EA Mooring Enforcement trials - Weybridge and Walton

I don't have to phone the office at Hampton court palace to let them know I've arrived for my first free 24 hours and I've yet to see liveaboards hogging their moorings for weeks/months/years. This system looks like it's designed to be awkward.

The way it reads to me is I could stay for 72 hours for £10, but if I stay for only 24 hours then head upstream for lunch, I won't be allowed to return until the following afternoon, even if I want to pay on arrival for the privilege. Or will I be covered if I make a prepayment, assuming the space I paid for is still there when I get back?

What I don't understand about this trial, is how is it that a private company has the power to take action against overstayers when the councils and the EA keep telling us that they don't? Opposite the Lensbury, Garrick, Hampton etc.
 
Last edited:
And when you do pay, make sure you get a full receipt in case there is a "mistake" and We See You Coming Enforcement (Previously Dodgy Clamping Co) start pursuing you for £100...

Won't happen? Ask people who have been hasseled over parking in McDonalds, various supermarket car parks etc.


Of course, they can only persue the registered owner. So the truly dodgy will get away with it yet again!
 
Not keen on having to phone the lockkeeper to annouce your arrival, at the moment you just turn up and leave the next day, it rather spoils the relaxed nature of the river to my mind. Sounds like more hassle for everyone because of a minority as usual.
 
Actionmat said:
I don't have to phone the office at Hampton court palace to let them know I've arrived for my first free 24 hours and I've yet to see liveaboards hogging their moorings for weeks/months/years. This system looks like it's designed to be awkward.

Being a Royal Palace the Parks police patrol the whole area down to the Governor's house and collect the fees. EA doesn't have that luxury

The way it reads to me is I could stay for 72 hours for £10, but if I stay for only 24 hours then head upstream for lunch, I won't be allowed to return until the following afternoon, even if I want to pay on arrival for the privilege. Or will I be covered if I make a prepayment, assuming the space I paid for is still there when I get back?

What I don't understand about this trial, is how is it that a private company has the power to take action against overstayers when the councils and the EA keep telling us that they don't? Opposite the Lensbury, Garrick, Hampton etc.

AFAIK EA and councils and any other riparian owner have the right to charge, but perhaps not the will as collections can be costly. By passing the collection function to an outside company who make their money by retaining a proportion of the umm - charge. The scheme is a trial and EA hope that other RLs may adopt the principle in time
Click to expand...

As more and more folk descend on the waterways as economic migrants, if you will AND consider that they can do what they like where they like, EA and CaRT are having to take defensive action.
 
Actionmat said:
I don't have to phone the office at Hampton court palace to let them know I've arrived for my first free 24 hours and I've yet to see liveaboards hogging their moorings for weeks/months/years. This system looks like it's designed to be awkward.

The way it reads to me is I could stay for 72 hours for £10, but if I stay for only 24 hours then head upstream for lunch, I won't be allowed to return until the following afternoon, even if I want to pay on arrival for the privilege. Or will I be covered if I make a prepayment, assuming the space I paid for is still there when I get back?

What I don't understand about this trial, is how is it that a private company has the power to take action against overstayers when the councils and the EA keep telling us that they don't? Opposite the Lensbury, Garrick, Hampton etc.
Click to expand...

and not legally enforceable,same as the peeps at henley
 
Actionmat said:
What I don't understand about this trial, is how is it that a private company has the power to take action against overstayers when the councils and the EA keep telling us that they don't? Opposite the Lensbury, Garrick, Hampton etc.
Click to expand...

The EA , or its agents, can only take action where they are the responsible authority/owner of the moorings in question. Your examples are not EA moorings. Opposite the Lensbury is local authority and their own by laws are in course of revision to give them the authority. Garrick and Hampton I'm not sure about who the authority is.
Frankly, this seems to be blowing up into a rather pointless witch hunt before the trial has even got started. It will not be the private company that has the power to take action - they will be acting under instruction from the EA, who do.

My concerns are rather more practical. The EA will themselves be monitoring the stay and they will collect the dues. Only if the dues are unpaid or someone clearly breaches the stay conditions will they be handing the collection process over to the contractor.
This means that making the moorings more accessible to more boaters still initially relies on EA actions and, in my opinion, they are under resourced to police all the moorings on a daily basis.
Of course, it may be that just the threat of more enforcement will be enough to persuade many that they should observe the requirements. That appears to have been the effect, so far, at the moorings just above Osney.

Lets see how the trial goes and then we can react in an informed way.
 
Last edited:
I use the Weybridge moorings regularly for having lunch either going up or coming off the Wey but only stay for an absolute maximum of 2 hours, usually much less. Whenever possible I use EA moorings, and if I do, only for 24 hours and no more. I need to ask the bleeding obvious. If I am only staying for 24 hrs and therefore no money is due to anyone, do I still have to notify the lockkeeper? If I am only staying a short while do I still have to let him know?

HF
 
Hugh Foulis said:
I use the Weybridge moorings regularly for having lunch either going up or coming off the Wey but only stay for an absolute maximum of 2 hours, usually much less. Whenever possible I use EA moorings, and if I do, only for 24 hours and no more. I need to ask the bleeding obvious. If I am only staying for 24 hrs and therefore no money is due to anyone, do I still have to notify the lockkeeper? If I am only staying a short while do I still have to let him know?

HF
Click to expand...

The sign is a bit unclear, not sure if you contact the lock keeper at all times or only if you intend to stay more than 24hrs. Personaly I wouldn't bother.
 
I am not trying to pour cold water on this, just rehearsing the options and possibilities.

Is there enough time for lockies to run and answer the phone during busy summer days?
Could it be done via VHF? I know non of the locks currently have it and few boats but its another option

I am now getting a picture of people reporting on and off moorings so often that it is going to seem like Heathrow ATC on some days.
 
Hugh Foulis said:
I am not trying to pour cold water on this, just rehearsing the options and possibilities.

Is there enough time for lockies to run and answer the phone during busy summer days?
Could it be done via VHF? I know non of the locks currently have it and few boats but its another option

I am now getting a picture of people reporting on and off moorings so often that it is going to seem like Heathrow ATC on some days.
Click to expand...

Exactly, surely lockies have better things to do than play traffic wardens, I wouldn't call for that very reason. You can't get a ticket if you don't overstay anyway.
 
Surely the Weybridge sign contradicts itself:

"Mooring at this location is free for the first 24 hours" but
"A charge of £100 per day will be issued.... where no pre-payment has been made"

Clearly if mooring is free, a pre-payment would not be made, but if a pre-payment is not made, then a charge of £100 will be issued (whether or not any pre-payment is actually due!). I'm sure that's not what they meant it to say, but that is what it says.

I suspect the intention of signs of this general form is to establish a principle that the owner is entitled to the punitive level of charge in all circumstances, and to outline circumstances in which the owner may choose magnanimously to waive his right to some or all of that charge - hence terms such as "This concession....", but I must say I think this sign is a very unsatisfactory example.

I don't think it would be hard to come up with wording that would be both more user friendly and more legally robust!

A.
 
boatone said:
Might help to read the sign carefully before claiming it is unclear:

mooringchargeconditions.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes but its definitely confusing, so if you stop for 2 hours say for lunch then leave and return to stay the night you may be liable for a charge? Its all far too complicated! I might just steer clear of these EA moorings from now on.
 
Might help to consider this issue from a starting point that the EA are trying to take action to counter boaters criticisms re boats overstaying on moorings so that we all get a bite of the cherry, rather than a presumption that they are incompetent and clearly out to make our lives as difficult as possible?

Mind you, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you !! :D
 
Last edited:
I don't think the guy who wrote the sign was trying to help though, needs to go on a plain English course!

How about:

0-24hrs FREE
24-48hrs £5
48-72hrs £10

Penalty for overstay £100 per 24hrs
Contact lock keeper if intending to stay for longer that 24hrs.

Plenty of similar examples in car parks around the land:D
 
Last edited:
Unashamedly requoted from peipoo.com

When dealing with "tickets" from private parking companies (PPCs) our advice is either:

1) Ignore all communications (other than in the extremely unlikely event that you receive genuine court papers - there were only 49 cases going to court last year out of over one million tickets issued); or

2) In England and Wales only, and if the PPC is a member of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme (BPA AOS), appeal to the PPC using any of the applicable grounds below and then appeal to the independent Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service (see below for further details). If the appeal is unsuccessful then ignore subsequent correspondence from the PPC.


How Do You Know if Your Ticket is a PPC Ticket or Not?

  • Legitimate Council tickets will be called a "Penalty Charge Notice" or "Excess Charge Notice" and will have the Council's address on them.
  • A police ticket will be called a "Fixed Penalty Notice" and have either a police or HM Courts Service address on it.
  • It's possible for parking tickets at some airports, train stations, ports and other locations to be issued under Byelaws, which would be enforced through the Magistrates Courts. However this is very unusual, and the vast majority of parking tickets that mention Byelaws are actually issued by PPCs relying on contract law. If you receive one of these tickets it's best to start your own thread and post the details, so that you can be sure what kind of ticket you're dealing with.


If it's not called one of the above and it's got a private address on it then the chances are that it's a PPC "ticket". Note that the "tickets" we're talking about here are those that attempt to penalise you for some supposed breach of the parking terms and conditions (often asking for £50 or more), not genuine parking charges that you've agreed to (maybe for something like 60p/hour).


Legal Enforceability of Private Parking Tickets

There is a great deal of doubt about the legal enforceability of private parking invoices that are issued to motorists. Unlike parking tickets issued by local authorities, which are backed by statute, the enforcement of private parking is essentially a matter of contract law. A private parking company needs to overcome many significant legal hurdles in order to be successful, which include:

  • Establishing that any claim is under the law of contract, rather than the tort of trespass (see case of Excel Parking Services v Alan Matthews, Wrexham County Court, May 2009 where the parking company lost on this ground);
  • Establishing that the parking company has sufficient interest in the land to bring a claim (see case of VCS v. HM Revenue & Customs, Upper Tax Tribunal, a binding decision at the level of the High Court) in which it was decided that unless the PPC has a proprietary interest in the land they are not able to offer contracts for parking;
  • Establishing that all of the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) are present;
  • Except in England and Wales, establishing who the driver was on the relevant occasion, as any contract can only be enforced against the driver, who may or may not be the registered keeper of the vehicle;
  • Establishing the prominence and adequacy of any warning signage, and that the driver actually saw and understood the signage (Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]);
  • Establishing that the amount claimed is not an unlawful “penalty”, including that there was no attempt to “frighten and intimidate” the driver (see well reported case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman, Mansfield County Court, March 2008 where the parking company lost on this ground), and that charges must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or actual damages caused by trespass (see the Department of Transport's guidance on the Protection of Freedoms Act);
  • Establishing that any contract does not fail foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act and associated regulations.



Protection of Freedoms Act (England and Wales only)

In England and Wales the Protection of Freedoms Act has introduced some changes that might affect your decision whether to simply ignore a PPC ticket. These changes apply only to parking companies that are also members of the BPA AOS scheme, and are principally:

  • The PPC may "invite" (not demand, nor require) the RK to provide the details of the driver at the time of the alleged transgression. If the RK doesn't do so, or their invitation is ignored, the PPC is entitled to pursue the RK for whatever charge they are lawfully entitled to from the driver. If the RK does give the name of the driver, the PPC must solely pursue the driver. Therefore as long as the PPC goes through the correct process, relying solely on the argument that "I was not the driver" won't help you. However that is the only change, and if the decision is to ignore then it simply means that the RK ignores rather than the driver.
  • There is an independent "appeals" process, operated by Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). The grounds on which POPLA will consider an appeal look to be narrow and until the first appeals are heard we don't know the stance it will take. However the appeal costs you nothing and costs the PPC £27+ VAT, so we would recommend that everyone who is so inclined appeals. The best grounds seem to be:
    • "The parking charge (ticket) exceeds the relevant amount" (if the charge is not valid it should be zero), and;
    • "I am not liable for the parking charge" (if the charge is an unlawful penalty, or the PPC has no interest in the land to offer a contract, etc there will be no liability)

Even if you lose at POPLA, it's not binding on you and the PPC would still have to go to court if they wanted to pursue their claim. Note that you will have to exhaust the PPC's own so-called "appeals" process before POPLA will consider an appeal to them.

You should be aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act doesn't affect the legal position regarding enforceability of these tickets in any way.


Exceptions to Advice to Ignore PPC Tickets

A PPC will normally obtain the name and address of the vehicle's Registered Keeper from DVLA, and pursue them for their ticket. In some cases where you were the driver but are not the RK, leaving the PPC to pursue the RK might be more hassle or more expensive than providing your details to the PPC, naming yourself as the driver and putting up with the junk mail yourself. For example:

  • You drive a Company car. Your employers may be unhappy about receiving a stream of claims from the PPC/debt collectors, and it could affect your relationship with them;
  • You were driving a hire car, and may incur administration charges from the hire company for dealing with the PPC letters;
  • The RK is a friend or relative who may find it too stressful to receive the threatening PPC letters (particularly since they won't have the same level of understanding as you do now!).


In these circumstances you might wish to write to the PPC telling them that you were the driver, and then carry on ignoring them after that.


Additional Information

This link will take you to a You Tube video of a BBC Watchdog piece on PPCs.

This summary of our recommendations and the background to them addresses the most common situations people describe in the forums. Individual circumstances do of course vary, and the decision what to do is ultimately yours, so if you are in any doubt please start your own thread for further help.
Click to expand...
 
All getting rather silly, dontcha think?

Maybe time to refer to the ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus …….

C'mon guys and gals - 24 hours free, stay up to 2 extra 24 hour periods for £5 per £24 hours. Fail to cough up or stay longer than 72 hours in total and you're liable to find someone intent on making you wish you hadn't. Simples ……

Same old story, some people take advantage and spoil it for the rest of us. Scarce resources tied up for minimal gain.
 
I'll volunteer to squat on the moorings and collect the fees like the SRB bloke at Henley. Nice little earner even without creative accounting. Where do I apply.;)
 
Gentlemen, think on these points:-

  • It's a trial - that means (or should mean) "we'll see what happens and make appropriate adjustment" it's bound to be a bit rough around the edges.
  • It's a six month trial. it's the winter season with few regular boaters around, so time to sort out the continuous moorers
  • EA have relatively few moorings, so it's not a major upheaval whichever way...
  • With a (potentially) large influx of boats from CaRT waters as a result of their new policies, something needs to be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

T
Notices to Mariners - Week 51
Replies
4
Views
776
Shaz77
S
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 01 of 2026(!)
Replies
9
Views
731
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top