mooring charges

rufuschucklebutty

The canal and river trust is starting to introduce charges for overstaying on its visitor moorings. At present there is only one four inch square sign that reads " 2 days free mooring " nothing else at all. They claim there will be a £25 per day charge in future.

Can anyone tell me what the law is on signs for such charges , what information do they have to have on them to be fair and legally enforceable ?

What rights do boat owners have regarding these charges ?

bod1467

Are they classed as a statutory authority, in that they can issue fines? Or are they classed as a private landowner, in which case they could only furnish invoices?

timbstoke

I'd imagine it would be about the same as a private parking company - clear signage, and the amount charged either contractually agreed or, if based on damages for breach of contract, a genuine pre-estimate of the amount which has been lost. £25 sounds like it would be reasonable as a GPEoL in a car parking situation, so I'd imagine it would be the same for boat parking.

System

Could they undo the mooring ropes to allow the flow to remove the obstruction from their mooring?

System

The Canal and River Trust is a charity set up to look after waterways in England and Wales. British Waterways handed over ownership of around 2000 miles of waterway to it in 2012

Unlike PPCs they actually own the banks where they control moorings

tomtontom

Sounds fair enough to me - visitor moorings are there for everyone to enjoy on a short term basis, not one person to monopolise.

Given all the problems you have with your boat, is a life on the river really for you?

unholyangel

timbstoke wrote: »

I'd imagine it would be about the same as a private parking company - clear signage, and the amount charged either contractually agreed or, if based on damages for breach of contract, a genuine pre-estimate of the amount which has been lost. £25 sounds like it would be reasonable as a GPEoL in a car parking situation, so I'd imagine it would be the same for boat parking.

Just to add, thats actually covered by unfair contract terms.

5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A
requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable
pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive
penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the
extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. Other types
of disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group 18(c).

So even if it was contractually agreed, it would still need to be a reasonable pre-estimate of loss in order to remain valid and enforceable.

Thats why parking companies got in such trouble - especially where the car parks were free as their losses were nil. One parking company if I remember right tried to claim staff costs/enforcement costs as "losses" but this was subsequently thrown out as they are normal business overheads as opposed to losses incurred due to the breach of contract.

rufuschucklebutty

My question was more what would the signs need to show to be legally enforceable.

I am not complaining or saying the trust is wrong or right to do this. At the moment they have put up signs which are unenforceable and designed to scare people off. Having contacted them they admit they have to infrastructure to actually invoice anyone.

I am pretty sure more detailed signs will appear, I would like to know when I see them if they are correctly worded, and legal.

unholyangel

rufuschucklebutty wrote: »

My question was more what would the signs need to show to be legally enforceable.

I am not complaining or saying the trust is wrong or right to do this. At the moment they have put up signs which are unenforceable and designed to scare people off. Having contacted them they admit they have to infrastructure to actually invoice anyone.

I am pretty sure more detailed signs will appear, I would like to know when I see them if they are correctly worded, and legal.

But its not really a case of what they have to say. Its more a case of what they're not allowed to say.

They should avoid stating a set amount if that amount could be too high in some cases as that would leave the "term" open to being challenged as unfair. They should be prominent and clear - but it would be up to a judge to decide whether the signage was adequate or not (although having prominent adequate signs would not be able to make an unfair term fair).

bris

unholyangel wrote: »

But its not really a case of what they have to say. Its more a case of what they're not allowed to say.

They should avoid stating a set amount if that amount could be too high in some cases as that would leave the "term" open to being challenged as unfair. They should be prominent and clear - but it would be up to a judge to decide whether the signage was adequate or not (although having prominent adequate signs would not be able to make an unfair term fair).

So have you ever challenged an official parking ticket as unfair? Thats £60 for going 4 minutes over your time but it's enforceable.


The question still stands as to whether or not this is an official fine or not, like the railways are official and this could be too.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

So have you ever challenged an official parking ticket as unfair? Thats £60 for going 4 minutes over your time but it's enforceable.


The question still stands as to whether or not this is an official fine or not, like the railways are official and this could be too.

Relevance to my post please?