Ranworth Update

[floydraser]

I am captivated by this because of the possibility of actually witnessing a thread disappear up it's own jacksie causing an internet Black Hole......

Keep watching folks.....

[Paladin]

Meantime, you have fallen into the trap of believing that the Broads Authority decisions are made on a rational, or even legal, basis. I wish you luck in getting the answers to your questions if that is your view. That you find it necessary to ask why this and why that is an indication that I would be wasting my time in giving any more explanations.

[Vaughan]

16 minutes ago, Paladin said:

That you find it necessary to ask why this and why that is an indication that I would be wasting my time in giving any more explanations.

Lets just hold on a minute! This is a fascinating discussion about a situation which is obviously unclear but which clearly concerns us all.

If Meantime and others have taken the trouble to research the legalities as far as they are able, I am grateful to them.  If they are confused and are still asking questions, that doesn't surprise me!

Paladin's experience of the law in all its convoluted forms is also extremely valuable to us and I am most grateful to you as well.

In my Broads experience, as a layman, I think we should not confuse 24 hour moorings with the ancient rights to moor on a public or village staithe.  These rights also concern the right of navigation to that staithe, which is why Blakes took out the lease on Malthouse Broad back in the early 50s, to stop the landowner from simply keeping it closed to navigation, as it had been during the War.

The BA naturally do not want boats "squatting" on their public moorings and so have imposed a 24 hour limit.  That is fully understandable, even though they have made no effort to accommodate residential boat owners by any other means. 

When they say that the mooring is free to parishioners this means to me that they have realised that they have to  accept the ancient right to use the staithe for the loading and unloading of cargo.

Blakes took out the lease of the Broad in order to keep it open to navigation and mooring was always free on the Maltsters quay - part of which is the staithe.  They passed it to the BA in the honest belief that it would be maintained in the same way.

I wonder what opinion Paladin can offer us, between the "letter" of the law, and the "spirit" of the law?

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

Meantime, you have fallen into the trap of believing that the Broads Authority decisions are made on a rational, or even legal, basis. I wish you luck in getting the answers to your questions if that is your view. That you find it necessary to ask why this and why that is an indication that I would be wasting my time in giving any more explanations.

Not at all, I question things time and time again. My own opinion has changed dramatically during the course of this thread. I don't blindly believe and need sensible debate and persuasion to come to a decision. I've said throughout the course of this thread that I don't believe morally that the BA should be charging to moor there. I've read every post carefully and lots of other information and I'm erring on the side of they "could" however have a right to charge. So I ask questions. I said not so long back that no one could rely on anything posted on this thread as a defense against a MCN including my own posts.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

Not at all, I question things time and time again. My own opinion has changed dramatically during the course of this thread. I don't blindly believe and need sensible debate and persuasion to come to a decision. I've said throughout the course of this thread that I don't believe morally that the BA should be charging to moor there. I've read every post carefully and lots of other information and I'm erring on the side of they "could" however have a right to charge. So I ask questions. I said not so long back that no one could rely on anything posted on this thread as a defense against a MCN including my own posts.

I agree no one should rely on anything posted here or elsewhere as binding in providing a defence, there is however plenty to suggest that with a little thought and guidance the balance of probability is in our favour in fighting any attempt at enforcing the charge.

The BA have on more than one occasion over several years sought legal advice regarding charging at both Reedham and Ranworth, the answer is simple publish it and put the argument to bed, I have and I know of others who have had FOI requests on this advice and related items refused, given the BAs stated policy of openness and transparency I can only draw one conclusion why it should be refused.

Fred

[Meantime]

This thread appears to have gone a little quiet, but some of us are still pondering and doing research. I have two freedom of information requests and a general query outstanding with the BA but in the meantime I wonder what peoples thoughts are on the first part of the sign, section 1.1

If my boat is moored at Ranworth, who has entered into the contract with the BA? and how would they get those details? Assuming, they assume, the registered keeper is the one mooring, then will they use the data kept about my boat to retrieve this information, and is that a valid use of that data under data protection laws?

Can the registered keeper of a boat enter into a contract if he is not at the helm, but onboard the boat? He didn't moor the boat, but was merely a passenger on his own boat. Is he obliged to spill the beans to the BA on who was actually mooring and thus entering into the contract with the BA.

Can the registered keeper of a boat enter into a contract if he is not even onboard the boat when it is moored at Ranworth. Thinking more about hire boats here. If they refuse to pay, then I guess the BA would contact the hire yard for the hirers details, but do they have to provide those details for just any reason, or only valid reasons where a suspected infringement of a byelaw has occurred. Remember the hire yards also have data protection laws to abide to, but even then that might only provide the lead hirers details, and was it them that actually moored the boat and thus entered into the contract with the BA.

So many questions, so few answers, so many potential loopholes.

So very ill though out, which is why I suspect the BA are running just to stand still. How long before the current signs are altered? Anyone want to start a sweepstake?

[Bluebell]

Let me state at the outset,I’m against mooring charges at previously “free” moorings.

However a lot of words have been used discussing signs and their contents. Do other moorings that charge e.g. Salhouse, Womack etc have similar signage or do they just say how much it is to moor there?

[Broads01]

I find the the signs at Salhouse almost too small to read from a boat but I've no quibble paying given it's private land. Womack might be more of a grey area though given it's a parish staithe. As I recall the signage there could probably be improved.

[Meantime]

15 minutes ago, Bluebell said:

Let me state at the outset,I’m against mooring charges at previously “free” moorings.

However a lot of words have been used discussing signs and their contents. Do other moorings that charge e.g. Salhouse, Womack etc have similar signage or do they just say how much it is to moor there?

I've never seen the sort of signage used at Ranworth in other private mooring sites or at sites where there has been a long accepted policy of charging. By and large people don't have a problem paying these charges and I guess for the odd person who did contest the charge no action would be taken. 

Ranworth is so different because it has caused serious discontent on the basis it has for a long time been free and the organisation charging is the same one that collects the tolls to provide for such facilities. The BA was also gifted the site and you would expect it was the original intention to gift it so that it remained free for ever, sadly that was not added into any transfer at the time.

[floydraser]

8 hours ago, Meantime said:

This thread appears to have gone a little quiet, but some of us are still pondering and doing research. I have two freedom of information requests and a general query outstanding with the BA but in the meantime I wonder what peoples thoughts are on the first part of the sign, section 1.1

Are you co-ordinating this work with BRAG?

[Meantime]

53 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Are you co-ordinating this work with BRAG?

Do I need to?

[floydraser]

50 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Do I need to?

Can't you see why it would be a good idea?

[Meantime]

53 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Can't you see why it would be a good idea?

Not really, since I'm not a member of BRAG, I'm not really following what they're doing, but am aware they exist. I believe their remit is for far wider reform than just whether the BA should charge for mooring at Ranworth.

I believe my current goal which is to debate whether the BA could charge to moor, have currently got it right or wrong and whether I need to worry about paying, and how I defend myself if I don't are completely different to the wider aims BRAG.

 

[floydraser]

24 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Not really, since I'm not a member of BRAG, I'm not really following what they're doing, but am aware they exist. I believe their remit is for far wider reform than just whether the BA should charge for mooring at Ranworth.

I believe my current goal which is to debate whether the BA could charge to moor, have currently got it right or wrong and whether I need to worry about paying, and how I defend myself if I don't are completely different to the wider aims BRAG.

 

Wow.

[Mouldy]

I’ve just seen BRAG’s latest post on FB and it does appear that there may be some progress.  Two of their committee members had a virtual meeting with a DEFRA minister, Trudy Harrison earlier in the week, which they claim was quite positive.  If you do have access to FB and are interested, it would be worth reading the details.

[Tempest]

5 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

I’ve just seen BRAG’s latest post on FB and it does appear that there may be some progress.  Two of their committee members had a virtual meeting with a DEFRA minister, Trudy Harrison earlier in the week, which they claim was quite positive.  If you do have access to FB and are interested, it would be worth reading the details.

I came out of that group as I became tired of all the moaning and complaining without actually constructing a viable argument and options to improve matters. In my opinion it became very much like many other Facebook groups which tend to be taken over by trash talkers and the articulate argument gets lost. 

I have read the post and now feel, they have a great opportunity to move forward positively and professionally as long as they moderate it correctly.

[Mouldy]

31 minutes ago, Tempest said:

I came out of that group as I became tired of all the moaning and complaining without actually constructing a viable argument and options to improve matters. In my opinion it became very much like many other Facebook groups which tend to be taken over by trash talkers and the articulate argument gets lost. 

I have read the post and now feel, they have a great opportunity to move forward positively and professionally as long as they moderate it correctly.

I too was becoming annoyed with some of the members, who were expecting instant results, which were never going to happen.  It obviously takes time to collate information and make a considered approach with well thought out arguments, instead of impatiently wading in with both feet.

It does appear from their latest post, that there is progress and a with it, an opportunity to present a reasoned argument to support their cause, to a body who do have authority to make a change.

[Meantime]

Further useful info:

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned private sector wheel clamping and vehicle removal where there was no lawful authority to do so. However as a balance it gave extra power to landowners to manage parking on their land. It does this by allowing the landowner to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for unpaid parking charges. Up until this point many a Parking Charge Notice was overturned because the land owner couldn't prove who the driver had been at the time the car was parked.

Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is the bit that gives these extra powers to land owners. By parking on private land you enter into a contract and by breaking the terms of that contract you can be issued with an "invoice" which the registered vehicle keeper is liable for, however they are no longer allowed to clamp you.

Here is the important bit: Schedule 4 specifically applies to recovery of unpaid parking charges. There is no equivalent for the recovery of unpaid mooring charges. Therefore the old tried and tested method of having a Parking Charge Notice overturned prior to the introduction of the 2012 act by making the land owner prove who was driving the car at the time should still work when it comes to mooring charges. 

The landowner, the BA will have to prove who moored the boat and therefore liable for entering into the contract with the BA, the registered keeper will not automatically be liable if they were not the person who moored the boar, or even not on board. The burden of proof will lie with the BA.

Making high profile stands on this issue may not be your best course of action.

[Meantime]

Something has been nagging me ever since I saw it, and in light of my post above, it is nagging me even more. Is the 24hr surveillance a new thing at Ranworth? When was it introduced? and why? Will it appear at other 24hr moorings? Has there been anti social behaviour there to warrant it?

[Meantime]

Posted on the BRAG thread, but reposted here where it is more relevant:

  11 hours ago, Wussername said:

My understanding is that you cannot be fined in the event of failing to conform to a contractual obligation. You can however be pursued in a civil court of law. 

 

  12 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Secondly the BA cannot issue fines full stop

There is a difference between issuing a fine, or penalty, and it being legally enforceable. When private car parking firms issue a Parking Charge Notice it might mention a charge you have to pay and even offer a reduced price if paid within a certain period of time. This fine, or penalty is not legally enforceable at that point in time. However if the car parking firm takes you to the small claims court under civil law and gets the judgement against you, then it becomes legally enforceable.

Fines, or penalties issued as a Penalty Charge Notice, by Police, Local Authorities are legally enforceable from the moment they are issued, although you normally get a period to appeal them.

I own a leasehold flat and as a part of the lease there is a section which allows the Landlord to charge interest at the bank base rate + 5% on service charges which are not paid within 30 days of being due. This is the fine, or penalty applied under civil law. It is not legally enforceable, but the landlord will still issue an invoice with the interest added on if the service charge is not paid. If it is still not paid and the Landlord goes to the small claims court and they decide in their favour then it is legally enforceable at that point. I will end up paying a penalty for late payment.

Think of the MCN as your invoice / fine / penalty for not paying your mooring fee on time, when it was demanded. It is not legally enforceable until you get taken to the small claims court and get a judgement against you, assuming off course that the BA have the correct grounds to win such a judgement.

What's in a word

Fine or Mulct the term more commonly used in civil law is a penalty of money that a court of law can decide has to be paid. It can be determined case by case or often announced in advance.

If you don't pay the mooring fee of £10, £5 or £3 and receive a MCN or fine, it is not legally enforceable at that point. However if you don't pay the "invoice" and get taken to the small claims court and the BA win (I personally doubt if they would with the present signs) then you could be instructed by a court which would be legally enforceable to pay the mooring fee, the £60 plus court costs. I think at that point few would argued that they haven't been penalised or fined.

Despite the fact that private car parking firms cannot issue legally enforceable fines, take a look at the following .gov webpage and look at the language the Government uses to describe the penalties that car parking firms issue. Government Website

It is the industry trade bodies that advise against the use of the word fine on a Parking Charge Notice to their members, not a legal requirement not to use it.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such trade body or organisation that advises about boat mooring fees or fines.

[jeffbroadslover]

When it comes to determining "who moored the boat" the question is what is the definition of "mooring a boat".

Is it the person at the helm? Yes that person was carrying out the act of positioning the boat but did he/she "moor" the boat or was that the person/s who actually tied the ropes to the mooring post?

If the latter was the case there is the possibility that the person/s who actually tied the ropes had nothing to do with the boat but merely gave assistance (as many of us would).

Who therefore entered into the contract regarding the mooring and is therefore responsible for paying the mooring fee ?

 

Jeff

[grendel]

If you let the rangers tie the ropes, are they then the ones that moored it? Would that make them responsible for the charge?

[rightsaidfred]

21 hours ago, Meantime said:

Posted on the BRAG thread, but reposted here where it is more relevant:

  11 hours ago, Wussername said:

My understanding is that you cannot be fined in the event of failing to conform to a contractual obligation. You can however be pursued in a civil court of law. 

 

  12 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Secondly the BA cannot issue fines full stop

There is a difference between issuing a fine, or penalty, and it being legally enforceable. When private car parking firms issue a Parking Charge Notice it might mention a charge you have to pay and even offer a reduced price if paid within a certain period of time. This fine, or penalty is not legally enforceable at that point in time. However if the car parking firm takes you to the small claims court under civil law and gets the judgement against you, then it becomes legally enforceable.

Fines, or penalties issued as a Penalty Charge Notice, by Police, Local Authorities are legally enforceable from the moment they are issued, although you normally get a period to appeal them.

I own a leasehold flat and as a part of the lease there is a section which allows the Landlord to charge interest at the bank base rate + 5% on service charges which are not paid within 30 days of being due. This is the fine, or penalty applied under civil law. It is not legally enforceable, but the landlord will still issue an invoice with the interest added on if the service charge is not paid. If it is still not paid and the Landlord goes to the small claims court and they decide in their favour then it is legally enforceable at that point. I will end up paying a penalty for late payment.

Think of the MCN as your invoice / fine / penalty for not paying your mooring fee on time, when it was demanded. It is not legally enforceable until you get taken to the small claims court and get a judgement against you, assuming off course that the BA have the correct grounds to win such a judgement.

What's in a word

Fine or Mulct the term more commonly used in civil law is a penalty of money that a court of law can decide has to be paid. It can be determined case by case or often announced in advance.

If you don't pay the mooring fee of £10, £5 or £3 and receive a MCN or fine, it is not legally enforceable at that point. However if you don't pay the "invoice" and get taken to the small claims court and the BA win (I personally doubt if they would with the present signs) then you could be instructed by a court which would be legally enforceable to pay the mooring fee, the £60 plus court costs. I think at that point few would argued that they haven't been penalised or fined.

Despite the fact that private car parking firms cannot issue legally enforceable fines, take a look at the following .gov webpage and look at the language the Government uses to describe the penalties that car parking firms issue. Government Website

It is the industry trade bodies that advise against the use of the word fine on a Parking Charge Notice to their members, not a legal requirement not to use it.

To the best of my knowledge there is no such trade body or organisation that advises about boat mooring fees or fines.

"Much Ado About Nothing"

Facts.

Only the Police, DVSA and Local Government Authorities can issue a FPN, the amount normally being laid down in Law, Local Authorities can appoint an outside agency for this purpose (Car Parking Company).

Magistrates and Crown Courts can impose a fine and set the amount within specified limits for breaches of Criminal Law and Local Bye Laws.

Small Claims Courts (Crown Court) can order payment of the original claim plus reasonable costs if deemed applicable, they do not issue fines.

Fred

[Meantime]

3 hours ago, grendel said:

If you let the rangers tie the ropes, are they then the ones that moored it? Would that make them responsible for the charge?

Nice try, but I suspect any court would deem the helmsperson to be the person responsible for mooring the boat with others helping under their instruction / guidance. 

However as pointed out the extra powers given to land owners under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 making the registered keeper liable for any parking charge under certain situations, do not extend to the owners of moorings. 

So any contract entered into with the BA will be with the helm doing the mooring, and the burden will be on the BA to prove who performed the mooring.

So for instance if I lend my boat to three friends and they moor at Ranworth, I might receive a MCN in the post if they don't pay, but I am not responsible for the charge, and do not have to specify who performed the mooring, in deed I probably wouldn't know, the burden of proof would lie with the BA. 

[rightsaidfred]

On 20/05/2023 at 10:25, Meantime said:

Posted on the BRAG thread, but reposted here where it is more relevant:

  11 hours ago, Wussername said:

My understanding is that you cannot be fined in the event of failing to conform to a contractual obligation. You can however be pursued in a civil court of law. 

 

  12 hours ago, rightsaidfred said:

Secondly the BA cannot issue a fine full stop.

If you don't pay the mooring fee of £10, £5 or £3 and receive a MCN or fine, it is not legally enforceable at that point. However if you don't pay the "invoice" and get taken to the small claims court and the BA win (I personally doubt if they would with the present signs) then you could be instructed by a court which would be legally enforceable to pay the mooring fee, the £60 plus court costs. I think at that point few would argued that they haven't been penalised or