Coincidence Or Not?

[Meantime]

I see the Broads Authority have had a bit of a push to bring some of last years non toll payers to court. Off course they should pursue non payment, but it does seem a very timely reminder for anyone thinking about not paying this years outrageous increase in toll fees.

I note the EDP could learn a thing or two from this forum though. The name and shame policy for a start. The article carries a stock picture of boats just under a tag that says crime, and labelled Boat owners have been taken to court over non payment of Broads tolls, clearly showing the boat reg numbers on at least two of the boats, yet from the descriptions and locations of the culprits later in the story I'm pretty certain none of the boats pictured are guilty.

I think if I owned one of those boats I might be having a chat with the EDP.

EDP Story 

[Vaughan]

I am very glad to see I am not the only one to have noticed the political juxtaposition of this article.  All these court cases came up at the same time?  just before this year's tolls are due?

I also noticed that one of those named has been a well known and well appreciated member of this forum, not long ago.

 

[Meantime]

I did notice that. In fact given the location mentioned, possibly those who live onboard feature more prominently than those who don't, which makes you wonder how much they are going to recover compared to how much it's cost to prosecute? In which case it makes it even more likely that the time chosen to prosecute was more important than the likely hood of recovering the unpaid tolls. Or was that just a coincidence as well?

 

[FlyingFortress]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

I did notice that. In fact given the location mentioned, possibly those who live onboard feature more prominently than those who don't, which makes you wonder how much they are going to recover compared to how much it's cost to prosecute? In which case it makes it even more likely that the time chosen to prosecute was more important than the likely hood of recovering the unpaid tolls. Or was that just a coincidence as well?

 

I see your point MT.

My question is , should BA persue non toll payers or not? 

Yes I am aware that the chances of recovery of unpaid tolls is remote.

But should they just be allowed to get away with it?

[FairTmiddlin]

I'm afraid for Journalism in this new-fangled regime of newspapers, there seems to be too much desktop reporting going on now.

Journos sitting at a desk picking random stories from internet content. Writing an article around the facts gleaned from the court reports, or someones content on Faceache or Twatter.

In the court scenario, they just seem to grab the nearest stock photo from file, to illustrate their story.

Whether that photo shows people, reg numbers or what, no consent seems to be given for them to be published.

It seems to be going back to the "Publish and be damned" era but in a different context.

[CambridgeCabby]

Not knowing the position some of the untolled live aboards are in and their back story I feel that the prosecution (and to a degree persecution) of some would be a huge waste of money and time for the BA .

Yes it is frustrating that they do not pay and we have to , but what is their other option?

If local authorities could provide shelter/accommodation for them then the “problem” would cease to exist , or at the very least be diminished.

If however the avoidance of tolls is by an individual who chooses to keep a boat on the Broads as a leisure pursuit then yes by all means pursue them for the tolls and the costs of the recovery of said tolls .

IMHO

[FlyingFortress]

23 minutes ago, CambridgeCabby said:

Not knowing the position some of the untolled live aboards are in and their back story I feel that the prosecution (and to a degree persecution) of some would be a huge waste of money and time for the BA .

Yes it is frustrating that they do not pay and we have to , but what is their other option?

If local authorities could provide shelter/accommodation for them then the “problem” would cease to exist , or at the very least be diminished.

If however the avoidance of tolls is by an individual who chooses to keep a boat on the Broads as a leisure pursuit then yes by all means pursue them for the tolls and the costs of the recovery of said tolls .

IMHO

I do appreciate that there is a bigger picture here CC and I don't know the answer.

I am just not sure that The BA should be social services.

I only suspect that this will get worse before, if ever , it will get better. As I say I don't know the answers but I have witnessed holiday makers being put off returning after being around anti social behaviour.

Trying to be as vaugue as possible here to stay within The TOS but a well known person with obvious problems was running his engine in gear at high speed while moored while drinking out of a bottle and abusing people nearby and the family who had obviously paid a large amount of money for an upmarket Hire Boat decided to return to their home yard rather than remain at their chosen overnight mooring.

I know you can experience poor behaviour in The Costas but this example is of someone with obvious known problems. It's not the only example I have witnessed at different locations on The Broads. 

[CambridgeCabby]

I can see both sides of the “argument”and my view is just that , and I can I sympathize if others feel otherwise.

I must add though obnoxious and antisocial behaviour is something that sadly is not only in the realm of one or two live aboards it is just as likely , sadly, to witness such behaviour from a private and tolled boat or a hire boat and I for one would like to see action taken against any individual who behaves in such a way.

The majority of constant cruisers ( to use the preferred title) I have met have been friendly and sociable , as have the other boaters hirers and privateers alike .

[FlyingFortress]

Fully agree CC in fact I have had more issues with private owners than any other group.

The question I was asking, timing aside, is should The BA persue non toll payers or not?

[CambridgeCabby]

The BA should certainly pursue non payers in my opinion , otherwise nobody would pay and The Broads would be lost .

However pursuing individuals who they know would never be able to pay the penalties involved would be a fruitless and money wasting affair costing the BA thousands, this may be seen as a cop out by many but with the current laws regarding making an individual homeless etc the BA’s hands are tied and I personally would rather see an individual freeloading with a roof over their head albeit floating than consigning them to living on the streets.

[FlyingFortress]

Yeah and this is the dilemma that we and The BA face.

But will the Broads be lost anyway if it replaces the local Authorities as a source of social housing? Or indeed is it in their remit to replace Social Services.

Not being argumentative just asking genuine questions to which I have no answer.

[CambridgeCabby]

I think you have alluded to what one of the real problems is, to a degree the BA are the local authority of the Broads waterways  , yet one that has no social housing .

If there were permanent live aboard moorings provided and overseen and funded by the local authorities then much of the discourse caused by some of the constant cruisers would be gone .

The cost to the local authorities would most likely be less than land based accommodation and would also give those constant cruisers a permanent address enabling some of them who so wanted to obtain meaningful employment and a sense of community .

[Meantime]

This thread seems to be going off at a tangent, which wasn't the purpose for posting, or my intention.

Yes The BA should prosecute anyone who doesn't pay their tolls and without prejudice or favour, But the question is why now? Just as this years tolls are due with an above inflation increase. Why weren't these prosecutions bought 3 or 4 months ago? Did it really take this long to prosecute and take them through the court system? Or did they just want some headline grabbing prosecutions at an opportune moment to remind people what happens if you fail to pay your toll? Are they targeting a group less likely to be able to pay / settle before it reaches court?

Was the free advertising / reminder to pay, more important than the attempt to recover the unpaid tolls, largely from a group where there is little chance of succeeding in recovering the money anyway.

Was this value for money advertising / reminder to pay your toll, a timely coincidence or planned to coincide with the toll renewals going out? I'm guessing that those that could have afforded to pay, will have settled a long time ago, so will they recover what is has cost to prosecute, or was it actually very good value for money, cheap advertising to remind people to pay their toll? If there is any element of the latter then it rather leaves a bad taste.

[BroadAmbition]

Good post there Meantime - My thoughts exactly - Spot on.

I reckon the Blessed Authority are sweating somewhat anticipating a lot of disgruntled boat owners not paying their tolls on time or in full

Griff

[CambridgeCabby]

I agree

The timing of the article and the prosecution seems a bit too convenient to not have been deliberate.

[ExSurveyor]

It is difficult to form a judgment on this,

There are some who won't pay and a few who can't pay.

Local authorities have an obligation to provide a certain number of serviced traveller pitches, funded from council tax, do we really want that to come out of the toll account.

 The BA have a responsibility to collect tolls and it isn't for them to decide who doesn't have to pay, the courts decide how and over what timeframe the fines are paid.

I suspect the CaRT and EA folliw the same guidelines.

 It is not  uncommon to allow someone 9 months to pay before it is taken to court, a court date could take 2 to 3 months to be heard.

My biggest concern would be a lack of insurance and BSS on these boats.

[MauriceMynah]

As I have become friends with a number of "continuous cruisers" I may be able to shed a little light on all this. Some of the contributers to this thread have said "although I don't know the circumstances of some of these people, I think......." . OK, we're you aware that the BA have given HP terms to some liveaboards who have made genuine attempts to pay the tolls and who have proven their financial problems to the BA. Those boats still show on the website as untolled.

It is those who refuse to pay AND flout other rules who the BA are taking a firm line on.

Oh and yes, there can be no doubt that the timing of this publicity is intentional. 

[BroadAmbition]

My biggest concern would be a lack of insurance and BSS on these boats.

Agreed

Plus the smaller group that can't be classified as 'Continuous Cruisers' as they hardly ever move but they are liveaboards.  Even the most liberal amongst us cannot be naïve enough to believe that their human waste is pumped out at a pump out station and are fully aware where their waste ends up? - Yes in t river or on the damn banks along with the other detritus as often witnessed.  They are the group that really itch my mudweight.  Especially so when I visit some wild moorings on the Ant, first job after attending to the berthing ropes is to arm mysen with disposable gloves, poo bags and a large black rubbish bag 

Griff

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

If there were permanent live aboard moorings provided and overseen and funded by the local authorities then much of the discourse caused by some of the constant cruisers would be gone .

And I wonder how many people involved in this case and now moored on the Yare in Trowse, were thrown out of Jenners Basin by the BA after 10 years of vicious persecution - which almost cost the tolls fund a 6-figure sum in legal fees?

They were in an off-river mooring on an un-inhabited island, paying a very affordable mooring fee to the landowner and doing no-one any harm at all.  Except that the then chair of the BA didn't like what she publicly called "feral people".

If the BA are going to continue to attack the idea of residential, off river moorings without any attempt to accommodate those who choose to live on their boats, then this is always going to be one of the down sides of that policy.

[rightsaidfred]

I certainly have no desire to defend the BA`s actions but looking at some of the points raised some unemotional thinking might be useful.

As ExSurveyor says the timing is possibly normal as the court will given some individuals financial situation require a suitable period of opportunity to pay to elapse before finding them guilty of wilful non payment, I think in most years details of prosecutions are in the annual report. 

With regard to the other points raised it should be remembered that the BA can only act on breach of Byelaws ie tolls BSS and insurance or overstaying 24 hr moorings, the BA cannot make someone homeless, they cannot seize boats other than in specific circumstances, unsocial or abusive behaviour is the responsibility of the Police with the possible involvement of social services.

It should also be born in mind that many of the livaboards don`t want and wouldn`t use formal moorings for several reasons including cost and in some cases being loaners and restriction free, while I understand the comments regarding those that set up camp on wild moorings any action against them is down to the landowner not BA.

As in other areas of life I think there is no one size fits all, some choose their lifestyle, others through circumstances that have forced it on them, some try to abide by the rules some deliberately flout them others fall between the two by deteriorating circumstances either health or financial, while not always in many cases it is just a different location for what is a growing fundamental problem in society today.

Fred

 

 

[Meantime]

7 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

OK, we're you aware that the BA have given HP terms to some liveaboards who have made genuine attempts to pay the tolls and who have proven their financial problems to the BA. Those boats still show on the website as untolled.

Which does beg the question, Is it about time that The BA overhauled the toll system? The Council tax bill is a large bill, but my local council gives me the option of which day of the month I want the Direct Debit to come out, and also gives me the option of making one annual payment, or four quarterly payments, or ten monthly and finally 12 monthly payments all without interest being applied.

The car tax can be spread over installments, but does work out fractionally more expensive if paid in installments, but the option is there.

Having tolled or untolled in the system is unfair if someone is paying in instalments, but saying a boat is tolled when it isn't fully paid for would be misleading. Having some other identification such as in progress would lead to other rightly questioning why such terms are not available to them.

In fact the more I think about it, what criteria, and how does the BA judge who is eligible to pay in installments and who isn't? I'm not knocking them if they do offer HP, but it needs to be transparent and operate on a fair basis.

Seems to me the only way it can do that is to overhaul the toll system completely and whilst it is at it, help its cash flow by allowing people to toll a boat for 12 months from when they put it in the water and not stick to a rigid annually from the 1st April.

[Meantime]

8 hours ago, ExSurveyor said:

Local authorities have an obligation to provide a certain number of serviced traveller pitches, funded from council tax, do we really want that to come out of the toll account.

Although it has to be remembered The Broads Authority are not a local authority, so why would such moorings be funded from the toll account? The Broads Authority already fund albeit a diminishing number of free moorings for all. It could be argued that it is the local authorities Norwich, Great Yarmouth, Broadland District Councils responsibilities to provide some serviced moorings similar to traveler pitches.

The Broads Authority executive area defines their geographical area of responsibility for a number of things, including planning, but all other aspects of local governance such as council tax, housing and education are the responsibility of the local councils still whose areas overlap The Broads Authorities executive area.

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all,

To clarify, this article was not prompted by the Authority. It appears the EDP reporter either attended the court date or has access to the court records.

As a point of principle we do not publish names, vessel names etc. as we don't feel it's appropriate given an individual's right to privacy. We were not approached prior to the publication of this article.

Regarding court, this is always a last resort and our tolls team aim to work constructively with people where possible to ensure that the tolls are paid without going down this route.

Best

Tom

 

[Meantime]

10 hours ago, FlyingFortress said:

But will the Broads be lost anyway if it replaces the local Authorities as a source of social housing? Or indeed is it in their remit to replace Social Services.

Not being argumentative just asking genuine questions to which I have no answer.

The following taken from The Broads Authority plan probably answers this point better than I can. The underlining is mine.

7.4 The Broads Authority Executive Area

Map 1: Broads Authority Executive Area

The designated Broads Authority Executive Area covers parts of Norfolk and North Suffolk, as shown in white in Map 1[3]. The area includes parts of Broadland District, South Norfolk District, North Norfolk District, Great Yarmouth Borough, Norwich City, and East Suffolk Council area. The councils for those areas do not have planning powers in the Broads area, but retain all other local authority powers and responsibilities. Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council are the county planning authority for their respective part of the Broads, with responsibilities that include minerals and waste planning, and are also the Lead Local Flood Authority. The Broads does not sit in isolation; there are important linkages with neighbouring areas in terms of the community and economy – what happens outside the Broads affects the area, and vice versa.

[marshman]

Thanks Tom - as I suspected!!!

Still - it gave several hours of fun for several posters to consider conspiracy theories. Me - I just carried on reading my book!!!!