach of gdpr. Ie previously declared usage.

[grendel]

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-restrict-processing/#:~:text=Article 18 of the UK,the erasure of their data.

So unless the individual concerned has signed a waiver allowing civil prosecution,  the BA may be in breach of their own gdpr for a civil matter.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

1 hour ago, Troyboy said:

DVLA should adopt the same position with robbing CCTV monitored car parks. Very interesting reading. 

That is a different matter.

[Meantime]

28 minutes ago, grendel said:

Would this mean that if the Broads authority used their own database of registered owners in pursuit of a civil offence that they would internally breach gdpr?, as the details supplied have not been listed for access for such a usage?

 I believe any details kept have to have the usage to which they are put carefully controlled, and usage for other purposes would be a breach of gdpr. Ie previously declared usage.

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.

[Meantime]

6 minutes ago, Meantime said:

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,

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. 

[Troyboy]

Thanks for the information Meantime. 

[Wussername]

What is the difference between the Owner of the vessel,  the Master, the Captain, the Skipper, the Hirer, or the Helm, when it is a matter as to who is responsible when it becomes a matter of  a statutory or civil matter. 

Who is responsible. Taking in consideration that you may delegate authority however can you delegate responsibility ? I think not.

[Meantime]

24 minutes ago, Wussername said:

What is the difference between the Owner of the vessel,  the Master, the Captain, the Skipper, the Hirer, or the Helm, when it is a matter as to who is responsible when it becomes a matter of  a statutory or civil matter. 

Who is responsible. Taking in consideration that you may delegate authority however can you delegate responsibility ? I think not.

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.

 

[grendel]

in practice, it was the information staff member who moored the boat, after asking if we needed help, we answered in the negative at which point he grabbed the ropes and pulled us in, just I am sure so he could make the claim that he assisted us mooring. we needed no help, in fact he almost pushed one of our fellow lads week crew to one side to get the rope first.

[TFrench89]

Legally I think the hire company would be on very shaky ground if they gave the hirers personal deets. This IMO would be a breach of GDPR. Unless the hirer gave their consent, which seems very unlikely... Either way the BA should not be charging for previously free moorings, they've raised the toll by 13%, God knows how much it'll be next year. They're clearly taking the Michael.

[Wussername]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

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.

 

And if helm is a minor does your Authority Act 2009 apply ?

..

[Ray]

I hesitate to mention this, the charge is in place and it is was it is. By all means as an individual stand up for your principles and fight it if that is your wish and more power to you for taking a stand 👍

For many of us though it is a mooring rarely used and in fact rarely available, life's too short and for the sake of a rare visit I will just pay it. After all if direct action actually prevailed it would simply be reflected in even higher tolls, including for those with little interest in stopping there.

Just a personal observation and genuine good luck wishes for those who feel it is a fight worth engaging.

[jeffbroadslover]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if you are given a receipt to display to show that you have paid for the privilege of using the mooring?

If the answer to this is yes then did anyone check to see if the vessel in Grendel's photo had paid as a dayboat or the  price for a normal boat?

I have a sneaky idea that the boat in question is registered to the BA but did whoever was them helm pay to moor it there?

Perhaps they were in the visitor centre paying the fee at the time!!!!!!!

Jeff 

[CambridgeCabby]

Yes you are issued with a receipt .

The boat in Grendels photo is actually based there and is the BA trip boat which in effect prevents at least 3 day boats using the dyke 

[Broads01]

2 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Yes you are issued with a receipt .

The boat in Grendels photo is actually based there and is the BA trip boat which in effect prevents at least 3 day boats using the dyke 

Is that the Liana? When I was there last week it was at the head of the dyke and was a nuisance as far as dayboats mooring there was concerned. I was moored for around 3 hours during the day and it never moved which irked me somewhat as it seemed an unnecessary blockage.

[Meantime]

5 hours ago, Wussername said:

And if helm is a minor does your Authority Act 2009 apply ?

..

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.

[Vaughan]

I have looked up Barnes conditions of hire, which seem to be recently re-written, but they don't seem to be clear on the matter of who is responsible for the boat, or who can be given personal details.

Richardsons' conditions are more specific. There is a separate Group Privacy Policy, which says :

Disclosure of your personal information.

We may disclose your details to any of the following recipients :

6/. Any law enforcement or regulatory body which may have any reasonable requirement to access your personal information.

In the general conditions, they specify that the hirer is the "party Leader" and that no minor may control your boat without the supervision of an experienced adult.

Rule 27 is Data protection policy, which says : The Information may also be provided to . . . . . . , public authorities such as customs/immigration if required by them, or as required by law.

There is also Rule 18 : Obeying the waterway rules.

You must obey the Navigation Authoriy's Bylaws. It then says especially navigation after sunset and speeding "must not inconvenience or endanger other users".

I guess it still comes down to whether the BA actually have the right to personal details, for the non payment of a mooring charge.

[Turnoar]

Barnes’ privacy statement includes the BA but only if required by law. And presumably they only apply if you look at their website or it is mentioned in the conditions or when you book.

[Turnoar]

Interestingly Hoseasons privacy statement is a bit more vague/ broader imho, running the business and no specific ref to law. So depending on the form if you book via them it may be that the Hoseasons statement could apply (?).

I think the GDPR has unintended consequences sometimes, certainly keeps people in a job.

 

[Vaughan]

17 minutes ago, Turnoar said:

And presumably they only apply if you look at their website or it is mentioned in the conditions or when you book.

It always used to be (and I presume still is) that when you make a booking you are deemed to understand the conditions of hire.  In the old days of brochures, they were printed on the inside back page, right next to the booking form.

[Vaughan]

From Blakes brochure of 1975, on the line just above the signature on the booking form :

and further agree that this booking is made in accordance with the conditions stated on page 99 - (which is the next page).

I imagine a booking made today will still contain a similar sentence, somewhere or another.

[Meantime]

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! 

[JawsOrca]

On 13/10/2023 at 14:34, Meantime said:

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.

Does this section in the byelaws not suggest any employee has such authority?  Whilst 68.1 may not apply (as it's not a lawful order under the byelaws) but could 68.2 apply? 

[Meantime]

17 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

Does this section in the byelaws not suggest any employee has such authority?  Whilst 68.1 may not apply (as it's not a lawful order under the byelaws) but could 68.2 apply? 

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.

[grendel]

On 17/10/2023 at 09:08, Meantime said:

" 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."

would this mean that if the Broads Authority were to use their power to request the name of a hirer from the hire company under a bylaw breach for the purposes of a civil prosecution under an MCN, that this would be a breach of GDPR (or any other laws)? and would seriously compromise their case against an individual?