Ranworth Mooring Fees?

[RS2021]

2 hours ago, grendel said:

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?

I think under GDPR its down to is the data being used for the purposed for which it was collected. I haven't read BA's Ts & Cs, but would be surprised if it didn't permit use of data for the business of the Authority, rather than just the bylaws. You may be interested in clause 37 of the broads act.

"37(1)The Authority shall have all the powers of an owner or occupier (including, in particular, power to take criminal or civil proceedings) for the purpose of preventing unlawful interference with any staithe within the Broads, or with any rights exercisable by any person in relation to any such staithe."

Whether the boatyard would be in breach of GDPR is another matter. There has ben comments on here about standard Ts & Cs which you are deemed to have read and agreed to. However, at least on the interenet, when it comes to personal data the principle is you must actively opt in to give permission for your date to be shared. Unless of course the BA would argue it requires the date for 'statutory' purposes.

Really time to consult a lawyer who specialises in GDPR I think...

[rightsaidfred]

23 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

 

"37(1)The Authority shall have all the powers of an owner or occupier (including, in particular, power to take criminal or civil proceedings) for the purpose of preventing unlawful interference with any staithe within the Broads, or with any rights exercisable by any person in relation to any such staithe."

 

So the BA are in breach of their duties again, not only have they imposed a charge on a public mooring but they have failed to take action against themselves to protect the lawful right of the boating community to free access and mooring at an historically free public staithe.

Fred

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

So the BA are in breach of their duties again, not only have they imposed a charge on a public mooring but they have failed to take action against themselves to protect the lawful right of the boating community to free access and mooring at an historically free public staithe.

This is a very good point.

The paragraph quoted specifically refers to "any staithe" but not to a BA maintained public mooring.

Only a small part of the Maltsters' Quay is a public staithe, which has already been declared "free to parishioners".

I don't see that this paragraph concerns BA moorings.

[rightsaidfred]

6 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

This is a very good point.

The paragraph quoted specifically refers to "any staithe" but not to a BA maintained public mooring.

Only a small part of the Maltsters' Quay is a public staithe, which has already been declared "free to parishioners".

I don't see that this paragraph concerns BA moorings.

While not disagreeing with you I think you are referring to the Parish staithe rather than the rest of the public moorings as defined by the following, this opinion by Mr later Sir William Mckenzie is I believe still the reason/justification for Broadland District Council refusing permission to charge at Reedham.

"In 1916, the Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council, were considered to be the owners of two parts of Reedham quay, that is to say between what is now Sandersons boat yard and the slipway, either side of the bit owned by the Nelson. The B.& F.R.D.C. wanted to divest themselves of this ownership and offered to give it to Reedham Parish Council. They suggested that Reedham could pass Byelaws to establish mooring charges in order to fund future maintenance. 

Reedham queried the legality of all this, and Counsel's opinion was sought a) to confirm that the B.& F.R.D.C. was the legal owner, and b) that mooring charges could be imposed. 

Mr.William Mckenzie K.C. opined that the B.& F.R.D.C. could be considered as the owners BUT (and I quote): 

"It appears that charges or tolls can only be made where they have been customarily paid for a period of years, so as to show that the quays are not public quays. 

It seems clear that if they are public quays, the public are entitled to use them free of charge. The council appears to have treated both quays as public ones. 

I therefore venture to advise the District Council that if the quays were conveyanced or given to the Parish Council of Reedham, the P.C. could then obtain a Provisional Order to enact Byelaws, but such Byelaws, if made, could not legally establish any tolls or charges." 

So far as I am aware, the Broadland District Council are the successors in law to the B.& F.R.D.C. and, apart from that, nothing has changed. 

Since it would not be legal for the District Council to impose mooring charges at Reedham, they cannot legally include powers to impose the charges in their lease to the Broads Authority."

Fred

 

 

[Meantime]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

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?

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. 

[Vaughan]

10 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

So far as I am aware, the Broadland District Council are the successors in law to the B.& F.R.D.C. and, apart from that, nothing has changed. 

Surely the BA are leasing the mooring at Ranworth from the landowner, not the Council?  Said lease having been taken over from Blakes, who never charged for moorings.

[rightsaidfred]

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Surely the BA are leasing the mooring at Ranworth from the landowner, not the Council?  Said lease having been taken over from Blakes, who never charged for moorings.

The quoted statement applies to Reedham not Ranworth, but the opinion is relevant to all moorings/staithes that have had the historical benefit of free public use.

Fred