EA Thames Registration

[Andrew_Fanner]

>>>
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?
>>>
And that one comes back to the chestnut of what the authority manitains as navigation, and what simply benefits from that maintainance activity.

I would agree that some form of "this boat does not move and is not moored on the main navigable river or in a weir stream) licence might not be inappropriate to cover liveaboards in backwaters and marinas/boatyards in some cases.

 

[TrueBlue]

>>>
.....

I would agree that some form of "this boat does not move and is not moored on the main navigable river or in a weir stream) licence might not be inappropriate to cover liveaboards in backwaters and marinas/boatyards in some cases.

Does the Houseboat class cover this instance adequately??

Or may be that a houseboat registration would cost more than a full navigation registration, also giving rise to a council tax liability?

Could it be that the indignation is more of an avoidance issue than a matter of "fairness"....

 

[teddington_lock]

Houseboat registration is approximately 50 % of annual powered craft registration.

£7.60 per sq/m VS £15.60 per sq/m ( off the top of my head )

That would be some houseboat if their bill was £1600 per annum ( approx 210 sq/m )

 

[Lotus_John]

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?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA did not publish the main objective of the TWA ie charging for unused vessels and extending their control to Adjacent Waters, so, few people or were concerned by a TWA that was to Harmonise their navigations and impose 3rd party insurance for boats using the river. You had to ask for a copy of the inland wasterways order 2004 to find out what they were intending to do. No surprise that there were so few objectors.

Looking back on our posts on this topic in October/November I was reminded that the objection you raised was on Adjacent Waterways :

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TrueBlue's Avatar
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 1,950
Default
The "adjacent waters" bit is a remnant of the original draft of the TWA Order, to which I objected as it technically could have included the River Wey and (possibly) other waters. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes you are right your objections were incorporated in the Order and the Adjacent Waters was removed from the Order on the instructions of the Secretary of State.

Can I assume that you would be angry if the EA decided ignore this and try to apply the new registration rules and charges to boats kept on the river WEY as they are trying to do on other adjacent waters?

Your view seems to have changed a little since October, could it be because you are satisfied that that the new rules will not be applied to any part of the Wey navigation especially the bit between the Thames and Thames lock, really the only bit that was in doubt.

If it is unfair for this bit why is it any less unfair for a private marina?

 

[TrueBlue]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA did not publish the main objective of the TWA ie charging for unused vessels and extending their control to Adjacent Waters, so, few people or were concerned by a TWA that was to Harmonise their navigations and impose 3rd party insurance for boats using the river. You had to ask for a copy of the inland wasterways order 2004 to find out what they were intending to do. No surprise that there were so few objectors.

Do you really expect EA to shout their intentions from the rooftops??

It was pretty obvious to me and others that the harmonisation process would bring marinas into charge, because that is the status quo on other EA waters and has been for some time. EA set out their reasons in their answer to objectors.

The requirement for TP insurance was also laid out in Part III s 11.
Registration requirements are in Part II s.4.

It was not hugely difficult to obtain a copy, and the consultation was widely publicised in several boating magazines. As happens with these things the publication dates were perilously close to the end date for objections. That seems to happen for many "consultations".

Out of thirteen organisations who were circulated and the few individuals who bothered to order a copy of the TWO less than thirty objections on any point were received.

.......Can I assume that you would be angry if the EA decided ignore this and try to apply the new registration rules and charges to boats kept on the river WEY as they are trying to do on other adjacent waters?

Your view seems to have changed a little since October, could it be because you are satisfied that that the new rules will not be applied to any part of the Wey navigation especially the bit between the Thames and Thames lock, really the only bit that was in doubt.

If it is unfair for this bit why is it any less unfair for a private marina?

Yes, I would be angry because EA had accepted that the Wey (and the Kennett and the Thames and Severn canals) were outside the scope of "adjacent waterways".

Not knowing precisely where the Wey navigation starts - is it at the bottom gate of the "staircase" or at the end of the cut, by the NT sign? I couldn't comment on "that bit" .

Overall it is not a matter of what's fair - the concept of Equity has all but disappeared from our legal system - it's a matter of what the legislation says. The feeling that you, personally, should have been consulted won't cut much ice with Authority.

 

[jecuk]

Houseboat registration is approximately 50 % of annual powered craft registration.

£7.60 per sq/m VS £15.60 per sq/m ( off the top of my head )

That would be some houseboat if their bill was £1600 per annum ( approx 210 sq/m )

It can't be £1600/year even for a normal registration. How big is the boat??

 

[boatone]

It can't be £1600/year even for a normal registration. How big is the boat??

A 70 foot x 15' 6' dutch barge would just about do it !

And don't houseboats have to be on a residential mooring?

All academic really - the legislation is now in place and will need to be tested by somebody challenging a prosecution - and I doubt the EA will bring a prosecution unless they are pretty sure of their case.

 

[teddington_lock]

That wouldn't be far off it , £1450/1500 ish , for a normal annual.

 

[oldgit]

We are all in this together ?

"that is the status quo on other EA waters and has been for some time."

Down here if you float have an engine and float on Medway waters you pay up,no exceptions,no excuses and no cheapo rates for liveaboards neither .

 

[Lotus_John]

Do you really expect EA to shout their intentions from the rooftops??

Yes the EA is a public body, we should expect them to properly advertise the main feature of a proposed significant change in the law so that those affected have an opportunity to voice their objections.

It was pretty obvious to me and others that the harmonisation process would bring marinas into charge, because that is the status quo on other EA waters and has been for some time. EA set out their reasons in their answer to objectors.

Not many others because so few people objected. Were 1600 people happy to pay a registration charge when they were not using the navigation?

The requirement for TP insurance was also laid out in Part III s 11.

As I said, TP insurance was properly advertised as part of the Order.

Registration requirements are in Part II s.4.

And it said “An owner of a vessel must not keep, let for hire or use the vessel on the waterways or any adjacent waters unless the vessel is registered with the agency. The final version removes ‘or any adjacent waters’ from the wording.

It was not hugely difficult to obtain a copy, and the consultation was widely publicised in several boating magazines. As happens with these things the publication dates were perilously close to the end date for objections. That seems to happen for many "consultations".

None of the advertising in the magazines (or the EA River Views newsletter) recorded the primary objectives of the Order i.e. registration of kept boat and control of adjacent waters.

Out of thirteen organisations who were circulated and the few individuals who bothered to order a copy of the TWO less than thirty objections on any point were received.

The Sarah Nason (DEFRA) letter dated 3rd March 2010 detailed some of the objections to registration for kept boats and application to adjacent waters. She stated that “The EA subsequently agreed that the proposed charging and registration requirements for adjacent waters were ultra Vires and the provisions have been dropped”

Yes, I would be angry because EA had accepted that the Wey (and the Kennett and the Thames and Severn canals) were outside the scope of "adjacent waterways".

SN letter 3/3/10 “An Objection was raised that registration or a charge should not be applied on connected water that is managed by another navigation authority or is privately owned” She stated that “The EA subsequently agreed that the proposed charging and registration requirements for adjacent waters were ultra Vires and the provisions have been dropped”

Not knowing precisely where the Wey navigation starts - is it at the bottom gate of the "staircase" or at the end of the cut, by the NT sign? I couldn't comment on "that bit" .

At the end of the cut, by the NT sign. The EA have written to the Boatyard there stating that they will not be applying registration charges. This "bit" is not included in the 1932 TCA Thames definition section 4 unlike Kennet which is clearly defined.

Overall it is not a matter of what's fair - the concept of Equity has all but disappeared from our legal system - it's a matter of what the legislation says. The feeling that you, personally, should have been consulted won't cut much ice with Authority.

Agreed, fairness can only be argued at the consultation stage and this was flawed because of lack of proper advertising. The Argument now is why the EA are continuing to act as if the Order could still be applied to “all marinas” even though ‘adjacent waters’ (Pond, Pits, marinas) are no longer included in the order. Allowing the EA to disregard the significances of this makes a mockery of the whole consultation (objections process)

 

[boatone]

Oh do stop banging on !

The decision has been made and the EA are acting accordingly. It makes no difference to me or most other people here as we have licences anyway.

Anyone who is directly affected and does not wish to accept that they require a licence is free to pursue the issue through the courts if the EA decide to prosecute them for non compliance.

As a matter of interest, do you actually have a boat on the non tidal Thames?

 

[byron]

I wonder. To ascertain if I have any little boats on any of my miniature waterways or on my neighbors lake they would have to use one of two options. Hire in a Helicopter or trespass across my land. Obviously the former isn't likely so that leaves Trespass or do they have the right to wander freely on my property and that of my neighbour? There's no way they can access via the connection to the Thames as a bridge only 2' high restricts boats.

 

[Lotus_John]

Oh do stop banging on !

The decision has been made and the EA are acting accordingly. It makes no difference to me or most other people here as we have licences anyway.

Anyone who is directly affected and does not wish to accept that they require a licence is free to pursue the issue through the courts if the EA decide to prosecute them for non compliance.

As a matter of interest, do you actually have a boat on the non tidal Thames?

B1, it was you that chose to use this forum to propagate EA misinformation on this topic introduce the fairness argument and advocate reporting fellow boat owners who you believe to be in breach of the law whilst at the same time choosing not to engage with the legal issue here.

It matters not whether you (or Angela Q) think this is fair. What matters is, if this is legal. I suspect that you have doubts about the legality but because you approve of the outcome you are not prepared to question the legal issue.

Please do not try and deny me the right of reply on this forum because you do not approve of my opinion.

In answer to your question the answer is ‘no I do not have a boat on the non tidal Thames.’

As a matter of interest do you keep your boat in a marina if so which one? Perhaps you should take some advice on the status of your marina before you start reporting some of you neighbours for non compliance, pleased to offer my humble opinion.

 

[pheran]

You carry on Lotus_John. I'm interested, not because I'm unregistered but because I am passing the information on to people that are (for very good and understandable reasons) but who don't use this forum. Tony's just having one of his sulky fortnights!

 

[Brayman]

You carry on Lotus_John. I'm interested, not because I'm unregistered but because I am passing the information on to people that are (for very good and understandable reasons) but who don't use this forum. Tony's just having one of his sulky fortnights!

Months

 

[boatone]

So whats it to be guys? Civil disobedience or a judicial review - whoops, sorry, don't think it can be a judicial review as Mr Google tells me application has to be made within 3 months of the 'cause' first arising - oh, and not likely to get legal aid either.

Ok, civil unrest it is then - but on what grounds? None of the argumentatives here, and they're clearly in a minority, seem to be injured parties so presumably just feel like being difficult?

Puts me being grumpy (which I'm not) in the shade, don't you think?

 

[TrueBlue]

You carry on Lotus_John. I'm interested, not because I'm unregistered but because I am passing the information on to people that are (for very good and understandable reasons) but who don't use this forum. Tony's just having one of his sulky fortnights!

Tony is irritated because what started out as a reasonable information thread has latterly developed into a minor slanging match between me and Lotus_John who may have another agenda as he is not a resident on the river.

To my mind there's no point in arguing about what has been done or what should have been done. The TWO has been hanging around for years and beaten into some form of shape and has now become law.

The burning issue now seems to be, that as EA's attempt to define the bounds of the River more clearly ( " adjacent waters" ) were rejected, they have fallen back on on the definition in TCA 1932 s.3 - a bit vague in under modern conditions, perhaps.

Without reading the two Acts, I thought (possibly others did likewise) that because references to "adjacent waters" had been removed - then being in a marina could escape registration. So I said EA were "pulling a fast one".

Like "Dave" I got it wrong. The vague term in the 1932 Act mentions "works", and I suspect that EAs stance is therefore that a marina comes under that term.

Young Mr. Riley's stance is - if you don't like that interpretation then you are free to test that in Court should you be prosecuted; not by labouring the point on this Forum.

All established /major marinas on the Thames require moorers to be registered with EA - so there's nothing new, except perhaps enforcement may become a bit more rigorous in future.

The point about the vessel moving or not is irrelevant. As I've said umpteen times here before, Registration confers absolutely NO rights to do anything, navigate, use locks, get water, use EAs Loos, dump rubbish, whatever. It merely acknowledges that you have some form of craft placed on the water in a place that EA considers falls within their definition of the Thames.

I'm happy with that. Registration does not attract VAT so all our registrations are 20% less than they might be otherwise.

Some folks disagree, and doubtless will come back and argue. I for one am tired with banging back and forth. Let's get on with preserving what's left of this Navigation and enjoy it.

 

[pheran]

Some folks disagree, and doubtless will come back and argue. I for one am tired with banging back and forth. Let's get on with preserving what's left of this Navigation and enjoy it.

There's a wider point here and what I object to is any one faction (apart from moderators) attempting to dictate what can or can't be discussed here. Its an open forum and no one has the right to decide what is of interest to others. Either contribute to the debate or ignore it. Bit like television really - you can't expect every programme to appeal to you personally but you are free to change channels. Simples!

 

[teddington_lock]

I'm interested, not because I'm unregistered but because I am passing the information on to people that are (for very good and understandable reasons)

Just curious as to what these reasons are ?

I mean that sincerely , no sarcasm intended , as i know things can be misunderstood on forums.

 

[pheran]

Just curious as to what these reasons are ?

I mean that sincerely , no sarcasm intended , as i know things can be misunderstood on forums.

All received and understood. No 'offence' taken.

The people I have in mind and to whom I have been passing on information are under the impression that to register a boat with EA, it needs a current BSS certificate (and as I have only just returned to the Thames after some years away, I am not in a position to advise them otherwise. Feel free to correct me if this not so). All of them have what I can only term 'project boats'. They are all 'works in progress' that happen to be afloat albeit not on the main stream of the river. Some will never be ready for a BSS examination, others may be years away as their owners live away and have only limited opportunities to work on them. So how are these folk going to register their boats? And what happens when they don't?

To expect such boat owners to pay to support the main infrastructure of the river that they don't and indeed, can't use, to reduce the charges made to regular users is, to say the least inequitable, despite some of the 'I'm alright Jack' sentiments expressed above.

Rant over - feeling better now!