EA Consultation on Charges and related issues for 2022-24

[boatone]

The 6 main Thames related boating organisations have issued a Briefing Note encouraging ALL boaters to respond to the EA Consultation on Charges for 2022-24. Although the bottom line is increases of 2022/+6%, 2023/+4% and 2024/0% the proposals affect many other aspects of the EA's charging regime.

Many boaters have expressed their dissatisfaction with the management of the river. PLEASE take this opportunity to ensure your concerns and views are communicated by responding to the consultation which closes on 16th September.
DO NOT assume the outcome is a foregone conclusion - if you don't respond you will actually be assisting that outcome - the EA tend to assume that no response = generally satisfied.

Boating representatives have worked hard to promote this joint approach by the boating organisations. PLEASE assist us by individually responding to the consultation and do your best to encourage other boaters to do so.

 

[oldgit]

..........trying to get skippers down here to fill in that questionaire, it does involve the Medway and in addition many visit the Thames each year,
Personally think charges on all the navigations should be on length ( as the Medway) as opposed to area.

 

[Gumpy]

Under the proposed charging scheme of LxB it appears that my registration fee will go down by £100 pa.
This is in EA Anglian Region. You can guess how I filled out the survey

 

[Bran]

Even a lock keeper has asked if I will complete the consultation, especially reference to their inability to enforce licensing as they are getting frustrated that they cannot challenge a user to see if they have a valid license. Also some of them are boat owners.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

It's a bit picky and I know there is use of language to take into account but it is always worth being aware that use of the Thames is not under any sort of licensing.

A licence implies that you need permission. You don't. The River is a PRN (Public Right of Navigation) waterway.

You are legally obliged to register the boat and pay for this and insurance and boat safety if it applies but you do not have to ask for a "licence". Edit for English spelling.

Lock keepers can't enforce registration requirements due to the PRN, it's not possible. They can and should report any unregistered vessels to those who can follow it up with action.

Usually this would be by doing an unregistered form but I suppose these days there is a fair bit of CBA and it doesn't happen.

Fair enough.

Patrol boats with officers who have powers to enforce registration is the way to do it but even they can't do anything on the spot. It all needs to be done by writing at the end of the day.

 

[Scapegoat]

It's a bit picky and I know there is use of language to take into account but it is always worth being aware that use of the Thames is not under any sort of licensing.

A licence implies that you need permission. You don't. The River is a PRN (Public Right of Navigation) waterway.

You are legally obliged to register the boat and pay for this and insurance and boat safety if it applies but you do not have to ask for a "licence". Edit for English spelling.

Lock keepers can't enforce registration requirements due to the PRN, it's not possible. They can and should report any unregistered vessels to those who can follow it up with action.

Usually this would be by doing an unregistered form but I suppose these days there is a fair bit of CBA and it doesn't happen.

Fair enough.

Patrol boats with officers who have powers to enforce registration is the way to do it but even they can't do anything on the spot. It all needs to be done by writing at the end of the day.

Interesting. Is it possible to enforce insurance and/or boat safety ?

 

[Outinthedinghy]

As I understand it there is a legal requirement to register craft and provide insurance and boat safety scheme (BS) certificate details if the boat is subject to the BS.

The licence thing is slightly interesting because on the canals the navigation authority does have a legal right to allow people to use the waterway by licence but on rivers like the Thames and others which have a PRN status this is not something which is up to the navigation authority. Yes they can and should certainly enforce legal registration and other requirements but the permission to use the waterway itself is not theirs to allow.

The EA staff do know this. If you call them and pay for the thing the lady (usually a lady in my experience) on the phone will say "I will put your registration plates in the post tomorrow". No talk of licences.

 

[Scapegoat]

As I understand it there is a legal requirement to register craft and provide insurance and boat safety scheme (BS) certificate details if the boat is subject to the BS.

The licence thing is slightly interesting because on the canals the navigation authority does have a legal right to allow people to use the waterway by licence but on rivers like the Thames and others which have a PRN status this is not something which is up to the navigation authority. Yes they can and should certainly enforce legal registration and other requirements but the permission to use the waterway itself is not theirs to allow.

The EA staff do know this. If you call them and pay for the thing the lady (usually a lady in my experience) on the phone will say "I will put your registration plates in the post tomorrow". No talk of licences.

So presumably the EA and Lock keepers could legitimately ask for proof of BSC and Insurance even though the Thames has PRN status

 

[Portland Billy]

Then obviously the laws need changing to allow some form of enforcement and regulation.
This cannot be insurmountable and is necessary to preserve some semblance of order.

 

[Mushroom2]

I have half completed the form, but loking through the rest of it quickly I could not see anywhere to raise concerns like these.

 

[boatone]

This consultation is entirely about charges and related matters.
You are right that it presents no opportunity to directly address service delivery concerns. However there are a number of ‘free text’ opportunities to voice concerns re increasing charges in the light of reduced services. If a significant number of responders disagree with the proposals that could force a rethink and create opportunity for user reps to press for change.

 

[boatone]

The first question in the EA consultation asks us to agree with their proposal to calculate craft registration charges for all EA waterways on a Length x Beam approach = per square metre.
This is the current method for the Thames but Anglian and Medway are currently charged by length only. The EA want to introduce a common approach fir all their waterways and propose LxB.
Given the shortage of mooring space, the Thames would be better served by a Length only system. Whichever system prevails, the transition is a difficult one and inevitably will result in winners and losers.
The EA seem to be intent on trying to create a common system for their own convenience rather than recognising the best approach for each unique waterway which is why boating organisations are urging boaters to disagree with many of the proposals.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

LxB seems to make sense. Surely the most expensive part of keeping the River navigable is maintenance and operation of the locks.

Boats with a larger surface area take up more room in locks.

If it were changed to charging by length only I think I would probably pay less as my boat is quite short and wide but I still think LxB makes sense.

Moorings is a different thing really. It does not appear to me that the EA spend a particularly large amount of money maintaining their moorings compared with the locks and associated infrastructure.


I don't know what the actual cost breakdown is but I can see locks being the big expense.

 

[Scapegoat]

LxB seems to make sense. Surely the most expensive part of keeping the River navigable is maintenance and operation of the locks.

Boats with a larger surface area take up more room in locks.

If it were changed to charging by length only I think I would probably pay less as my boat is quite short and wide but I still think LxB makes sense.

Moorings is a different thing really. It does not appear to me that the EA spend a particularly large amount of money maintaining their moorings compared with the locks and associated infrastructure.


I don't know what the actual cost breakdown is but I can see locks being the big expense.

I think it depends. Length is quite pertinent in locks. Some locks, like Romney are wide so boats can go in on both sides. The number of boats going through narrower locks, like Boveney, may be restricted by longer vessels.

Certainly mooring spaces are in short supply and the increase in the number of longer vessels significantly reduces the number of boats that can moor in the available space.

Whilst EA maintenance of moorings is currently poor, I hope that they may improve matters with the capital funding awarded recently.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

Slightly off topic but definitely relevant to current discussions about the River.

According to a table in the notes about the consultation, "Enforcement" is NOT funded from registration charges. So if a boat is subject to enforcement those costs would not actually be transferred onto other paying waterway users.

I believe most people think they would be.

That's quite intriguing if I am reading it right in that perhaps this is why enforcement seems to have stopped. Maybe the external (not registration income) funding has dried up.

I could have wrong end of stick but it looks like it's a different funding source according to this :

 

[DougOut]

Slightly off topic but definitely relevant to current discussions about the River.

According to a table in the notes about the consultation, "Enforcement" is NOT funded from registration charges. So if a boat is subject to enforcement those costs would not actually be transferred onto other paying waterway users.

I believe most people think they would be.

That's quite intriguing if I am reading it right in that perhaps this is why enforcement seems to have stopped. Maybe the external (not registration income) funding has dried up.

I could have wrong end of stick but it looks like it's a different funding source according to this :

View attachment 121303

It seems to me that the Enforcement shouldn't come from registration but from the enforcees themselves. Lots of places use 3rd party enforcement companies with one obvious comparison being parking enforcement. So why not sub enforcement out?

 

[Outinthedinghy]

I agree with that I was just thinking that the comment "all these unregistered boats will just push our registration costs up" is actually incorrect.

Of course it does also say that "Compliance" is 100% funded by registration fees. That must have a cost associated with it. At some point compliance moves to enforcement.

As for the parking enforcement / DE etc it's a lot more complicated to deal with boats than it is to pick up a car and take it to a pound somewhere.

Would they actually make any money out of it?


ETA it's an interesting idea for DE to do enforcement of registration but that would mean they would need to have patrol boats out. It would get expensive very quickly.

Managing moorings where a bloke can walk down and have a look is easy.


I don't think the EA actually do use contractors for enforcement it's just that the funding for it comes from somewhere other than boat registration income.
Obviously they occasionally get costs back from the vessel owner but I'm pretty sure they does not happen in every instance. There will be costs not paid for which will need to be settled.

 

[DougOut]

I agree with that I was just thinking that the comment "all these unregistered boats will just push our registration costs up" is actually incorrect.

Of course it does also say that "Compliance" is 100% funded by registration fees. That must have a cost associated with it. At some point compliance moves to enforcement.

As for the parking enforcement / DE etc it's a lot more complicated to deal with boats than it is to pick up a car and take it to a pound somewhere.

Would they actually make any money out of it?

I've just been reading the Medway report about enforcement and it really seems to be working there with compliance up from 60% to over 80%. I'd bet they'd recover their enforcement costs from the unfortunate enforcee Sounds like a pretty good gig to me.

 

[djmercer]

As a river Great Ouse-based boater, I am pleased and feel privileged to have had sight of Tony Riley's letter to ATYC members imploring them to respond to the EA's Charges Consultation. It is good to see that Thames boaters are being advised to strongly oppose the (claimed) 6% increase.

Here on the Great Ouse, boaters are faced with average increases of over 25% for next year with, in some cases double that figure or more. For example, an Ocean 30 will pay an incredible 41.5% more and will be considerably more expensive than registering the same vessel on the Thames. Rather different to the 6% claimed in the EA's 91-pages of deceptive waffle, which, whilst probably deliberately intended into fool DEFRA into a trouble-free sign-off, does NOT fool us.

If the EA's proposals are allowed to proceed, the two main factors which will lead to such enormous and unfair increases for Great Ouse boaters are 1) The £159 base charge and 2) The change to a LENGTH X BEAM basis (as current on the Thames).

We have powerful arguments against the inequitable and unexplained BASE CHARGE.

On the proposed new basis for charges, Iike many others I assumed this Thames basis was a legacy from the old Thames Conservancy days and enshrined in law. Not so. The change was made sometime soon after the EA took over in the 1990s.

Looking back at old EA Harmonisation documents there is a written admission from the EA's national navigation manager in 2006 that, following a complaint from Michael Shefras that the change was unlawful, he had consulted the EA's lawyers and confirmed that there was indeed NO LEGAL BASIS for the change to L X B. He explained that if a proposed article in the new Harmonisation Act (which became the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010) could not be removed then the Thames would have to revert to LENGTH only. He explained that doing so would remove some of the (then) current unfairness.

The article (18) which allowed different methods of calculation of charges for each waterway was subsequently removed and replaced by the iniquitous article 23 - "23. Without prejudice to any other power available to it, the Agency may demand, take and recover or waive such charges for or in connection with the use of the waterways and for any services or facilities provided by it in connection with the waterways as it thinks fit." We are still being sold the lie that the Thames L X B cannot be changed. That is clearly not true. In fact, all the main groups of Thames boaters are now saying 'NO' to L X B in their consultation responses.

Luckily, I still have all the EA Harmonisation Forum papers from 2005-on which show that the expectation was that the Thames system, introduced with no statutory authority, would be corrected and changed back to LENGTH only.

It is indeed most encouraging to see from Tony Riley's letter that the suggested response to Q.1 in the consultation - "Do you support our propoals to use an area-based charge for all powered and unpowered enclosed boats? is "NO". That will certainly be the response from Great Ouse boaters.

Surely, If the EA is to retain (or perhaps regain) any semblance of integrity over the current mess it should start by putting an historic wrong right.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

Gold licence might be an interesting alternative for some.

The Gold Licence also includes a powered tender although you are not meant to go through locks with it.

Everyone probably knows but in case they don't the Gold licence is a combined EA and CRT licence giving access to all waterways managed by the two authorities.

Obviously mainly for narrow boats but if the charges increase wildly then is possible a Gold licence could end up cheaper. Not sure as have not checked.