private moorings chargable ?

[mooringman]

i want to know if i have to pay british waterways to moor my boat . i have a bw licence and pay a private landowner to moor off his land on bw canal. they are taking me to court for unpaid charges . but i dont think there is any legisslation to really enforce it any thoughts. thanks

[Tim Lewis]

i want to know if i have to pay british waterways to moor my boat . i have a bw licence and pay a private landowner to moor off his land on bw canal. they are taking me to court for unpaid charges . but i dont think there is any legisslation to really enforce it any thoughts. thanks

 

Not sure about the actual date but there was a test case taken through the courts a few years ago where it was proved that BW had the right to charge for 'end of garden' moorings.

 

Tim

[chris w]

The landowner may own the land but BW own the water so they have a right to charge you for the privilege of using their water in which to moor.

 

Chris

[mooringman]

Not sure about the actual date but there was a test case taken through the courts a few years ago where it was proved that BW had the right to charge for 'end of garden' moorings.

 

Tim

 

paying to be on the water already though ?

[chris w]

...... but that a cruising licence not a mooring licence.

[mooringman]

...... but that a cruising licence not a mooring licence.

if i take my boat from that mooring british waterways have no right to put anyone else there so how can they enforse a chargecustodians of the water ways ?????

if i take my boat from that mooring british waterways have no right to put anyone else there so how can they enforse a chargecustodians of the water ways ?????

they have not asked for any fees for the past 40 years . so why bother asking and charging nowthe canals are for leisure now not highways any longer

[chris w]

I understand your point of view but you will lose the court case.

 

Chris

[moggyjo]

I think possibly the landowner pays BW and you then pay them, depends on what sort of mooring it is and what agreement they have with BW

[mooringman]

I think possibly the landowner pays BW and you then pay them, depends on what sort of mooring it is and what agreement they have with BW

 

 

the landowner ignored them at first and gave me a yearly ticket saying paid $$$$ for private moorings. but now he writes paid $$$ for access across his land ( no mention about private moorings on ticket any more ) he has no agrrement with bw he gave my name and some patrol guy from bw took boat licence details then i got a bill for private mooring from bw

i also had letters saying i may not be able to re-licesne my boat ( but it got renewed ok ) so have they any legislation to back up there charges or is something thay have decided to charge . has an actual act been passed

[David Schweizer]

Not sure about the actual date but there was a test case taken through the courts a few years ago where it was proved that BW had the right to charge for 'end of garden' moorings.

 

Tim

That is true, but there are a few exceptions. A friend of mine has a transferrable covenant written into the deeds of his land which allows him to permit boats to moor against that land without paying BW mooring fees. The case did not get to Court but legal action was threatened until my friend suggested that they search their records to establish whether they had a right to charge him. They did a search and dropped the action. Interestingly BW always deny any knowledge of this case, but my friend still has all the correspondance in his files.

 

There are usually historical reasons for these exceptions, arising out of agreements made with the original landowners when the canal was dug. The most common circumstance was where part of an ancient waterway was incorporated into a canal and the adjacent landowners (usually mill owners) retained their riparian rights. There is an unrepealed Act of Parliament which includes such provision. From recollection, I believe is it is known as the George III Act. (but that may be wrong)

 

Apart from these few exceptions, BW does have the legal right to charge off side landowners for mooring boats against their land, usually set at a cost equal to 50% of the nearest equivalent Towpath mooring. Some landowners prefer not to handle these fees, in which case BW will make the charge directly to the individual boat owners(s).

[mooringman]

That is true, but there are a few exceptions. A friend of mine has a transferrable covenant written into the deeds of his land which allows him to permit boats to moor against that land without paying BW mooring fees. The case did not get to Court but legal action was threatened until my friend suggested that they search their records to establish whether they had a right to charge him. They did a search and dropped the action. Interestingly BW always deny any knowledge of this case, but my friend still has all the correspondance in his files.

 

There are usually historical reasons for these exceptions, arising out of agreements made with the original landowners when the canal was dug. The most common circumstance was where part of an ancient waterway was incorporated into a canal and the adjacent landowners (usually mill owners) retained their riparian rights. There is an unrepealed Act of Parliament which includes such provision. From recollection, I believe is it is known as the George III Act. (but that may be wrong)

 

Apart from these few exceptions, BW does have the legal right to charge off side landowners for mooring boats against their land, usually set at a cost equal to 50% of the nearest equivalent Towpath mooring. Some landowners prefer not to handle these fees, in which case BW will make the charge directly to the individual boat owners(s).

 

many thanks for that answer

[David Schweizer]

i also had letters saying i may not be able to re-licesne my boat ( but it got renewed ok ) so have they any legislation to back up there charges or is something thay have decided to charge . has an actual act been passed

As already explained, BW do have the right to charge you for the mooring. However, they do not have the right to refuse to re-licence your boat if you do not pay the mooring fee. That would be a breach of the Unfair Contracts Act which does not permit any Public Body to intoduce any additional unfair conditions into a contract, which are not covered by legislation, and are not the subject of a written agreenment with you. And BW know that!! If you refused to reimburse the unpaid mooring fees, BW's only recourse to reclaim those unpaid mooring fees would be through legal prosecution.

 

Having said that, most people would probably agree that the mooring fees should be payed, however, your problem is whether they should be payed by you or the land owner. If I was in your postion, I think I would try and seek a meeting with the Local BW Moorings Officer, take a friend to support you, and also take any relevant paperwork, you may be able to negotiate a reduced backdated charge, on condition that you agree to pay the correct fee in the future. Or you could chance your arm, and possibly have your day in Court.

Edited November 13, 2007 by David Schweizer

[mooringman]

As already explained, BW do have the right to charge you for the mooring. However, they do not have the right to refuse to re-licence your boat if you do not pay the mooring fee. That would be a breach of the Unfair Contracts Act which does not permit any Public Body to intoduce any additional unfair conditions into a contract, which are not covered by legislation, and are not the subject of a written agreenment with you. And BW know that!! If you refused to reimburse the unpaid mooring fees, BW's only recourse to reclaim those unpaid mooring fees would be through legal prosecution.

 

Having said that, most people would probably agree that the mooring fees should be payed, however, your problem is whether they should be payed by you or the land owner. If I was in your postion, I think I would try and seek a meeting with the Local BW Moorings Officer, take a friend to support you, and also take any relevant paperwork, you may be able to negotiate a reduced backdated charge, on condition that you agree to pay the correct fee in the future. Or you could chance your arm, and possibly have your day in Court.

 

 

if this mooring charge is not covered by legislation how can they take me to court thanks

[David Schweizer]

if this mooring charge is not covered by legislation how can they take me to court thanks

You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say, BW do have the right to charge mooring fees under under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 which enables BW “...to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities ..... as the Board shall think fit.”

 

Sorry about that but it has been tried, tested, and proved in Court, although the one case with which I am familiar invoved a boatowner who was virtually peniless, and the Court made an order for the unpaid fees to be repaid in weekly instalments. We estimated at the time, that he would be over a hundred before the debt was repaid, and that did not take into account that he shold have also have been paying current mooring charges as well.

 

May I counsell you to settle this matter out of Court, as it will undoubtably be the cheaper option. BW will almost certainly be represented by a Barrister, and if costs are awrded aginst you!! Need I say any more?

[mooringman]

You must have misunderstood what I was trying to say, BW do have the right to charge mooring fees under under Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 which enables BW “...to demand take waive and recover such charges for its services and facilities ..... as the Board shall think fit.”

 

Sorry about that but it has been tried, tested, and proved in Court, although the one case with which I am familiar invoved a boatowner who was virtually peniless, and the Court made an order for the unpaid fees to be repaid in weekly instalments. We estimated at the time, that he would be over a hundred before the debt was repaid, and that did not take into account that he shold have also have been paying current mooring charges as well.

 

May I counsell you to settle this matter out of Court, as it will undoubtably be the cheaper option. BW will almost certainly be represented by a Barrister, and if costs are awrded aginst you!! Need I say any more?

 

 

ok many thanks o gpt a court summons in front of me ask in if i [ admit the unpaid mooring charges or contest them ???

 

cant really haggle at this stage can i ?

[Eugene Baston]

A couple of points after reading this thread.

 

Someone mentioned that you were moored on "BW's water", and someone else said "but I already pay a licence to be on the water". You are actually moored over BW's land, ie the bed of the canal. That's what the charge is for.

 

BW charge the boat owner 50% of the nearest towpath side mooring when it comes to end of garden moorings. Why 50%? Because in using a mooring there are two benefits - foot access to said mooring and benefit of mooring over said piece of canal bed. An EoG mooring does not have access over BW's land - therefore BW charges only 50%, i.e. for the part of the benefit which relates to the mooring being over BW's land. It expects the owner of the EoG to charge the remainder to the boat owner, unless, of course, it's a mate or relative or indeed you own the piece of garden to which the boat is tied to.

 

BW may bill the garden owner for the 50% and the owner will then bill the moorer for that amount plus whatever they think having access across their land to the mooring is worth.

 

The court case was in 1992 and on the Lancaster canal. A subsequent one around the turn of the century also proved that BW had a right to charge for mooring over its property.

 

Occasionally, ancient wharf rights exist which permit 'the laying up of vessels', and because of this historical right it can be argued that BW cannot charge for a mooring at these locations. But they are few and far between!

 

As for witholding a cruising licence because on non payment of fees - I wouldn't count that BW wouldn't do this, regardless of David's views on unfair contracts etc. Even if they didn't, the outcome would be as follows. You apply for a licence, and because you're unable to declare your mooring location, you state you a CC'er. But you don't move like a CC'er, and so when it comes to licence renewal it is refused. See the test case on the G&S being covered in most of the waterway titles right now.

 

HTH, Eugene

[fuzzyduck]

hiya my 2c

 

GET PROPER LEGAL ADVICE !!!!!!!

 

this bankside mooring malarky is complex, the owner may well have riparian rights, and if this is the case BW are pulling a fast one, and you mmay be wanting to counter sue for harrasment and or extortion. But as has been said by others if the owner doesn't have riparian righhts you will end up paying.

 

so GET PROPER LEGAL ADVICE !!!!

[Sir Nibble]

.

 

Why 50%? Because in using a mooring there are two benefits - foot access to said mooring and benefit of mooring over said piece of canal bed. An EoG mooring does not have access over BW's land - therefore BW charges only 50%, i.e. for the part of the benefit which relates to the mooring being over BW's land. It expects the owner of the EoG to charge the remainder to the boat owner, unless, of course, it's a mate or relative or indeed you own the piece of garden to which the boat is tied to.

 

HTH, Eugene

 

Hang on! BW are charging moorers to access to the boat across their land. Is this the same land swarming with walkers, cyclists, anglers etc? All those leaflets to encourage people onto the towpath to enjoy the surroundings, free to all comers BUT NOT TO LICENCE HOLDERS?

Edited November 13, 2007 by snibble

[GUMPY]

Above all get some good legal advice

 

A lot depends on where the boat is:

If on the Lancaster canal where IIRC the first case was bought then because of the way the enabling act was written you have to just take it and pay up.

I wasn't aware of a second case, however if its the one that I think it may be, it was on the River Soar so again no precident except on cuts on rivers.

Neither case was high court so there is no case law as yet each will be judged on its merits despite what BW say.

Check with the Landowner and or the land registry to see just where his land ends, look into the canal enabling act for the canal you are on there may be mention of mooring rights in there.

 

As has been said if its a wharf that has "rights" then you are away free.

 

Be aware there is NO obligation for you to pay whilst you are away cruising, so if you are off your mooring for more than 2 months in the summer you do not have to pay for a full year. There are several people on our moorings who do just this. The reason it's 2 months is that BW charge 1/10 of the yearly charge per month.

 

BW changed the rules again yesterday you now need a BSS to get a mooring, nowhere in the terms and conditions does it mention that. I found out because they have refused me an EOG until they have sight of they BSS ( which I do have) in the T&C it just says that you have to have a BSS to get a licence.

 

It seems that BW can make it up as they go along, I am now counting the days until I can get off this god forsaken system, if the boat wasnt my home I would have gone by now and thats after 32years .

 

Julian

Edited November 13, 2007 by idleness

[carlt]

I believe the fellow at Clattercote Wharf won his case against BW. I don't recall the exact ruling but I believe the outcome was that, if a fee had been paid on an EOG mooring then BW could subsequently demand money. If no fee has been paid then BW could not demand one, it had to be offered.

 

I have searched for this case (I can't recall if it was in the hands of the courts or the ombudsman) but failed to find it. It was reported in WW in 1999, however, if anyone wants to search their back issues. BW deny the case's existence (but it's the canadian pumpkin farmer, if anyone wants to ask him about it).

[Sir Nibble]

I would still like to know how come access to the towpath is free and universal but they charge you for access across it if you want to get on your boat.

[magpie patrick]

One point: on a canal, as opposed to a river, BW will generally own the bank for a couple of feet, you are actually mooring against BW land, not private land.

 

I'd always assumed that the non-towpath mooring fee was 50% because it wasn't in BW's gift to let you have it. My mooring was vacant from the time the owner of the house sold his previous boat until he generously let me moor at the bottom of his garden, you can't moor on that mooring without the houseowners permission. I must say that personally i'd rather be on an EOG than on the towpath so I reckon I've got a bargain: now all I need to do is find a similarly benevolent houseowner a bit closer to Bath than the Macclesfield Canal!

[carlt]

I would still like to know how come access to the towpath is free and universal but they charge you for access across it if you want to get on your boat.

 

Now that, sir, is a damn good point!I think the answer is, because they can.

 

Though, presumably, the fishing licence should be half a towpath mooring licence because they cross a towpath, but don't moor a boat.

 

Also, why is that element of the mooring tax based on the length of the boat? Surely a 'broad beamed' bloke like me should pay more than a 'narrow beamed' bag of bones who can't even float, to gain access to their boat??

 

One point: on a canal, as opposed to a river, BW will generally own the bank for a couple of feet, you are actually mooring against BW land, not private land.

 

This depends on the canal. Some canal banks are owned by BW, others BW don't own the kland but have a right of access to 6' of the land, for maintenance purposes and other places require the permission of the landowner to do anything to the bank.

 

Edited to sort out the carriage returns (very annoying)

Edited November 13, 2007 by carlt

[David Schweizer]

As for witholding a cruising licence because on non payment of fees - I wouldn't count that BW wouldn't do this, regardless of David's views on[/q unfair contracts etc. Even if they didn't, the outcome would be as follows. You apply for a licence, and because you're unable to declare your mooring location, you state you a CC'er. But you don't move like a CC'er, and so when it comes to licence renewal it is refused. See the test case on the G&S being covered in most of the waterway titles right now.

 

I know you do not work for BW any more Eugene, but I believe you were in post when this matter was raised with BW through one of their "consultations" a few years ago. Following that meeting BW withdrew the document threatening to withhold the issue of licences if boat owners did not re-imburse unpaid mooring charges.

 

As I read it if the Boat owner can demonstrate that they have an off side mooring on private land, they are meeting the licence criteria. Not paying BW for their portion of that mooring is a separate issue and reimbursement of those unpaid fees can only be made through prosecution. Whilst BW can introduce by laws in order to manage the Waterways effectively, they cannot introduce penalties or fines, because, unlike the Local Authority and the Police, they do not have the legal powes to do so.

 

Edited to add:- I do not necessarily disagree with BW taking a more robust stand with those who do not pay their mooring or licence fees, but at the same time BW must be seen to be taking action within a legal framework that can be demonstrated as being just. Unfortunately they are seen all too often as trying to ride roughshod over everyone else and this risks predjudicing the future attitude of users.

 

In my former official capacity as the Clerk to our Local Parish Council, I was engaged in several instances where BW tried to use their might to bully the Local Authiority, and in each case theyb had to withdraw their action and apologise. I have yet to be convinced that the leopard has changed it's spots.

Edited November 13, 2007 by David Schweizer

[GUMPY]

One point: on a canal, as opposed to a river, BW will generally own the bank for a couple of feet, you are actually mooring against BW land, not private land.

 

BW would have you belive this:

However there are many places where it is not true

Check on the land registry all though this will only tell you if the land has changed hands in the last 30-40 years.

 

Julian