EA Ramping Up Registration Enforcement

[apollo]

yeah I guess that's it, at some point perhaps a solicitor that owns a boat in a marina will actually challenge it cos they can and we shall see.

TT_WO I do have some sympathy with your point and I wouldn't put it past EA HQ to pull a stunt like this. Time will tell.

 

[TT_WO]

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.

So if Peel ports suddenly decided that you are required to pay £350 a year to keep your unused boat on the tidal Medway even if you do not use the navigation, would you not think this is a monstrous infringement of your right to enjoy a facility funded by the rest of us gratis.

Then if you found out that Peel Ports had applied for a change in the laws of England to impose this charge legally, the required legislation had been denied but they imposed the charge anyway, would you have the courage of your convictions.

The difference is, the marinas in question are on private land and water, they charge a considerable amount of money to keep your boat in their marina and provide floating pontoons as part of the service for which no charge can be levied by the EA. Private ownership is a fundamental principal of English law.

The EA have made a decision, will the owners of those houseboats come to court to defend their position ?

The important word here is ‘defend’. If the EA start proceedings against an informed boat owner can they be sure of winning. If not, they will waste a lot of our money and risk having to pay refunds to people charged in error.
They may also risk counter charges being instigated against EA officials who have allowed their organisation to make illegal charges without being sure of the legitimacy of their actions.

I think the EA will continue as they have done for the last 4 years and not proceed against anyone where they are not sure of a conviction but any undefended cases will continue to be bought.

 

[oldgit]

So if Peel ports suddenly decided that you are required to pay £350 a year to keep your unused boat on the tidal Medway even if you do not use the navigation, would you not think this is a monstrous infringement of your right to enjoy a facility funded by the rest of us gratis.

Might be worth putting Google on your favorites .

The Peel Group is a private real estate, media, transport and infrastructure investment company in the United Kingdom. Peel's extensive real estate assets consists of 850,000 square metres of investment property and over 13,000 hectares of land.
Peel Ports is a private company. It does not receive and benefit from any public money. It was privatised many years ago.
Everyone pays regardless....no ifs not buts.
A large expensive construction of steel and concrete manned by blokes who want paying and a pension at Teddington keeps your boat floating, am pleased to contribute to it in a small way, how about you and your chums doing the same.
PS.The moon looks after mine, still have to pay tho .

 

[tamarix]

I have been following this thread with interest and this morning received an email from the marina saying that the EA would be coming into the marina checking for licences with this attachment from the EA

 

[thames cruiser]

I have been following this thread with interest and this morning received an email from the marina saying that the EA would be coming into the marina checking for licences with this attachment from the EA
View attachment 42770

Good! If I have to pay, everyone else should pay!

 

[CJL]

The whole issue is quite clear - you have to pay.

Please get over it and accept that laws change. The organisation empowered to regulate the river has made it clear how they will enforce it, they've even gone as far as to seek legal advice (wasting money that could be spent on service delivery) to give a clear position for people who are unsure.

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.

No amount of protestation on forums, websites, in the pub, or the marina bar will ever resolve this.

CJL

 

[TT_WO]

I have been following this thread with interest and this morning received an email from the marina saying that the EA would be coming into the marina checking for licences with this attachment from the EA
View attachment 42770

Thank you for this information. This would appear to be the information I was asking for when I asked Boatone if there had been any statement by the EA regarding the result of them seeking further legal advice on this matter during the course of 2013/14 when they suspended enforcement in marinas. Perhaps the EA read this forum.

Three years ago when this issue was raised with the EA they stated that they were taking further legal advice then, they never published the advice they received to my knowledge, Why not? If they were satisfied then, why did they seek further legal advice during 2013/14?

It is not as clear as the EA would have us believe.
With apologies to Apollo and others I will repeat some of my questions/arguments that have been discussed on this forum before because there will be new readers that are not aware of the background. For the sake of brevity let me pose some questions.

1. Why did the EA apply for the adjacent waters legislation in 2004?

2. In 2007 they told user groups that “The entire charges section has had to be deleted because of Defra advice” This was charging for unused (kept) boats on the mainstream as well as adjacent waters?

3. They stated at the time “EA would continue to promote the bill as it will give third party insurance and boat safety scheme on waters that do not already have the requirement under EA control.”

4. When the bill was passed in 2010 the EA had got their way with DEFRA and they were allowed to include the charging section on the mainstream however the adjacent waters section was not allowed , why did they not tell anyone that this legislation was not included in the bill, ATYC,BMF etc,

5. When challenged by the BMF they said existing legislationTCA1932 gave them the power to charge for boats kept on adjacent waters. Remember in 2007 DEFRA had told them they could not even include the charging legislation for kept boats on the mainstream.

6. The EA state that the TC Act 1932 section 4 defines geographical definition of the Thames and adds the phrase “to include locks cuts and works” and although ‘works’ is not defined, marinas would be described as works. Was this the intended meaning of the term ‘works’ when the legislation was drafted in 1932? Was the more likely intended meaning of the word ‘works’ in the phrase ‘locks cuts and works’ meant to describe a navigation mechanical/engineering structure such as a Weir for example?

7. The full sentence in TCA 1932 is “to include locks cuts and works within the said portions of rivers” the underlined phrase has not to my knowledge ever been included in any EA statement where they have explained that Works means marinas. This latest statement does at least replace the phrase with “within these geographical limits” why not use the original terminology I think we can understand what it means. i.e., the ‘works’ must be within the confines of the, just defined, River Thames. There is no anticipation of future extensions to the Thames in the legislation so the questions must be asked how could the meaning of “works within the said portions of rivers” in 1932 possibly mean a marina that was not constructed until at least 30 years after the river was defined by legislation?

8. Penton Hook marina was one of the marinas in question built in the early 60’s in gravel pits excavated in the 1950’s access to the marina is via an artificial cut from the Thames into the private pit area. There is no public right of navigation through this cut (on the Thames there is a public right of navigation wherever the water flows within the Thames) according to the 1950 agreement between the TC and Surrey Sand and Gravel (MDL), MDL can authorise people to pass through the cut and navigate on MDL’s water beyond. As I understand it the EA barges that are kept in the waters are so authorised / licensed by MDL. Given this information why would anyone believe that these water are anything other than private?

9. If ‘works’ has always meant marinas why has there never been a single prosecution of anyone in a marina by any navigation authority since 1932 until 2010.

10. If ‘works’ have always meant marinas why has no navigation authority since 1932 ever charged for a single pontoon in any adjacent water marina. (They charge for all the pontoons at Bourne End Marina which is clearly on the Thames.)

11. Was the QC aware of these facts before endorsing the EA’s interpretation?

 

[CJL]

The whole issue is quite clear - you have to pay.

Please get over it and accept that laws change. The organisation empowered to regulate the river has made it clear how they will enforce it, they've even gone as far as to seek legal advice (wasting money that could be spent on service delivery) to give a clear position for people who are unsure.

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.

No amount of protestation on forums, websites, in the pub, or the marina bar will ever resolve this.

CJL

 

[Brayman]

The whole issue is quite clear - you have to pay.

Please get over it and accept that laws change. The organisation empowered to regulate the river has made it clear how they will enforce it, they've even gone as far as to seek legal advice (wasting money that could be spent on service delivery) to give a clear position for people who are unsure.

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.

No amount of protestation on forums, websites, in the pub, or the marina bar will ever resolve this.

CJL

I think I read that somewhere before!

 

[boatone]

I think I read that somewhere before!

Pity Gilbert and Sullivan aren't still alive - they could make something entertaining of this

 

[Actionmat]

"when it comes to the enforcement of marinas (of marinas), an inspectors lot is not a a happy one (happy one)"

 

[boatone]

"when it comes to the enforcement of marinas (of marinas), an inspectors lot is not a a happy one (happy one)"

You're getting the idea ! For some reason "TiT WillOw' springs to mind - especially the Muppet version -

- but that was The Mikado and it would be much more appropriate if we could relate to Trial by Jury or HMS Pinafore ...... When I was a lad I served afloat etc

Note - possible implication that I may actually possess something resembling a sense of humour, but, as the late Kenny Everett often said "Its all in the best possible taste " !

 

[boatone]

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.CJL

Exactly the position I have been taking for what is beginning to feel like a lifetime. However, unless an aggrieved individual wishes to do so, it does rest with the EA to instigate proceedings and ensure it is actually tested in court - time will tell.

In the meantime this "argument" is diverting attention away from the fundamental issue of how to secure sustainable funding for the management of the river.

 

[Actionmat]

In the meantime this "argument" is diverting attention away from the fundamental issue of how to secure sustainable funding for the management of the river.

It could also be said that mere mention of sustainable funding is diverting attention away from the issue of squander. It implies that they're doing the best they can with limited resources, which would be unique for a quango. I've read nothing that doesn't reak of new labour I'm afraid.

 

[boatone]

It could also be said that mere mention of sustainable funding is diverting attention away from the issue of squander. It implies that they're doing the best they can with limited resources, which would be unique for a quango. I've read nothing that doesn't reak of new labour I'm afraid.

Gor blimey, mate ! I'm just trying to get better management for the river. I'm afraid someone else will have to take on the country, the world and the universe!

There will always be waste and misappropriation of funds by government departments but no-one has yet found a better way. Organisations like the TMBA do fulfil an extremely valuable function in that we are able, at least to some extent, to exercise oversight and keep digging away at issues that need addressing. However diligent and aggressive we may be we will never achieve nirvana and we are also aware of the importance of maintaining working relationships with those at the coal face. I know some here do not agree with me, but I do believe the majority of the EA folk directly employed in managing the river are trying to do a decent job with limited resources and I don't believe in kicking Indians if the Chiefs are causing the problems.

Early next month I, and about 20 other user group representatives will spend another day of our own time and at our own expense, meeting with the EA and discussing key issues. We are all aware of the problems but finding solutions is the real challenge.

I just wish more powered craft river users would stop whinging, get behind us and help bolster our efforts and resolve to try and effect change. We are by far the biggest group of net monetary contributors to the river and that should be a powerful weapon in itself. Alternatively, if boaters are happy with the way things are - and the way they are going - they need do nothing and we will just have to do the best we can without their support.

Almost two and a half thousand years ago Greek philosopher Plato is reputed to have said - "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." Things don't change much, do they ?

 

[TT_WO]

The whole issue is quite clear - you have to pay.

Please get over it and accept that laws change. The organisation empowered to regulate the river has made it clear how they will enforce it, they've even gone as far as to seek legal advice (wasting money that could be spent on service delivery) to give a clear position for people who are unsure.

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.

No amount of protestation on forums, websites, in the pub, or the marina bar will ever resolve this.

CJL

I can accept that laws change, I have always accepted that the IWO 2010 changed the law to allow the EA to charge for unused boats kept on the Thames (I suspect some are beginning to think that we lost a valuable right and any sanction that we could focus on the EA) but clearly the IWO 2010 did not change the law with respect to waters adjacent to the Thames, neither the EA nor their QC claim that it did.

What we are being asked to believe is that a single undefined word in the 1932 legislation ‘Works’ gives the navigation authorities a right to impose their charging regime on boats that are not on the Thames, no previous authority has claimed those powers and indeed this argument was not advanced by the EA during the whole of the TWO formal objection process.

How much money was spent on getting the TWO/inland waterways order passed? millions would be my guess, with very little to show in increased income, wasting money that could have been spent on service delivery.

Without my input here would anyone know that there are reasons to doubt what the EA claim and clearly the EA have had their own doubts. Accepting at face value all that we are told by the EA is something I am not prepared to do and I suspect many on here feel the same albeit on probably on different issues.

 

[Actionmat]

I agree that a well supported group would make a positive difference. There was a recent programme on R4, where a consultant said the NHS had a saying, "the loudest wheel gets the most grease". In other words, if a patient or their family makes a lot of noise things tend to get gone. The quiet ones are considered satisfied customers, wether they are or not.

 

[boatone]

Without my input here would anyone know that there are reasons to doubt what the EA claim and clearly the EA have had their own doubts. Accepting at face value all that we are told by the EA is something I am not prepared to do and I suspect many on here feel the same albeit on probably on different issues.

Not everything is a conspiracy, in most cases unsatisfactory situations result from lack of care or understanding and we live in a world where everything seems to happen at breakneck speeds without proper consideration. However, the legal system does provide that final end stop that allows anyone who feels they have a legitimate grievance to challenge through the courts.

I certainly do not accept everything at face value and am often criticised for being picky or pedantic as a result. I have also been questioning the validity of this aspect of the IWO but when your head starts to bleed it seems sensible to try and find another way round the brick wall.

Many aspects of river management have been neglected by successive authorities - Thames Conservancy, NRA, Thames Water and now EA for decades and the result is where we are now. If registration enforcement - craft and accommodations - had been addressed efficiently we would have much better systems in place and would have been enjoying greater direct income which would have made the river less vulnerable to the vagaries of public purse money.

At the present time nobody actually knows just how many boats there are on the river and best estimates of the number without licences seems to range widely between 5% and 20%+. With todays database and cellphone/wifi technology a river wide system for identifying boats and ensuring they have current licences should not be rocket science but, at the present time, those resources are not available.

Road Vehicle licensing requires payment on the due date or you get pulled and fined. Why should boat licensing be any different? Craft registration is due on 1st January but as many as 50% of boats are not registered before the season starts. Why should we need to spend huge sums of money on enforcement simply because river users cannot be trusted to pay?

 

[TT_WO]

Break neck speed?

Hardly, the TWO must have taken 10 years from conception to implementation. A further 3.5 years to now and they are still taking advice.

Conspiracy?

Depends on where you stand. Good management or deceitful management.
Certainly few people knew what new charging legislation would be included in the TWO the EA only advertised the Harmonisation, 3rd party insurance and BSS when they introduced their proposed TWO legislation in 2004. Few people knew about the legislation changes to amend the 1932 definition of the Thames in order to apply the new charging proposals to waters adjacent to the Thames including marinas. Clearly the ATYC were aware and had been asking for these changes but the affected people were not their constituents.

When the EA announced in 2007 that DEFRA lawyers had rejected all the new charging proposals, we were not told what was the basis for this rejection? Did customer representatives ask? Could it have been that the DEFRA lawyers had decided that any charging legislation could not be introduced by way of the Transport and Works Act?

In the event it was only the adjacent waters legislation that was rejected because it was Ultra Vires (outside the scope of the TWO). We were told that the EA would continue to work with their lawyers to find ways to make these charges. I remember the EA announcing that if you sat on board a moored vessel having a cup of tea that vessel must be registered as it was ‘being used on the Thames’ the lawyers had found some wording in the 1932 legislation to exploit?

In April 2010 the TWO / Inland Waterways order 2010 was passed. Several months later the ATYC were not aware that the adjacent water legislation was not in the IWO 2010 and neither were the British Marine federation (BMF) who then negotiated removal of any charging implications for its members operating from marinas (like boat sales).

“I have also been questioning the validity of this aspect of the IWO but when your head starts to bleed it seems sensible to try and find another way round the brick wall.”

I bet this makes you popular with the EA and fellow user representatives. Is it that the EA are not prepared to provide answers to question that contradict their claims?
This is the way conspiracy theories start.

Challenge through the courts?

As often as not when challenging through the courts is offered as a remedy, it is offered more like a threat, “you will need deep pockets, the EA will retain the best legal representation public money will buy, good luck with that then” etc, and of course this is true and not a likely remedy for a limited income retired women living on her boat in a marina.
This person has no representation with the authorities and probably no option other than to accept the EA demand at face value. We cannot rule out the possibility, as Apollo suggested, that a boat owning lawyer would argue the case or maybe even an organisation that want to see the law upheld would enter the arena but the more likely person would be one who has been issued with an enforcement notice/summons and will defend themselves against the charges.

“Craft registration is due on 1st January but as many as 50% of boats are not registered before the season starts”.

I remember there were provisions within the IWO 2010 to provide variable rolling registration renewal. Failing that, make the renewal date in March or April when all the Christmas expense is over the boats back in the water and people want to start using their boats.

When it comes to observing the law the legislators should remember that this applies to them as well.

 

[CJL]

The whole issue is quite clear - you have to pay.

Please get over it and accept that laws change. The organisation empowered to regulate the river has made it clear how they will enforce it, they've even gone as far as to seek legal advice (wasting money that could be spent on service delivery) to give a clear position for people who are unsure.

If you don't want to pay then don't pay, but you should expect that the ONLY way you can resolve this is to go to court and thrash it out there.

No amount of protestation on forums, websites, in the pub, or the marina bar will ever resolve this.

CJL