Ranworth Update

[Meantime]

It's also worth looking at the following story as well. The crux of it was that ANPR cameras had been installed at a car park to record cars entering and leaving and then fines were issued to those that hadn't paid at the machine. It turned out that the cameras were installed without planning permission.

I repeat signage has to be clear and prominent, more than likely to the extent that it would need planning permission. 

Basildon Car Park Camera Story

[FlyingFortress]

Thanks for all the info MT👍

I certainly didn't see those signs when I was there and they were not pointed out to me either.

Anyone know when they went up?

[Meantime]

16 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

Thanks for all the info MT👍

I certainly didn't see those signs when I was there and they were not pointed out to me either.

Anyone know when they went up?

I suspect when they went up would become irrelevant anyway. 

The Government introduced a Private Parking Code of Practice which is currently withdrawn whilst the big parking firms challenge the lower level of maximum parking fine that the Government introduced.

However it gave a whole load of recommendations with regard to the size and placing of signage. A few bits I've copied below.

b) be sufficiently large to be visible from a distance and legible on approach;

2. A minimum size of 60 cm x 80 cm is regarded as best practice. This is far bigger than an A4 piece of paper.

c) display information to identify the parking operator and their contact details, including how to make contact out of hours;

e) be professionally made (not handwritten) using a sans serif (i.e. highly legible) font

i) be clear, unambiguous and not use the words “penalty” or “fine”, unless there is a statutory requirement to do so;

l) indicate clearly in shared-use land whether and where different terms, conditions and restrictions apply.

There is not an equivalent Private Mooring Code of Practice, but I would have thought any court would take a similar view if you used any of the above as a defence.

[Meantime]

Its also worth reading the following from POPLA Parking on Private Land Appeals. Whilst there is no equivalent for mooring on private land, it's worth reading how they have got on.

Just because you receive an official looking notice or ticket, it doesn't mean it is legal or enforceable as the following shows. Often it is just chancers taking your money and hoping you won't challenge it.

PUBLISHED ON: 22ND MARCH 2021

Nearly half of all motorists who contested parking charges last year by taking their case to the UK’s largest appeals service had their ticket cancelled, a new report shows.

Of the 58,522 appeals handled by POPLA, 23,771 (41%) resulted in the parking charge being cancelled.

John Gallagher from POPLA said the figures – contained in the appeal body’s 2020 Annual Report – showed how important it is for motorists to challenge parking charges they think are unfair.

He said: “POPLA is a free service and we are fully independent, providing a lifeline for motorists whose appeal has been rejected by the parking operator.

“We encourage any motorist who feels they have a strong case to appeal to us, providing as much information and evidence as possible to help their chances of success.”

POPLA, which is run by not-for-profit complaints handling body Ombudsman Services, continued to accept new appeals throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

[ExSurveyor]

This whole latest sorry saga smacks of panic.

Poorly concieved,

Poorly planned,

Poorly implemented

 Unfortunatley they are unlikely to back down and admit they were wrong to try and impose charges.

 

[CambridgeCabby]

It seems to me , as if the BA have been informed by their legal team that any pursuing of those who have refused to pay their mooring charges would be problematic to say the least.

If this is the case I find it doubtful that a small A4 notice affixed to the bottom of the existing signs would make little or no difference to their legality .

[BroadAmbition]

I still won’t pay on any future visits and will happily challenge the legality of this in court if I have to

Why?

 I believe this is the thin end of the wedge with other 24 x Hr Ba moorings earmarked for mooring charges in coming years. We need to make a stand right here, right now 

Griff

[Bluebell]

20 minutes ago, BroadAmbition said:

I still won’t pay on any future visits and will happily challenge the legality of this in court if I have to

Why?

 I believe this is the thin end of the wedge with other 24 x Hr Ba moorings earmarked for mooring charges in coming years. We need to make a stand right here, right now 

Griff

Couldn’t agree more. I shall be doing the same…😎

[BuffaloBill]

Is there a sign on the short mooring too? If not, then there should be!

My view is that the sign is not compliable being that small, and how

do they expect an elderly person with mobility issues to get down on

their knees to read the notice? Never mind getting up again! 

As I understand the law, then the notice should be easily readable by

anyone, and not once you have moored? That notice seems to be a

cheap one probably done by the person in that office at Ranworth!

Does it not also have to have the contravention number on it too?

We certainly will not be mooring there in June if we have to pay.

[rightsaidfred]

Just a thought, not sure but is this new notice a case of obtaining monies by extortion.

Fred

[RegalSafari]

On 05/05/2023 at 08:26, Vaughan said:

 

Normally public authorities have to published a fees and charges policy, and all new fees or charges require authorisation and amendment to the policy by the authorities members or executive when a fee is introduced partway through a year etc. The policy should also confirm how new fees are introduced etc if this is not by members. Normally all fees and charges are reviewed every year, like the toll. So  if they have not gone through due process for a new fee it may be unlawful anyway. I didn't see anything in the report to member about additional £60 fee for none payment. A Quick search on their website for fees and charges does not list anything normally all charges are listed within a policy.  Maybe worth asking them directly for this this policy.  From what I understand they are not exempt from this requirement for public authorities, so I would assume they have gone through due process for this new fee / charge however the details have not been published yet. 

[RegalSafari]

On 05/05/2023 at 08:26, Vaughan said:

 

Normally public authorities have to published a fees and charges policy, and all new fees or charges require authorisation and amendment to the policy by the authorities members or executive when a fee is introduced partway through a year etc. The policy should also confirm how new fees are introduced etc if this is not by members. Normally all fees and charges are reviewed every year, like the toll. So  if they have not gone through due process for a new fee it may be unlawful anyway. I didn't see anything in the report to member about additional £60 fee for none payment. A Quick search on their website for fees and charges does not list anything normally all charges are listed within a policy.  Maybe worth asking them directly for this this policy.  From what I understand they are not exempt from this requirement for public authorities, so I would assume they have gone through due process for this new fee / charge however the details have not been published yet. 

 

14 minutes ago, RegalSafari said:

Normally public authorities have to published a fees and charges policy, and all new fees or charges require authorisation and amendment to the policy by the authorities members or executive when a fee is introduced partway through a year etc. The policy should also confirm how new fees are introduced etc if this is not by members. Normally all fees and charges are reviewed every year, like the toll. So  if they have not gone through due process for a new fee it may be unlawful anyway. I didn't see anything in the report to member about additional £60 fee for none payment. A Quick search on their website for fees and charges does not list anything normally all charges are listed within a policy.  Maybe worth asking them directly for this this policy.  From what I understand they are not exempt from this requirement for public authorities, so I would assume they have gone through due process for this new fee / charge however the details have not been published yet. 

I have just emailed the BA an FOI requesting to see their policy on fees and charges. 

[floydraser]

On 05/05/2023 at 11:53, ExSurveyor said:

This whole latest sorry saga smacks of panic.

Poorly concieved,

Poorly planned,

Poorly implemented

 Unfortunatley they are unlikely to back down and admit they were wrong to try and impose charges.

 

I think this is also JP sticking two fingers up to BRAG and anyone else who opposes him. Unfortunately he has nothing to loose: if he gets booted out he gets a nice retirement, if he resigns he gets a nice retirement. Said it before - a clever bloke, but he'll never achieve a bronze statue.

[MargeandParge]

1 minute ago, floydraser said:

I think this is also JP sticking two fingers up to BRAG and anyone else who opposes him. Unfortunately he has nothing to loose: if he gets booted out he gets a nice retirement, if he resigns he gets a nice retirement. Said it before - a clever bloke, but he'll never achieve a bronze statue.

He might get a cold shoulder in his conceited eyes that may be a start 

Parge 

[rightsaidfred]

22 minutes ago, floydraser said:

I think this is also JP sticking two fingers up to BRAG and anyone else who opposes him. Unfortunately he has nothing to loose: if he gets booted out he gets a nice retirement, if he resigns he gets a nice retirement. Said it before - a clever bloke, but he'll never achieve a bronze statue.

One option here is for someone with enough legal knowledge to instigate a police action for fraud regarding the charge and now obtaining money through extorsion with the threat of a fine, that could possibly lead to a charge of misconduct in public office resulting in dismissal with loss of benefits,  just a thought.

Fred

[Wussername]

This issue seems to go on and on.

May I ask a simple question.

Is the staithe at Malthouse Broad a public staithe. 

Is a staithe, by definition public. What is public, what is the definition of public.

The locals, the parishioners?

Who owns Malthouse staithe. Is that not the crux of this very matter.

Cater, Retac, BA. 

Please tell me. 

We have a right to know. 

However some deem otherwise.

[grendel]

wussername, please see below for the title plan and register entry

[FlyingFortress]

6 minutes ago, grendel said:

wussername, please see below for the title plan and register entry

TLDR

Please explain in simple language.

 

[grendel]

I notice under the charges register sections c4 and c5 that the Broads Authority are obliged to contribute to the repair of the church with a tithe from presumably any earnings from the moorings, I wonder if the church are aware and are recieving their tithe from the mooring fees paid?

I would imagine that all the time no income was being generated, no tithe would have been due.

[grendel]

1 minute ago, FlyingFortress said:

TLDR

Please explain in simple language.

 

oh were it that easy, it in legal language so really only a lawyer can interpret it and my guess is that they will all differ in their interpretation. (the files displayed above are in the public realm and freely available)

[FlyingFortress]

Just now, grendel said:

oh were it that easy, it in legal language so really only a lawyer can interpret it and my guess is that they will all differ in their interpretation. (the files displayed above are in the public realm and freely available)

No a Lawyer will tell you what you want to hear, provided you pay him/ her enough.

What I want to hear is who is going to refuse to pay.

[Bluebell]

I’ve already said, along with others, that I will not be paying…😎

 

However I agree with what I think you are alluding to, we need a legal opinion on the legality of these charges…🧐

[ExSurveyor]

6 minutes ago, FlyingFortress said:

What I want to hear is who is going to refuse to pay.

That request was covered earlier in the thread, I see no reason to go over it again. If members want to say, that is okay, but keep asking members to declare is not.

 

[Wussername]

Who pays, who do they pay is errelvent. 

My question was simple. Grendle has I'm afraid over egged the pudding.

Who owns the staithe?

Answer that will allow me to proceed to my next question. But not until.

 

 

 

[FlyingFortress]

37 minutes ago, Wussername said:

Who pays, who do they pay is errelvent. 

My question was simple. Grendle has I'm afraid over egged the pudding.

Who owns the staithe?

Answer that will allow me to proceed to my next question. But not until.

 

 

 

Ask the question please Mr W