EA Thames Registration

[boatone]

Not just the Thames !

The EA are getting tough on other waterways too.

Anglian fines for non registered boats

 

[boatone]

The EA put out a press release today reminding everybody to register.
It specifically memtion the need to register boats in marinas!

Main content of Press Release

Get your boat registered warns Environment Agency

The Environment Agency is warning boat owners on the River Thames to get their boats registered, or risk being fined.

New laws mean that from 1 January, 2011, all boats kept or used on Environment Agency waterways must be registered, even if the boat is not being used. The annual registration charge applies to boats on every part of the River Thames, including backwaters and marinas.

All boats with an engine must also have valid third party insurance, including those visiting from other waterways or launching at slipways. Owners of most powered boats must also show they have a Boat Safety Scheme Certificate (BSSC), in order to register.

Angela Quayle, Thames Waterway Manager from the Environment Agency said: “We’ve discussed these new laws thoroughly with our customer representatives and we all agree this approach treats everyone fairly and equally. The laws are clear and consistent and make it harder for people who try to avoid paying the charges. Put simply, everyone with a boat on the river must register it with us.”

The Environment Agency is currently offering a grace period until 1 April, 2011, to give boat owners extra time to register their boats. An enforcement campaign will be carried out after 1 April, and owners of any boats found unregistered will risk being fined or having their boat removed.

Andrew Graham, South East Area Waterways Manager said: “We are gathering information about boats which are not registered to help target our enforcement work. If people wish to let us know about unregistered boats in their area, they can email us at:
waterwaysse@environment-agency.gov.uk.”

The Environment Agency estimates there may have been as many as 1,600 unregistered boats on the River Thames last year (although many of these may not have required registration until the change in law).

All money received from boat registration fees is ploughed back into the maintenance of the non-tidal River Thames and providing services for boaters, such as moorings, locks and staff to assist customers.

Note that they are inviting reports of unregistered boats!

 

[Captain Coochie]

I thought this was Mr B1 messing around
Maybe the EA could change the start of year date ? Just after Christmas is the worste time for everyone or is that what they want so they get to hand out the fines ?
Summer to summer would be better as most boaters want to go out then so will pay up . Any month really other than just after Christmas !

 

[TrueBlue]

I thought this was Mr B1 messing around
Maybe the EA could change the start of year date ? Just after Christmas is the worste time for everyone or is that what they want so they get to hand out the fines ?
Summer to summer would be better as most boaters want to go out then so will pay up . Any month really other than just after Christmas !

Since the TWA Order came into force EA have the power to flex the renewal date, but for us "residents" we are locked (in effect) into a January renewal scenario.

Unless, of course, EA come up with a fiendish plan (is bound to be that, rather than a scheme ) to allow a varied first registration to shift the date.

It's obviously in their interest to spread renewals as a single renewal date must be a logistic nightmare for them.

OTOH currently checking plates is easy - "Brown" is invalid 'cos it's last year's, but in future the colour of the plate could span two years, thus a more detailed indicator is required.

Given the current costs squeeze, I couldn't see a major change happening for some time, especially until the "charity" status issue is resolved one way or another.

 

[Andrew_Fanner]

I'd be quite happy to have the licence paid as a standing order monthly, for the whole year, rthaer than a lump sum January. The 6 months spread helps, fist IMO is only a forts step.

 

[neale]

Since the TWA Order came into force EA have the power to flex the renewal date, but for us "residents" we are locked (in effect) into a January renewal scenario.

Unless, of course, EA come up with a fiendish plan (is bound to be that, rather than a scheme ) to allow a varied first registration to shift the date.

It's obviously in their interest to spread renewals as a single renewal date must be a logistic nightmare for them.

OTOH currently checking plates is easy - "Brown" is invalid 'cos it's last year's, but in future the colour of the plate could span two years, thus a more detailed indicator is required.

Given the current costs squeeze, I couldn't see a major change happening for some time, especially until the "charity" status issue is resolved one way or another.

This is the latest from the EA website:

Q. Can I obtain a ‘rolling year’ boat registration?
A. Not in 2011. Our registration year will still run from 1 January to 31 December in 2011. We will be investigating this option for the future or may move to a financial year in line with our other waterways.

 

[TT_WO]

"In particular, they have confirmed that they will require all boats afloat in marinas, whether in use or not, to be registered and to display a current licence plate by 1st April this year."

Why on earth was there any doubt at all in the first place,its all water belonging to the Thames !

I thought you may be interested in the March edition of MBM which carried an article on page 15 entitled 'Are marinas adjacent waters' which states that adjacent waters legislation was removed from the EA (inland waterways) order 2010.

The EA had defined an adjacent water as "a lake, pond, pit, MARINA adjacent to the River Thames, through which a vessel can be navigated to get to the Thames."

The EA needed to amend the existing definition of the Thames to include adjacent waters in order to apply new registration rules to boats kept unused in a marina. If they were not allowed to do this, why do they now say ALL MARINAS when many are built on adjacent waters ie not on the banks of the Thames?

 

[TrueBlue]

I thought you may be interested in the March edition of MBM which carried an article on page 15 entitled 'Are marinas adjacent waters' which states that adjacent waters legislation was removed from the EA (inland waterways) order 2010.

The EA had defined an adjacent water as "a lake, pond, pit, MARINA adjacent to the River Thames, through which a vessel can be navigated to get to the Thames."

The EA needed to amend the existing definition of the Thames to include adjacent waters in order to apply new registration rules to boats kept unused in a marina. If they were not allowed to do this, why do they now say ALL MARINAS when many are built on adjacent waters ie not on the banks of the Thames?

Even though the Secretary of State registered her disapproval over the clause, the TWO document proceeded with the clause intact,

Perhaps EA are taking the view of "if you don't like it, sue" - full in the knowledge that any legal action will be so expensive that nobody will even try to challenge their claim. Certainly it's well beyond the jurisdiction of a lower court?

Time will tell.

In any event if your boat's floating on water provided by the River, then you should pay the registration fee. Take the engine(s) out and claim the unpowered rate.

Coat and, get my -, seem appropriate.

 

[djm]

Even though the Secretary of State registered her disapproval over the clause, the TWO document proceeded with the clause intact,

No, that's NOT correct. It's just what the EA would like you to believe.

The 'adjacent waters' charging clause was removed entirely from the 2010 Order before it was granted and the EA is relying entirely on the old Thames Conservancy Act definition to enforce its new rules even though that definition was never used or sought at any time in last 78-years.

No one can object to the EA seeking to enforce licensing on boats on the waterways with a public right of navigation. But extending its powers to mandatory licensing of unused craft on private waters under threat of significant penalties is something else and was specifically denied them by the new Order.

 

[TrueBlue]

No, that's NOT correct. It's just what the EA would like you to believe.

The 'adjacent waters' charging clause was removed entirely from the 2010 Order before it was granted and the EA is relying entirely on the old Thames Conservancy Act definition to enforce its new rules even though that definition was never used or sought at any time in last 78-years.

No one can object to the EA seeking to enforce licensing on boats on the waterways with a public right of navigation. But extending its powers to mandatory licensing of unused craft on private waters under threat of significant penalties is something else and was specifically denied them by the new Order.

I'm obliged, M'Lud.
I only have a copy of the Order marked "final" and 'twas left in.
Mea culpa - I've made no effort to discover the real last version.

However, I think my point about "sue us" still stands. it needs a case in the appropriate Court to decide, and that's what the EA are sitting back on.

To Bawldlerise -
"let him with out registration cast the first stone"

Anyone up for it???

Another biblical quotation - "Render unto Caesar..."
to make the Navigation viable, income has to be raised to the level where at least the operation of that part is as self sustaining as maybe.

So those folks (if any) who have craft floating on the Water connected to the River MUST pay their dues. As an active boater I can't understand the logic of having a vessel on said River but not navigating?

It's a bit like having a car, sitting in it but not driving it on the road.

It's not for me to judge, horses for courses 'n all.

I'd rather (well, it doesn't affect me as I'm not in a marina per se) that a few folks were squeezed for a contribution, than they screwed the system for an "nice" legal point.

 

[djm]

It all comes down to the question - Do you want your waterway managed and run by a responsible and fair-minded authority in accordance with the law of the land or do you want it run by an unelected quango that makes up the rules as it goes along and insists on publishing misleading requirements that have no basis in law? And yes, you're right, the costs for the average boater of challenging their entirely autocratic stance is unrealistic. That doesn't make it right.

 

[boatone]

It all comes down to the question -

.......... Do you have a boat on the Thames and are you paying your fair share?

 

[TT_WO]

.......... Do you have a boat on the Thames and are you paying your fair share?

previous quote.....All money received from boat registration fees is ploughed back into the maintenance of the non-tidal River Thames and providing services for boaters, such as moorings, locks and staff to assist customers.

It is hardly fair to charge people not using any of the above to pay the full whack, is it? But people on mainstream will still have to pay to keep their unused boat. This will of course subsidise your boating do you call that fair?

But this argument is not about your intepretation of fairness, it is about the Law and the EA have to abide by the Secretary of State's decision.

Perhaps the EA should have consulted initially with the 1600 owners that knew nothing about this so didnt get a chance to object.

 

[jecuk]

Surely though the benefit to all through the taxing of the majority of abusers and people who don't currently pay their fair share is worthwhile even given that there could be a fairly small group of people who may be affected "unfairly"?

 

[TT_WO]

Surely though the benefit to all through the taxing of the majority of abusers and people who don't currently pay their fair share is worthwhile even given that there could be a fairly small group of people who may be affected "unfairly"?

You would think that, unless of course you were one of that group that is being treated unfairly.

Perhaps you should ask the lady who has lived on her boat in a private marina for the last 16 years and not only has it not left the pontoon it is incapable of leaving the pontoon she will be required to pay for £1600 for a river infrastructure that she is not using.
The EA could have adopted a reduced registration charge for boats not being used or being restored using a sourn system such as that used on the road. But they expected to get all their own way, fairness was not part of their reasoning.

You do not really think that there are nearly 1600 people that are cheating the system do you.

 

[apollo]

Perhaps you should ask the lady who has lived on her boat in a private marina for the last 16 years and not only has it not left the pontoon it is incapable of leaving the pontoon she will be required to pay for £1600 for a river infrastructure that she is not using.
The EA could have adopted a reduced registration charge for boats not being used or being restored using a sourn system such as that used on the road. But they expected to get all their own way, fairness was not part of their reasoning.

You do not really think that there are nearly 1600 people that are cheating the system do you.

And where does the water come from that her boat is floating in?

No EA - means her boat sits in the mud.

There is a SORN system - its called HARDSTANDING or alternatively the Tideway or the Coast.

The ones that are being treated unfairly is the rest of us poor sods who have been paying our dues for last 30 years while.....

Sheesh!

 

[boatone]

If the EA are wrong in enforcing their rights then I am sure legal argument in court will clarify the situation once prosecutions are brought under the new procedures.

In the meantime there appears to be an enormous problem looming if the EA grant money from central government is reduced as seems almost certain.

With a few relatively minor exceptions, revenue for running the non tidal Thames only comes from two sources - grant aid and licence fees. If the first is reduced more will need to be raised from the second or from other, as yet, unidentified sources.

This years licence fees are already set so making sure every penny is collected is crucial to this years income. Any new revenue sources can probably not be effective in time to contribute this year.

By my rough and ill informed calculations, a 20% cut in grant aid would mean a reduction of some £1.2 million. in operating revenue.

Even if there are around 1600 unlicensed boats then, if every one were collected (which they wont be), at an average £300 per boat that would only raise £480k.

Time for tough choices, methinks.

 

[apollo]

Summary: Suck it up!

 

[TrueBlue]

....
Perhaps the EA should have consulted initially with the 1600 owners that knew nothing about this so didnt get a chance to object.

The EA DID "consult" about the changes using the vehicle of a public consultation on the TWO document.

I posted on here when the consultation was discovered (public bodies have a habit of hiding these things away; methinks cynically, to reduce any complaints). I got very little support from these fora, indeed only 29 complaints from all sources were recorded by the process, most of who later withdrew their objections. Mine wasn't and was later incorporated.

IIRC there were no objections on the marina front, certainly less than four.

So "you" get what you deserve.

Still that doesn't excuse EA from pulling a fast one, so are you prepared to initiate a test case?

 

[TT_WO]

And where does the water come from that her boat is floating in?

No EA - means her boat sits in the mud.

There is a SORN system - its called HARDSTANDING or alternatively the Tideway or the Coast.

The ones that are being treated unfairly is the rest of us poor sods who have been paying our dues for last 30 years while.....

Well unless you are bringing religion into this, the water regulation is paid for from central taxation ie the taxpayer is is paying the cost of maintaining water levels in our rivers, for both you and her, but if she had to sit in the mud it would be better than sitting on hard standing as the boat is wooden.

I think you are perhaps confusing a boatowner that pays to keep an unused boat in a private marina with a relatively small number of people who live aboard their boats, moored bankside or clogging up 24 hr moorings, who move their boats after the lock keeper has gone home and never pay a registration fee.

You have chosen to navigate the river for the last 30 years and enjoy the facilities that it offers a, good choice in my view, but why do you expect to be subsidised by people that choose not to take advantage of the navigation?