Enforcement in marinas.

[boatone]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

The EA in their infinite wisdom did come up with a scheme for boats that didn't comply with the BSS etc,called a red licence.Sort of SORN
You couldn't use your boat,use the river,locks,anything,it was purely so you could float on The Thames........it was the same cost as a normal licence......The EA management........coming to a comedy store near you soon

The boating equivalent of a SORN is that the boat is not afloat - i.e. ashore on the hard or wherever. The RED registration was an interim concession to assist those with boats afloat at the time the IWO came into effect and gave them until the end of the current year to get themselves sorted. They are withdrawing that concession at the end of next year as they (reasonably in my view) consider that anyone who has not sorted themselves by then must remove the boat from the water.
Bear in mind that the concession for RED registration was that it applied for a single year only so, again in my vie, the EA have been generous in permitting a boat to be re-registered with the concession for more than one year.

 

[boatone]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Originally Posted by boatone
Does anyone know if the judge made any order re costs?

Yes.

It seems to me that some wish to use this forum solely as a place to attack the EA, and give an ear bashing to those who do not share their views, but are not prepared to share relevant information that may be in their possession in the process.

I reasonably asked a question. Your answer "Yes" suggests that you are in possession of the relevant information re costs - why can you not share it with the rest of us?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

The EA's defence that all boats in use on the waterways should be registered, to ensure insurance is in place and minimum safety standards are maintained has to be in the best interest of all boaters.

A perfectly valid position ("to raise more money" should probably be in there as well) but they can't just decide to increase their powers, even for good reasons.

 

[boatone]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

The EA's defence that all boats in use on the waterways should be registered, to ensure insurance is in place and minimum safety standards are maintained has to be in the best interest of all boaters.

Just wondering what the marinas stance is on all this, surely they require all boats on their premises to be registered, insured and meet BSS standards, how do they get insurance if not? Do they require residential boats to have carbon monoxide alarms, fire extinguishers, proper gas and generator installations etc...
the EA and BSS does if registered. Do they inspect boats periodically?

Many marinas have a clause in their berthing agreements that requires boats to have a current EA registration. This would mean they could rely on the requirement that registered boats must have 3rd party insurance and a BSS certificate.
However, it is up to the marinas to enforce this clause as the berthing agreement is a civil contract between them and the boat owner - the EA is not party to it.
Most of them also have a clause prohibiting residential use and requiring the boat to leave the marina at least twice a year - to do this they would need to either enter the main river or be lifted out. I believe this is the case with both T&K and Penton Hook.
It would appear that the marina operators chose not to enforce these requirements and see registration enforcement as a matter for the EA. Go figure,

 

[djm]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

It seems to me that some wish to use this forum solely as a place to attack the EA, and give an ear bashing to those who do not share their views, but are not prepared to share relevant information that may be in their possession in the process.

I reasonably asked a question. Your answer "Yes" suggests that you are in possession of the relevant information re costs - why can you not share it with the rest of us?

Your first point is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. Ever since this topic was first aired here way back you and several others have attempted at every opportunity to shut down the debate on the simple question of whether or not the EA was exceeding its legal authority. You and several others have been scathing of and vitreolic towards TT_WO who has merely asked you all along to consider the facts of law as opposed to what you may have liked the law to say. You and several others rightly insisted that the law must and would eventually be tested in court. It has now. "The EA has sought to extend legislation by the back door and to allow them to do that would be repugnant." The judge has not only found that the facts which TT_WO clearly described to you several years ago were entirely correct but also that TT_WO's interpretation of those facts was also correct. The only 'ear-bashing' has come from those who just refused to see just what the EA was trying to do. Can you really expect TT_WO or anyone else to now go out of their way to provide you with more "facts" which some here will just use to pile on more attacks on their personal integrity?

On your second point, I fully answered your question. I do apologise if it was inadvertently rather trite and I will now seek to answer it more politely.

Yes, Sir.

 

[boatone]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Your first point is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy. Ever since this topic was first aired here way back you and several others have attempted at every opportunity to shut down the debate on the simple question of whether or not the EA was exceeding its legal authority..

I cannot speak for others but, if you would like to deal with facts rather than bias, I think you will find that I have been entirely consistent in my view that this matter needed to be decided through the courts. That is now happening and the initial judgement is in favour of the defendants. We now need to await the EA's decision as to any appeal.

 

[Flynnbarr]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Bearing in mind that it was the EA's legislation,the Secretary of State said no,a judge has said no and that they are using taxpayers funds that they say they are very short of do you think the EA should be appealing and on what grounds B1?
You seem to be somewhat of a flag bearer on here for them

There is no money for the river,more cuts are imminent but there is money for barristers.It would be interesting to know how much the EA has spent/wasted/invested getting legislation that is obviously not fit for purpose through.If they appeal and fail will anyone carry the can for it?

 

[mikemanor]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

There is no money for the river,more cuts are imminent but there is money for...

... a staggeringly over-engineered fish pass on the River Great Ouse at the Denver complex. The cost is quoted at £250,000 - yep £1/4M

http://www.fishtek.co.uk/news.php?page=CgkIBRigveXt-CkQr8HftqXN8pJ1

 

[boatone]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Bearing in mind that it was the EA's legislation,the Secretary of State said no,a judge has said no and that they are using taxpayers funds that they say they are very short of do you think the EA should be appealing and on what grounds B1?
You seem to be somewhat of a flag bearer on here for them

Typical, classic case of shoot the messenger? To suggest that I am "somewhat of a flag bearer" for the EA is both laughable and unjust. In the main I report and convey information received. Much of the time I do not even communicate my personal views. It is ironic that I am castigated here and also by some at the EA who believe I am too pro boaters - or could it be that actually demonstrates I am succeeding in steering a somewhat difficult course down the middle ?

I genuinely try to be the "man passing through Molesey Lock". I detest injustice in any form, just as I detest patronage, bullying, intolerance and all the other sins of present day society. I pay my dues and expect others to pay theirs. I would certainly not wish to benefit from illegal demands made on people who should not pay, any more than I would wish my hobby to be subsidised by public purse money at the expense of, say, health, education or welfare - all of which, incidentally suffer from massive waste and misuse of funds..

As far as the case is concerned I believe the judge has turned upside down the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 with its definition of the Thames. Yes , it may be outdated but I find it hard to believe that its purpose and intent is not clear. Whether there are grounds for appeal and what they may be I do not know. As a law abiding citizen I am, as I have consistently stated, content to let the legal process continue to a conclusion. For the record I have previously challenged the presumption regarding "locks, cuts and works" and had sight of at least one of the Queens Counsel's opinions that advised the EA that they had a sound case.

I believe that much of the blame for this apparent fiasco lies with earlier regimes within the EA and its predecessors that failed to exercise their duty and collect monies due. While government money was freely made available they had no need to do so but that was, in effect, condoning bad management in not optimising income by enforcing the Act. Had they done so the river would have been much less dependent on public purse contributions and better able to stand on its own feet.

As an aside, although it is the main issue, the patient is suffering and could die while the "consultants" continue to argue about the treatment - but I don't suppose that really matters - or does it?

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

They were lucky to get Judge Davinder Lachar. I expect the EA to appeal as I reckon a different Judge will give a different ruling.

Why? The argument from the defense was logical and reasoned. Fact are facts so why will another judge view it completely differently?

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Yes she did boatone but the waste of time and money is the real scandal. All those lovely uniformed officers trying to screw a few quid out of people when they could be out there manning locks or clearing the navigation.

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: You're NOT still Floating on Thames water.

Well said pump-out

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Sorry boat-one, no such wording in the contract at T&K. Ask for one. The boats never have to leave the marina.

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Beautifully said djm, my hat is suitably doffed in your direction. The EA seem to set consistently low standards and fail to reach them.

 

[boatone]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Sorry boat-one, no such wording in the contract at T&K. Ask for one. The boats never have to leave the marina.

Please refer to clauses 4,. 5 and 11 here : http://www.tingdene-marinas.co.uk/more-information/mooring-terms

4.No part of the Company’s harbour or premises or any vessel or vehicle while situated therein or thereon shall be used by the Owner for any commercial or residential purposes.
5. If the Owner is aboard the vessel for a continuous period of 28 (twenty-eight) days or more the Company is entitled to request written proof of the Owner’s residential address elsewhere (for example, a copy of a utility bill or Driving Licence) such written proof to be provided within 7 (seven) days of the request.

11.The Owner undertakes to remove the boat from the marina on at least two occasions during each year.

- See more at: http://www.tingdene-marinas.co.uk/more-information/mooring-terms#sthash.pr6fVfvM.dpuf

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: Your still Floating on Thames water.

Bearing in mind that it was the EA's legislation,the Secretary of State said no,a judge has said no and that they are using taxpayers funds that they say they are very short of do you think the EA should be appealing and on what grounds B1?
You seem to be somewhat of a flag bearer on here for them

There is no money for the river,more cuts are imminent but there is money for barristers.It would be interesting to know how much the EA has spent/wasted/invested getting legislation that is obviously not fit for purpose through.If they appeal and fail will anyone carry the can for it?

If you send a freedom of information request to the EA and ask them how much the gates at the T&K hard standing cost, the ones they didn't use until I asked, it will rain on your day. Ask them how much the "Queens council's advice" cost them too, I did and it made me a little cross. I have asked about executives pay and expenses, travel and legal bills. It amazes me that there is still enough for ladders, fire extinguishers and lock keepers on the river; oh there isn't?

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Not in the version I have old chap, and the boater can leave the marina and go to the noble Mr Sheriff's for an hour or two and not get within 18 meters of the river or its navigation authority. All berth holders must have an address ashore too in order to be there and must also have insurance. Referred to the clauses thanks

 

[N69]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I detest injustice in any form, just as I detest patronage, bullying, intolerance and all the other sins of present day society. I pay my dues and expect others to pay theirs.

 

[N69]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I detest injustice in any form, just as I detest patronage, bullying, intolerance and all the other sins of present day society. I pay my dues and expect others to pay theirs.

As far as the case is concerned I believe the judge has turned upside down the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 with its definition of the Thames.

Who are you? How can you make such claims when you have no evidence, knowledge or information about what happened in the trial of the '23' boaters from T&K and Penton Hook?!!!!

As one of the '23 boaters' who you and others have so unfairly attacked and villified on this blog since the 2nd of November, I have been observing the 'outrageous rubbish' written by you and the others ( oldgit, actionmat, chris_d,etc) with a growing sense of anger and total amazement at your inability to think logically anad fairly.

let's deal with your 'quotes' first - if there is any truth in your boast that you 'detest patronage and bullying and intolerance' let me give you 3 quick examples of the EA's behaviour on our marina on 'private waters' in connection with this issue ( BTW the water 'falls from the sky' and if you have been following case law on this matter you will have seen that NO ONE OWNS ANY WATER in the UK!!! Certainly the EA does not 'own' the water in The Thames! Actionmat - I am NOT moored on Thames Water!!)

However back to the examples:
1. A rather friendly old lady (80 years old) on my pontoon was 'threatened' by a very aggressive EA officer ( dressed up in his uniform) that unless she paid her registration licence her boat would be removed and destroyed - she did not have the money - went to a 'loan shark' ( pay day loan company ) to find the money to pay her 2014 EA registration fee. She has struggled to make the payments and is completely stressed and worried about what will happen to her now as the next years fee is due!! This is the behaviour of an outright 'bully' - would you condone this?
2. An elderly gentleman ( 80 + years old) was threatened by the same EA officer on another pontoon in front of his boat - the EA officer was very aggressive and insisted that 'you have to take these papers' (Enforcement notices). He did not want to accept them . He was so upset he needed to seek medical attention - would you condone this?
3. Another 'EA victim' whose wife was recuperating from cancer on their boat was accosted by EA officials delivering Enforcement notices- the husband was not there when the EA bullies descended on the boat. She explained that he would be back later. They insited as he had committed a 'criminal offence' she had to accept the documents on his behalf and forced her to accept the enforcement notices there and then - she was distraught and completely vulnerable. They didn't care!

'Boatone' the EA's behaviour over the last 8 months has been outrageous - you talk about not accepting bullying and intolerance - BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN GOING ON - with your blog entries you have effectively been defending and endorsing this sort of 'Police State' behviour.

I could go on - I have many, many more examples of the outragous behaviour we have been the victims of since they started incorrectly claiming we were criminals. They gained access to the Marina by claiming that we were criminals who they had to 'charge' with a crime. The marina management reluctantly gave them access to serve the Enforcement notices because they ( and we at first) thought this was a crime and that others had successfully been procsecuted in the past.

We did not realise at first that we were the first and 'only ' targets and they wanted some 'trial cases'!

Responding to your final point about the judge - your point is utterly contemptible! ( particularly when you were not there and don't know what you are talking about!) She was an extremely professional and competent judge - who spent many hours listening to the arguments from both sides on the day of the trial (2nd Novenber) - which related mainly to the misinterpretation of the word 'works' by the EA as it is included in the TC Act 1932. In her summing up on the day she covered many aspects of the issues at stake and hence her decision was balanced, thoughtful, backed by fact and revealed the EA ( and their expensive barrister) to be utterly incompetent. As one of the '23' we have decided that we will focus our current efforts on the 'law' only. If this is not resolved in our favour many of us will proceed to expose the more lamentable aspects of how the EA has behaved

Rest assured we did not take the decision to plead 'Not Guilty' lightly - essentially we resolved that we would not be bullied, intimidated, harassed and criminalised by a Governement Agency that have acted with 'gestapo tactics' towards innocent individuals because all they WANT IS MONEY!! The EA is not the Navigation Authority on these privates waters and they provide no services to us for the money they intended to extort

We are simply the easy targets because we live in Marinas and don't use the Thames. Individual boats unregistered on the side of the river (there are hundreds of them!) are ignored - because it would be quicker and easier ( and raise more money!!!) if you target 600 boats from law abiding citizens in private marinas - who all have home addresses where you can serve your notices!

BTW we have homes ( alternative adresses) and do not live on board permanently. We are required by the Marina to have Boat Safety Certifictaes and Insurance - which we update annually with the Marina! Each year we have to sign a new contract! We pay on average £5000 per year for our moorings on 'private waters' adjacent to The Thames

I trust you, 'oldgit', 'actionmat', 'chris_d' and others who have found it so easy to blog without knowledge or the facts will apologise?
My expectation of your likely response is 'low' - as you have said 'boatone' in one of your entries you have always been 'consitent' -consitently wrong.

I apologise that my first entry turned into a 'treatise' - I just could not sit back and watch 4 or 5 of you dominate the interactions with incorrect facts and an inability to see the other point of view and as you say 'boatone - I detest patronage, bullying and intolerance!

 

[TT_WO]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Welcome back to the debate Chris-D. I have responded to your points in italics.

“Lots of talk about water, but the judge didn't say anything about whether the marinas were part of the Thames or not, just that the EA didn't have the correct primary legislation in place to enforce registration in the marinas due to the out dated TC act”.

Neither did she say anything about the outdated TC Act. What she did say was that it was inconceivable that the EA would have applied for secondary legislation if the existing primary legislation (TC Act) included these adjacent water marinas and that it would be repugnant to apply registration provisions to these marinas without a change to the existing primary legislation.

“The TC act referred to works and not marinas, marinas didn't exist in 1932 of course. Its only an opinion on wording”.

The TC Act referred to ‘locks cuts and works within the said portions of rivers’ as you said marinas did not exist in 1932 and at that time they were fields and therefor clearly not within the said portions of rivers.
“The EA's defence that all boats in use on the waterways should be registered, to ensure insurance is in place and minimum safety standards are maintained has to be in the best interest of all boaters”.

If the boats do not leave the marina it is the responsibility of the marina to ensure that these safety requirements are adhered to whilst on their property, registration is not needed to ensure this. It is disingenuous of the EA to pretend that registration of boats kept in marinas was anything other than an attempt to tap a new source of revenue.

“Just wondering what the marinas stance is on all this,”

Their stance should now be that they are a private business operating on private water over their private land. I suspect that they will only concern themselves if the EA were to try and charge them for their accommodations. These businesses and their berth holders, who would ultimately be faced with increased marina charges, should be grateful to these defendants, who exposed this EA deception and they should be prepared to contribute to further costs incurred by the defendants to defeat any appeal instigated by the EA.

“It is not so simple really is it? The EA are to blame as historically they haven't sorted this legislation out, but eventually these boats will have to pay, its inevitable.”

It is simple really, the EA failed to get the legislation they needed but they did get legislation that made this a criminal offence. They expected to be able to enforce registration on vessels kept in adjacent water marinas without any clear authorising legislation but a criminal charge must not succeed unless such legislation is clear and unambiguous. A home goal?