Ranworth Update

[SwanR]

All I can say is that some weekends and over half term there have been quite a few people about. But Wroxham in general has felt very quiet, not much traffic, not many people around, and not like a summer season yet. Maybe hirers are generally fewer so far this year. July and August may be the true test. This may be the first time in more than ten years that we don't hire, we've nothing planned at the moment.

[Broads01]

1 hour ago, SwanR said:

This may be the first time in more than ten years that we don't hire, we've nothing planned at the moment.

You'll have seen Ferry Marina are still offering a 20% discount Jean, makes their prices a bit more sensible. They have a lot of availability in July and August at the moment. September and October you could have more or less any of theirs you wanted.

[Meantime]

So to bring this topic back on track and by way of an update, on the 18th May I put in a freedom of information request to enquire A) How many people had refused to pay, and B) How many people had been sent a MCN for non payment of the mooring fee.

As many of you will be aware there has since been a BA progress report containing similar information and links to the report have been placed on this thread, however it wasn't until today that I got a reply to my enquiry with as suspected a link to the published report.

The report stated that there had been 7 boats refusing to pay, so that answered my first question, but it does not state how many people have been sent a MCN for non payment.

So a reply was sent requesting clarification on this and asking for comment on two further points.

The answer is that no MCNs have been issued to date for non payment of the mooring fee.

I did also ask for comment on the following;

I wonder if you or one of your colleagues would also like to comment on the use of the word “fine” in section 1.5 of the notice displayed at the mooring site. I believe that under contract law you are allowed to make a charge for reasonable costs in relation to the recovery of the unpaid fee, but are not allowed to levy a fine! Indeed you would need a clearly defined breach of a byelaw in order to levy a fine.

Which received the following reply; 

Non-payment of the mooring charge at Ranworth is not a Byelaw offence, byelaw breaches are criminal matters and may be dealt with in Criminal Court. Non-payment of these mooring charges is a civil matter. Regarding any ‘fine’ for non-payment, please see the answer below.

The second item I'd asked for comment on was as follows;

In section 2.2 of the report there is a rather misleading statement that claims that “The courts have upheld the right for a penalty fee to be imposed for non-payment in these circumstances” Is that really the case, or by “these circumstances” are you actually referring to the similar practise of enforcing car parking charges on private land? Which off course is subject to various bits of legislation and regulated by various trade associations such as BPA as well as appeals bodies such as POPLA. So, with that in mind can you tell me which associations covering the charging of mooring on private land the Broads Authority belongs to and which appeals body a receiver of a MCN can refer the matter to for adjudication?

This in turn got the following response;

The use of the quay is subject to the unilateral acceptance of the advertised contractual terms. The terms are advertised by being displayed on signs visible to the boat user when mooring and a copy is also handed to the helm upon arrival at the mooring. Non-payment gives rise to a claim for breach of contract and/or damages for trespass, under these circumstances courts have upheld the right for a penalty fee to be imposed for non-payment. The Broads Authority is a Best Value Authority as confirmed above. Although the Authority is not bound by Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 in setting its charges, therefore the Authority has a wide discretion, we confirm that the charges are based on cost recovery only and the Authority follows local government principles in doing so. This includes following the revised Best Value Statutory Guidance (2015).

You will note from the above that again the direct questions have been skirted around with regards to any established appeals process or appeals bodies where it relates to mooring on private land. The above answers leave me in no doubt what so ever that the BA are following the long established processes used by the car parking firms to recover non payment of car park charges.

I have for some time now held the belief that IF the Broads Authority did everything correctly they would have the right to charge for mooring and to recover non payment, They have played catch up and modified their signage and are most probably in near compliance and able to apply contract law in the same way as car parking firms do, however, the ace up the sleeve that applies to car parking firms does not apply to the Broads Authority. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies to the Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges. It specifically gives rights to car parking firms to force the registered keeper of a car to disclose the driver of the vehicle for the fine to be issued to them, and if they refuse then the registered keeper becomes liable for the fine even if they were not driving.

By all means make your high profile stands against the payment of the mooring fee, but just be aware that last part may come back to bite you if you want to rely on the defense of being the registered keeper, but not the person who moored and refused to pay the mooring fee. That is off course if you actually receive a MCN in the first place. 

 

[Heron]

I suspect that Richardsons boats are all recorded in BA records as being Registered Keeper ...Richardsons. Other boat owners  exist on the Broads hiring to customers.

If many  hirers refused to pay and and the boat  hire operators were lumbered with having to pay up and then recover the mooring fee, and their costs from the hirers, the BA would soon be told where they can go.

It seems to me this would quickly become unworkable.

Reputational damage for the BA just gets worse and worse.

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, Heron said:

I suspect that Richardsons boats are all recorded in BA records as being Registered Keeper ...Richardsons. Other boat owners  exist on the Broads hiring to customers.

If many  hirers refused to pay and and the boat  hire operators were lumbered with having to pay up and then recover the mooring fee, and their costs from the hirers, the BA would soon be told where they can go.

It seems to me this would quickly become unworkable.

Reputational damage for the BA just gets worse and worse.

But this is precisely the crux of the matter. The registered keeper cannot be held liable unlike in a car park, and the registered keeper does not have to reveal the name of the person who was helming at the time of the mooring. Indeed data protection would prevent the hire company from revealing the identity of the hirer unless there was a criminal bye law contravention, and as the Broads Authority have already revealed it is a civil matter, so no hire company should feel compelled to disclose the hirers name under those circumstances, and again there is no guarantee that the hirer was the person who performed the mooring, it may have been one of their crew. Mr. Loophole would have a field day.

 

[Broads01]

Even if hire companies had to disclose customer crew names, they would have no way of knowing which member of the crew was helming at the time. Perhaps the BA will install car park-style cameras!

[Meantime]

On 20/05/2023 at 10:23, Meantime said:

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?

I did point this out earlier on in the thread. I wonder what crime wave prompted the installation of 24hr CCTV, or was it installed at our expense to catch whoever moors a boat? 

However, that is only part of the story, they still need to find a name and address from somewhere, or someone to identify you!

Perhaps it's a timely reminder that you only need to give your details when asked to an authorised officer who produces, if requested, written evidence of his authority- (apologies for the gender description, but I am quoting from the 2009 Broads Authority Act as passed in the Houses of Parliament) 

The above would appear to exclude voluntary rangers and visitor centre staff unless they have the appropriate written evidence!

[Wussername]

On 13/06/2023 at 19:58, Meantime said:

I did point this out earlier on in the thread. I wonder what crime wave prompted the installation of 24hr CCTV, or was it installed at our expense to catch whoever moors a boat? 

However, that is only part of the story, they still need to find a name and address from somewhere, or someone to identify you!

Perhaps it's a timely reminder that you only need to give your details when asked to an authorised officer who produces, if requested, written evidence of his authority- (apologies for the gender description, but I am quoting from the 2009 Broads Authority Act as passed in the Houses of Parliament) 

The above would appear to exclude voluntary rangers and visitor centre staff unless they have the appropriate written evidence!

No crime wave prompted the installation of CCTV at Malthouse Broad.

The BA employee will ask for the name of your boat and the number on your boat. From that they will ascertain your name and address.

As for the BA employee, a Quay Attendant, a Quay Ranger, a Ranger, a voluntary shop assistant, a Quay shop assistant, a ranger shop assistant.

Or a Multi Tasking Quay Assistant, Shop Assistant, Boat Trip Ranger, Boat Trip Assistant, Ranger, or the ultimate position that of the BA, Bearer of The Boat Hook.

Who knows?

[grendel]

a thought occurs to me, and I dont know the answer to this, but under GDPR where records can be kept for certain purposes, are they allowed to consult those records for say the purpose of ascertaining ownership- for a civil case, or is their access limited to use for the purposes of a criminal case- ie if you break a bylaw?

so a quick google shows 

Quote

a requirement that personal data be collected for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and not be processed further in a manner incompatible with those purposes

so if the explicit legitimate purposes were to ensure tolls were paid and identification should bylaws be broken, can they then use the data for the new purpose of civil prosecutions without first specifying that the data will be used in the new manner?

if anyone knows the answer to this, please enlighten us.

[Wussername]

23 minutes ago, grendel said:

a thought occurs to me, and I dont know the answer to this, but under GDPR where records can be kept for certain purposes, are they allowed to consult those records for say the purpose of ascertaining ownership- for a civil case, or is their access limited to use for the purposes of a criminal case- ie if you break a bylaw?

so a quick google shows 

so if the explicit legitimate purposes were to ensure tolls were paid and identification should bylaws be broken, can they then use the data for the new purpose of civil prosecutions without first specifying that the data will be used in the new manner?

if anyone knows the answer to this, please enlighten us.

Perhaps you should ask the DVLA. 

[Broads01]

1 hour ago, Wussername said:

The BA employee will ask for the name of your boat and the number on your boat. From that they will ascertain your name and address.

If it's a hireboat though they can't ascertain the helmsman's name and address and I'm led to believe the hire company doesn't have to disclose it (I would imagine that would be a GDPR minefield). 

[vanessan]

9 hours ago, Broads01 said:

If it's a hireboat though they can't ascertain the helmsman's name and address and I'm led to believe the hire company doesn't have to disclose it (I would imagine that would be a GDPR minefield). 

It all leaves the private boat owner rather at a disadvantage doesn’t it! I wonder how many hirers have refused to pay. 

[Meantime]

1 hour ago, vanessan said:

It all leaves the private boat owner rather at a disadvantage doesn’t it! I wonder how many hirers have refused to pay. 

According to the report only 7 boats have refused to pay, all of which were privately owned and 3 hire boats moved off again as soon as being told about the charge. Not sure why the BA felt the need to make the distinction in the report.

Off course it is understandable that hire boaters are less likely to realise that their hire yard has already paid a toll for the boat annual usage which in turn goes towards paying for the upkeep of the mooring. Also even less likely to realise that the association that used to represent the hire yards Blakes gave that land free of charge, making the Broads Authority morally bankrupt by charging.

Private boaters are no more or less disadvantaged in this matter. The person entering the "contract" if the person who moors the boat at Ranworth. This may or may not be the registered keeper. Generally speaking the BA personnel at Ranworth have no authority to demand your name and address, they can only take the name of the boat and reg number, from which they can ascertain the registered keepers name and address. They can write to the registered keeper, but they do not have the special dispensation given to car parking firms to force the registered keeper to reveal who was in charge of the boat at that time, nor can they fine the registered keeper if they don't reveal those details.

[vanessan]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

Private boaters are no more or less disadvantaged in this matter.

I think we’ll have to disagree on this one. If a hirer refuses to pay, the BA has to rely on the hire company for details. If a private boat owner refuses, all the info is readily to hand for them. 

[grendel]

this was my question, while they may have ready access to the information , under GDPR are they legally allowed to use it for that purpose?

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, vanessan said:

I think we’ll have to disagree on this one. If a hirer refuses to pay, the BA has to rely on the hire company for details. If a private boat owner refuses, all the info is readily to hand for them. 

How, the registered keeper may not be even on the boat and therefore not responsible. The BA do not have the power or authority to make the registered keeper provide the details of who was at the helm on that day, since it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, grendel said:

this was my question, while they may have ready access to the information , under GDPR are they legally allowed to use it for that purpose?

Again it doesn't matter. (off course misuse of data under GDPR does matter, but is irrelevant here) The contract is between the person who moors the boat and the BA. The BA can contact the registered keeper, but they cannot force them to provide details of who was in charge of the boat on that day.

[Maxwellian]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

Off course it is understandable that hire boaters are less likely to realise that their hire yard has already paid a toll for the boat annual usage which in turn goes towards paying for the upkeep of the mooring.

Can someone explain this to me please. It might have been included last year, but this year they have separated it out and made it a direct charge, somewhat like VAT. In practice. 

[annv]

I wonder if any body will make up some and use false no plates, easy to do unlike car plates. John

[Meantime]

7 minutes ago, annv said:

I wonder if any body will make up some and use false no plates, easy to do unlike car plates. John

Not advisable as unlike non payment of the mooring fee, false reg numbers would be a Byelaw and therefore criminal offense. 

[MargeandParge]

Has anyone read the small print on a hire boat contract as when you hire a car they usually need access to a credit card to cover parking and any speeding offences.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

[Meantime]

12 minutes ago, MargeandParge said:

Has anyone read the small print on a hire boat contract as when you hire a car they usually need access to a credit card to cover parking and any speeding offences.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

Again speeding offences are criminal matters, mooring fees are civil with completely different powers of recovery.

The "contract" is formed and accepted by the "person" mooring reading the terms and conditions at the mooring and staying. Who the "person" performing the mooring is and accepting the contract can be as difficult to find out as you want to make it. The BA have no powers to make the registered keeper disclose this fact after the event. Please bear in mind it might not even be the registered keeper performing the mooring or in charge of the vessel at that time. The BA staff on site unless a full ranger with the appropriate written authorisation can not demand you provide your details. I'm pretty sure even a full ranger cannot demand your details unless their is a reasonable suspicion of a byelaw having been broken. The mooring fees as already clarified by the BA are a civil not criminal matter.

I could well envisage a situation where feeling unwell I retire to my cabin, only to wake up and find the crew with me have moored at Ranworth and refused or forgotten to pay the mooring fee. Not feeling well and in my cabin I was clearly not in charge of the vessel, one of my crew were. If as registered keeper I was sent a MCN, I would decline to pay it as I was not in charge of the vessel at the time and did not enter into the contract. The BA do not have the powers to force me to name the person in charge of the vessel at the time, unless a criminal act has been committed. Indeed depending on how unwell I was at the time I may have no idea who was in charge. 

[vanessan]

I think maybe we’re not going to get any definitive answers here, until such time as the BA gets around to issuing an MCN to a private boat owner who denies liability because they weren’t at the helm. (Maybe that’s why Ranworth is apparently now covered by CCTV, like sending a photo of your car showing who was behind the wheel when you’ve got caught speeding!)

[Meantime]

I could be wrong but given that the BA have already stated;

The Broads Authority is a Best Value Authority as confirmed above. Although the Authority is not bound by Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003 in setting its charges, therefore the Authority has a wide discretion, we confirm that the charges are based on cost recovery only and the Authority follows local government principles in doing so. This includes following the revised Best Value Statutory Guidance (2015).

Which I take to mean they will only recover the actual costs associated with the recovery and will only take action where there is a fair chance of being able to recover those costs and the mooring fee.

I suspect the issuing of a MCN will be rarer than the sighting of the Bittern. A lot of the car parking cowboy firms rely on the majority being frightened into paying a PCN as soon as it arrives and often don't bother to chase up those who don't, or sell them off to a debt recovery firm.

I haven't done the maths but my guess is that over 99.9% of people have paid the fee. The BA will judge that to be a success and not throw money at chasing the very small minority unless it becomes a major number. 

[JawsOrca]

11 hours ago, Meantime said:

3 hire boats moved off again as soon as being told about the charge

Does make me wonder if the person making these vessels move off are in some way "preventing, obstructing or hindering the lawful mooring of any vessel" by making it move off?