Clyde Estuary - Leisure Vessel Charge for Use

The underlying problem is that recourse to law to test or restrict these rights is practically impossible in the UK.

Huge potential costs against well funded private companies means access to law is prohibitively expensive.

I did a project on why lawyers might want or not want to be judges. I was struck by not a single one suggesting they wanted to improve the system. I presume they thought it was all fine.
 
Geoff Wode said:
Privatisation, eh?
Click to expand...
The judicial system is pretty well privatised. You need to be a successful barrister (ie well paid) to get onto the High Court bench.

In Germany, where access to justice is possible, judges enter after law school. Effective ones rise up the system. They are civil servants. You know how much an action will cost and judges act to keep costs down.
 
Seven Spades said:
the best result would be for the marinas to not co-operate with Peel. they should say we are not going to collect fees on your behalf, you (peel) must contact owners directly.nIf they did that it would fall apart.
Click to expand...

The best result is that there is no conservancy charge.
 
dgadee said:
The judicial system is pretty well privatised. You need to be a successful barrister (ie well paid) to get onto the High Court bench.

In Germany, where access to justice is possible, judges enter after law school. Effective ones rise up the system. They are civil servants. You know how much an action will cost and judges act to keep costs down.
Click to expand...
Apologies, my comment was intended as a reply to dunedin’s comment but I made a mess of it. Thank you for the insight.
 
As promised, I’ve had a quick chat about these Peel Port proposed charges to some local yachtsmen at the dinner I’ve just attended and had what I believe to be a definitive answer. Yes the charge is being levied. No there isn’t any recourse. (This from someone very high in legal circles who explained it all goes back to a ruling by a high court judge and I won’t repeat what he said about the judge and the ruling!)
 
john_morris_uk said:
As promised, I’ve had a quick chat about these Peel Port proposed charges to some local yachtsmen at the dinner I’ve just attended and had what I believe to be a definitive answer. Yes the charge is being levied. No there isn’t any recourse. (This from someone very high in legal circles who explained it all goes back to a ruling by a high court judge and I won’t repeat what he said about the judge and the ruling!)
Click to expand...
Was this a 2017 Court of Session case?
 
Thank you, dgadee, for providing that link. It makes interesting reading and will need further close reading. On first sight I understand what the person that was talking to john-morris meant by their final comment!
 
From the Petroineos case a definition of Conservancy - “safe navigation, the maintenance of water depths, the marking of any channel or obstructions, the carrying out of sea bed and other marine related surveys, the provision of a response facility for marine incidents, the regulation of marine traffic and, overall, the provision of a safe passage from sea to berth.”
I am having difficulty in equating that definition with leisure sailing apart, perhaps, from the marked channel from No1 buoy eastwards.
 
It may boil down to the definition of a "ship" and whether a leisure vessel is included in that definition.

As I see it, a body the size of Peel Ports, once they have decided to implement such a scheme will not back down from implementation without good cause, especially when they have legal precedence.
 
awol said:
From the Petroineos case a definition of Conservancy - “safe navigation, the maintenance of water depths, the marking of any channel or obstructions, the carrying out of sea bed and other marine related surveys, the provision of a response facility for marine incidents, the regulation of marine traffic and, overall, the provision of a safe passage from sea to berth.”
I am having difficulty in equating that definition with leisure sailing apart, perhaps, from the marked channel from No1 buoy eastwards.
Click to expand...
Even maintaining the navigation bouys seems less and less relevant to leisure use.
 
I’ve trying to wrap my head around this…

Scraping fees from vessels engaged in profitable business seems sensible and proportionate and the 1965 order seems to define that process for commercial vessels.
Operating a leisure vessel doesn’t make money. The money to pay the fee would come from private individual’s pockets.
Is this a private company using statutory powers transferred in an act of privatisation to essentially tax the activities of private individuals?
Why was a conservancy fee not levied against leisure vessels prior to 1992 by Clydeport?

I notice this comes in the wake of the Finnart terminal being wound down.
 
There is the beginning of an amalgamation of interested groups to take action.

This is from the Sailing Cruising Scotland group on Facebook, which you need to be member to read more on.

Log into Facebook

⛵
🚤
Peel Ports Update
⛵
🚤

Just to let everyone know our admin team in private are working individually with MSP's and collectively on a few things behind the scenes and we will comment further in due course. We have everyone's back, but we will need everyone's support on this one! We still have over 7,000 active members in this group to call on...Power in numbers!
In the meantime it's your hobby, let's get back to fun and what the group is known for.
🙂

@everyone
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top