Ranworth Update

[ExSurveyor]

That would indicate they are unable to issue a penalty against anyone who declined to pay before the new signs went up.

What an ill thought out fiasco.

[Bluebell]

12 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

That would indicate they are unable to issue a penalty against anyone who declined to pay before the new signs went up.

What an ill thought out fiasco.

That’s my initial thought…😎

[Meantime]

17 minutes ago, Bluebell said:

I see from the FB page (BRAG) there’s been an update. A new notice has appeared stating that by mooring at the Staithe you are entering into a contract with the BA and agreeing to pay. Failure to pay will result in a £60 fine(?) plus costs…

I hope that there are plenty of signs, very visible, pointed out by any member of staff who is attempting to claim a mooring fee and that planning permission has been sought for such a proliferation of notices that would be required to make them legal.

[FlyingFortress]

It's not just the Ranworth issue .

As with all things that come to a head it's a culmination of several different issues.

The ongoing over inflation Toll rises has been nibbling at the tolerance of most boaters for years.

There are several other issues that we are not allowed to discuss here that also are pushing the distrust of The BA to boiling point.

I cannot discuss the issues but I can ( I think) say that us law abiding boaters are seen as low hanging fruit and are getting hacked off about it.

[FlyingFortress]

18 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

That would indicate they are unable to issue a penalty against anyone who declined to pay before the new signs went up.

What an ill thought out fiasco.

Does not make sense 

[ExSurveyor]

6 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

Does not make sense 

My comment or the whole charging for moorings idea ?

[Bluebell]

8 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

Does not make sense 

I think it means it’s not retrospective. So those of us that have not paid since charging started cannot be issued with a MCN…😎

[FlyingFortress]

What is an MCB please?

[FlyingFortress]

4 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

My comment or the whole charging for moorings idea ?

The signs went up before they started to charge. IIRC 

[FlyingFortress]

4 minutes ago, Bluebell said:

I think it means it’s not retrospective. So those of us that have not paid since charging started cannot be issued with a MCN…😎

Sorry MCN 

Fat fingers 🫣

[ExSurveyor]

Keep up  FF 😁

New additional signs have gone up refering to a mooring contravention notice.

Only a month after the whole idea was implemented.

 It does show what an ill thought out and rushed scheme it is.

 

[ExSurveyor]

I have just seen a photo of the new additional sign.

It is an A4 sheet of paper, hopefully laminated, that had been pinned at the bottom of the original sign.

The print size is very small and you would need to  be on the floor to read it.

I would love to hear how they get on trying to enforce this MCN in court.

I can already hear a judge laughing.

Some one needs to go and wobble their head. 

I am lost for words over the sheer incompetence of the implementation of this scheme.

The basis of the charge now appears to be agreeing to enter into a contract with the BA to pay for mooring.

I assume the have run out of traditional reasons, such as by-laws or a long established right to charge.

 

[Bikertov]

3 hours ago, Bluebell said:

I see from the FB page (BRAG) there’s been an update. A new notice has appeared stating that by mooring at the Staithe you are entering into a contract with the BA and agreeing to pay. Failure to pay will result in a £60 fine(?) plus costs…

And what exactly are the terms of that contract ?

I would suggest that if challenged, said contract might be considered unenforceable, or deemed an unfair contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It would be good to explore this thought  

[Vaughan]

6 hours ago, ExSurveyor said:

I would love to hear how they get on trying to enforce this MCN in court.

Surely an MCN is served on boats which are moored illegally in places where mooring is forbidden, or where the boat is causing an obstruction to the navigation.

I can't see how this would apply to a purpose maintained quay heading, part of which is a public staithe, where mooring is invited by the Authority and where its upkeep is maintained by river tolls.

I get the impression they are trying to make their own interpretation of an MCN as they have not found any other way of enforcing their surcharge.

[Bluebell]

Here is the notice that appeared on a FB page:

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Bluebell said:

Here is the notice that appeared on a FB page:

As the BA do not have the power within their constitution to issue fines how have they reached this figure.

Fred

[Meantime]

The BA have finally hit rock bottom with this one by copying the tactics of the cowboy car parking firms, quite apt really.

PCNs Penalty Charge Notices are issued for a number of traffic contraventions including parking on double yellow lines, obstructing box junctions, stopping on a red route etc. They are legally enforceable and backed up by the Highway Code, laws or byelaws.

Cowboy parking firms who enforce overstaying or non payment of parking charges on private land, issue the rather grand sounding PCN, Parking Charge Notice, so named to make people believe it is not worth challenging and to make people confuse it with the legally enforceable Penalty Charge Notice.

Parking Charge Notices rely on private contract law and basically by parking on the private land you agree to the terms and conditions of the car park operator, often not the car park owner, There have been many challenges to these over the years and many have been successful.

As I alluded to in my earlier post signage is paramount in the car park operator being successful in seeing a Parking Charge Notice upheld. The signs have to be clearly visible as you enter the car park and dotted around the car park so you cannot miss them. They need to clearly state the terms and conditions for parking and be easy to read without the need of a magnifying glass. They should not be defaced in any way etc. etc. Because the signage has to be so prominent they will often need planning permission. Basically they need to stand out like a sore thumb to really stand up in court. If it ever gets to court it is a civil debt recovery matter, not a breach of law or byelaw.

There have been many investigative programs over the years into the shady dealings of the car park operators and shady clamping firms. Looks like the BA are content to finally place themselves in with the same group of people.

So I guess Paladine could give chapter and verse on legality of Parking Charge Notices and their new counterpart the MCN which both use the same shady tactics. I would first ask was the signage clearly visible and easily readable? Was it sturdy enough not to have been blown away by the wind, therefore you couldn't read it. Was it clear to understand? Had it been defaced? Was it placed in situ legally, in other words did it need planning permission? Did it look official, I could print out an A4 piece of paper and place it under the BA signs. So did you think it was a scam because surely the BA would use proper signage.

Non of the above would guarantee getting the MCN cancelled, but I would be querying all of them and looking carefully at my grounds for defense.

Lastly Parking Charge Notices are issued for parking on private land. Whilst the BA hold the lease for Ranworth, there is a long tradition of free public access. So first and foremost do they have the right to charge?

I would think that in the grand scheme of things the money raised by the "MCN" will be peanuts compared to the damage they are doing to what remains of their reputation, perhaps they think they cannot sink any lower so it doesn't matter, but they have certainly placed themselves in the same hated category as all the cowboy car park operators and clampers.

Off course it should be remembered that they have history here. I maybe be wrong and stand to be corrected if so, but didn't they invite one of those car park enforcers to operate The Whitlingham Country Park Car Park before The Whitlingham Trust kicked them out from running The Whitlingham Country Park?

[Meantime]

The following Citizens Advice link might prove useful, look under the section for Parking Charge Notice, which will be very similar to the fabled MCN.

Appealing a parking ticket - Citizens Advice

Also the following link and click on When to appeal a parking ticket

When to appeal

Also worth noting that the offence is committed by the person who moored the boat there, not by the registered keeper unless the boat was under their control. The BA might use their records and your boat reg number to send the registered keeper the MCN, is this legal use of your private data? Even so I don't believe they have any legal rights to demand you supply details of who was actually using your boat at the time it was moored and therefore "possibly" responsible for the MCN if it is legal in all other respects. 

 

 

[Meantime]

If anyone actually gets issued with a MCN or a fine, then an alternative to fighting it might be to make payment with a covering letter saying you are paying under protest. You can then issue a small claims online for the cost of the fine and give your reasons why you think the charge was invalid or unfair, or wrong. If the court agree with you then the BA would be instructed to give you your money back, or you can send in the debt collectors.

Paying under protest "might" be the best way forward for some people because by paying the initial fine it stops the BA taking you to court and therefore affecting your credit record, but you are still reserving the right to recover that amount by counter claiming in the small claims court.

If anyone was successful in recovering their money in the small claims court, then they would off course be free to publicise their success far and wide and effectively bury the mooring charge once and for all.

[Vaughan]

Excellent information, Meantime and thank you for taking the trouble with a complex explanation. I also thoroughly agree with your comparison between the BA and cowboy carpark sharks. I too remember when the public were fined £100 for not realising that they had overstayed their "welcome" at the Whitlingham gravel pits.

I think there is one important difference here, though:

You are talking of a parking charge notice, but the BA are talking of their existing MCN, which is not a mooring charge but a mooring contravention. In other words mooring where it is not allowed or an obstruction. I don't see how they can apply that principle to the staithe at Ranworth.

[grendel]

so by mooring you have entered a contract, the terms of which cannot be ascertained until after you have moored, and the presence of which you cannot know until you have already moored and thus accepted the contract- that doesnt sound legally enforceable to me, that sounds very much like the unenforcable car park terms used by the dodgy car parking companies.

I am sure you cannot be forced into a contract against your will, that you cannot previously have seen the terms of the contract, surely you could ask that they produce a written copy of the contract, which cannot be binding if you dont sign it.

[Vaughan]

6 minutes ago, Meantime said:

with a covering letter saying you are paying under protest.

The protest being, that you have already paid for the maintenance of the mooring through your river toll.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, grendel said:

so by mooring you have entered a contract, the terms of which cannot be ascertained until after you have moored, and the presence of which you cannot know until you have already moored and thus accepted the contract- that doesnt sound legally enforceable to me, that sounds very much like the unenforcable car park terms used by the dodgy car parking companies.

I am sure you cannot be forced into a contract against your will, that you cannot previously have seen the terms of the contract, surely you could ask that they produce a written copy of the contract, which cannot be binding if you dont sign it.

Which is why the notices need to stand out like a sore thumb and be as close to the entrance as possible. You also have a 5 minute cooling off period during which you can leave the car park and not be charged or fined. A lot of the car parks are now compliant in their signage and by staying you are agreeing to the terms. The alternative is to leave immediately if you don't agree the terms.

 

[Meantime]

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

You are talking of a parking charge notice, but the BA are talking of their existing MCN, which is not a mooring charge but a mooring contravention. In other words mooring where it is not allowed or an obstruction. I don't see how they can apply that principle to the staithe at Ranworth.

The first part of the notice posted by Bluebell makes it clear the BA are planning to enforce this under private contract law, not as a byelaw. They can call the fine what they like, but it is not being issued under the byelaws which carry up to a level 3 fine for contravention, which is up to £1000. 

Would love to see the missing parts of the notice posted by Bluebell, but the first part is clear, your are entering into a contract, so effectively not breaking a byelaw.

[Meantime]

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

The protest being, that you have already paid for the maintenance of the mooring through your river toll.

That could be a possible defence, but personally I would look at all the reasons for appealing a Car Parking Notice and see how or if they apply as there are many cases that have been successfully appealed. Mainly based around placement, legibility and prominence of signage.

It is plain that the BA are placing the "MCN" in the same arena as the Parking Charge Notice. Millions of these are paid each year, many thousands are successfully appealed. Many are paid by default because they sound like the similar official Penalty Charge Notice. Many parking operators pay the numbers game and are just satisfied to scare sufficient numbers of people into paying the PCN, that they don't bother taking the non payers to court.