Ranworth Update

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

But have they charged for the stopping to take on water, or have they charged for the water, there is a difference.

With regards to fines, you are correct they can not issue a fine, and in the same way as car park operators cannot issue a fine, they could issue a legally recoverable invoice for breach of conditions under private contract law.

I'll repeat again, currently I don't think they are legally compliant in that respect, But if they get the appropriate, large enough and clear enough signage, with planning permission, I think they could charge and recover the cost of the mooring charge and admin fee should they have to pursue it through court, in exactly the same way as car park operators do.

I don't think its morally right, and I don't think they should be charging to moor there, but just because I don't agree with it, doesn't mean they can't if they do things correctly.

I think those that have currently refused to pay will either not be pursued or if they defend it would win as things currently stand. That is just my opinion, and I do not encourage anyone to rely on what I have posted.

However we have seen how the BA have already learnt and moved the goal posts with the additional, in my opinion, too small A4 notice about entering into a contract. They will get it right eventually and when they do, would be able to enforce payment.

My personal view would be to make payment under protest and then pursue them through the small claims for the money back. It will cost very little to do and once the first payment has been returned you can publicise that and effectively their ability to charge is dead in the water until they do things correctly.

As I understand it they charged for stopping, there is no charge for the water there just a request for a donation,

Regarding the parking companies I would hope that a responsible public authority wouldn't want to be seen in the same light, while I have no personal experience I understand private companies rarely if ever bother persuing this anymore  as it usually gets thrown out of court given the limited powers the companies have under current legislation.

Fred

[Meantime]

37 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

As I understand it they charged for stopping, there is no charge for the water there just a request for a donation,

Are you sure there is no charge for water? Take the yacht stations for instance, water is free for yacht station customers, otherwise a £3 charge applies. So it would be fair to assume there are levying the same charge at Ranworth now that they are charging for the mooring.

39 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Regarding the parking companies I would hope that a responsible public authority wouldn't want to be seen in the same light,

You'll get no argument from me there, I've already said I think the BA are morally bankrupt in what they are trying to do.

41 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I understand private companies rarely if ever bother persuing this anymore  as it usually gets thrown out of court given the limited powers the companies have under current legislation.

Most of the appeals for car parking are handled by POPLA. For 2020 41% were cancelled, but that still means that 59% were upheld.

The BA are entering are embarking on a strange course of action, because they are seeking to emulate the car park cowboys, but that industry also has in place trade bodies and an established appeals process, none of which is in place for charges for mooring, so very ill thought out.

I really wish David Harris was still the BA's solicitor as I'm sure they would not be as foolhardy as they appear to be these days. 

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

Are you sure there is no charge for water? Take the yacht stations for instance, water is free for yacht station customers, otherwise a £3 charge applies. So it would be fair to assume there are levying the same charge at Ranworth now that they are charging for the mooring.

You'll get no argument from me there, I've already said I think the BA are morally bankrupt in what they are trying to do.

Most of the appeals for car parking are handled by POPLA. For 2020 41% were cancelled, but that still means that 59% were upheld.

The BA are entering are embarking on a strange course of action, because they are seeking to emulate the car park cowboys, but that industry also has in place trade bodies and an established appeals process, none of which is in place for charges for mooring, so very ill thought out.

I really wish David Harris was still the BA's solicitor as I'm sure they would not be as foolhardy as they appear to be these days. 

There is no mention of a charge for water on the signage so they should not be charging, as I understand it the person in question was approached for a mooring fee who refused the request.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

The whole issue including the extortion by threat of a fine stinks of bluff and bluster typical of JP.

Fred

[Meantime]

18 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The whole issue including the extortion by threat of a fine stinks of bluff and bluster typical of JP.

Fred

I largely agree and I think we are both on the same page, the only difference is that I think the BA could, but shouldn't charge if they get things right, currently I don't think they have. 

I'm also not sure if in a staff of over 100 everything is JP's fault ;-) I'm sure there are others equally as capable of making bad decisions!

[rightsaidfred]

Around 150 I believe most of whom are in the nicest sense minions, as CEO the ultimate responsibility is his especially as he made the presentation to the Navigation Committee.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

16 hours ago, Meantime said:

 

Most of the appeals for car parking are handled by POPLA. For 2020 41% were cancelled, but that still means that 59% were upheld.

 

That only applies to members of the association and is only binding on the company not the individual appealing.

I would not try to influence anyone in the course they choose to take, I would however recommend that anyone getting a MCN for non payment takes a photograph of the inadequate and probably illegal BA notice as evidence for any future dispute.

Fred

[AndyTBoater]

23 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

The point of contention here is that like public Rights of Way and Common Land that have a protected status irrespective of ownership, the staithe by way of unhindered free of charge public use for at least the last 70 years has the definition of being a Public Staithe as defined in the conclusions of William Mackenzie KC in 1916 in relation to Reedham, you could add to this the side issue that as the BA are a Public Body and all the BA moorings have been funded solely by public monies ie the Tolls that also implies all the various BA moorings are Public Staithes, the definition of a Staithe is described in the Broads Act section IV.

“staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place;.

OK - this is not a rant but just my thoughts. Bear in mind these thoughts are the ramblings of a man who is still really cross that Ooompa Loompas in the Wonka thing at Theatre Royal are 6ft tall and look like silver Cybermen. And also the lack of public information about the cost of a haircut (dry with no "product") in Stalham.

So if the BA moorings have been funded solely by public monies ie the Tolls, how can the moorings have had free of charge public use ? in the past

Also, “staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place;. Nowhere in the Broads Act 1974 (as far as I can find) does it mention "free"

I can see why people are getting all wound up about this but if they didnt charge for moorings they would need to make their money somewhere else - like a bigger toll increase. 

I know it not "right" and its not "fair" but so little in life is. 

How about we all chip in say, £30k* each and buy the lease for Ranworth? Then we could save ourselves a tenner every time we wanted to spend £50 or so on food and beer in the pub. 

*Estimate purely based on no evidence at all. 

[rightsaidfred]

41 minutes ago, AndyTBoater said:

 

So if the BA moorings have been funded solely by public monies ie the Tolls, how can the moorings have had free of charge public use ? in the past

Also, “staithe” means any land which is adjacent to a waterway and which the inhabitants of the locality are entitled to use as a landing place;. Nowhere in the Broads Act 1974 (as far as I can find) does it mention "free"

 

 

The deliberations of William Mackenzie KC in regard to a similar status at Reedham have been well published on here and elsewhere.

Fred

[Meantime]

25 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

The deliberations of William Mackenzie KC in regard to a similar status at Reedham have been well published on here and elsewhere.

Fred

Fred, do you have a link to the deliberations of William Mackenzie?

I think you'll find that Reedham Quay is common land managed by Broadland District Council who issued a lease to the BA. I would imagine it is a different case to Ranworth where there has been a clear chain of ownership over many decades.

[rightsaidfred]

In 1916, the Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council, were considered to be the owners of two parts of Reedham quay, that is to say between what is now Sandersons boat yard and the slipway, either side of the bit owned by the Nelson. The B.& F.R.D.C. wanted to divest themselves of this ownership and offered to give it to Reedham Parish Council. They suggested that Reedham could pass Byelaws to establish mooring charges in order to fund future maintenance. 

Reedham queried the legality of all this, and Counsel's opinion was sought a) to confirm that the B.& F.R.D.C. was the legal owner, and b) that mooring charges could be imposed. 

Mr.William Mckenzie K.C. opined that the B.& F.R.D.C. could be considered as the owners BUT (and I quote): 

"It appears that charges or tolls can only be made where they have been customarily paid for a period of years, so as to show that the quays are not public quays. 

It seems clear that if they are public quays, the public are entitled to use them free of charge. The council appears to have treated both quays as public ones. 

I therefore venture to advise the District Council that if the quays were conveyanced or given to the Parish Council of Reedham, the P.C. could then obtain a Provisional Order to enact Byelaws, but such Byelaws, if made, could not legally establish any tolls or charges." 

I don't have a direct link at the moment but this was published in 2014 when the previous attempt to charge was dropped, it comes from research done at the time by a working party from Reedham Parish Council, I believe the full record his held in the Norfolk Records office.

Fred

[Meantime]

However there is still a distinct difference between Ranworth and Reedham. The 1910 Finance Act maps and documents gave the Reedham Quay area parcel number 337 with both owner and occupier as unknown.

In 1978 at a hearing held under the Commons Registration Act the land was recognised as common land with the owner being Broadland District Council. This is where the two differ. The BA hold the title in full for Ranworth which is not recognised as common land, therefore common land rights do not apply. As already said right of access across does exist.

Furthermore, when gifting the land in 1050 Mr Cator specifically inserted a covenant to ensure it remained free for parishioners to use for pleasure, loading and unloading etc. No mention was made of mooring for extended periods. By default if free access is given to one group in perpetuity it therefore follows that free access is not necessarily granted to others.

[rightsaidfred]

The following is the opinion of an ex BA employee. 

"My understanding is that if a mooring area is considered a public staithe, then if there is no history of charges having been made for mooring or handling cargo, then it is unlawful for any person, including a freehold owner, to introduce charges. At neither Ranworth nor at Reedham has a charge ever been made for mooring. Even though the lease from Broadland DC to BA at Reedham did not forbid charges for mooring over 24 hours, I was not aware of the position when it was drafted, and in fact no charge has ever to my knowledge been made for staying over 24 hours."

And from the BAs own report on Staithes

"Ranworth Staithe The main area of the public staithe beside the converted malthouses on the southern side of Malthouse Broad is shown as parcels 109 and 110 on the tithe award map (NR) DN/TA 151) and described as ͚cottage and garden͛ and ͚Ranworth Staithe͛, both owned by John Kerrison, the main landowner and lord of the manor (there was another staithe to the west, where the private moorings are today, also owned by Kerrison). The 1910 Finance Act documents include tithe parcel 110, the present public staithe, within that of the Broad (Figure 6), itself now owned by Albemarle Cator, but notes ͚public right of way over Malthouse Broad͛, implying that this was a public staithe (parcel 34). The parcel to the west was also owned by Cator"

"2002 the ownership of the staithe and visitor centre were transferred from the NSBYO to the Broads Authority in order ͚to ensure that it is maintained and managed for public use as it has been in the past͛/ There is a covenant in the transfer when the site was gifted to the Trustees of the Broads Yacht Owners Association (NSBYO) by Lt. Col. Henry John Cator to reserve the right to free mooring for parishioners, confirming to some extent the origin of the staithe as a public staithe."

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

Having a spare half an hour I mused over various posts on here and elsewhere and came up with a conundrum.

The scenario,

I am as I have done for the last 40 years  peacefully enjoying a free public facility when Mr Nasty comes along and starts demanding payment for this same facility, he then gives me a notice demanding that money backed up by a separate notice threatening me with a fine he dosn`t have a right to issue.

The conundrum.

A Do I just pay up and say nothing

B Do I refuse to pay and say take me to court

C Or do I refuse to pay take photos of the offending notice and the individual and report it to the Police for investigation as Extortion and demanding Money with menace for what is a fraudulent claim in the first place.

Fred

[Chelsea14Ian]

Perhaps option  c or another option d.Pay in euro cents even one cent to much,asking for change  together  with a letter of complaint disagreement of mooring charges and asking for a receipt. 

[MauriceMynah]

My preferred option would be "C" except I'd pay the fee and THEN take the actions suggested to get the fee back and the mooring fees signs removed. 

In my far from humble opinion that would/should be the way forwards.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

I am as I have done for the last 40 years  peacefully enjoying a free public facility when Mr Nasty comes along and starts demanding payment for this same facility,

So assuming we are talking about Ranworth then, you have to remember that although it has historically been free to moor there, you have been doing so with permission. The BA 24hr mooring signs make it plain that you are being allowed to do so with the express permission of the land owner and providing you follow their terms and conditions, i.e no longer than 24hrs. This alone would stop anyone from being able to argue that prescriptive rights to moor as and when they want have been gained. You have been able to moor free of charge, but not whenever, for as long as you want. You are therefore acknowledging that this piece of land has ownership and you are being allowed to use it with permission, whether stated or not. You also have to remember that public, does not mean free. There are many examples of this, not least public conveniences which are often anything but free.

So assuming we are talking about Ranworth and the BA attempting to charge, then I would take option D or option E

D) Refuse to pay the mooring fee, explain fully why and take pictures of the area and signage. Taking pictures of the employee is not needed. I would then await any MCN and pay it under protest. I would then issue a small claim for the full amount plus any costs associated with making the claim. If I won it would prove that the BA were wrong to be making such a charge in the first place and that their MCN was also wrong. My credit record would be intact and the whole sorry saga would have been debated and resolved one way or the other.

E) Similar to the above, except pay the mooring fee under protest. Take pictures of the area and signage and then issue the small claim for the return of the mooring fee. Again if I won it would indicate that the BA were wrong to charge. If I lost it would indicate that they do have a right to charge.

Edited to add, that with both the above I would ask for details of the appeals process as I plan to fully appeal either the mooring fee, the MCN, or both.

[Meantime]

45 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Perhaps option  c or another option d.Pay in euro cents even one cent to much,asking for change  together  with a letter of complaint disagreement of mooring charges and asking for a receipt. 

Except the Euro isn't legal tender here so they don't have to accept it in the first place. 

[Chelsea14Ian]

Okay in that case.Pay in penny's,over pay by a penny asking for change. 

[MauriceMynah]

I understand your concept Ian, but you'd have to be cautious about creating a whole new minefield.  I'm reminded of A P Herbert's "Misleading Cases" and "The negotiable cow", an excellent tale.

[Meantime]

32 minutes ago, Chelsea14Ian said:

Okay in that case.Pay in penny's,over pay by a penny asking for change. 

To be honest, you either agree with and pay the charge or pay it under protest, or you don't pay the charge. Being awkward by paying in pennies would put you on the back foot if you took things to court.

I think I'm also right in saying that the 1p is only legal tender up to 20p. Beyond that it is only legal if the seller and buyer both reach agreement. So in effect you could be shooting yourself in the foot if you paid £10 in pennies and the BA took it.

Edited to add the following;

Legal tender in this country is as follows,

For £2 and £1 coins, any amount

For 50p and 20p coins up to £10

For 10p and 5p coins up to £5

For 2p and 1p coins up to 20 pence.

Here's the catch. Paying an invoice with non - legal tender coins leaves the door open for the debtor to be sued for non payment.

[Chelsea14Ian]

I've only given my penny's  worth,sorry about  that.Sadly I won't moor there,unless it goes back to a free 24 hour moorings. 

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

 

C Or do I refuse to pay take photos of the offending notice and the individual and report it to the Police for investigation as Extortion and demanding Money with menace for what is a fraudulent claim in the first place.

Fred

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't you have to prove some kind of criminal intent? I think the police may laugh at extortion, menace and fraud. This is the action of an organisation at war with it's own customers but they would just claim "Sorry, we were wrongly advised by our legal team". JP would deflect the blame eslewhere of course.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, floydraser said:

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't you have to prove some kind of criminal intent? I think the police may laugh at extortion, menace and fraud. This is the action of an organisation at war with it's own customers but they would just claim "Sorry, we were wrongly advised by our legal team". JP would deflect the blame eslewhere of course.

Its a financial civil matter, the Police would simply suggest you pay and go to court, or you withhold payment and wait to be taken to court. They would only get involved if the person collecting the money issued any physical threat to you, which is extremely unlikely to happen.

[twowrights]

21 minutes ago, Meantime said:

To be honest, you either agree with and pay the charge or pay it under protest, or you don't pay the charge. Being awkward by paying in pennies would put you on the back foot if you took things to court.

I think I'm also right in saying that the 1p is only legal tender up to 20p. Beyond that it is only legal if the seller and buyer both reach agreement. So in effect you could be shooting yourself in the foot if you paid £10 in pennies and the BA took it.

Edited to add the following;

Legal tender in this country is as follows,

For £2 and £1 coins, any amount

For 50p and 20p coins up to £10

For 10p and 5p coins up to £5

For 2p and 1p coins up to 20 pence.

Here's the catch. Paying an invoice with non - legal tender coins leaves the door open for the debtor to be sued for non payment.

There's lots of YouTube videos showing people paying at petrol stations with £20 and £50, and £100 coins. After much arguing, and often police involvement, the petrol stations back down and accept payment as they argue they're not legal tender, they are. They buy the coins from eBay for less than face value.  

One guy, Julian Chamberlain, was arrested on suspicion of fraud, no charges followed and he sued the police and was awarded £5000 compensation.