Enforcement in marinas.

[AuntyRinum]

I have seen two boats at Thames and Kennet which have had enforcement notices stuck to them today.

 

[Margot]

'a navigation authority that does not have the trust of its constituents'

That doesn't describe the EA from my perspective, not in its role as a navigation authority anyway. I feel it does a decent job under very difficult circumstances, and its waterways staff get a lot of stick they don't deserve in my view.

It's not their fault that our boat registration fees don't cover the cost of providing the level of service we'd all like, we refuse to countenance any above-inflation increases, and the government won't use taxpayer's money to plug the gap. All the while, they're having to reduce service levels to match their expenditure to income. What else can they do?

I know a lot of us claim that they'd be in a better financial state if they did more about unregistered boats, but I genuinely wonder if that's as big a problem as we think it is. Just because a boat doesn't have a notice attached to it, doesn't mean that the EA aren't doing anything about it. As some of my friends have discovered to their cost. Also, if the EA can't trace the owner, there's not a lot they can do anyway is there?

There's a boat in the river near me that's been there for years without ever moving, or ever displaying a licence. None of us know who it belongs to, and we've all lived here for ages. So how we can expect the EA to know, I really don't have a clue.

 

[Job Done]

Speaking as someone who has owned boats on the river for 15 years and never had a day unlicensed I wonder what the actual process for enforcement (in a marina or on the open river) is? I see is that an unlicensed boat receives a notice stuck on the vessel but what happens from there? If, as I suspect, there is an ability to simply pay up at that point to prevent proceedings then this renders the whole process pointless. An owner who is minded to avoid payment will either only pay up on the off chance he receives a notice and otherwise take the chance or simply ignore it safe in the knowledge the EA may not prosecute to conclusion.

Again I may be wrong about the above but surely the process should be an immediate fine or realistic threat of prosecution and revenue obtained would more than cover the cost of enforcement. Presumably if I did not insure or MOT or tax my car I would not get a polite notice giving me a warning and a reminder...

 

[Margot]

If the example of my friends is anything to go by, if you don't act on the notice you get a rather stern letter from the EA advising you that if you don't pay up you will be prosecuted. The same as when you get a parking ticket by the sounds of things. The reminder certainly made them cough up and as far as I know, they've always registered their boat promptly ever since.

As for on-the-spot fines, I think a few people have said on here before that the EA don't have any legal right to do that under the legislation that covers boating on the Thames. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[Actionmat]

The lack of clarity is only serving those who are looking for a loophole

 

[JumbleDuck]

This has been a very interesting thread and the legislation is clearly outdated and a bit flawed, but if the motivation for contesting it is to save some boat owners from paying a license because they have been hiding in some corner of a marina for years, its not really helping the river much is it.

As an outsider following this with interest, am I right in thinking that people in marinas are not - through their berthing fees - having to pay EA charges which would apply to moorings in the river itself?

 

[TT_WO]

The lack of clarity is only serving those who are looking for a loophole

You could also say that lack of clarity is serving the EA in an attempt to impose registration charges illegally on boats that are not kept or used on the River Thames navigation.

 

[Actionmat]

Until you can declare a boat SORN, there is only one option.

 

[TT_WO]

Until you can declare a boat SORN, there is only one option.

As stated by Mikemanor earlier;

"I know an individual who had all his expenses paid by the EA and a letter from them confirming that they would not be proceeding. They do not want a test case."

 

[Chris_d]

As an outsider following this with interest, am I right in thinking that people in marinas are not - through their berthing fees - having to pay EA charges which would apply to moorings in the river itself?

The berthing fees do not include the the EA registration charge which all boats have to pay whether they are moored on the main river or in a Marina.

 

[TT_WO]

The berthing fees do not include the the EA registration charge which all boats have to pay whether they are moored on the main river or in a Marina.

Chris is right as far as he goes but there are two types of marina those that are undisputedly on the Thames, where their accommodations are taking up space within the Thames navigation and are charged accordingly and those that are built on private land and not charged for their accommodations. The EA applied for and were refused legislation to include these adjacent waters marinas in the registration section of the IWO2010. The question is now what legal right does the EA have to make the charge on these water and what legal wrong is the owner of an unused boat kept on these waters committing?

 

[Actionmat]

If it's a boat that's not used, why keep it the water anyway? If the owner is not using the boat, the boat is still using the water.

 

[TT_WO]

If it's a boat that's not used, why keep it the water anyway? If the owner is not using the boat, the boat is still using the water.

This is not the legal issue!

 

[Chris_d]

The EA are not acting illegally only you say they are with your interpretation of various decisions.
All boats regardless of what type of Marina they are in are required to be registered, it is even required by the operators of the Marinas as is valid insurance and a BSS, I don't understand why you want to defend the indefensible.

 

[Flynnbarr]

The EA are not acting illegally only you say they are with your interpretation of various decisions.
All boats regardless of what type of Marina they are in are required to be registered, it is even required by the operators of the Marinas as is valid insurance and a BSS, I don't understand why you want to defend the indefensible.

Surely that last statement is incorrect.
I have looked at boats for sale at shepperton,penton etc that are not licensed and if they've come off the sea they haven't got BSS?think B1 mentioned some sort of exemption?

Sometimes one lone voice is correct,everyone should be asking themselves why EA don't want a test case?i can think of many government agency balls ups concerning law/money.

P.S I always license,just playing devils advocate

 

[Chris_d]

Surely that last statement is incorrect.
I have looked at boats for sale at shepperton,penton etc that are not licensed and if they've come off the sea they haven't got BSS?think B1 mentioned some sort of exemption?

Sometimes one lone voice is correct,everyone should be asking themselves why EA don't want a test case?i can think of many government agency balls ups concerning law/money.

P.S I always license,just playing devils advocate

Boats on brokerage do not require a license, EA cannot afford a test case.

 

[boatone]

Boats on brokerage AND under the control of the broker at their place of business AND not available for use by the owner are exempt

 

[Flynnbarr]

Until you can declare a boat SORN, there is only one option.

There is a sort of SORN for classic woodies.
They don't like being out of the water for long periods and so it is sometimes preferable to restore whilst in the water,but unable to get a BSS until restoration is complete.
Therefore EA came up with the licence for boats you don't use,travel through locks,doesn't have a BSS,you cannot use until BSS compliant etc.
Trouble is it's the same cost as a normal license
That was the case a few years back,don't know about current. B1 will know

 

[TT_WO]

The EA are not acting illegally only you say they are with your interpretation of various decisions.
All boats regardless of what type of Marina they are in are required to be registered, it is even required by the operators of the Marinas as is valid insurance and a BSS, I don't understand why you want to defend the indefensible.

So what has changed between your post 38?

“This has been a very interesting thread and the legislation is clearly outdated and a bit flawed,”

The fact that some marinas may require registration etc. has no relevance. You sign a contract between you and the marina which is not enforceable by the EA. The same contract may state that you may not live aboard and generally marinas choose not to enforce that part of the contract either.


I have provided many verifiable facts to justify my concern that the EA are acting illegally and I do not think anybody has challenged any of those facts or provided any contradictory evidence.

I think it is indefensible that the EA can apply a completely new interpretation of the 1932 legislation to serve their own objectives.

During the 6 year course of Transport and Works order and its objections process, the EA never stated that they believed that they had the powers that they were applying for under the adjacent waters legislation; rather they just explained why they needed these new powers.

They never told anybody (ATYC, BMF) that the adjacent waters legislation had not been granted.

I believe that they expected no challenge to their assertions that ‘as a result of the IWO 2010 they had gained these new powers’

 

[Ramage]

They never told anybody (ATYC, BMF) that the adjacent waters legislation had not been granted.

Why should ATYC be interested? ATYC is the Association Of Thames Yacht Clubs. Members of the Yacht Clubs use their boats and attend Rallies & other functions in them and therefore need to be registered. They are not the unregistered boats skulking in the marinas that you appear obsessed about....