Enforcement in marinas.

[TT_WO]

In the interest of balanced reporting, I submit a letter that MBM planned to publish before events overtook it, which counters some of the misleading information published in Aug and September issues of MBM on the topic of enforcement in marinas.

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

EA to begin Thames licence fee crackdown. MBM. August and September.

Why do the EA need so much help understanding their own legislation? (Inland Waterways Order 2010 (IWO)), especially if it states that “all boats kept on the Thames must be registered even those moored in a marina”, but of course it does not say that. There is no reference to marinas in the IWO nor is there any reference to Adjacent Waters which was in the proposed legislation and defined by the EA, amongst other things, as a Marina adjacent to the Thames.

Contrary to Editor's comments in September issue, the intended Adjacent Waters legislation was removed by the Secretary of State, from the IWO and did not become law. As a result the IWO is only applicable to the Thames as defined by the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 section 4 (TCA). This does not mention marinas or Adjacent Waters but does say “to include all locks cuts and works within the said portions of rivers”.

After 70 years and 4 navigation authorities the EA have decided to interpret the word ‘Works’ to mean a marina. The reason why they need so much reassurance is because the holes for the adjacent waters marinas were excavated on private ground some 20-30 years after the 1932 legislation defined the Thames and there was no anticipation of any future extensions to the Thames in the legislation.

Should we “consider marinas to be public places with a public right of navigation within them”? Prior to the EA administration, there were signs saying “Private Water. No unauthorised access”. The TCA states that there is no public right of navigation through private artificial cuts.

In light of these facts, and many others, it is questionable that the EA is acting within the law when they require a boat to be licenced when it is kept within the confines of a private adjacent water marina.

Previous legal opinion sought by the EA would only go as far as stating that most marinas (the ones actually on the Thames?) would be covered by the legislation.
It seems that the EA will keep spending our money on legal advice until they hear what they want to hear.

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


I suspect that MBM had a much bigger audience than this forum. As a result of an EA press release which contained several unfounded assertions and an editorial comment that claimed adjacent waters powers for the EA that simply were not granted, many readers have been left misinformed.

The Editor, Rob, was big enough to accept the error in his editorial comment and had wanted to redress the balance on this important issue.

 

[Actionmat]

Should we “consider marinas to be public places with a public right of navigation within them”?

.

If they sell fuel and pump outs to non members and have a chandlery that is open to the public, then yes.
Should a boat that is moored but never ventures out of the marina have a licence? Yes. If the boat never moves and is used as accommodation, absolutely the owner should pay. It's not floating on Evian, the alternative is a lift out.

 

[Chris_d]

There is no such thing as private water or adjacent water isn't that the point, it is all Thames water so if I can navigate on it from the river I have to pay a license.
Good example is Penton Hook with its fuel jetty right in the corner of the marina, I don't need to ask the marina if I can navigate through the marina to get to it my license entitles
me too because I am using Thames Water. Doesn't matter who owns the ground underneath, all riparean owners own the riverbed to the middle of the river but that doens't mean that bit of
river is private.

This argument has been done to death surely.

 

[Ramage]

Quote from TT-WO above...."In the interest of balanced reporting, I submit a letter that MBM planned to publish before events overtook it, which counters some of the misleading information published in Aug and September issues of MBM on the topic of enforcement in marinas........I suspect that MBM had a much bigger audience than this forum. As a result of an EA press release which contained several unfounded assertions and an editorial comment that claimed adjacent waters powers for the EA that simply were not granted, many readers have been left misinformed.

The Editor, Rob, was big enough to accept the error in his editorial comment and had wanted to redress the balance on this important issue. "


OMG!!!! Do you think the Big Bad EA had MBM closed to muzzle them??

ROFL.

 

[No Regrets]

I see little point in this.

I have a boat, so I pay.

If this was an issue I would buy a Motorhome.

In the interests of convivial spirit, everybody should do this

 

[TrueBlue]

Oh dear, the old saw(s) again..

If titty-woo feels disadvantaged - then get into a position where the matter is tested in Court. That's the only way to get a resolution.
Government agencies are bullies (see what HMRC are proposing in income tax matters) and will try whatever they think in right until a higher authority says not.

I for one am comfortable with EA's position - even though its' published reasoning is a bit obscure.

 

[oldgit]

Oh dear, the old saw(s) again..

If titty-woo feels disadvantaged - then get into a position where the matter is tested in Court. That's the only way to get a resolution.
Government agencies are bullies (see what HMRC are proposing in income tax matters) and will try whatever they think in right until a higher authority says not.

I for one am comfortable with EA's position - even though its' published reasoning is a bit obscure.

Blimey talk about digging up a rather dead and smelly horse,getting it back on its feet and then trying to persaude it to go for a gallop.

 

[TT_WO]

There is no such thing as private water or adjacent water isn't that the point, it is all Thames water so if I can navigate on it from the river I have to pay a license.
Good example is Penton Hook with its fuel jetty right in the corner of the marina, I don't need to ask the marina if I can navigate through the marina to get to it my license entitles
me too because I am using Thames Water. Doesn't matter who owns the ground underneath, all riparean owners own the riverbed to the middle of the river but that doens't mean that bit of
river is private.

This argument has been done to death surely.

Thanks for engaging with some considered opinion. I will try and answer your points with verifiable facts.

It was the EA that defined an Adjacent Water with the intention of making the IWO applicable to both the Thames and Adjacent waters. I believe this was because the marinas on adjacent waters were on private waters not the Thames.

You mention Penton Hook, this was one of the marinas that used to display a sign stating ‘Private Water no unauthorised access’. Access to the fuel pontoon would be considered an implicitly authorised activity.

The agreement between Thames Conservancy and MDL for the artificial cut states that there is ‘no public right of navigation through it’.

MDL are not charged for the pontoons and posts (accommodations) in the marina I believe because they are on private water not the Thames. It is worth noting that the visitor pontoon and club pontoon are charged for because they are located on the Thames.

Ownership of the ground does define ownership of the water over it, this was clearly stated by a high court appeal judge in February 2013 (details previously posted).

Riparian owners above Staines own the river bed to the middle of the channel but they are subject to the public right of navigation on the river.

The EA are claiming doubtful l legal powers to instigate criminal charges. You have on another thread, suggested that the EA may have left their enforcement in marinas late in the season because they are reluctant to follow up with prosecution. It is perhaps in their best interest not to have to prosecute an informed defended action.

Clearly misinformation published in magazines and on here only serves to enforce the view that the EA must be acting legitimately.

 

[Chris_d]

To my mind the EA thinking is that once you have allowed Thames Water in to your Marina, cut or works, whatever it is then part of the navigation and subject to the same restrictions as Riparian owners on the main stream. There are many signs stuck in the river bank saying Private, no mooring etc... but that doesn't mean they have any right to be there. MDL have presumably accepted this by allowing the EA in to inspect license's.

The accomodations charges are another whole can of poo and shouldn't really be used to justify the Private waters argument, I personaly have a much bigger objection to accommodations charges as they are clearly just a way of extracting money for no good reason. Originaly introduced to regulate the use of piles inserted into the tideway and make sure they weren't obstructing navigation, they now charge for a six inch mooring post inserted at the bottom of a garden, a complete con in my view, so how Marinas get away without paying is beyond me.

The whole way the Thames is governed needs a complete review, roll on CRT.

 

[apollo]

roll on CRT.

Amen!

 

[TT_WO]

The accomodations charges are another whole can of poo and shouldn't really be used to justify the Private waters argument, I personaly have a much bigger objection to accommodations charges as they are clearly just a way of extracting money for no good reason. Originaly introduced to regulate the use of piles inserted into the tideway and make sure they weren't obstructing navigation, they now charge for a six inch mooring post inserted at the bottom of a garden, a complete con in my view, so how Marinas get away without paying is beyond me.

The whole way the Thames is governed needs a complete review, roll on CRT.

To re-iterate, MDL pay for the visitor pontoon, the club pays for the club pontoon, MTYC pays for its accommodations as does Bourne End marina, all these are on the Thames.

I struggle to think of any reason that PH, Shepperton, Thames Ditton marinas etc., are not charged other than the fact that their accommodations are not legally on the Thames but on private water over their land.

I suspect that if the EA tried to charge MDL £25,000? per annum for its accommodations at PH the management would be dusting off its agreements and be less than accommodating when asked by the EA to allow access to their private property to check for registration.

 

[Chris_d]

To re-iterate, MDL pay for the visitor pontoon, the club pays for the club pontoon, MTYC pays for its accommodations as does Bourne End marina, all these are on the Thames.

I struggle to think of any reason that PH, Shepperton, Thames Ditton marinas etc., are not charged other than the fact that their accommodations are not legally on the Thames but on private water over their land.

I suspect that if the EA tried to charge MDL £25,000? per annum for its accommodations at PH the management would be dusting off its agreements and be less than accommodating when asked by the EA to allow access to their private property to check for registration.

So it would appear regardless of exact legalities there is a degree of intepretation and "gentlemans" agreements going on here, however there is clearly a consensus that you need a license if moored in a marina.

 

[TT_WO]

So it would appear regardless of exact legalities there is a degree of intepretation and "gentlemans" agreements going on here, however there is clearly a consensus that you need a license if moored in a marina.

It is not a marinas job to police the registration of boats in a marina nor is it their job to interpret the EA legislation as registration is not an issue for them.
Allowing the EA to check for registration does not mean that they agree with the EA’s legal right to make the charge, indeed I think they would use the same arguments to resist any attempt to impose accommodation charges on their business.

 

[Chris_d]

Allowing the EA to check for registration does not mean that they agree with the EA’s legal right to make the charge, indeed I think they would use the same arguments to resist any attempt to impose accommodation charges on their business.

Think having allowed the EA onto their private property to inspect boats in their "private water" because the EA does not consider it a private water, gives them a poor argument for not paying for accommodations. The whole thing is a contradiction.

 

[Ramage]

It has long been a part of the MDL terms and conditions that boats in Bray Penton Hook & Windsor marinas have and display a valid EAA licence. A fact that has previously been drawn to the attention of TT-WO.

 

[TT_WO]

Think having allowed the EA onto their private property to inspect boats in their "private water" because the EA does not consider it a private water, gives them a poor argument for not paying for accommodations. The whole thing is a contradiction.

The point is the EA does not levy an accommodation charge for the pontoons in an adjacent water marina because the charge is only applicable to the Thames.

The Adjacent Waters legislation only ever proposed to make registration charges payable on them , there was no provision to charge for accommodations on adjacent waters.

 

[oldgit]

Angels on the head of a pin !

 

[Chris_d]

The point is the EA does not levy an accommodation charge for the pontoons in an adjacent water marina because the charge is only applicable to the Thames.

The Adjacent Waters legislation only ever proposed to make registration charges payable on them , there was no provision to charge for accommodations on adjacent waters.

That's only opinion, there is no nothing to stop the EA charging they just haven't done anything about it yet.

 

[TT_WO]

1. The point is the EA does not levy an accommodation charge for the pontoons in an adjacent water marina because the charge is only applicable to the Thames.
2. The Adjacent Waters legislation only ever proposed to make registration charges payable on them , there was no provision to charge for accommodations on adjacent waters.

That's only opinion, there is no nothing to stop the EA charging they just haven't done anything about it yet.

Point 2 is fact.
Point 1 is opinion based on verifiable facts many of which have been offered here.

With respect can anyone think of a reason why the EA would choose not to charge for accommodations inside a marina worth £25,000 PA whilst charging £100 for a pontoon outside, owned by the same marina? This has been the case not just for the last 4 years (since the IWO 2010) but for the 80 years since the Thames conservancy act.

 

[Margot]

Enforcement in marinas

I think I can - is it because accomodations in marinas don't have the potential to obstruct river traffic or impede the flow of water in the same way as they might in the main river? I'm sure I saw some references like that in the application paperwork...