|
Post by kris on Oct 31, 2017 10:05:34 GMT
Whilst i realise that these aren't new and where introduced last year. Yesterday was the first time I actually read one, there's something I found very interesting. So far so boring more draconian threats, to make the boating experience fun and leisurely, what Interested me was the logo in the bottom left corner. Who is this company? How can they be mooring specialists this was only introduced last year? Where they created just for this contract ? If so it all smells abit of jobs for the boys. Why can't crt administer these measures them self? Any way here is there company address and other details. So it seems those posts on cwdf about 3-4 years ago saying we would soon have parking wardens on the canal where right. So these are the third party organisation that crt changed the terms and conditions of the liscence to be able share your details with. How long will it be before they are patrolling all moorings and not just the long term ones?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2017 10:15:32 GMT
I love these. They want you to abide by terms and conditions but don't tell you what they are.
I see the vessel gets a ticket. But who would be required to pay it s the licencee mY not be there and as far as I know there is no way they could hold them liable. Failed wheel clampers trying to broaden their income
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 31, 2017 10:17:37 GMT
I love these. They want you to abide by terms and conditions but don't tell you what they are. I see the vessel gets a ticket. But who would be required to pay it s the licencee mY not be there and as far as I know there is no way they could hold them liable. Failed wheel clampers trying to broaden their income Are they the same company all over the country? This company can't be wheel clampers as they are "mooring specialists"
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2017 10:26:32 GMT
it’s the same company on the Thames.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2017 10:35:17 GMT
“Person or persons in control of the vessel” seems an odd thing to say. If the boat is moored and unoccupied, clearly no-one is in control of it! I expect it will just be a case of scare tactics hoping to stop people abusing the moorings and or to pay up without them having to go to court.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2017 10:48:09 GMT
I love these. They want you to abide by terms and conditions but don't tell you what they are. I see the vessel gets a ticket. But who would be required to pay it s the licencee mY not be there and as far as I know there is no way they could hold them liable. Failed wheel clampers trying to broaden their income Are they the same company all over the country? This company can't be wheel clampers as they are "mooring specialists" Yes Kris it is the one and same company, they are a private parking company. This is a video from their website. I would say it may work for riparian owners on a river but has no place on a by law controlled canal. Two interesting questions come up. They say they write to the boat owner and ask them to pay. But as far as I can see there is nothing they can rely on in law to make them pay. They say they are relying on a contract. But as far as I can see there is nothing on those signs that can form a contract. There can't be an offer of a contract when the sign does not tell you the terms and conditions of that contract. If they send you a fine ticket. What independent appeal process is there. Is there a trade association that monitors the business and their practices.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2017 10:54:57 GMT
Interestingly. The terms and conditions state. If for any reason you move your Boat on to the Mooring Site without our permission, or if we permit you to do so in error, notwithstanding that the conditions in condition 3 have not been met, you must remove the Boat from the Mooring Site if we give you a written notice requiring you to remove the Boat from the Mooring Site. 1.5 If you fail to remove the Boat within the period specified in the written notice given to you in accordance with condition 1.4 above, we shall be entitled to: i) remove your Boat from the Mooring Site to such place on The Trust’s Waterways as we deem appropriate, and you consent to us entering on to and/or taking control of the Boat for a temporary period to the extent necessary to carry out our rights under this condition 1.5; ii) charge you Overstay Charges which you will find: (a) at or (b) on prominent notices located at the Mooring Site. You will be liable to pay Overstay Charges, in accordance with this condition 1.5, up to and including the date upon which your Boat is removed from the Mooring by you, or by us. So they can't charge you anything untill they have written to you and you haven't removed the boat by an agreed date. Seems to me if they charge you 150 on the first day they will be in breech. Of their owns t&cs'
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2017 10:59:09 GMT
However these are t&cs' for boats signing up for a mooring. I'm not sure anyone else can agree to them.
It swings back around to offer and acceptance.
say I moored there and they wrote to the boat owner. What liability do they have to pay? And what liability do they have in naming me?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2017 11:05:39 GMT
Is there a problem of boaters mooring up on long term moorings?
Also you can't overstay somewhere that your not allowed to moor in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2017 11:11:32 GMT
Is there a problem of boaters mooring up on long term moorings? Also you can't overstay somewhere that your not allowed to moor in the first place. Probably not much. But then again, if you’d paid for a permanent mooring, took the boat out and came back to find someone moored in your space, you’d b pissed off.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2017 11:16:16 GMT
I see that their understanding of what constitutes the 'main navigable channel' remains constant. P.20 of the private moorings T&C's.
P20. The Trust does not warrant that there will always be adequate depth of water at the Mooring Site and is not responsible for maintaining the waterway wall or bank in sufficient condition to provide safe access to the boat moored alongside it. Where statutory maintenance obligations apply to a waterway they apply to the main navigable channel only.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 31, 2017 11:19:05 GMT
The concerning thing about it is how long before they are administering all of the vm's as well.? Was it really such a big problem people staying on long term moorings without consent.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Oct 31, 2017 11:23:47 GMT
The concerning thing about it is how long before they are administering all of the vm's as well.? Was it really such a big problem people staying on like no term moorins without consent. The problem is caused by a very few, who spoil it for others. For example, the “Tesco” moorings at Reading on the Thames were totally taken over by a group of KandA escapees. They just sat their for months or years and as a consequence, passing boats wanting to stop and shop were unable to do so. Now that those signs have gone up, most of them have cleared off and one can once again stop for shopping.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Oct 31, 2017 11:26:05 GMT
District Enforcement - ChancersOne only has to read the link above to pose the question "Should C&RT, the EA or any other responsible authority really be jumping into bed with people like this?" In fact, the EA soon ditched them from its own Thames enforcement scheme but not before they had been ordered to remove the EA logo, which was being used without consent, from their website.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 11:36:06 GMT
The concerning thing about it is how long before they are administering all of the vm's as well.? Was it really such a big problem people staying on like no term moorins without consent. There was not a problem at all really. Those that had over the years complained about people stopping on their moorings got short shrift from the trust. They didn't want to know. As usual, the trusts staff hid behind the curtains and avoided getting involved. Grabbing the money, but not accepting responsibility for overseeing the sites. The local enforcement team could have dealt with this. Eventually, and as is usual practice with civil servants, they divised a way of cracking a nut with a very large sledgehammer, and thus digging yet another controversial pit. Just Muppets really.
|
|