Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 7:51:17 GMT
I suppose the question then arises can the LLDC who are the riparian owners act as natural persons in controlling moorings to their land ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 16, 2019 9:00:43 GMT
I suppose the question then arises can the LLDC who are the riparian owners act as natural persons in controlling moorings to their land ? It is a valid question that could only be answered by reviewing the terms of their creation, and by working out their status vis-à-vis being a ‘local authority’. In practical terms, supposing they had no power to charge for and condition mooring, simply moving boats off would not be actionable; going further and charging for that could be. In the circumstances, I suspect anybody having ignored the signs and seeking to challenge the consequences would have an uphill struggle – if for no other reason than that they would not be approaching the court with ‘clean hands’; in law they would have infringed the rights of others, whether those others were in a position to react or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 9:03:47 GMT
I was just wondering what would happen if a case similar to Trotman at Richmond occurred. Or did he get away with mooring at Hamlands for several years simply because there were no signs.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 16, 2019 9:51:38 GMT
I was just wondering what would happen if a case similar to Trotman at Richmond occurred. Or did he get away with mooring at Hamlands for several years simply because there were no signs. Not that simple. Generally speaking, Alistair ‘gets away with’ what he does – so far as he does – because of a combination of lassitude, lack of legal clarity, confusion over jurisdiction, and lack of any real operational motivation. Having said which, he has been taken to court numerous times and been landed with costs and orders to move. That has come from several quarters, including local authorities and the EA, and the pressures are ramping up. Part of the difficulty (for the authorities) lies in the fact that he maintains constant polite communication, expresses himself at all times amenable to complying with all ‘reasonable’ requests whether he agrees with their legitimacy or not, and is constantly bombarding the various legal departments with legal arguments that need addressing (whether spurious or not). In some ways it is a game of exhausting and nerveless brinksmanship, with costs that are only supportable by reason of the income derived from the boats involved; I seriously doubt that his business model would encourage any sensible ‘competitors’ to follow suit, if the full ramifications were known. So far as the Richmond example is concerned, he and others were able to stay put, in part because for a good while nobody could work out quite which authority had the relevant powers – and in the end, it transpired that neither did – navigation authority nor local council. Both had powers to create the relevant legislation, but until Richmond bit the bullet, that was not in place. As too often the case, authorities tended to rely on bald assertions of powers not possessed, and on the willingness of the less recalcitrant and thoughtless, to accept such assertions. Forward, anticipatory thinking and action could have prevented such situations arising in the first place, and the controls needed could have been reasonable rather than reactionary, and the associated costs in time and money avoided. A similar case would not arise at the Olympic Stadium site, because the relevant parties are alert to the possibilities well beforehand. As I have said, prompt moving of boats off from the relevant riverside sidesteps dubious legalities and prevents the incipient problem growing.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 16, 2019 10:17:12 GMT
Write to your MP, see if that helps.... ... the Royal Mail to get another £1.30 for the postage stamp. For your MP cares not a jot.
|
|