Agree that the "owner" should be responsible for clearing the structure and any related costs. However, what incentive does he have to do that unless the EA are prepared to take a firm stance and enforce the removal ?The EA strategy seems , to me, to be quite clear. They want to make sure the owner or their insurers pick up the bill snd ensure fhe costs do not become a drain on the EA budget. Unfortunately, in many cases the owner cannot be identified or is a “man of straw”. In this case towpath talk suggests that may not be the case so the EA sre probably content to let it stay whilst they try to ensure the owner complies and picks up the bill.
If the EA do the work, or instruct contractors, then the costs may not be recoverable. If they can identify the owner and proceed to take the legal route there is still no guarantee they will get paid. The legal process is interminable and also adds further costs which, in many cases the legal dept. decide not in the public interest. Yes, it stinks.Agree that the "owner" should be responsible for clearing the structure and any related costs. However, what incentive does he have to do that unless the EA are prepared to take a firm stance and enforce the removal ?
Time and again the EA seem unwilling or unable to take effective action to keep the navigation clear and facilities available for those boaters who support the river through responsible behaviour and registration fees.
Unless this "registration by consent" regime changes to one of more robust management and enforcement of rules for everyone's benefit, it is difficult to see how a continuing deterioration of compliance can be prevented.
If the EA do the work, or instruct contractors, then the costs may not be recoverable. If they can identify the owner and proceed to take the legal route there is still no guarantee they will get paid. The legal process is interminable and also adds further costs which, in many cases the legal dept. decide not in the public interest. Yes, it stinks.
Have you responded to the EA charges consultation?
The consultation is totally dedicated to what they charge and how they manage the process. It is nit about delivery of specific services or facilities. It proposes increases in registration fees for 2022-24 but also covers many other changes they wish to introduce re craft registration related issues - measurement of boats, craft identification, payment and refund proposals etc.There is supposed to be a FB Q&A soon so it will be interesting to hear the responses before responding to the consultation.
The NBTA apparently didn’t like these proposalsThis is interesting (.pdf)
Goes into some considerable detail as to the options available to local councils for control of moorings and associated problems.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2QE5kDtkClWOopi_OIeHpz
Must have read post #28 above ???Houseboat is now at the end of the mooring.
Amadeus is looking very good this year. The owner seems to be putting a lot of work in.One end of the mooring is the houseboat, other end is Amadeus!