EA Visiting Marinas

[TT_WO]

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.

Originally Posted by oldgit View Post
what exactly is the point of having a boat without intending to use it at some point in the future.

same answer

Boats being restored.
Boats out of commission.
Boats being used as accommodation.
Boats unused because of illness.
Boats unused because of working away from home.
etc.

 

[apollo]

Originally Posted by oldgit View Post
what exactly is the point of having a boat without intending to use it at some point in the future.

same answer

Boats being restored.
Boats out of commission.
Boats being used as accommodation.
Boats unused because of illness.
Boats unused because of working away from home.
etc.

Isnt that what Hardstanding is for?

 

[apollo]

Boats being used as accommodation.
.

and therein lies the real reason for the "dog with a bone" attitude.

 

[No Regrets]

What a load of old cobblers!!

If your boat is being restored or out of commission, get it out of the water.

If it's being used as accommodation, then get a licence, or a caravan.

Illness? Seriously mate, if you're that ill you ain't going boating all year, get it out of the water.

'Working away from home'!? Bad planning dude.


This is where the petty arguments fall down. A load of feeble excuses aimed at not paying up.

I have no sympathy. Get your boat out of the water, flog it, or get a frickin' Caravan....

 

[TT_WO]

What on earth is the problem.You have got a boat, it is floating in Thames water...cough up.

Much as I enjoy sparring with you OG I wish sometimes you would read what I say and reply to the points I make, is it because you have no answer to legitimate questions and arguments?

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.?

Not really sure about the point you are trying to make, but just to be clear I am objecting and I own a " what could be regarded by most as a normal boat" and Yes for the umpteenth time it is registered!

 

[Ramage]

TT WO?

TT BD more like.

Terribly, Terribly Boring & Dull.

Wittering on about a tiny minority of cases (all of which should either pay up, put the boat on the hard, or sell the boat).

You keep making the same old points, even though they do not apply to you.

Do you tilt at windmills too?

As the Dragons say:

I'm out.........

 

[TT_WO]

TT WO?

TT BD more like.

Terribly, Terribly Boring & Dull.

Wittering on about a tiny minority of cases (all of which should either pay up, put the boat on the hard, or sell the boat).

You keep making the same old points, even though they do not apply to you.

Do you tilt at windmills too?

As the Dragons say:

I'm out.........

Originally Posted by TT_WO View Post
I am concerned that the EA do not have a mandate to do what they are doing and we should all be concerned that they feel they have the power to make up the rules regardless of the law.

Before you ask yes I do own a registered boat.

Your final point, I do use the forum as a source of information, but usually do not feel the need to contribute, does that make my contribution less valuable.

your Answer

On the contrary, the forum is richer and more valuable to all if everybody makes a contribution.

Perhaps you and No regrets should ask your marina manager if he has to pay the EA accommodation charges for his pontoons and if the answer is no do you really want the EA making up the rules.

 

[Ramage]

Deja vu

You repeat yourself even more than the BBC.

 

[TT_WO]

Deja vu

You repeat yourself even more than the BBC.

Thought you were out?

Nobody has mentioned rowing boats for about 7 pages cant be that boring!

 

[No Regrets]

Your final point, I do use the forum as a source of information, but usually do not feel the need to contribute, does that make my contribution less valuable.

Definition: Lurker.

Yes, your contribution is less valuable, because you CAN'T BE BOTHERED to get involved.

You're the forum equivalent of a bloke who goes to a party, stands in the kitchen with a glass of Orangeade and then takes the rough looking bird home because nobody else will.

You lazy git.

 

[Relax.A]

HI before I say anything I would like to say my boat is licensed and is on the main river in its own paid for mooring. Where I moor the boatyard looks after the EA licences for piles in river and landing stages ect. But I am confused if penton hook or other marinas don't pay how does this work ? Surely the boats tied to them have the same rights ? Sorry if this has already been answered

 

[CJL]

What a load of old cobblers!!
If your boat is being restored or out of commission, get it out of the water.
If it's being used as accommodation, then get a licence, or a caravan.
Illness? Seriously mate, if you're that ill you ain't going boating all year, get it out of the water.
'Working away from home'!? Bad planning dude.
This is where the petty arguments fall down. A load of feeble excuses aimed at not paying up.
I have no sympathy. Get your boat out of the water, flog it, or get a frickin' Caravan....

Yup agree - what that man said!!!

Plus don't rely on a company to tell you the correct position. Its not like a big company have never done anything wrong ever before

CJL

 

[TT_WO]

HI before I say anything I would like to say my boat is licensed and is on the main river in its own paid for mooring. Where I moor the boatyard looks after the EA licences for piles in river and landing stages ect. But I am confused if penton hook or other marinas don't pay how does this work ? Surely the boats tied to them have the same rights ? Sorry if this has already been answered

No it has not been answered.

I asked the question inviting either contradiction or explanation, as so far there has been neither.

I would guess that people find it difficult to understand that if the adjacent waters marinas have always been part of the Thames why the accommodations on those waters have never been charged for by any navigation authority I believe it indicates that they are and always were considered to be private and if so, as you say the boats tied to them have the same rights unless of course they leave the marina and go onto the Thames.

I don't like to repeat myself but I believe that the only pontoon paid for by PH is the visitors pontoon on the Thames side of the artificial cut into the marina. I invite contradiction or correction if I am wrong.

Penton Hook Boat Sales have for years demonstrated their boats at planning speeds in the MDL waters through this artificial cut with the authorisation of MDL. Can MDL authorise boats to exceed the speed limit on the Thames?

 

[Ramage]

I don't like to repeat myself

Really?

 

[TT_WO]

Yup agree - what that man said!!!

Plus don't rely on a company to tell you the correct position. Its not like a big company have never done anything wrong ever before

CJL

By big company do you mean MDL or the EA?

If MDL I don't expect them to tell me anything, they are a private company and entitled to keep their business affairs confidential.

If you mean the EA they are a public funded organisation operating under the Government dept. DEFRA. and subject to the rules of Freedom of Information and like any other company the Fraud Act,
they are entitled to make mistakes but not knowingly do anything wrong.

 

[TT_WO]

I don't like to repeat myself

Really?

Its always worth repeating the truth especially if so many are trying to disguise it!

 

[oldgit]

"Not really sure about the point you are trying to make, but just to be clear I am objecting and I own a " what could be regarded by most as a normal boat" and Yes for the umpteenth time it is registered![/QUOTE]"

OK your boat is registered and you pay your dues,so why are you so concerned about something that does not impact on your boating.
There is obviously more to this than meets the eye.
Can you give details of those who to your knowledge are actually affected by this matter,the type of boat they have,what they use it for and why the idea that paying to run the Thames should only be bourne by others ?

 

[Chris_d]

No it has not been answered.

I asked the question inviting either contradiction or explanation, as so far there has been neither.

I would guess that people find it difficult to understand that if the adjacent waters marinas have always been part of the Thames why the accommodations on those waters have never been charged for by any navigation authority I believe it indicates that they are and always were considered to be private and if so, as you say the boats tied to them have the same rights unless of course they leave the marina and go onto the Thames.

I don't like to repeat myself but I believe that the only pontoon paid for by PH is the visitors pontoon on the Thames side of the artificial cut into the marina. I invite contradiction or correction if I am wrong.

Penton Hook Boat Sales have for years demonstrated their boats at planning speeds in the MDL waters through this artificial cut with the authorisation of MDL. Can MDL authorise boats to exceed the speed limit on the Thames?

I don't think you will get the answer you seek here because its not the question that was asked i.e EA Visiting Marinas. I don't think anybody here is really that interested in the legalities of adjacent waters that is another very superfallous argument. The point is that any boat in a marina or "adjacent" water with access to the Thames clearly intends to use the Thames, so a boat "intending" to use the river should be registaired, BBS certified and insured to do so. I believe this is the EA's interpretation and the adjacent water stuff is just a distraction, if its not going to used on the river take it out of the water. There should be no hiding place, why are you trying to encourage the use of hiding places?

 

[boatone]

Definition of "River Thames"

The IWO 2010 relies on the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 for its definition of the River Thames:

[Oh. xxxvii.] Thames Conservancy [22 & 23 GEO. 5.]
Act, 1932.
A.D. 1932. PART I.
PRELIMINARY.
Definition of Thames.
4. Tn this Act the word "Thames" shall unless there is something in the subject or context repugnant
to such construction mean and include—
(a) so much of the rivers Thames and Isis as is
between the east side of the Town Bridge at
Cricklade in the county of Wilts and an
imaginary straight line drawn from high-water
mark on the bank of the river Thames at the
boundary line between the parishes of Teddington
and Twickenham in the county of Middlesex
to high-water mark on the Surrey bank of the
river immediately opposite the last hereinbefore
mentioned point; and
(b) so much of the river Kennet as is between the
river Thames and an imaginary straight line
drawn from a point on the north bank of the
river Kennet seventy yards eastward of the
east side of the High Bridge at Reading in the
county of Berks to a point on the south bank
of the river Kennet immediately opposite the
last hereinbefore mentioned point;
and all locks cuts and works within the said portions of
rivers Provided that no dock lock canal or cut existing
at the seventeenth day of August one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-four and constructed under the
authority of Parliament and belonging to any body
corporate established under such authority and no
bridge over the Thames or the river Kennet belonging
to or vested in any county council municipal authority
railway company or any company body or person
other than the Conservators shall be deemed to form
part of the Thames.

Unfortunately, that act does not define the meaning of the term all locks cuts and works which , as far as I can see, appears to be the only reference in the act which the EA can claim to justify entitlement to insist on registration for vessels afloat on waters adjacent to, but not actually part of, the main navigation.

As others have said, it is for an aggrieved party to challenge this in law which, however well heeled many boaters may appear to be, is unlikely to happen as a result of a challenge by a private individual. Often, in cases like this, a representative body will mount a challenge on behalf of its members but there appears to be no evidence that such a challenge will emerge from any body representing Thames boaters - indeed, it would appear that the members of the WWG actually supported the EA decision.

Interestingly, by some quirk of legislation that I have thus far been unable to pin down, it would appear that the EA do not have the same right to enforce registration in Medway based marinas.

Regardless of the finer points of law and justification for charges, the fact remains that the real issue is how to generate funding for investment in, and management of, the river. Were it to be found that the EA are acting unlawfully in this matter the immediate result would be a further reduction in income and a hike in registration fees that can be legitimately imposed.

 

[TT_WO]

The IWO 2010 relies on the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 for its definition of the River Thames:

Unfortunately, that act does not define the meaning of the term all locks cuts and works which , as far as I can see, appears to be the only reference in the act which the EA can claim to justify entitlement to insist on registration for vessels afloat on waters adjacent to, but not actually part of, the main navigation.

As others have said, it is for an aggrieved party to challenge this in law which, however well heeled many boaters may appear to be, is unlikely to happen as a result of a challenge by a private individual. Often, in cases like this, a representative body will mount a challenge on behalf of its members but there appears to be no evidence that such a challenge will emerge from any body representing Thames boaters - indeed, it would appear that the members of the WWG actually supported the EA decision.

Interestingly, by some quirk of legislation that I have thus far been unable to pin down, it would appear that the EA do not have the same right to enforce registration in Medway based marinas.

Regardless of the finer points of law and justification for charges, the fact remains that the real issue is how to generate funding for investment in, and management of, the river. Were it to be found that the EA are acting unlawfully in this matter the immediate result would be a further reduction in income and a hike in registration fees that can be legitimately imposed.

Thanks for reproducing TC Act 1932 S4 and for your researched and fair interpretation.

I think you are accepting that the term Works was not intended to mean Marina when it was used in the Thames definition. I do not think that Marinas actually existed in the 30's when the legislation was drafted and the wording did not allow for any future expansion of the Thames by allowing water to flood gravel pits. PH marina was excavated in the 50's and turned into a marina in the 60's.

I do not know if you have checked with the Marina office if the accommodations are charged for but I would guess that you would not accept my information at face value and if you found to the contrary would have justifiable contradicted my assertions.

I understand your previously stated concerns about the accommodation charges eventually being applied and passed on to bertholders. The only way to stop this eventually happening is for the Marinas to reassess their support for the EA proposals and re-establish the continuing private status of their waters. Whilst I believe that the price for continuing marina support is a promise not to apply accommodation charges they must realise that all bets are off when C&RT take over in 2015.

I do not think think the EA deserve the support that they have received from either the Marinas or the WWG.

The following is an extract from a NATIONAL NAVIGATION USERS/ HARMONISATION FORUM

NOTES OF MEETING – 4TH MAY 2010

STu Does the EAIWO apply to boats in marinas ie those that are used but don’t move? Also, what about ‘rogue’ residential boats that aren’t registered? Does the Human Rights Act still apply and how will they be dealt with?
STa – we are looking at this now as we need to get a shared understanding and interpretation of the new powers. We’re checking on marinas as the order changed in the last few months. We have to follow due process regarding residential and what is proposed is what BW do.

STa represented the EA amongst others and also represented were the BMF ATYC

The change in the legislation was the deletion of Adjacent water from the IWO. This meeting took place 1 month after IWO 2010 became law.

the BMF did not know about the change to the IWO until Dec 2010 even then they did not find out from the EA. I think the marinas had a right to be informed about the changes as their business would be impacted by this change.

I am intrigued by your statement about the Medway and if I understand you correctly you are unable to find the legislation that allowed the navigation authority to apply the registration charge to adjacent waters marinas on that waterway. I well remember about 25 years ago the disquiet caused when the Navigation authority decided that they had the right to enter private marinas lift covers and trespass on peoples boats looking for a current registration certificate.
I wondered where this new right had come from but I was naive enough at the time to believe that the authority would not do this unless they had a legal right.