EA to carry out Boat Registration checks in Penton Hook Marina.

[TT_WO]

Sounds like a poor case was made then I understood all the river is on private land, all riparian owners own the land under the river.
I am sure something will change because as with canals and CRT's rules once you let Thames Water in the EA controls the water and all that floats or is installed through it.
You can keep arguing that its not so but this is the way it must go and the majority of river users seem to agree.

The river bed between Teddington and Staines stone is not owned by the riparian owners along its banks with the exception of an area adjacent to Hampton Court Palace. The river bed above Staines is owned by the riparian owners but is subject to the common law right of public navigation over it. There is no public right of navigation through the artificial channel that leads to Penton Hook marina or the waters beyond. In fact public right of navigation is not extended through artificial channels cut into the banks of the Thames indicating that allowing water from the Thames to flow into an adjacent land area does not somehow turn it into the Thames.

If the legal definition of the Thames changes it must do so as a result of change in the law not because the EA believe that they can bully people with the threat of criminal charges to accept their recently contrived version of long established legislation.

 

[Actionmat]

This subject is an excellent demonstration of perpetual motion. But unfortunately, it's unlikely to go anywhere.

 

[alanch]

This subject is an excellent demonstration of perpetual motion. But unfortunately, it's unlikely to go anywhere.

Unless someone has the balls to take the EA to court!

 

[MinorSwing]

Unless someone has the balls to take the EA to court!

That may be what they are hoping for.

 

[thames cruiser]

A difficult one for the EA, on the one had they want to be seen to be carrying out checks (although seems far too late in the year to be doing that but thats another discussion), while on the other, I do wonder how effective a spot check is if it is announced several days in advance...

Bit like the police saying that next Friday we will be stopping every car that passes along the A308 through Windsor to check for road tax, MOT, insurance - highly likely that those driving a dodgy car would just pick a different route that day.

Exactly. And, IMHO, whilst Penton Hook Marina staff may think they are looking after the interests of their berth holders by warning them of EA licence checks, they are in fact both undermining the opportunity to expose those that break their own Berthing Contract terms and conditions, and are also doing a significant(?) disservice to the EA and the wider non-tidal Thames majority boating community - who DO pay. Penton Hook Marina staff should NOT advertise EA enforcement visits, and they shouldn't be re-advertised here either! Like I say, IMHO of course.

BTW, MDL Penton Hook Marina appear to be acting somewhat unilaterally, since I have never seen a similar warning from MDL Bray Marina (where I have berthed for several years), nor from MDL Windsor. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my perception. I wonder what MDL's policy on this would be....

 

[boatone]

Exactly. And, IMHO, whilst Penton Hook Marina staff may think they are looking after the interests of their berth holders by warning them of EA licence checks, they are in fact both undermining the opportunity to expose those that break their own Berthing Contract terms and conditions, and are also doing a significant(?) disservice to the EA and the wider non-tidal Thames majority boating community - who DO pay. Penton Hook Marina staff should NOT advertise EA enforcement visits, and they shouldn't be re-advertised here either! Like I say, IMHO of course.

BTW, MDL Penton Hook Marina appear to be acting somewhat unilaterally, since I have never seen a similar warning from MDL Bray Marina (where I have berthed for several years), nor from MDL Windsor. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my perception. I wonder what MDL's policy on this would be....

The EA themselves have been anxious to give boaters every opportunity to ensure their craft is registered if afloat and encouraged the marinas to let their customers know when they would be inspecting. PH is certainly not the only one to advise berth-holders. I know for a fact that Harleyford also did so. Even though this advance warning has been given there have still been significant numbers of boats inspected that were not displaying registration plates.

 

[DogsBody]

The EA themselves have been anxious to give boaters every opportunity to ensure their craft is registered if afloat and encouraged the marinas to let their customers know when they would be inspecting.

That sounds to me, as others have suggested, that the EA doesn't really want to have to start proceedings against anyone and is hoping to scare them into complying.

Legalities aside though, I personally feel any boat afloat on the Thames should be paying a license fee, I do and don't get a refund if I happen to not use the boat, so why should others who are not using it think the can get away without paying.

 

[Ramage]

Starting procedings is expensive. The EA are cash-strapped so the line they are taking gives people a wake-up call. Some people pay up when they get "ticketed". There are a few who delay paying up until just before they are due in court. That is bad news because the EA has to go through various legal processes (all of which costs money) and all for no result.

 

[TrueBlue]

The EA themselves have been anxious to give boaters every opportunity to ensure their craft is registered if afloat and encouraged the marinas to let their customers know when they would be inspecting. PH is certainly not the only one to advise berth-holders. I know for a fact that Harleyford also did so. Even though this advance warning has been given there have still been significant numbers of boats inspected that were not displaying registration plates.

It also give marinas a chance to 'up' each other. Apart from "we're five gold stars" status the can say 'only six boats were without a licence'. (We never get feedback as to whether the miscreants have paid up or not....

Doesn't really matter - as long as the funds increase.

 

[TrueBlue]

DogsBody and Ramage -

That's the problem folks who "take the urine" only spoil it for the rest of those who do pay up and the result is that poor old EA (!!) have less to spend on essentials.
(Well it doesn't quite work that way - but it's a start)

 

[Big John]

The EA themselves have been anxious to give boaters every opportunity to ensure their craft is registered if afloat and encouraged the marinas to let their customers know when they would be inspecting. PH is certainly not the only one to advise berth-holders. I know for a fact that Harleyford also did so. Even though this advance warning has been given there have still been significant numbers of boats inspected that were not displaying registration plates.

But surly boat owners in the marina who have not had a licence all year but have used the river, they get the nod that there is an inspection coming (November), they will only pay for the half year.
If asked but a doubt it, they will tell registration that their boat has been on the hard all year having work done and it has just been put back in the water.

However, if the inspectors turn up un announced and see the boat in the water they will ensure the owner pays for the full year (so I have been told by an inspector). Is this too simplistic or have I missed the point?

Why were the inspectors not making visits at the beginning of the year (after the floods)?

 

[Flynnbarr]

But surly boat owners in the marina who have not had a licence all year but have used the river, they get the nod that there is an inspection coming (November), they will only pay for the half year.
If asked but a doubt it, they will tell registration that their boat has been on the hard all year having work done and it has just been put back in the water.

However, if the inspectors turn up un announced and see the boat in the water they will ensure the owner pays for the full year (so I have been told by an inspector). Is this too simplistic or have I missed the point?

Why were the inspectors not making visits at the beginning of the year (after the floods)?

Don't be silly
That would take joined up thinking which I don't believe any govt body,let alone the EA are capable of

 

[boatone]

Don't be silly
That would take joined up thinking which I don't believe any govt body,let alone the EA are capable of

Whilst there are undoubtedly issues surrounding enforcement that we may not understand or agree with, I think you do the EA peeps a dis-service. They are struggling to do the job with inadequate and underfunded resources and that is down to government, not the front line troops.
I asked the inspection team at Penton Hook about the possibility of delinquents being able to hide behind the half year provision and was assured that the boat owner will be required to prove entitlement - no proof = full year payment.

 

[Flynnbarr]

Whilst there are undoubtedly issues surrounding enforcement that we may not understand or agree with, I think you do the EA peeps a dis-service. They are struggling to do the job with inadequate and underfunded resources and that is down to government, not the front line troops.
I asked the inspection team at Penton Hook about the possibility of delinquents being able to hide behind the half year provision and was assured that the boat owner will be required to prove entitlement - no proof = full year payment.

Wasn't criticising EA front line staff.

 

[Flynnbarr]

I was at penton hook on one of the days the EA visited,why did the patrol boat moor right where most of the liveaboards are,coincidence

 

[boatone]

I was at penton hook on one of the days the EA visited,why did the patrol boat moor right where most of the liveaboards are,coincidence

Just possible it was because there was an empty berth there?

 

[alan-w]

Apparently they rounded up 29 people who were not happy at being forced to pay for a six months registration when they were only going to have their boat there for the last couple of months. Perhaps one day they may have the sense to introduce a system that treats boaters fairly, then they could avoid all the unpleasantness and ill feeling that goes with the grossly unfair system that the EA currently operates. I am told that other areas operate an anniversary based system, whereby you buy a 12 month permit and it lasts for 12 months. My first experience of the EA was when I purchased a boat at the end of April and had to buy a registration for 12 months, even though there were only 8 months left in the year. As you can imagine, that created a really great first impression of the EA.

 

[Chris_d]

Apparently they rounded up 29 people who were not happy at being forced to pay for a six months registration when they were only going to have their boat there for the last couple of months. Perhaps one day they may have the sense to introduce a system that treats boaters fairly, then they could avoid all the unpleasantness and ill feeling that goes with the grossly unfair system that the EA currently operates. I am told that other areas operate an anniversary based system, whereby you buy a 12 month permit and it lasts for 12 months. My first experience of the EA was when I purchased a boat at the end of April and had to buy a registration for 12 months, even though there were only 8 months left in the year. As you can imagine, that created a really great first impression of the EA.

It has always been done that way long before the EA took over the river, presume it is bound up in some old law so can't be changed. B1?

The 29 that didn't want to pay for six months, had they had their boats there all year?

 

[teddington_lock]

They'd just craned their boats in at the end of October / start of November ?

Or they were upset that they'd got away with it all year , and because they were caught in the last couple of months , they didn't want to pay for six ?

 

[boatone]

Apparently they rounded up 29 people who were not happy at being forced to pay for a six months registration when they were only going to have their boat there for the last couple of months.

Not sure where you obtained the "29" count from but "they" didnt "round anybody up" ! The inspectors spent 2 days in Penton Hook marina identifying boats that were afloat and appeared to have no current registration. These boats then had a document attached to them requiring the owner to register the boat. I am assured that they will only be able to claim the 6 month payment option if they can prove that the boat was not afloat on the Thames prior to the 1st September, otherwise they will be required to pay for the full 2014 year registration. As the inspection was only a week or so ago I very much doubt that there have been any further enforcement developments pending responses from the boat owners involved.

Perhaps one day they may have the sense to introduce a system that treats boaters fairly, then they could avoid all the unpleasantness and ill feeling that goes with the grossly unfair system that the EA currently operates. I am told that other areas operate an anniversary based system, whereby you buy a 12 month permit and it lasts for 12 months. My first experience of the EA was when I purchased a boat at the end of April and had to buy a registration for 12 months, even though there were only 8 months left in the year. As you can imagine, that created a really great first impression of the EA.

The EA are stuck with the system which has currently been in place for many years. The TWO Order has now given them the option to introduce rolling year registration but that doesn't mean it can be easily implemented. In any case, it will not solve many of the problems created by boats being sold and registrations needing to be transferred etc. Even basic administration at this level requires manpower and other resources which are simply not available at this time.
The system is what it is and boat owners are required to comply. I am painfully aware of how much resource time is being taken up dealing with these contentious issues and that costs all of us that do pay in resources being tied up that could be better employed.