I owe it to you to put you in the picture regarding NABO's position on this. I will do it in 'bullet points'
BW set up the Moorings Contracts Workshop and invited boating groups to nominate representatives. NABO nominated Simon Robbins.
This group was originally to consider security of tenure, durations of contracts, sale of boats with moorings and other matters generally unrelated to price setting. In the Workshop's 'terms of reference', its members were asked to keep discussions to themselves so that contentious proposals could be thrashed out without causing public alarm.
A proposal was then tabled to assess market rates through auction. NABO's representative felt he couldn't speak for NABO on the subject without guidance from NABO Council. He returned to the next workshop meeting with a mandate to oppose the idea in principle, which he found was in accord with most other representatives.
In spite of this advice from the Workshop, BW announced at the next Boating Issues Meeting, where representatives from boating groups were under no obligation of confidentiality, that a trial auction would take place and that BW had no obligation to act on advice from users or their representatives regarding their mooring berth provision activities.
At the meeting the IWA representative insisted the IWA would not condone any trial if postal tenders were not part of it. Most other group representatives expressed general opposition to any process where a mooring is let to the highest bidder, bypassing waiting lists.
To accommodate this, BW sent out an invitation to boating group officers to take part in a different workshop in which it was made clear, to quote from the invitation message, that: 'the purpose of the workshop is not to debate the merits of postal tenders vs. online auctions, but to develop a potential postal tender process.'
Since this was not regarded as a forum at which NABO's views on the principles could be expressed, NABO Council resolved at its next meeting that its chairman should decline the invitation, lest acceptance was construed as support. (I should point out that it goes right against the grain to refuse an opportunity to talk but justified in this case)
Subsequently to this it appears that the IWA Navigation Committee met and also briefed its representative to oppose any scheme for letting moorings to the highest bidder.
NABO wrote to the chairman of BWB to complain that, in spite of assurances
in the Moorings Contracts Workshop's terms of reference that any proposals
made in said forum would be put to public consultation before implementation,
no proper consultation was to take place before implementation of the 'trial'.
This complaint has been passed down and is now subject to BW's Internal Complaints
Procedure and we await a response.
Since then BW has abandoned the open auction in which bidders can track the highest bid (like eBay) and now refers to the process as 'Tender', with all offers sealed until the day of reckoning. Those looking for a mooring can register online or by post, the latter attracting a £10 handling fee. Those on existing waiting lists have been informed individually by post and the procedure publicised.
At the Crick Show, NABO was informed by BW that it should not use the word 'Auction' and that to do so was tantamount to scare-mongering. NABO's display was duly amended. The fact that NABO was unaware of the change of emphasis was put down to NABO's refusal to be involved.
The arguments rest on what is a 'trial' (The US exploded its trial atom bomb on a Pacific atoll where it couldn't hurt anybody!) and what is 'consultation' (BW is obliged under the 1995 Act to consult its customers and they should be comfortable that their views are taken into account).