EA charging licences for boats that don't leave marinas

Gumpy

Gumpy

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Dec 2006
Messages
1,577
Location
A far corner of Little England
Visit site
Whilst discussing unlicenced boats on another forum it was pointed out that in the TWO of 2010 the EA did not get the right to insist that all boats in connected waters must have a licence. Can anyone point me to the legislation rhat says they can?

J
 
Loddon said:
Whilst discussing unlicenced boats on another forum it was pointed out that in the TWO of 2010 the EA did not get the right to insist that all boats in connected waters must have a licence. Can anyone point me to the legislation rhat says they can?

J
Click to expand...
The organised non payers quote The Thames Conservancy Act 1932 to say they can't, which they claim trumps any other legislation.
 
I guess the thing to do if you *really* don't believe that they should be charging is to let it go to court and contest it.

Make sure you're confident ... Big bills if you lose ... ;)
 
teddington_lock said:
I guess the thing to do if you *really* don't believe that they should be charging is to let it go to court and contest it.

Make sure you're confident ... Big bills if you lose ... ;)
Click to expand...

I do belive that the right to charge is there as it is on Anglian and Medway. However I posted on another forum that CRT cannot now get aTWO to vary the licensing on the Trent the way the EA did for the Thames and was told that EA couldn't charge for connected waters and there have been no contested cases that have been won by the EA. Note the use of the word contested ;) . So I would like to find the actual law that says they can just to shut the others up.......
 
Loddon said:
I would like to find the actual law that says they can just to shut the others up.......
Click to expand...

It is a far more complex and interesting question than the issue over the extent of the ‘main navigable channel’ comprising the BW/CaRT “river waterways”.

The ‘contra’ argument relies, as you have linked to, on the determination by the SoS that applying registration and charging provisions to waters beyond their jurisdiction would be unlawfully beyond the authority’s powers. I believe that decision to be perfectly correct. The logical extension to the definition of “connected” waters would have enabled the EA to demand Gold Licences from every canal boater, regardless of whether they ever used the Thames.

That leaves for determination just what waters ARE comprised within the authority’s jurisdiction. Reliance in placed on the 1932 definition BECAUSE –

“Application 3.—

(1) The provisions of this Order apply to the waterways.
(2) The waterways are—
(e) the Thames within the meaning of section 4 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.”
Section IV referred to states:

“4. In this Act the word "Thames" shall unless there is something in the subject or context repugnant to such construction mean and include—

(a) so much of the rivers Thames and Isis as is between the east side of the Town Bridge at in the county of Wilts and an imaginary straight line drawn from high-water mark on the bank of the river Thames at the boundary line between the parishes of Teddington and Twickenham in the county of Middlesex to high-water mark on the Surrey bank of the river immediately opposite the last hereinbefore mentioned point; and

(b) so much of the river Kennet as is between the river Thames and an imaginary straight line drawn from a point on the north bank of the
river Kennet seventy yards eastward of the east side of the High Bridge at Reading in the county of Berks to a point on the south bank of the river Kennet immediately opposite the last hereinbefore mentioned point;

and all locks cuts and works within the said portions of rivers Provided that no dock lock canal or cut existing at the seventeenth day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four and constructed under the authority of Parliament and belonging to any body corporate established under such authority and no bridge over the Thames or the river Kennet belonging to or vested in any county council municipal authority railway company or any company body or person other than the Conservators shall be deemed to form part of the Thames."

It is evident, therefore, that certain connected waterways as described in that last paragraph, were NOT within the jurisdiction. Equally obviously, however, no modern marina or private cut built post-1894 would qualify – but would they constitute works “within the said portions of rivers”? It seems unlikely.

I am not going to argue for either side in this debate, simply because it is not that clear-cut to me; I see merit in both sides. For balance, however, and to give you something to cogitate over: -

The TCA 32 recognised the PRN of all connected waters [with rare exceptions] –

79.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act it shall be lawful for all persons whether for pleasure or for profit to go be pass and repass in vessels over or upon
any and every part of the Thames through which Thames water flows including all such backwaters creeks side-channels bays and inlets connected therewith as
form parts of the said river:

With the Act acknowledging the PRN of all such waters, did it do so for the protection of public rights in general, or for the protection of public rights within their jurisdiction?

The question continues to hinge around the term: “as form parts of the said river”.
 
There is a legal way to avoid the annual EA fee for marina customers. Get a lift out. When you're ready to get her wet again, pay up like the rest of us.
 
Actionmat said:
There is a legal way to avoid the annual EA fee for marina customers. Get a lift out. When you're ready to get her wet again, pay up like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

You cannot surely mean there are people out there, arguing some dubious reason to not pay up and are freeloading ?.Surely not !
 
oldgit said:
You cannot surely mean there are people out there, arguing some dubious reason to not pay up and are freeloading ?.Surely not !
Click to expand...


On my way upstream late last week I counted 8 vessels moored between Shiplake and Sonning One displayed a registration plate, most had no name - nearly all had CaRT numbers. All were on some of my favourite moorings. One had the effrontery to block the water point while he refitted his boat.....

Damn Bad Show.....
 
TrueBlue said:
On my way upstream late last week I counted 8 vessels moored between Shiplake and Sonning One displayed a registration plate, most had no name - nearly all had CaRT numbers. All were on some of my favourite moorings. One had the effrontery to block the water point while he refitted his boat.....

Damn Bad Show.....
Click to expand...

photos needed
 
TrueBlue said:
On my way upstream late last week I counted 8 vessels moored between Shiplake and Sonning One displayed a registration plate, most had no name - nearly all had CaRT numbers. All were on some of my favourite moorings. One had the effrontery to block the water point while he refitted his boat.....
Damn Bad Show.....
Click to expand...
Any showing visitors licences? Need more details if to feed into the pot - especially re boat on water point, did you notify lockies?

EA seem to think it is ok to cease prosecution if boater eventually pays up. Why? Surely the offence is committed if payment not made by 1st January and a licence is not clearly displayed - clear identification is also a requirement. Don't get let off for not having paid road fund licence if caught. If EA prosecuted, without fear or favour, for offences committed attitudes would soon change.
 
TrueBlue said:
On my way upstream late last week I counted 8 vessels moored between Shiplake and Sonning One displayed a registration plate, most had no name - nearly all had CaRT numbers. All were on some of my favourite moorings. One had the effrontery to block the water point while he refitted his boat.....

Damn Bad Show.....
Click to expand...

Same as my experience 1 week ago. If it's anything like last year they will be on those moorings for most of the summer. Only variation in my case 2 boats were picnicking on the water/pump out station. Tables,chairs, tent all out on the bank. i was hoping someone would come along who needed water or a pump out..............
 
boatone said:
EA seem to think it is ok to cease prosecution if boater eventually pays up. Why? Surely the offence is committed if payment not made by 1st January and a licence is not clearly displayed - clear identification is also a requirement. Don't get let off for not having paid road fund licence if caught. If EA prosecuted, without fear or favour, for offences committed attitudes would soon change.
Click to expand...

The very same thought has occurred to me several times in the past, the way the EA work, it actually makes good sense NOT to pay the license fee. Worst case they come after you at some point in the year and you simply pay at that time, having earned several month's interest on the money you left in your bank account - best case they don't bother chasing you and you get to keep the money.

What they need is a fixed penalty fine of at least £1,000 chargeable on top of the license fee payable any time they catch someone unlicensed.
 
Hardly worth it with today's interest rates. I don't see why they can't just make it a rolling direct debit, where they send you a new licence every December and it's down to the owner to cancel the DD if he sells the boat. The only choice should be paying annually or monthly.
 
Actionmat said:
I don't see why they can't just make it a rolling direct debit, where they send you a new licence every December and it's down to the owner to cancel the DD if he sells the boat. The only choice should be paying annually or monthly.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. Gyms and sports clubs cottoned on to this years ago and get a huge proportion of their revenue from "passive renewers."
 
Being a government department cash flow does not seem to matter and the books are only balanced, so to speak, at the end of the year. As Darren says there is no real incentive to pay other than honesty and any boats actually using the river, particularly passing through locks, will eventually get challenged, issued with an un-registered craft notice and likely pay up at that time. Those that stay out however are much less likely to be detected and there is a lot of effort (=cost) in detection and enforcement. I don' t regard prosecution of the offence so much as a punishment but rather as a deterrent that will lead to prompt payment and reduce the need for enforcement. With funding so tight the amount of money EA are spending on enforcement is a real drain on other activities.
 
Actionmat said:
Hardly worth it with today's interest rates. I don't see why they can't just make it a rolling direct debit, where they send you a new licence every December and it's down to the owner to cancel the DD if he sells the boat. The only choice should be paying annually or monthly.
Click to expand...

I would have thought most boaters do this already, I certainly do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top