Jump to content

Disguised £100 Thames mooring sign?


Dave123

Featured Posts

15 minutes ago, Martin Megson said:

A very misleading sign using the same green background as EA moorings and with the word mooring in the heading.  Looks designed to catch people out. 

Of course as the land owner doesn't want you to stop there but they gave the enforcement job to another company, and they need people to moor to make money.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Matt&Jo said:

Does anyone get the feeling that cc'ers are going yo be forced off the waterways before long here.....not the dossers but genuine abiding by the rules cc'ers........ bloody country is going to pot.

No because these contacts don't effect anyone cruising within the rules. be it CRT or EA. it only effects those that overstay, like a week on a 24 hr mooring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matt&Jo said:

Yes but as a cc'er you by nature travel alot more than pleasure boaters with moorings........ (or your supposed to) so will effect cc more due to exposure to these mooring restrictions/fee's? My logic anyhow.

Lots of CCs, not all but the ones who shout a lot, do no more than 20 miles a year, most holiday or hobby boaters do more than that in a couple of days. As Moominpapa said, he found it easier to moor with this enforcement.

6 hours ago, MartynG said:

District Enforcement is a company which makes and collects parking fines on behalf of anyone who cars to invite them to do so.

They appear to  based in Leicestershire.

Presumably if you stayed overnight you would have to pay for two days .  The fee is reduced to £60 per day if paid promptly. 

Looks like it would be a very peaceful spot .

They also take care of the mooring without authority on CRT long term moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that you are allowed to stop on the Thames towpath to enbarck or disembark from the towpath even if it privately owned which in this case it might be. In which case you would need to remain stationary. I would test this if I had a boat on the Thames.

I am afraid this is another case where residential boats without a home mooring are ruining our rivers and canals by the abuse of the system which reflects on all boaters ,the majority, who do their best to treat the system fairly and reasonably and causes the navigation authorities to flood the system with inforcement  notices and penalties.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Matt&Jo said:

Does anyone get the feeling that cc'ers are going yo be forced off the waterways before long here.....not the dossers but genuine abiding by the rules cc'ers........ bloody country is going to pot.

It's not restricted to cc'ers any traveling boat is affected. Maybe the aim is to stop all movement away from your 'compulsory' mooring this would mean that CRT / EA do not need to spend money on repairing all these locks we vandalise, and banks our wash destroys causing silt which needs dredging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

It is my understanding that you are allowed to stop on the Thames towpath to enbarck or disembark from the towpath even if it privately owned which in this case it might be. In which case you would need to remain stationary. I would test this if I had a boat on the Thames.

I am afraid this is another case where residential boats without a home mooring are ruining our rivers and canals by the abuse of the system which reflects on all boaters ,the majority, who do their best to treat the system fairly and reasonably and causes the navigation authorities to flood the system with inforcement  notices and penalties.

Your last paragraph reflects my view perfectly,have a Green Thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Adams said:

It is my understanding that you are allowed to stop on the Thames towpath to enbarck or disembark from the towpath even if it privately owned which in this case it might be. In which case you would need to remain stationary. I would test this if I had a boat on the Thames.

I am afraid this is another case where SOME residential boats without a home mooring are ruining our rivers and canals by the abuse of the system which reflects on all boaters ,the majority, who do their best to treat the system fairly and reasonably and causes the navigation authorities to flood the system with inforcement  notices and penalties.

I have corrected you last sentence for you as I'm sure you did not mean all residential boats.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the term continuous cruisers means just that. Your fundermental activity is the action of cruising that could be loosely defined as navigating for pleasure and enjoyment of the waterways. This does entail living on your boat during that period or course. I use the term 'residential' for a boat that is a primary residence and that navigation is incidental or subsidiary to. I remember the days when a BWB licence was referred to as a pleasure boat licence and it meant just that.

I realise this is a very contentious issue but the boats I am referring to are no way navigating for pleasure so the use of the term is appropriate in my opinion.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the some that spoil it for the many...

Sadly "liveaboard" is now a dirty word made in a sneering reproachful way by some parties on the Thames in conversation. Those complying with rules and regs are equally as fed up with the - I can't think of a better word than freeloaders - who seem oblivious to others on the waterway.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paringa said:

It's the some that spoil it for the many...

Sadly "liveaboard" is now a dirty word made in a sneering reproachful way by some parties on the Thames in conversation. Those complying with rules and regs are equally as fed up with the - I can't think of a better word than freeloaders - who seem oblivious to others on the waterway.

Spot on, have a greeny

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paringa said:

It's the some that spoil it for the many...

Sadly "liveaboard" is now a dirty word made in a sneering reproachful way by some parties on the Thames in conversation. Those complying with rules and regs are equally as fed up with the - I can't think of a better word than freeloaders - who seem oblivious to others on the waterway.

Liveaboard has been a '' dirty word '' for at least twenty five years to my knowledge, it's nothing new.

It has always been used by those of a snobbish nature against anyone who lives on their boat full time regardless of whether they have a mooring or not. 

There are some bad apples, of course there are, and a lot of us who don't have home moorings also get annoyed that they seem to be able to take the piss year in year out. There is little point it getting wound up about it and calling people names just get on with your own life you'll be a lot happier for it.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 21/07/2017 at 23:31, MoominPapa said:

It takes ages and is a right pain to evict someone for trespass. Put up a sign like that, and anyone stopping is accepting a contract. If they break the contract by not paying £100 per day, it's easy to get the Feds to throw them off.

 

The aim if not to collect £100 per day, it's to create the contract to make enforcement easy.

 

Similarly,  the new arrangements for EA moorings make it much easier to evict overstayers, because a contract exists between them and the EA or their representatives.  There are other places on the Thames doing the same thing, and in Ely the contract ruse has been used without needing a payment for the allowed period, only for overstaying. Cambridge are intending to go the same way.

 

MP.

 

 

 

intestingly, it states whoever is in charge is liable.

 

What if they do not pay?

Do they write to the boat owner who may of not been on-board, let alone in charge. Does that contract make them liable and is there anything in law that would back that up? can they legaly make them name who was in charge?

Would a private company have any right to ask for someone's details?

 

I would say scaremongering at it's worst.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thebfg said:

intestingly, it states whoever is in charge is liable.

 

What if 

 

5 minutes ago, thebfg said:

Would a private company have any right to ask for someone's details?

 

I

 

 

On CRTs Waterways you have given CRT permission to pass your details on to a third party as part of the revised terms and conditions . At the time it was said they had no intention of using third parties for enforcement . Now of course we see third parties being used for enforcement on non permit holders on CRTs long term moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/08/2017 at 20:49, Tuscan said:

 

On CRTs Waterways you have given CRT permission to pass your details on to a third party as part of the revised terms and conditions . At the time it was said they had no intention of using third parties for enforcement . Now of course we see third parties being used for enforcement on non permit holders on CRTs long term moorings.

so they gain the licence holders name. then what can they do? 

 

in terms of their own contract.

what does the Ea t's&c's say on how it handles your data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.