Summary: We found no fault on Mr D’s complaint about the Council, acting as Salcombe Harbour Authority, deciding he needed to provide a survey confirming his boat was seaworthy. Nor was there fault on his complaint about it failing to give him consent to moor his boat in the harbour.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains about the Council’s decision, as statutory harbour authority for Salcombe Harbour, that:
1. his boat was unseaworthy, without carrying out any inspection of it; and
2. it would not give him consent to moor his boat in the harbour.
2. As a result, this restricted use of his boat, caused him a great deal of stress which affected his health, and also lost him the chance to berth it on a private pontoon up for sale.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

The Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847

5. Under this Act, the harbour master may give directions for regulating the time at which, and the manner in which, any vessel shall enter into, go out of, or lie in or at the harbour, dock, or pier, and for the removing of unserviceable vessels and other obstructions (section 52).
6. No vessel which is laid by or neglected as unfit for sea service shall be allowed to lie within the limits of the harbour, dock, or pier. The harbour master may cause such vessel to be, at the owner’s expense, removed. (section 57)

Back to top

Council bye-laws for Salcombe Harbour

7. Unless there is consent of the harbour master, nobody shall launch a vessel into the harbour except from a suitable launching place.
8. The master of a vessel shall not take it into the harbour without the consent of the harbour master if it is, or may be, in danger of foundering or sinking or is incapable of being safely navigated.
9. The owner of a vessel who intends to normally keep it within the harbour shall insure it and keep it insured.

Back to top

Salcombe Harbour Authority Moorings Policy

10. All harbour authority mooring licences are issued annually to a named individual or company and are not transferable. (paragraph 6.0.2)
11. Vessels which are unseaworthy in the opinion of the harbour master will be directed to be removed from the harbour. (paragraph 6.0.6)
12. Where a mooring facility is no longer retained, it is passed to the harbour authority for allocation to the next person on the waiting list. (paragraph 6.0.7)
13. Mooring licence holders who move away from the Council’s area, will normally be given two years to make alternative arrangements before their mooring licence is revoked. (paragraph 6.3.2)
14. Where the whole or part of a commercial business is sold, the harbour authority will transfer the mooring facilities to the new owners provided there is no change of usage of the mooring facilities. (paragraph 6.13.5)
15. Where the harbour authority considers a business no longer reasonably requires the renewal of the present number of berths allocated, on the expiry of those licences, the number re-allocated may be reduced. (paragraph 6.13.6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered all the information Mr D sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I have seen evidence which I cannot share with Mr D. This is because it contains information about third parties and needs to remain confidential to them. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr D and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

17. The Council is the statutory harbour authority for Salcombe Harbour. The Salcombe Harbour Authority (SHA) is a local authority port. About three years ago, Mr D bought an inland waterways boat which needed some work doing to it. He wanted to moor it on a friend’s pontoon.
18. Mr D claims the Council refused to allow him to enter the harbour and condemned his boat without seeing it. It also threatened to remove it if he entered, regardless of its condition. The Council confirmed at no time was his boat condemned.

Complaint a): unseaworthy vessel

19. In November 2022, he emailed the SHA to check there were no problems with him using a friend’s pontoon in the harbour for free to moor his boat. He said he had been working on his boat for, ‘over 2 years, mainly plating below the waterline, replacing roughly 2 8x4 sheets of metal due to deterioration from the inside in small areas’. He also said he had been, ‘working on it every day since I’ve had it’.
20. In response, the SHA sent him an email with seven points of action he needed to take before he could do so. These included: the need for insurance; a professional survey of the boat’s current condition, given the amount of work done on the hull and below the waterline, to assess seaworthiness before launch.
21. He was later told if he entered the harbour without the survey, the harbour master would exercise powers under the 1847 Act to give special directions for its removal as unserviceable.
22. During a call towards the end of November, Mr D told the SHA his boat was being forced to leave its location despite not having completed the refit. I have not seen a copy of this call.
23. He was told as the boat was having extensive works and was clearly unseaworthy while these were being done and the hull plating remained unfinished, the harbour master considered it remained unseaworthy and unsafe for navigation until he received independent assurances. He was asked for survey evidence that it was structurally seaworthy and safe to use before entering the harbour. The Council explained it also decided it needed this because of the private nature of the mooring, the size of his boat (which it does not have the capacity to lift if there was a problem), its extensive repairs, and the proposal to launch it before the completion of works.
24. The SHA considered the dimensions of the sheets replaced on the hull were excessive which included works below the waterline. Given the need for the works, and the work itself, it was reasonable to assume the vessel was unseaworthy. This was true during the repairs.
25. Mr D told the SHA in December, he accepted the seven-point list of action needed and would supply a survey report.
26. He claimed the SHA’s approach caused him a great deal of stress and lost him the chance to berth on a private pontoon in the harbour. He feels victimised as other owners were allowed into the harbour despite the poor condition of their boats. He disputed the claim about his boat being unserviceable and unseaworthy as the SHA ever inspected it.
27. Mr D complained about another boat which was in poor condition and was allowed in to the harbour.
28. The Council explained this boat was moored on a resident harbour mooring since 2013. The owner had taken ill and the vessel's condition deteriorated over the last few years. The SHA asked the owner to do a survey/repair work on the boat. This boat was too large for the SHA to lift. Repairs were done at a private boatyard and the SHA worked with the owner to sell or dispose of it without it becoming a liability to the harbour. The boat was eventually moved to a private boatyard because of lack of a buyer where it was demolished.
29. The SHA replied to Mr D’s query about this boat before it was demolished and was up for sale. Mr D had used a different name and email address when he enquired about it. The SHA explained it would only allow it to remain there as a visitor until April 2023 as it did not wish to continue, or renew, its current resident mooring past this date due to its condition. Nor could it remain anywhere in the harbour.

My findings

30. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. I found no fault on the complaint about the harbour master requiring a survey of Mr D’s boat before granting consent for his boat to enter the harbour. This is because:

• there were reasonable grounds to have doubts about its seaworthiness from information Mr D himself provided. As already noted, he told the SHA he had been working every day on the boat since he had bought it two years earlier. In addition, he also explained about the metal plating replacement which included below the waterline.
• Under the 1847 Act, the harbour master could prevent admission to the harbour to vessels which are unseaworthy.
• Under the Council’s byelaws, the harbour master may also refuse consent where it may be in danger of sinking, foundering or incapable of being safely navigated.
2. I am not satisfied the SHA treated Mr D differently to the owner of the boat which was demolished. This boat was in the harbour since 2013 and the owner was asked to provide a survey/carry out repairs. Despite some works, nobody would buy it and it was scrapped.

Complaint b): consent to moor

31. Mr D claims the Council refused him consent to moor his boat in the harbour which lost him the chance to use his friend’s pontoons. His friend had operated a commercial business, and had a commercial mooring licence from the SHA, for years but had now moved away.
32. The SHA asked him to provide evidence of his boat’s seaworthiness before it could consider granting access to the harbour.
33. The Council explained to get a mooring licence, Mr D needed to join the SHA mooring waiting list which he had not done.
34. If Mr D’s friend no longer carried on his business, he would be given notice that it would not renew its licences. The future of this facility was, therefore, uncertain.
35. The SHA also needed Mr D to clarify his mooring intentions because he is not on the waiting list, and there are limited facilities which could accommodate the size of his boat privately.
36. I have seen correspondence between the SHA and Mr D’s friend.

My findings

37. I found no fault on this complaint because:
1. The main obstacle Mr D had to overcome to moor in the harbour was getting consent from the SHA to enter it. Without it, Mr D was unable to enter. As already noted, the SHA made him aware of the action he needed to take to gain consent. Mr D failed to take this action.
2. It was Mr D’s failure to take this action which meant he could not use his friend’s mooring, even if legally possible.
3. In addition, if Mr D wanted to use the mooring on a long-term basis, the SHA would have likely needed to have re-classified it from commercial moorings. He would then have needed to go on the waiting list for its allocation. He had not joined the list anyway.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I found no fault on Mr D’s complaint against the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman