Coincidence Or Not?

[Meantime]

46 minutes ago, BroadsAuthority said:

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.

Thank you for your update Tom. I believe the navigation committee provides a report to the Chief Executive on the number of prosecutions for the preceding period. I wonder if you are able to tell me how many prosecutions for non payment of fines there were in the reporting period prior to the Navigation meeting on the 12th January 2023?

[FlyingFortress]

Thanks for all the very informative replies, I have learned quite a bit and may even have had my opinion on one particular subject changed. 👍 More later 🫣

Like it or not this subject is one of great debate/ frustration on The Rhond and should IMHO be aired.

I don't see this problem getting any better anytime soon. 😫

[FlyingFortress]

4 hours ago, Vaughan said:

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.

I was very much against the idea of Jenners Island at the time, but I am starting to think that this could have been a partial solution. See ,debate can change opinions 😁

This however is now in the past and it is how we address the future that concerns me the most. That is not to say that lessons cannot be learnt from the past.👍

What I would like from our resident BA representative is an explanation of clear policy on how you deal with non payers. I have often heard the term " they can't be made homeless" and I have some sympathy for that policy, but a clear policy statement would at least go someway to satisfy us Payers that something is being,or at least attempting, to be done .

 

 

[Meantime]

51 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Thank you for your update Tom. I believe the navigation committee provides a report to the Chief Executive on the number of prosecutions for the preceding period. I wonder if you are able to tell me how many prosecutions for non payment of fines there were in the reporting period prior to the Navigation meeting on the 12th January 2023?

Don't worry about my request Tom, I've been able to find the relevant report and attach the relevant page which details the period 20th October 2022 to 12th Jan 2023. If this is correct, then it appears there were none. Bad timing, intentional delay or coincidence I wonder.

7-Chief-Executives-report-and-current-issues-12-Jan-2023.pdf

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

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

 

Tom perhaps you should have a word with JP as he does name boats.

javascript:PopWin2('https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/427559/Chief_Executive_s_report_and_current_issues_D7GXJJ.pdf');

Fred

[Vaughan]

37 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

This however is now in the past and it is how we address the future that concerns me the most. That is not to say that lessons cannot be learnt from the past.👍

And it is the BA that should learn those lessons.

Those boat owners were thrown out by the Broads Authority, not by South Norfolk DC (the Island is in South Norfolk). Nor were they thrown out by Thorpe Town Council since Hart's Island is not in Thorpe. The BA are wholly culpable for this disgraceful saga, which cost (to my memory) at least £88,000 (declared) in legal fees plus all the admin costs which can never be identified. 

You are quite right and in future we must NEVER let such a shameful mis-use of un-elected authority happen again on the Broads.

 

[floydraser]

On the subject of being made homeless, it should never happen. Even back in 1992 when I was flat broke there were procedures in place to help those struggling. All you had to do was communicate, be honest and make the effort to get yourself back on your feet. It's not just God who helps those who helps themselves.

That said, if you sign up to pay for something, you pay. If you don't pay your BA tolls I expect as part of my agreement with them, that they come after you. Who ultimately pays for the legal costs - we do! If word got out that it was possible to get away without paying tolls a few more would stop paying and the rest of us would be idiots for paying.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Those boat owners were thrown out by the Broads Authority, not by South Norfolk DC (the Island is in South Norfolk). Nor were they thrown out by Thorpe Town Council since Hart's Island is not in Thorpe.

To be fair though, as already pointed out earlier in this thread, South Norfolk DC and Thorpe Town Council are not the planning authority for Jenners basin, it is The Broads Authority, so they would be responsible for enforcing planning infringements.

7 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

You are quite right and in future we must NEVER let such a shameful mis-use of un-elected authority happen again on the Broads.

And perhaps we reach the crux of this matter. There are very few areas in this country where the planning authority is not the locally elected authority. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, it generally only happens in National Parks, of which The Broads Authority is unique in being a planning authority responsible for a special area of natural beauty whilst not being a fully fledged National Park.

[Vaughan]

Oh, by the way . . . .

It was proved at the time that all those mooring in Jenners Basin had current river tolls up to date and a current BSS on their boats and were paying rent up to date with the landowner.  They thus had the legal right to be where they were.  Most of them had composting type toilets on their boats and the site was equipped with drinking water from an artesian well.  Diesel or pumpouts were available from Hearts Cruisers, just a few hundred yards downstream.

The only "bone of contention" was the BA's insistence that the planning permission, on a basin dug out for moorings and nothing else, had "become dis-used".

That land is still sitting there, abandoned and useless, since it is still subject to a legal covenant for the mooring of boats and nothing else.

 

[Meantime]

Just now, Vaughan said:

The only "bone of contention" was the BA's insistence that the planning permission, on a basin dug out for moorings and nothing else, had "become dis-used".

That land is still sitting there, abandoned and useless, since it is still subject to a legal covenant for the mooring of boats and nothing else.

Not wishing to reopen the whole Jenner's basin debate, but those were not the only grounds for enforcement. Anybody entering into a section 52 or section 106 agreement as part of a planning application is duty bound to comply with it, as are any subsequent owners of that land.

I agree that on the surface Jenner's basin looks to be the ideal site for residential moorings, but the planning history is long and varied and agreements were made prior to the then owner having enforcement action taken upon him.

Word has reached me along the Rhond of another Section 52 breach involving a residential apartment block within the BA executive planning area. It doesn't involve boat moorings in anyway, but it will be interesting to see if the Broads Authority enforce it with as much enthusiasm as Jenner's. There are certainly people watching with much interest!

[BroadsAuthority]

Hi all,

• For a Summary conviction (relevant to these tolls prosecutions) the 'Summons' must be issued within six months of the 'offence'. There are delays in the court system currently and the recent flurry of cases are all last years (2022/23 toll year) where summonses were issued some time ago.
• In relation to the process for dealing with non-payment, as mentioned above we will try to recover the owed toll charges by working with the individuals before pursuing the court option. If you look through navigation committee papers you can see all of the instances where we have taken this option. The background behind tolls charges can be found in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and Broads Authority Act 2009.
• Regarding the above link to the CE's report from the Navigation Committee papers in 2022 which referenced vessel names (but didn't provide the owner's names/ages/area of residence) we have since changed our policy on this following a review. Later papers (and papers going forward) don't give vessel names, they just give a description of vessel type and then any associated fines/costs/surcharges.
• Finally, following a call from a member of the public I've been informed that some of the original information regarding the prosecutions in the EDP article originated from the court directly.

If you have any further detailed questions please get in contact with our tolls department by choosing 'tolls' from the drop down menu on our contact form: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-form

Hope that helps,

Tom

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

Not wishing to reopen the whole Jenner's basin debate,

Certainly neither do I!

But the basin was dug with planning permission for moorings and has never been used for anything else ever since.  It later became part of a covenant, involving the permission for the Old Hall Close development on the old Wards boatyard and that covenant said - guess what??  That the land could not be used for anything else except moorings.

There's your "section 52 agreement".

[marshman]

But Vaughan - you have reopened it.

Lets close it again - whilst I know your views, there were plenty with differing views including people with a lot more knowledge than I.

Lets close it again once and for all!!!!!

 

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, marshman said:

Lets close it again once and for all!!!!!

Agreed! There were many differing opinions then, I'm sure they haven't changed that much since, and irrespective, it's going to alter nothing at Jenner's now anyway.

[FlyingFortress]

2 hours ago, BroadsAuthority said:

Hi all,

• For a Summary conviction (relevant to these tolls prosecutions) the 'Summons' must be issued within six months of the 'offence'. There are delays in the court system currently and the recent flurry of cases are all last years (2022/23 toll year) where summonses were issued some time ago.
• In relation to the process for dealing with non-payment, as mentioned above we will try to recover the owed toll charges by working with the individuals before pursuing the court option. If you look through navigation committee papers you can see all of the instances where we have taken this option. The background behind tolls charges can be found in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and Broads Authority Act 2009.
• Regarding the above link to the CE's report from the Navigation Committee papers in 2022 which referenced vessel names (but didn't provide the owner's names/ages/area of residence) we have since changed our policy on this following a review. Later papers (and papers going forward) don't give vessel names, they just give a description of vessel type and then any associated fines/costs/surcharges.
• Finally, following a call from a member of the public I've been informed that some of the original information regarding the prosecutions in the EDP article originated from the court directly.

If you have any further detailed questions please get in contact with our tolls department by choosing 'tolls' from the drop down menu on our contact form: https://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/contact-us/contact-form

Hope that helps,

Tom

Thanks Tom 

Points 1+2 nice cut and paste

3+4 I don't really see point as they are in the Public Domain anyway and it does go some way to reassuring us Payers that The Authority is actually doing something about the problem.

 

 

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Oh dear. When ever people use the words "fair" or "transparent" I know a bumpy ride is to follow.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. If anyone thinks it is, then follow the signs to Lala land.

Many times on the TV we have heard the expression "heat or eat" for people struggling to pay their bills. I don't think it unreasonable  to say the broadland equivalent could be "pay your tolls or eat".

Some people here on this forum do seem to have something of a case hardened attitude to such peoples problems, luckily not so for the BA who are doing their best to accommodate those in this position.

This is not the first time I have come across actions from a government body where the best way to success is to be vague and pay only lip service to transparency. Very good results for all can be achieved this way. Forcing a department to be fair and transparent can, and sometimes does cause the very people, the less fortunate amongst us, to suffer consequences not intended.

Sometimes, turning a blind eye to the rules can be the most socially acceptable solution,  but you can't do that if you are going to be fair and transparent. 

[FlyingFortress]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Oh dear. When ever people use the words "fair" or "transparent" I know a bumpy ride is to follow.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. If anyone thinks it is, then follow the signs to Lala land.

Many times on the TV we have heard the expression "heat or eat" for people struggling to pay their bills. I don't think it unreasonable  to say the broadland equivalent could be "pay your tolls or eat".

Some people here on this forum do seem to have something of a case hardened attitude to such peoples problems, luckily not so for the BA who are doing their best to accommodate those in this position.

This is not the first time I have come across actions from a government body where the best way to success is to be vague and pay only lip service to transparency. Very good results for all can be achieved this way. Forcing a department to be fair and transparent can, and sometimes does cause the very people, the less fortunate amongst us, to suffer consequences not intended.

Sometimes, turning a blind eye to the rules can be the most socially acceptable solution,  but you can't do that if you are going to be fair and transparent. 

I am well aware of this fact MM.

Sometimes it is simply not worth Persuing certain individuals.

Let's hear this from The Broads Authority not from an individual on an internet forum. 

It's called telling the truth and not a cut and paste.

I have always been a supporter of The BA and having worked for many years worked for an Authority that had to deal with similar problems that BA has to deal with I really do understand the issues involved. We would never have got away with the above cut and paste and I know that we would never have tried.

Maybe my change in attitude is indicative of just how far BA has gone to lose trust of its Stakeholders.

[Vaughan]

3 hours ago, marshman said:

But Vaughan - you have reopened it.

Lets close it again - whilst I know your views, there were plenty with differing views including people with a lot more knowledge than I.

Lets close it again once and for all!!!!!

I have reopened it in the very context of this thread.

The historic persecution of certain "classes" of boat owner by the BA is, in my opinion, the root cause of what others are complaining about in this discussion.

It is no good at all whinging on this forum about "squatters" on the 24 hour moorings and the "leccy" posts if the BA are going to condemn them as an underclass and not allow them to make better arrangements.

For Goodness' sake, living on a boat is nothing new on the Broads!  I was raised on a boat, on Harts Island, from the age of 6 months and my parents lived there for 41 years.  Please don't tell me, what is right or wrong, about living on a Broads boat.