Wavey
Well-Known Member
Seems the marina office put the notices up. They're on the boards at every pier head.
EA Visiting Marinas
- Thread starter Chill
- Start date
oldgit
Well-Known Member
prob a neat chance to collar owners regards any outstanding marina fees etc ?
thames cruiser
Well-Known Member
Hmnn. I'd be interested in MDL's official reason for posting these warning notices. (Frankly i cant think of a good one myself!). And maybe in the EA's view of such notices being posted.
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
Hmnn. I'd be interested in MDL's official reason for posting these warning notices. (Frankly i cant think of a good one myself!). And maybe in the EA's view of such notices being posted.
I didn't see one when we moved in this weekend - so I suspect it was very low key - perhaps Bray has already been done?
Surely the object of the exercise is to persuade folks to pay up rather than dodge detection. IME, looking at the boat opposite me it's those that are rarely visited that are the culprits.
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
Hmnn. I'd be interested in MDL's official reason for posting these warning notices. (Frankly i cant think of a good one myself!). And maybe in the EA's view of such notices being posted.
Don't see a problem, a lot of boats have had warnings stuck on them but their licenses have not been visible, under covers etc... so it makes sense to warn people that there is an inspection coming.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Actual information on the notices at PH is that they have been advised that the Environment Agency will be visiting week commencing 15th October 2012 to check that all vessels in the water are displaying a valid River Licence.
Can't see why announcing this to berth holders should be seen as a problem - good customer relations I would call it !
Can't see why announcing this to berth holders should be seen as a problem - good customer relations I would call it !
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
Hmnn. I'd be interested in MDL's official reason for posting these warning notices. (Frankly i cant think of a good one myself!). And maybe in the EA's view of such notices being posted.
In my last post on this thread I invited both the Marina Manages and the EA to make a contribution on the legality of this issue. Failing any information from either source I would guess that PH marina manager is generally supportive of the EA actions and probably agreed a date when a visit to PH by the EA could be arranged.
I can see an advantage for the marina manager to put the warning message out and claim that he is trying to protect his customers from prosecution by the EA.
He should try and understand that PH marina is built in a gravel pit and therefore by the EA's own definition, an adjacent water and private.
Nothing in the Inland waterways order 2010 changed the status of this private water and the application to apply the registration charge to adjacent waters was removed from the IWO on the instructions of the Secretary of State.
Correct me if I am wrong!
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"He should try and understand that PH marina is built in a gravel pit and therefore by the EA's own definition, an adjacent water and private."
Correct me if I am wrong!"
Prove it.
Unfortuntely the EA do not agree with you.!
Correct me if I am wrong!"
Prove it.
Unfortuntely the EA do not agree with you.!
Last edited:
watson1959
Well-Known Member
Whatever.......PH's clients are river users and I have no objection to anyone verifying that they have paid their dues. I apologise to those at PH who have no intention of using the river.....if there are any.
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
You can prove it for yourself if you read the Inland Waterways order 2010 and the Secretary of States decision letter 3rd March 2010, links to both provided earlier in this thread.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
...
I do not need the proof,its the EA you have to convince
and they seem fairly sure that their interpretation of the original rules and regulations entitle them to charge for boats wether on or off the main navigation, if they have not been doing so in past it was by error and omission and that is now being rectified.
Last edited:
Wavey
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I do find your post somewhat naive. MDL have a number of marinas on the Thames, Penton being one of them. Any decision regarding access by the EA would be a policy matter and would have been referred to MDL head office. The manager is simply an employee (no disrespect intended). He carries out the group's policy and no assumption can be made as to what personal feelings he may have about this (if any of course).
If you really do want answers from MDL, other marina operators and the EA I suggest you write direct to their registered offices. I doubt very much any of the powers that be read this forum, let alone this thread so expecting them to respond is again naive.
We're going down a well trodden path again and it's not going to get you the answers or the outcome you want by simply posting here.
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
The Marina manager at Penton Hook, until recently, managed all 3 MDL's Marinas on the Thames. He was also the BMF trade representative. Do you really think he would have had to refer this to head office. If anyone contacted head office about the legality of this issue they would referred it to their man on the ground.
The manager of MDL Thames Marinas does read this forum and has contributed on many occasions as indeed has Angela Quale (EA)
I am not surprised that the EA do not respond, this is a hot potato and non of them wish to get their fingers burned at a later date. I believe that they thought that they would not be challenged and their assertions accepted at face value, when they were, they reinterpreted the word works in the TC act 1932 to mean Marina, frankly not creditable.
Before we accept that all Marinas have always been part of the Thames we should question why PH only pays accommodation charges for 1 pontoon (visitors) the other accommodations for 600 boats are not charged for, could it be that only the visitors pontoon is on the Thames?
Correct me if I am wrong!
I am sorry if my posts irritate you, I am sure it is not something you do not want to believe but innocent people are facing criminal charges and I would like the EA to think again. Now that is probably naive.
capnfishy
Well-Known Member
I spoke to one of the EA's guys at Boulters last week and asked him about going into the marinas to check river licences. He said that he was warranted and has the power to go anywhere to do his job. He told me that he does like the co-operation of marina staff and always tells the marina when he is going to visit but in reality he doesn't need it due to the warrant.
I argued that marinas are private and he said it didn't matter as his warrant allows him entry anywhere. The EA believes the water is theirs wherever it may be and anything floating needs a licence.
I checked the definition of the Thames in the 1932, 1950 and 2010 acts and it refers to 'lock cuts and works' being part of the river. One for the lawyers to sort out.
I argued that marinas are private and he said it didn't matter as his warrant allows him entry anywhere. The EA believes the water is theirs wherever it may be and anything floating needs a licence.
I checked the definition of the Thames in the 1932, 1950 and 2010 acts and it refers to 'lock cuts and works' being part of the river. One for the lawyers to sort out.
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
Interesting - I understood that the EA "warranting" was in relation to the collection of evidence under PACE. Certainly an EA person couldn't enter my home and possibly my boat by virtue of his warrant.
However, there's so much dilution of police type powers nowadays that I could be completely wrong.
Aye, there's the rub, EA being an huge organisation has an extensive legal department who I'm sure could convince a Judge that Black is White (or mebe just a tad off white...), so it would be a brave man indeed - and with a lot of money for legal fees who would take that on.
Even if the definition of "works" could be shot down; as a principle of Equity the action would be lost. Nobody challenges that that Water is not EA's property, so boats are trespassing on that water if not registered.
This topic has been examined as nauseam here with no result and most folks here think and even may have said that it's fair and equitable that you pay to keep a boat on the water on the Thames or directly connected to it.
After all that's the rule on other navigation authorities:-
- The National Trust (Wey)
- Other EA navigations
- CART waters
So why should the Thames be different?
(I'm not inviting an argument, you understand)
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the information.
Some Marinas are on the Thames and some are not. I doubt the validity of a warrant allowing access to private waters and certainly not walking access to land and pontoons.
The only definition of the Thames is that contained in TCA 1932 section 4 and it does include the phrase to include Locks Cuts and works,
within the said portions of rivers until recently the registration form included the section 4 TCA definition of the Thames but never included the phrase Lock cuts and works, now the form contains no definition of the Thames. The existence of water in no way defines the Thames otherwise all the water authority reservoirs fed from the Thames would be the Thames and not the private waters they most certainly are.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"The existence of water in no way defines the Thames otherwise all the water authority reservoirs fed from the Thames would be the Thames and not the private waters they most certainly are."
The above is Reductio ad absurdum of course and so is the following .....
If you dig a hole in your garden and fill it with tap water ftom the Thames and stick your boat on it,no one from the EA will be sending you a bill.
Common sense indicates that any vessel floating on any water connected by a channel/ditch/cut/canal that is navigable by said boat ......is on the Thames.
Of course the simple way to settle this is with a coffer dam or two.
Just like domestic water supply, is cut off if you not use the stuff with a charge being made to reconnect. ?
The above is Reductio ad absurdum of course and so is the following .....
If you dig a hole in your garden and fill it with tap water ftom the Thames and stick your boat on it,no one from the EA will be sending you a bill.
Common sense indicates that any vessel floating on any water connected by a channel/ditch/cut/canal that is navigable by said boat ......is on the Thames.
Of course the simple way to settle this is with a coffer dam or two.
Just like domestic water supply, is cut off if you not use the stuff with a charge being made to reconnect. ?
Last edited:
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
And TB quote:" Nobody challenges that that Water is not EA's property,"
Ok TB and OG, time for you to do a little proving, if I make a statement of fact I will try and substantiate it. Where does this statement comes from?? If you can convince me that the EA owns and has control over the water, when it is outside of the confines of the Thames as define by section 4 TC act. I would have to accept that they have the right to require registration of boats kept on it.
The Transport and Works Act (IWO 2010) was applied for in 2004 TB will confirm that there was a formal written objection process. Part of my objections related to the Adjacent water legislation, never in the following 6 years did the EA claim that they owned or had control of waters adjacent and connected to the Thames. If they had control there was no need for the legislation!
The original wording of the order required registration of boats kept on the Thames and on adjacent waters. This is why the Marina operators were happy and raised no objections because it did not change the status of their waters and there would continue to be no requirement to pay for the pontoons kept on their waters.
This is why when the IWO became law without the adjacent waters legislation the EA did not tell anybody, expecting nobody to notice.
PH marina have all the evidence they need to stop the EA taking control of their waters and they should act now to protect their commercial interests and those of other adjacent waters marinas regardless of what promises have been made by the EA.
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
I don't give a hoot, as I'm happy to contribute in the form of my reasonably priced annual river licence.
What sort of person would own a boat, pay £3-4000pa to moor it up, and then not use it on the river anyway? The licence is a small if not insignificant part of one's Boat running costs, and really should be paid.
If one doesn't like it, one should get a Caravan instead.
What sort of person would own a boat, pay £3-4000pa to moor it up, and then not use it on the river anyway? The licence is a small if not insignificant part of one's Boat running costs, and really should be paid.
If one doesn't like it, one should get a Caravan instead.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
What on earth is the problem.You have got a boat, it is floating in Thames water...cough up.
Thinking about this are the people objecting to paying their fair share the owners of what could be regarded by most as a normal boat or.... a "vessel" that would normally be classified as a weekend cottage or perhaps permanent or semi permanent liveaboard craft.?
Thinking about this are the people objecting to paying their fair share the owners of what could be regarded by most as a normal boat or.... a "vessel" that would normally be classified as a weekend cottage or perhaps permanent or semi permanent liveaboard craft.?
Last edited: