Ranworth Update

[Meantime]

2 minutes ago, twowrights said:

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. 

Very true, but I was talking about small change as Ian was suggesting. The Coinage Act 1971 covers what is legal tender. 

(1B) Other coins, if made current by a proclamation under section 3 of this act, shall be legal tender in accordance with the provision made by that proclamation or by any later proclamation made under that section.

Coins means coins made by the Mint.

[rightsaidfred]

23 minutes 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.

Extortion is purely by threat ie the notice threatening an illegal fine.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

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.

To save keep going round in circles we are going to have to agree to disagree.

However there is a specific Byelaw regarding 24hr moorings which even then they don't seem able to enforce.

There is also a Byelaw and legislation within the Broads Act for the collection of tolls, there is neither regarding  charging for mooring, I know there is a charge at Yacht Stations that is now established over time but that may or may not have been challengeable at the onset.

Regarding photographing the individual the sign says pay in the information centre, if you do that voluntarily no problem, if they approach you for payment they are complicit in the extortion.

Fred

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

To save keep going round in circles we are going to have to agree to disagree.

However there is a specific Byelaw regarding 24hr moorings which even then they don't seem able to enforce.

There is also a Byelaw and legislation within the Broads Act for the collection of tolls, there is neither regarding  charging for mooring, I know there is a charge at Yacht Stations that is now established over time but that may or may not have been challengeable at the onset.

Regarding photographing the individual the sign says pay in the information centre, if you do that voluntarily no problem, if they approach you for payment they are complicit in the extortion.

Fred

If that is your belief, then I guess only time will tell if and when you test it or report it.

For my part people need to take emotion out of any decision they make.

I don't want to pay the mooring fee, I don't feel the BA should be implementing a charge and I'm annoyed and upset that they are. That's my emotive reaction.

Then there's the logical part. Do they have a right to charge?, could they charge? Look at the facts that are known or verifiable and the sources of that research. Even the BA's own staithes report was put together by three historians, not lawyers. So what would stand up in court? The logical part of me says grudgingly that if done right, the BA do have the right to charge. I don't like it, but honestly believe they do have the right.

Then there's the current situation. The current clumsy attempt at implementing private contract law, and my armchair lawyer hat says they haven't got it right and could be challenged on many grounds.

It's up to everyone to consider all the options and decide on their own course of action. The one thing I do know for sure if that nothing put on this thread so far, including my own ramblings gives the correct and full picture that anyone could rely on to win in a court of law. So you pays your money, or not, and takes your choice.

My local council has recently purchased the local shopping centre. Along with that they now own a public car park. They have implemented car parking charges on their land and handed administration over to one of the car parking firms who are using private contract law to enforce the parking charges for those who do not pay. The local council is not using byelaws to enforce the charge. They are not issuing Penalty Charge Notices. The car parking firm is issuing Parking Contravention Notices.

On the surface there is very little difference between the two situations, IF done right. Currently the BA's signs are too small and wrong, but if corrected..............

[rightsaidfred]

Every thing  I do and have done in business and private life is done with my head not my heart, there are far more learned people than myself dealing with the legalities and I leave that to those best suited.

You cannot compare the BA to local authorities their constitutions and legislative powers are miles apart, there is specific legislation granting  local authority`s the powers to enforce various car/traffic related issues including parking that does not apply to the BA or many other organisations including NP.

Fred

[Vaughan]

22 hours ago, floydraser said:

This is the action of an organisation at war with it's own customers

I have been reading the last few pages carefully and very much thank Meantime, Rightsaidfred and others for taking the trouble to research and provide so much detail of the legalities.

All the same I think Floydraser's remark above is what it is really all about.

The BA appear incapable of understanding the resentment and bad feeling that they have been creating by this and other policies over the last few years, to the extent that most of us, by the sound of it, no longer have faith in them as an authority.

They try to ram a national park down our throats, for what can ONLY be political reasons ; they contravene their own planning regulations in order to come up with wild schemes for a visitor centre that no-one else wants ; they impose yearly increases in river tolls, which they are unable to justify by any kind of increased performance ; they casually fire their own members as soon as someone tries to offer "Broad-based" opinion ; and now they impose a mooring charge which they MUST realise will have a seriously bad effect on boating tourism in future.

And now we have this latest idea of a "Paddle Skedaddle" rally along the most congested areas of the waterway, in what is now high season, which I just see as a perfect demonstration of what they really see as the future of the Broads "National Park".  To allow such an event as this to take place on this part of the Navigation at this time of year is nothing but dangerously irresponsible.

We were shown a link to the minutes of their latest authority meeting.  Have you read it, with their list of "progress" with projects?  It is just a load of "Yuppie - gabble"!  They are not achieving, or doing anything - they are just "working with partners" to accumulate ever more statistics and figures.  Sounds to me more like serious "mission creep".

These are the things which need "reforming" before it is too late.

[Chelsea14Ian]

We all have a right to access on the river.However there needs to be a balance. This is not the right time of the season,for lots of paddle boards.Or whatever .Why not do this in quieter times of the year.If this kind of thing becomes more  common,how much longer before BA turn the broads into Disney land.

[rightsaidfred]

46 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I have been reading the last few pages carefully and very much thank Meantime, Rightsaidfred and others for taking the trouble to research and provide so much detail of the legalities.

All the same I think Floydraser's remark above is what it is really all about.

The BA appear incapable of understanding the resentment and bad feeling that they have been creating by this and other policies over the last few years, to the extent that most of us, by the sound of it, no longer have faith in them as an authority.

They try to ram a national park down our throats, for what can ONLY be political reasons ; they contravene their own planning regulations in order to come up with wild schemes for a visitor centre that no-one else wants ; they impose yearly increases in river tolls, which they are unable to justify by any kind of increased performance ; they casually fire their own members as soon as someone tries to offer "Broad-based" opinion ; and now they impose a mooring charge which they MUST realise will have a seriously bad effect on boating tourism in future.

And now we have this latest idea of a "Paddle Skedaddle" rally along the most congested areas of the waterway, in what is now high season, which I just see as a perfect demonstration of what they really see as the future of the Broads "National Park".  To allow such an event as this to take place on this part of the Navigation at this time of year is nothing but dangerously irresponsible.

We were shown a link to the minutes of their latest authority meeting.  Have you read it, with their list of "progress" with projects?  It is just a load of "Yuppie - gabble"!  They are not achieving, or doing anything - they are just "working with partners" to accumulate ever more statistics and figures.  Sounds to me more like serious "mission creep".

These are the things which need "reforming" before it is too late.

Without going into to much personal detail a little research into JPs background including the nature of the Bungalow he built at Southwold will give an insight to his priorities and philosophy, while lifestyle is a personal choice free for all to choose it gets worrying when carried over into public duty.

Fred 

[jeffbroadslover]

Is this "brainwave" idea of filling busy waterways with people on unregistered boards and kayaks a good cash earner for the BA then?

How many rangers are they likely to allocate to the three rivers involved to try to ensure the safety of those taking part and everyone else on the water?

Maybe they will come up with the idea that no-one else will be allowed on the water whilst this debacle takes place !

Jeff 

[Chelsea14Ian]

Good point,because  us boaters don't pay enough  money. To us the broads.

[MargeandParge]

We are still struggling with this charge as volunteers expect no reward and 24 hour moorings and their maintenance is charged for within the tolls. Visitor centres and everything else should come out of  a different budget that does not involve navigation tolls . 

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

[JawsOrca]

7 hours ago, jeffbroadslover said:

Is this "brainwave" idea of filling busy waterways with people on unregistered boards and kayaks a good cash earner for the BA then?

How many rangers are they likely to allocate to the three rivers involved to try to ensure the safety of those taking part and everyone else on the water?

Maybe they will come up with the idea that no-one else will be allowed on the water whilst this debacle takes place !

Jeff 

Obviously as you may know, if the paddlers are members of British Canoeing then their membership covers use on the broads without the need for a Broads toll. The Rangers have always stopped and checked me when I've been in ours.

In somewhat, balance here, the event has been going on for some years and personally my view is the broads are for everyone not just boaters and it obviously the broads should be shared fairly and no one should any right above anyone else, personally I think the BA have done well to keep this balance.  The event mentioned is only a couple of hours, personally I would say it's less disruptive to navigation as the 3rr is.

[JawsOrca]

9 hours ago, Vaughan said:

and now they impose a mooring charge which they MUST realise will have a seriously bad effect on boating tourism in future.

Just to rub some more salt here, I tried emailing the BA, as per Rob Rogers (Director of operations at BA) reply in bold, they believe the introduction of the fees enables better use of the spaces and more visitors visit ranworth and local businesses have seen an uptake in business.  Pretty amazing for the first few weeks if you ask me so an amazing job BA.. well done 

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, JawsOrca said:

Just to rub some more salt here, I tried emailing the BA, as per Rob Rogers (Director of operations at BA) reply in bold, they believe the introduction of the fees enables better use of the spaces and more visitors visit ranworth and local businesses have seen an uptake in business.  Pretty amazing for the first few weeks if you ask me so an amazing job BA.. well done 

To some extent I can see how that would work. Pre mooring charge someone turns up at 4pm, goes into the pub for dinner that day and then after breakfast potters about and makes the most of their 24hrs leaving mid afternoon. With the new charges you need to leave by 10am the next day or pay the extra daytime mooring charge. I can see that leading to a whole turnover of boats around the 10am time and therefore a whole new set of lunchtime customers, some staying for the night, or being replaced by another set of overnight customers.

I still don't agree with the charge personally, but do try and analyse things from everyone's perspective, not just my own.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, JawsOrca said:

Just to rub some more salt here, I tried emailing the BA, as per Rob Rogers (Director of operations at BA) reply in bold, they believe the introduction of the fees enables better use of the spaces and more visitors visit ranworth and local businesses have seen an uptake in business.  Pretty amazing for the first few weeks if you ask me so an amazing job BA.. well done 

Have you considers submitting an FOI for the number of boats that paid by day since the charge was introduced? I suspect they have the info and should share it.

[SwanR]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

With the new charges you need to leave by 10am the next day or pay the extra daytime mooring charge. I can see that leading to a whole turnover of boats around the 10am time and therefore a whole new set of lunchtime customers, some staying for the night, or being replaced by another set of overnight customers

I agree with this viewpoint completely. As an occasional hirer who likes to spend a day at Ranworth I had already thought about arriving just after 10 and hopefully getting in. I know some people who hired recently and were completely unfazed by having to pay to moor there. 

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, JawsOrca said:

Just to rub some more salt here, I tried emailing the BA, as per Rob Rogers (Director of operations at BA) reply in bold, they believe the introduction of the fees enables better use of the spaces and more visitors visit ranworth and local businesses have seen an uptake in business.  Pretty amazing for the first few weeks if you ask me so an amazing job BA.. well done 

Based on takings and conversations...

Easy to clarify then, someone with another agenda could have similar conversations and see if they come to the same conclusions?

[PaulN]

On 10/05/2023 at 11:48, rightsaidfred said:

Every thing  I do and have done in business and private life is done with my head not my heart, there are far more learned people than myself dealing with the legalities and I leave that to those best suited.

You cannot compare the BA to local authorities their constitutions and legislative powers are miles apart, there is specific legislation granting  local authority`s the powers to enforce various car/traffic related issues including parking that does not apply to the BA or many other organisations including NP.

Fred

I agree with you rightsaidfred, the B.A. can't be compared to a Local Authority. For a start, the latter is democratically elected by those they tax and provide services for.

I don't quite understand the argument about the Broads not being a National Park, when the Government's own website has the Broads as the first on it's list. Having said that, I have visited many of the other National Parks and have never been charged for the privilege.  

In my opinion, if it is a National Park then let it run solely on Government grants with a separate Navigation Authority to maintain the navigable rivers by toll's alone, which would then be much lower.

Iv'e stopped going to Ranworth, which we probably did at least a dozen times a year, always using the pub and shop and JP has changed my view of the Rangers, whom I always regarded as my friends but increasingly feel they are the enemy.

[Smoggy]

23 minutes ago, PaulN said:

and JP has changed my view of the Rangers, whom I always regarded as my friends but increasingly feel they are the enemy.

The rangers are still not the problem, they just do as instructed from on high.

[PaulN]

1 hour ago, Smoggy said:

The rangers are still not the problem, they just do as instructed from on high.

I realise that, but it's how I feel, I just feel alienated by the whole direction of the B.A. 13%toll increase; so much maintenance not carried out in the winter months when it should have been; Ranworth extracting more money out of it's cash cow to finance their hair brained schemes, for example £6k on a phone box on the Thurne as an information centre (what a joke).

The recently renewed heading at Neatishead Staithe (carried out this season, not winter, with the moorings closed) only 50% done with footpaths of fine grey grit. Clearly no comprehension of what it takes to look after a fibreglass boat.

From what I see, there is no joined up thinking at all. 

 

[MauriceMynah]

I went to Neatishead staith the other day. Tucked myself into the corner and was aground. Did nobody think to dredge it while they had it closed? 

[MargeandParge]

The piles will probably need replacing if they dredge it now as they won't be long enough. 

Still it will please any angler's that enjoy eels or flat fish.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

Edited May 14, 2023 by MargeandParge
Spelling

[BrundallNavy]

Stopped here today and spoke to the ranger. It’s £5 until 17-00 and £10 overnight. If you have paid for the day it’s only £5 for overnight. You can moor at 10-01 and leave at 10-00 the following day and it’s only £10. New signs have been erected to state that penalty charge will apply if you don’t buy a ticket and I was told they have already issued some penalties notices. 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Do they own it as claimed on the sign or is that an error?

[Wussername]

They own it. Unless of course you can proove otherwise.