boatone
Well-known member
Sorry, that's much too deep for me - but I have a feeling that it is not complimentary!
Last edited:
EA Ramping Up Registration Enforcement
- Thread starter boatone
- Start date
Sorry, that's much too deep for me - but I have a feeling that it is not complimentary!
apollo
...
Sorry, that's much too deep for me - but I have a feeling that it is not complimentary!
At the risk of TT_WO boring me for ever more, he is right you DO normally demand documentary evidence of everything and yet as this is from your mates at the EA its taken at face value.
My main gripe is you are pretty dismissive of a lot of points made on forum and hence guilty of shooting the messenger yourself..
TrueBlue
Well-known member
There's a big difference, Parks and the like are declared to be for the public's use
The Thames is not.
OK there's a right of navigation - but the EA is not obliged to maintain it (much)
As one EA board member has said to the effect "the public are not interested in boating
EA sees the River as a drain and boaters seen as a pain in the fundament.
Your licence fee is to allow you to put your boat ON their water and nothing more.
'Tis the inescapable truth.
oldgit
Well-known member
"I think I contribute enough pounds to expect the odd penny to go towards something I actually use and in this part of the country the Thames benefits everyone in one way or another, boat owners or not."
10,000. Boats registered on the Thames.
Why would you expect the other 60 million peeps in UK to dip into their pockets to enable you wander up and down river on a nice sunny day. ?
Nobody is demanding that the river is privatised and all users pay the full costs of running the river.
However asking all who "use" the river for whatever purpose to contribute something does not seem unreasonable.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the peeps objecting to paying are not those with 5M day boats but those with 30 metres of floating home or am I being cynical.
10,000. Boats registered on the Thames.
Why would you expect the other 60 million peeps in UK to dip into their pockets to enable you wander up and down river on a nice sunny day. ?
Nobody is demanding that the river is privatised and all users pay the full costs of running the river.
However asking all who "use" the river for whatever purpose to contribute something does not seem unreasonable.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the peeps objecting to paying are not those with 5M day boats but those with 30 metres of floating home or am I being cynical.
boatone
Well-known member
I may have an alternative point of view but I am never dismissive. Yes, I do ask frequently for evidence because a general whinge at the EA will achieve absolutely nothing whereas chapter and verse about a specific incident or issue sometimes can result in action and even a result.
As for your comment about my relationship with the EA I think they will be highly amused at your suggestion that they are my "mates" ! Believe it or not, representing river users effectively actually requires an ability to engage with their staff rather than antagonise them which would be counter-productive.
Last edited:
Actionmat
Well-known member
10,000. Boats registered on the Thames.
Why would you expect the other 60 million peeps in UK to dip into their pockets to enable you wander up and down river on a nice sunny day. ?
Nobody is demanding that the river is privatised and all users pay the full costs of running the river.
However asking all who "use" the river for whatever purpose to contribute something does not seem unreasonable.
Have a sneaking suspicion that the peeps objecting to paying are not those with 5M day boats but those with 30 metres of floating home or am I being cynical.
I contribute around £500 annually for 31ft, plus overnight mooring fees in locks(circa £100pa), EA pump out cards(£100)and like the other 60 million, pay again through taxation. Fortunately for me, I have a private mooring, or I'd be looking at £5k including marina fees. It costs more than enough thankyou.
I don't know why you keep telling the non tidal boaters that they should pay even more, perhaps your efforts would be better directed at the £19 rowers or an increase in the licence fee for visiting boats?
And have you considered that the 10,000 boats are what the public comes to look at?
This is what we do as a family instead of holidaying abroad. Something the Tourist Board and the EA should be encouraging.
Last edited:
apollo
...
Whats it got to do with them? They don't post dismissive remarks on this forum..
Last edited:
oldgit
Well-known member
.
Because some boaters appear to think that the amount they have historically paid in the past had some sort of relationship with what it cost to fund the very comprehensive facilities they enjoyed.
That was yesterday,when public support was less begrudged.
It is now the case that the users of such facilities are going to find a decline in service unless funding can be found to make up shortfall.
Visitors to the Thames probably would pay more for a short term licence, perhaps because we outsiders appreciate the amazing experience provided regards amenities especially the lock staff.
Perhaps those not happy to pay more would like to spend a few days boating on any other watercourse in UK.
Because some boaters appear to think that the amount they have historically paid in the past had some sort of relationship with what it cost to fund the very comprehensive facilities they enjoyed.
That was yesterday,when public support was less begrudged.
It is now the case that the users of such facilities are going to find a decline in service unless funding can be found to make up shortfall.
Visitors to the Thames probably would pay more for a short term licence, perhaps because we outsiders appreciate the amazing experience provided regards amenities especially the lock staff.
Perhaps those not happy to pay more would like to spend a few days boating on any other watercourse in UK.
Ditto .
Actionmat
Well-known member
You might have a point had the licence fee not gone up well above inflation, year after year and with reduced services to the extent where we will end up relying on volunteers
I don't think that your opinion is a fair representation, but I'm glad you appreciate what we've got. If you were based on the Thames I have a feeling that your nimby attitude would be more supportive.
I don't think that your opinion is a fair representation, but I'm glad you appreciate what we've got. If you were based on the Thames I have a feeling that your nimby attitude would be more supportive.
Last edited:
apollo
...
Spot on, plus all the hairbrained schemes they have pi$$ed their money up the wall on in the same period.
oldgit
Well-known member
After laying awake all night racked with gilt OG has decided to show solidarity with the "workers" and cough up for his Peel Ports licence.(less Club discount).
He also intends to increase the funds available to the EA by going up to Allington Lock over the weekend, hopefully easing the looming funding crises on Ye Thaemes a tad.
He also intends to increase the funds available to the EA by going up to Allington Lock over the weekend, hopefully easing the looming funding crises on Ye Thaemes a tad.
TT_WO
New member
With some justification, you present information on this forum in authoritative manner as befits a poster who clearly has access to and searches out information to the benefit of us all, however your prejudices on the topic of registration in marinas risk devaluing your information especially if you prefer not to explain the justification for your statements.
In April you opened a thread titled “If you haven’t got a license” wherein you stated that “enforcement officers would be targeting marinas before the end of the month” Ok you are passing on what may be to some, valuable information. The 2nd post asks;
“If a boat is permanently in a marina and has no intention whatsoever of going out............on the river is there any need for a license?
Your answer was not ‘check with your club or even the’ EA but;
“If a boat is afloat between Teddington and Lechlade it needs a license. Just an un-hypothetical answer of, course”
This poster has, from the response, accepted without question your answer which is just what the EA hope will happen, if you repeat something often enough and with enough authority, it will be believed by the majority, but both of you should be prepared to provide evidence or explanation when challenged.
Your answer was not correct and misleading, it should have been,
“If a boat is on the River Thames (as defined by the Thames Conservancy act 1932) between Teddington and Lechlade, It needs a license/registration.
That is also what the Inland waterways order 2010 states. The claim that this includes all marinas is a convenient interpretation of the legislation without any foundation unless of course the marina (or part of it) is located within the confines of the river Thames but then they would expect to pay for Accommodations (pontoons, piles etc.)
If a marina is not charged for accommodations it is only because they are not on the River Thames and if that is the case how can the EA legitimately require registration of boats that are kept therein.
boatone
Well-known member
My answer remains as per my earlier post quoted above. I have no prejudice one way or the other. I pass on information that I receive in good faith. I have done everything in my power to try and ensure that information I pass on is from a reliable source and frequently do not pass information until I have been able to verify it or, at the very least, qualify it accordingly.
I am content to let the courts decide the final outcome. I use my boat on the river so the case of a boat remaining within a marina is not relevant to me.
As to whether pontoons in marinas should be considered accommodations this is, perhaps not surprisingly, already being questioned. However, I have no doubt that, should this prove to be the case, any accommodation charges which may then be payable will be passed straight through to berth holders.
oldgit
Well-known member
On the lower Medway any construction on the river bed wether pile or anchor has to have prior permission before any work is carried out.
A rent or one off payment is required with no exception.
A rent or one off payment is required with no exception.
Last edited:
TT_WO
New member
You say you have no prejudice one way or the other so can I recommend less use of terms such as delinquents or evaders in your posts on this topic unless you qualify the type of registration offence.
I think the EA have wasted enough of our money on the TWO/Inland Waterways order 2010 without spending more trying to criminalise a boat owner for keeping an unregistered boat in a private marina which cannot be considered to be within the Thames by definition. Perhaps the EA should take some advice as to their position if they were to lose such a case and what legal advice they received to make them believe that they were justified in making this charge in light of removal of the Adjacent Waters legislation from the Inland waterways order 2010.
This was my first question to the BMF 4 years ago after they stated the EA intended to include private marinas in their new IWO 2010 registration changes, I was told they had no intention of charging private marinas for their accommodations they (EA) were only interested in registration charges. I always thought it likely that the EA would give this undertaking to ensure the co-operation of the marinas on the registration enforcement.
If this is being questioned as you say why is such information not being minuted at any EA/ user meetings.
boatone
Well-known member
TT_WO - I have previously questioned who you are and your specific interest in the matter of licence fees for craft in marinas.
If you are an affected party and choose to challenge the EA through the legal process I look forward to seeing the outcome. If you are not an interested party then why exactly are you so intent on prolonging an argument that is none of your concern?
If you are an affected party and choose to challenge the EA through the legal process I look forward to seeing the outcome. If you are not an interested party then why exactly are you so intent on prolonging an argument that is none of your concern?
djm
New member
The fact that a government agency is making the law up as it goes along and deceitfully demanding money with menaces (the threat of a criminal record) should be EVERYONE'S concern. Just how many times does it have to be repeated that the EA's attempt to require licensing of craft kept on Thames adjacent waters (described by the EA itself as including marinas) and not used on the Thames was refused by the Secretary of State and was removed from the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010? Four years on and the EA has not yet dared to commence a single prosecution but they continue with their disgraceful deceit and bully people into paying up or removing craft, without any lawful authority.
TT_WO, please keep up your good work in exposing the corrupt and useless Environment Agency.
LimL
Member
I agree. If it's true that the EA would be acting unlawfully by harassing marina-based boat owners that don't use the river then they should not be doing it. If they do, they are wasting the money of those of us who like me moor in a marina and have a licence. The EA needs to reduce its costs to the minimum (see other posts) so as to maximise the services they provide to river users.
TT_WO
New member
Thankyou djm and Liml, especially for explaining to boatone why this should be everyones concern. I am surprised that such an explanation should be necessary and fail to see how anyone on here can decide what is or is not my concern.
As I have explained before, I was since 2004, an objector to some of the provisions of the Transport and works Order submitted by the EA. This was a formal process wherein objections were responded to by the EA. Part of my objection related to provisions to extend to the EA powers over waters adjacent to the River Thames and as Djm pointed out adjacent waters were defined in the legislation to include marinas.
The Secretary of State ordered removal from the legislation all the provisions related to adjacent waters and what remained of the TWO was passed and is known as Inland waterways order 2010. Years of work, argument and expense did not convince the SS to include the legislation that the EA wanted. They avoided telling anyone that the AW legislation was not included in the IWO 2010 and proceeded as if it was included and stated that the new provisions regarding registration of kept boats in the Thames would include adjacent water marinas when it clearly could not.
I trust this explains my interest in registration of kept craft in adjacent water marinas.
oldgit
Well-known member
So basically we need this sorted out in court. If the objectors have the courage of their convictions that this is some monsterous infringement of their right to enjoy a facility funded by the rest us gratis, surely the chance to prove your case will be welcome.
This will result in one of two things, either all floating on Thames water will be required to pay a contribution or anybody not on the main watercourse will have a case not to pay anything towards the upkeep of the river.
One way or another we will have an answer.
The EA have made a decision, will the owners of those houseboats come to court to defend their position ?
This will result in one of two things, either all floating on Thames water will be required to pay a contribution or anybody not on the main watercourse will have a case not to pay anything towards the upkeep of the river.
One way or another we will have an answer.
The EA have made a decision, will the owners of those houseboats come to court to defend their position ?