Chris_d
Well-Known Member
I have to say Tittywoo you are very persistant, but I don't think you have changed anybodys mind 
EA Visiting Marinas
- Thread starter Chill
- Start date
boatone
Well-Known Member
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
I have to say Tittywoo you are very persistant, but I don't think you have changed anybodys mind
There are non so blind as those that do not want to see!
Those people will only understand when their mooring charges go up because the EA or C&RT start charging for accommodations on private water marinas. How much for PH's pontoons £30,000? I am sure you will all be happy that the EA have found a new revenue stream.
Last edited:
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"There are non so blind as those that do not want to see"
"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."
"Any chance of a quick reply to my enquiry as to why the parties involved have not taken any apparent action themselves and why others have taken up the cudgels on their behalf.
Possibly you represent an organisation they are a member of ?"
Third time lucky perhaps ?
"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."
"Any chance of a quick reply to my enquiry as to why the parties involved have not taken any apparent action themselves and why others have taken up the cudgels on their behalf.
Possibly you represent an organisation they are a member of ?"
Third time lucky perhaps ?
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
"There are non so blind as those that do not want to see"
"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."
"Any chance of a quick reply to my enquiry as to why the parties involved have not taken any apparent action themselves and why others have taken up the cudgels on their behalf.
Possibly you represent an organisation they are a member of ?"
Third time lucky perhaps ?
OK persistence pays off!
As I said at the beginning I took part in the objection process since 2004. I objected to the provisions in the order that would apply registration charges etc to boats that remained unused on their moorings both on the Thames and on adjacent waters.
I thought it wrong that this aspect of the EA Transport and works act should not have been advertised as being part of the Order, so that people that would be affected were kept in ignorance.
One of the many affected are the people trying to restore a Dunkirk Little ship on the Thames at Shepperton the boat remains afloat and incapable of being used, one of the fund raising schemes on behalf of the Trust is Jam being made and sold at the bank side.
They had to pay £700 registration plus insurance on a boat that cannot move, That is a lot of jam! You could say that they are making Jam to subsidise others actually using all of the facilities of the Thames navigation.
Sadly this part of the legislation was passed but the adjacent water legislation was not. Trying to charge for unused boats kept in private waters marinas is not legal and the EA have admitted that not all marinas are affected (private reply).
I am determined that the EA should not trample roughshod over the law just because they have our money to obstruct a legitimate legal defence.
The people affected have taken no action themselves, largely because they are individuals and not aware of the rules that can be applied as a result of the IWO 2010. IF they ask the EA or their marina manager they are told the IWO changed the rules on registration of unused boats kept in their marina.
I represent no one other than myself!
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
Why don't they take it out of the water then. Perhaps they could stop wasting their time flogging jam, and get fixing the boat!
Wavey
Well-Known Member
And at least it's now insured. Why would you restore an historic vessel and not have it insured. Very odd.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
"They had to pay £700 registration plus insurance on a boat that cannot move,"
"just one more boat floating on water sourced from the Thames be it moored in a public or private marina/dock/cut/backwater/channel not going anywhere because of lack of motive power.....probably not a boater on this forum whos boat has not been disabled at some point !
"just one more boat floating on water sourced from the Thames be it moored in a public or private marina/dock/cut/backwater/channel not going anywhere because of lack of motive power.....probably not a boater on this forum whos boat has not been disabled at some point !
watson1959
Well-Known Member
oldgit
Well-Known Member
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
You had the same argument on page 12! Answer is the same:
“Water sourced from Thames”
It is only Thames water when it is within the boundary of the Thames as defined by TC Act 1932 section 4. If this water finds its way onto private land by whatever means it does not change the status of that land from private to Thames, rather the status of the water changes from Thames water to private water. This has been the accepted interpretation for nearly 80 years by every Navigation Authority including the EA. To apply a registration charge to boats kept on private waters they needed a change in the law and asked in the original version of the Inland Waterways Order 2010 that they should be allowed to apply a registration charge to unused boats kept both on the Thames and on Adjacent waters. The first bit was finally granted but the adjacent waters legislation was denied, and just to remind you the EA described, for the purpose of the new legislation, an Adjacent Water as a marina amongst other things.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Can you explain in simple terms how water changes its composition,some sort of chemical reaction perhaps ?
Ownership of the surrounding land may be verifiyable but Thames water is Thames water from its source(s) to No 1 bouy 140 miles later out in the estuary.
Still sounds like an objection to being asked to pair a fair share masquerading as a point of principle. ?
Ownership of the surrounding land may be verifiyable but Thames water is Thames water from its source(s) to No 1 bouy 140 miles later out in the estuary.
Still sounds like an objection to being asked to pair a fair share masquerading as a point of principle. ?
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
The registraton system is like Car Tax in that it is the only system in place that ensures that all boats are safe and insured. A boat in an "adjacent water" may not be in use but it may be moored next one that is, i.e my boat! So if during this restoration process for example paint is being stripped with blow torch and up the thing goes taking my boat with it, is it quite alright for it not to be safe and uninsured? I think not.
I have some sympathy with people in this situation, but at the end of the day if its not in use it shouldn't be in the water and if you live on the water but don't go anywhere, move somewhere you don't have to pay a registration, there must be better waterbourne views than Penton Hook marina out there.
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
No, exactly the same stuff that flows in the Oxford, Kennet, Wey and private adjacent waters etc. This stuff just does not know who it is or where it belongs.
That is why we need a definition in law.
Thames definition extract:
(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;
Adjacent Water definition:
“adjacent waters” means any lake, pit, pond, marina or other substantially enclosed water adjacent to any of the waterways to which this Order applies and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock or similar work) into the waterway;
The Thames is not defined as anywhere the water flows.
Now can you explain why, when there is a public right of Navigation on the Thames,there is no PPN through the artificial cut from the Thames into PH marina?
Why, when accommodation charges are made on any pontoons on the Thames but not on pontoons on private adjacent waters marinas?
Why, can PH marina authorise hi speed test runs in the sidelake through the cut?
Nobody has tried to deny or explain any of the above!
If it is because they are private waters and not the Thames then the boats are not on the Thames and no registration is needed.
to quote B1;
"Registration fees are the obvious option, particularly as it is this government's mantra that those who enjoy services should be the people that pay for them wherever possible".
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
As stated before, a marina is entitled to contractually require that boats in their marina are both registered and insured when both in the water and on hard standing, but not the EA, they can only require registration for boats used and/or kept on the Thames
Ramage
Well-Known Member
The EA visited Penton Hook as advised and ticketed over 20 boats.
thames cruiser
Well-Known Member
Thumbs up!
Now the next trick is to actually collect
Well done EA, keep up the good work (don't see why anyone else should not pay if I have too
)
capnfishy
Well-Known Member
EA In Penton Hook
I hear there were ten officers from the EA in Penton Hook on Tuesday and found about 80 boats without a licence.
If the average licence costs say £350 then they've raked in £28k in one hit! Assuming the dodgers cough up of course.
Does this mean that next year's licence won't increase?
I hear there were ten officers from the EA in Penton Hook on Tuesday and found about 80 boats without a licence.
If the average licence costs say £350 then they've raked in £28k in one hit! Assuming the dodgers cough up of course.
Does this mean that next year's licence won't increase?
Mirror Painter
Well-Known Member
Thumbs up!
Now the next trick is to actually collect
Well done EA, keep up the good work (don't see why anyone else should not pay if I have too
My sentiments exactly - if people aren't paying I'm probably having to pay more.
Apparently the EA inspectors were at Lechlade this week.
capnfishy
Well-Known Member
EA In Marinas
My local rag reported a licence dodger was fined £200 plus his licence of £950 at Staines Court last week.
My buddy with his boat (all he had left after the second divorce!) in Harleyford tells me the EA boys were in there all day yesterday, Friday. Gossip is they didn't find many boats without a licence so the message may be getting through to the evaders.
My local rag reported a licence dodger was fined £200 plus his licence of £950 at Staines Court last week.
My buddy with his boat (all he had left after the second divorce!) in Harleyford tells me the EA boys were in there all day yesterday, Friday. Gossip is they didn't find many boats without a licence so the message may be getting through to the evaders.