Ranworth Update

[mikeyboy1966]

35 minutes ago, JawsOrca said:

I'm not sure it's the best option to go in like that. It's probably better to just not go in, it's a parish staithe which are free and it's unlawful for them to charge.

There's no reason to freely provide your details.  By providing you may personally have acknowledged the request for payment (in Law) and thus confirmed acceptance of such charge and now you have left without paying such charge and they have your details to persue you in a civil case and I really wouldn't bet on Dr Pikeman wasting lots of money to pursue a well known boat.

Don't forget, any signs there may well just be a marketing material (Just like the rest of BNP signs) and may well be placed there illegally so thus can be ignored. Perhaps someone should follow Mr Pickmans lead and waste the polices time further and report such signage as lawful (At least it would be too hard to work out who put them there!). 

My personal view is Griffs actions were/are spot on.

he has acknowledged he has read the sign,

he disagrees with the fee and has given his reasons for doing so.

BA can now respond if the feel they can challenge his reasons as they have his contact details.

if enough boat owners/ renters do the same BA will have to come up with some proof that the fees are legitimate.

this will obviously bring some publicity,which is exactly what is needed.

[scaniaman]

If Griff does find himself being chased by the Blessed Authority for his "hard earned". I, for one, will be offering payment towards any crowd fund that may be required.

Paul.

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, mikeyboy1966 said:

My personal view is Griffs actions were/are spot on.

he has acknowledged he has read the sign,

he disagrees with the fee and has given his reasons for doing so.

BA can now respond if the feel they can challenge his reasons as they have his contact details.

if enough boat owners/ renters do the same BA will have to come up with some proof that the fees are legitimate.

this will obviously bring some publicity,which is exactly what is needed.

I disagree, by completely ignoring the request for payment the onus is on the BA or the staff to make the first approach, if they do then that's demanding payment which is fraud by false misrepresentation or even demanding money with menaces both  police offences.

Fred

[FlyingFortress]

17 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I disagree, by completely ignoring the request for payment the onus is on the BA or the staff to make the first approach, if they do then that's demanding payment which is fraud by false misrepresentation or even demanding money with menaces both  police offences.

Fred

Not sure on the way to go on this one.

More input please.

It is my intention not to pay at Ranworth so would appreciate more debate on this one.

I did think initially that Griff's approach was the correct one but Jaws Mikey and Fred have made some great points.

Also with Mr Scania on the crowd funding aspect 

[Smoggy]

The best approach is don't pay and state your case if asked to pay, if not asked just ignore the fee.

They can't heap big legal fees on an unpaid bill without proving it's legally owed.

[rightsaidfred]

My take is that we don't need to justify none payment of an unlawful charge the onus is on the BA, as no crime or breach of byelaw has occured you are not obliged to provide any personal information, while owners information is on record hirers details are protected under data protection.

Fred

 

[mikeyboy1966]

48 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I disagree, by completely ignoring the request for payment the onus is on the BA or the staff to make the first approach, if they do then that's demanding payment which is fraud by false misrepresentation or even demanding money with menaces both  police offences.

Fred

He has not ignored the request.

he has acknowledged the signage ,and disagrees with the legality of it.

the staff have not challenged it(that may say something in itself)

what plays out from here is very important.

I’ll happily chip in if it comes to fines,

I have no skin in the game so to speak,but was potentially going to move my boat to the broads next year 

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, Smoggy said:

The best approach is don't pay and state your case if asked to pay, if not asked just ignore the fee.

They can't heap big legal fees on an unpaid bill without proving it's legally owed.

There should be no legal fees their only recourse would be a civil claim through the small claims court incurring a £35 fee.

Fred

[FlyingFortress]

6 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

There should be no legal fees their only recourse would be a civil claim through the small claims court incurring a £35 fee.

Fred

Thanks guys 👍

Quite prepared to pay £35 .

Also have no intention to move off a BA 24 HR mooring if I so desire.

 

[mikeyboy1966]

Thing is, if you just moor up,

possibly waiting for a staffer or volunteer.

then leave without paying it might be a small victory,

but,if you follow the example  being talked about,

In a month or so it might be 500 boats(random number)

BA could start legal proceedings = more waste of river licence revenue = more publicity,which is exactly what they don’t want.

[JanetAnne]

If the BA persue Griff and lose they also lose all their intended revenue from the site. They may consider that just taking the money from the majority is better than risking losing it from everyone. I suspect its possible Griff will receive some fairly strong correspondence but maybe nothing beyond that as it's too risky.

[Vaughan]

Let's equate this to parking your car on a meter, without putting any money in it.

So when the ranger comes round the quay and finds you haven't paid, what is he going to do about your boat?  Clamp it?

It appears to me that the BA are just "testing the water" to see if they can get away with it.  So let's hope that the more people who protest and the more bad publicity that raises, will mean they can't get away with it.  If not, this extortion will very soon spread to all the other public moorings.

After all, there is no offence of "refusing to pay" : you have already paid, for a mooring maintained by river tolls.

[rightsaidfred]

8 hours ago, mikeyboy1966 said:

Thing is, if you just moor up,

possibly waiting for a staffer or volunteer.

then leave without paying it might be a small victory,

but,if you follow the example  being talked about,

In a month or so it might be 500 boats(random number)

BA could start legal proceedings = more waste of river licence revenue = more publicity,which is exactly what they don’t want.

You are missing the point, there are no legal proceedings no law has been broken just a civil claim for loss, the BA would need to provide documented evidence that they have suffered a legally entitled material loss  for a ridiculously low amount already covered by the tolls, I rest my case.

Fred

[RS2021]

I suspect the BA want to take a slow approach and avoid individual confrontation. If you moor there, don't pay and don't visit the information centre, its easy for the BA to ignore you and say they have been unable to get round all boats to collect. After a while expect a bland notice from BA saying they think some people may have missed the sign... blah blah... and after an introductory period we will now be enforcing payment .. blah blah etc. 

But, if you do what Griff has done the ball is firmly in BA's court. The more people who do what Griff has done - and record it - the more evidence there will be that the BA are actively not collecting mooring fees. The BA will have to act, there could be a show prosecution, or BA could back down. Only one or two do it, then expect a slap on the wrist via a letter.

In the meantime if you aren't bold enough to not pay, then keep your receipt. I can see the adverts now 'Did you moor at Ranworth between April and xxx 2023, if so you are due a claim...'

[rightsaidfred]

14 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

 

But, if you do what Griff has done the ball is firmly in BA's court. The more people who do what Griff has done - and record it - the more evidence there will be that the BA are actively not collecting mooring fees. The BA will have to act, there could be a show prosecution, or BA could back down. Only one or two do it, then expect a slap on the wrist via a letter.

There cannot be a show prosecution as no law has been broken, added to which the BA do not have the powers to issue fines or penalty notices the normal course of action for non or underpayment of legally enforceable charges.

By not going to the office you have not refused to pay you have simply shown you do not recognise they have a right to apply a fraudulent charge for a free mooring.

Fred

 

[grendel]

at the very least in order to prosecute they first have to publicly justify the charge

[grendel]

Of course if they try and get retribution in other ways it will be reported here for all to see, which I am sure is not what they want to do as they then have to justify their actions.

[BroadAmbition]

Update:- sailed at 0830 this morning 1:5 x Hrs before my 24 Hr berth expired. It’s raining. Just me n Purdey onboard

We received no visits from any Ba person other than their guy that assists with the moorings and runs the Ba trip boat. He’s a nice guy and was clear he has no powers to enforce payment or issue any notices etc

Griff

[RS2021]

15 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

By not going to the office you have not refused to pay you have simply shown you do not recognise they have a right to apply a fraudulent charge for a free mooring.

But you have only shown that to yourself. Easy for BA to ignore. If BA are to really get the message on what their users think you have to show what you believe to them.

I agree its highly unlikely thete would be a show prosecution.

[rightsaidfred]

12 minutes ago, RS2021 said:

But you have only shown that to yourself. Easy for BA to ignore. If BA are to really get the message on what their users think you have to show what you believe to them.

I agree its highly unlikely thete would be a show prosecution.

I think the BA are fully aware of the strength of feeling towards them, what is important now is to prove they are acting illegally, this is the only worthwhile course of action.

Fred

[Chelsea14Ian]

Do we know if this charge is illegal? Has anyone asked a Lawyer?

[floydraser]

Whatever the legal ins and outs it'll be very interesting to see what the BA do next over Griff.

I've always maintained that JP is a very clever bloke, and he is, but there are signs that BRAG has finally got him rattled and I can see chinks in his armour as it were. 

[rightsaidfred]

29 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Do we know if this charge is illegal? Has anyone asked a Lawyer?

I am only on phone at the moment so dont have full statement to hand but refer you to the previosly stated opinion here or elswhere of William Mckenzie KC in 1916 in relation to the Reedham moorings where it is illegal to charge on what have always been free public moorings.

Fred

[MargeandParge]

Thanks Griff for making a stand and sharing with us. We will take the same course of action as you have next time we moor at Ranworth regardless of what happens. 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Chelsea14Ian]

What about Ranworth is there a legal  right to charge?