JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
But am I right in thinking that the EA don't charge marinas for berths inside marinas? If they did, presumably berth holders would pay through their fees.
Enforcement in marinas.
- Thread starter TT_WO
- Start date
But am I right in thinking that the EA don't charge marinas for berths inside marinas? If they did, presumably berth holders would pay through their fees.
Flynnbarr
Well-Known Member
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
This exemption came about after the EA announced their intention to apply the charge to marinas. It caused much unrest amongst the trade who called a meeting with the EA and BMF and an exemption arranged.
There was nothing in the IWO to suggest that the registration charge would not be applied to boats under brokerage or to boats owned by the sales company.
The trades seem to benefit from a lot of exemptions from the rules that are applied to the rest of us. I suspect this is because they are a more formidable opponent than an individual boat owner.
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
The ATYC would confirm that they worked very closely with the EA during the TWO/IWO but they were not informed by the EA that the Adjacent waters legislation had been removed only that the charging scheme had been removed.
As you say the ATYC use their boats on the Thames but we are talking about boats that are not skulking but merely remain unused in a private marina and do not use the Thames navigation. They pay dearly for that right and as a result are not permanently moored on your favourite Thames bankside moorings.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Application form for exemption from BSS requirement: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
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289762/LIT_7548_1269d7.pdf
The registration plate is RED and costs the same as a normal full registration but you are not allowed to use the boat.
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
Nothing changed I don't support unlicensed boats hiding in "adjacent waters" marinas or some marinas being exempt from accomodation charges, the legislation is flawed because it
allows these misinterpretations.
boatone
Well-Known Member
Your version:
Following the decision to enforce registration charges for boats afloat in marinas the BMF made representations to the EA on behalf of their brokerage members. As a result of these discussions the EA agreed the exemption process for boats clearly under the control of brokers and not available for use by the owners.
Your version:
I spent several hours of my time at the TNUF meeting yesterday discussing many of the issues that you complain about. I asked specifically if the EA had any open case files relating to non payment of the registration fee where the boat owner intended to defend the case if taken to court - the answer was an emphatic "no". They also reiterated their resolve to pursue prosecution without fear or favour should such a case arise.
Finally, I raised the issue of accommodation charges in marinas and was advised that the same legal opinion that supports their case regarding registration of boats in marinas also applies to accommodations. Any process of implementation relating to accomodations requires consultation and will take considerable time to initiate. As I said in an earlier post, they simply do not have the resources for this - i.e. manpower - at the present time. They are also clearly aware that any such charges will impact greatly on boat owners themselves.
Once again, I have to say that I do not know who you are or what the basis is of your objections to the imposition of registration charges in marinas. If you are a boat owner faced with a registration charge you object to paying have your day in court and lets see what the judge decides. If you are not a boat owner and are acting purely on some personal voyage of principle, I, personally, would appreciate it if you would do so elsewhere and not here on a forum for boat owners intent on enjoying their use of the Thames and the other inland waterways.
My version:
Following the decision to enforce registration charges for boats afloat in marinas the BMF made representations to the EA on behalf of their brokerage members. As a result of these discussions the EA agreed the exemption process for boats clearly under the control of brokers and not available for use by the owners.
Your version:
This is true but there did not need to be. The EA has authority to exercise discretion with regard to reduction or waving of charges and exercised this discretion in the light of the representations by the BMF on behalf of brokers.
Really? A "lot" ? Other than the brokerage issue I would be interested to know what these are. As for them being a more formidable opponent I wish that were so.
I spent several hours of my time at the TNUF meeting yesterday discussing many of the issues that you complain about. I asked specifically if the EA had any open case files relating to non payment of the registration fee where the boat owner intended to defend the case if taken to court - the answer was an emphatic "no". They also reiterated their resolve to pursue prosecution without fear or favour should such a case arise.
Finally, I raised the issue of accommodation charges in marinas and was advised that the same legal opinion that supports their case regarding registration of boats in marinas also applies to accommodations. Any process of implementation relating to accomodations requires consultation and will take considerable time to initiate. As I said in an earlier post, they simply do not have the resources for this - i.e. manpower - at the present time. They are also clearly aware that any such charges will impact greatly on boat owners themselves.
Once again, I have to say that I do not know who you are or what the basis is of your objections to the imposition of registration charges in marinas. If you are a boat owner faced with a registration charge you object to paying have your day in court and lets see what the judge decides. If you are not a boat owner and are acting purely on some personal voyage of principle, I, personally, would appreciate it if you would do so elsewhere and not here on a forum for boat owners intent on enjoying their use of the Thames and the other inland waterways.
Last edited:
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
Might I ask if you were also able to confirm that safety ladders into the non-tidal Thames were classified as "accommodations"
Personaly, I have found TT_WO's input very interesting and informative altho' I think I can see why you would wish to suppress him or her.
Personaly, I have found TT_WO's input very interesting and informative altho' I think I can see why you would wish to suppress him or her.
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
I don't think B1 wants to suppress him just to declare his/her interest.
apollo
...
I agree, sadly it goes to bolster the argument that EA are not fit for purpose.
534l4rk
Well-Known Member
But how many people appreciate that transfer to the C&RT may well result in an increase in boat registration fees by 20% by virtue of coming under a Licence rather than Registration which is not subject to VAT ? I see on the Gov.com website River Thames : Boat Registration and Application Forms that the following heading is shown - Boat Registration (Licence) Forms. I don’t remember seeing this before.
Margot
Member
Why will a transfer to CRT mean VAT will be applied? Must admit, I wasn't aware it wasn't being applied already...
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
"PRN is an important.
1. It is the reason why we cannot be licensed to navigate the Thames."
You are right, I have not noticed the word licence used by the EA in connection with registration before.
I believe that any authority taking over management of the Thames would do so under existing Thames legislation.
I do have an old registration form which printed in full the TCA section 4 definition of the Thames but strangely did not include the” to include locks cuts and works” bit which the EA now claim is the basis for applying the registration charge to marinas.
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
Not sure the VAT thing has been sorted out for the transfer to CRT but EA registrations (licenses) are VAT exempt see link
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/environment-agency-charging-scheme
CRT registration includes VAT but not on the Thames proportion for a Gold license
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4776.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/environment-agency-charging-scheme
CRT registration includes VAT but not on the Thames proportion for a Gold license
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/4776.pdf
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your kind enquiry.
Once again I will explain my interest. I registered as an objector to some of the provisions of the Transport and Works Act in 2004. I took part in a formal written objection and response process.
I objected to provisions regarding registration of kept boats on the Thames and provisions regarding the application of the legislation to Adjacent Waters which the EA had defined as, amongst other things, a marina.
There were few private objectors because these two important changes to the legislation together with the Charging Scheme were not advertised by the EA who I believe thought that the more people that new, the more objectors would surface. Insurance and BSS on the Medway and Harmonisation were chosen as the less contentious aspects to promote.
I am a boat owner and paid a registration charge of over £500 this year, I have never used a boat on the Thames without a licence.
I do enjoy using my boat on the Thames and although I do not think the £500 charged is an insignificant amount, I do not expect my registration charge to be subsidised by those who, for, what ever reason, are unable or to choose not to use their boat on the Thames navigation.
In April 2010 I received a copy of the Secretary of State’s decision letter. From which it was clear that he was satisfied with the EA’s justification for legislation that would require boats kept on the Thames, even if unused, to be registered. The Charging Scheme and Adjacent Waters legislation were not accepted and ordered to be removed from the TWO/IWO2010.
Quote from that letter;
“There was further concern that the law should not be changed to criminalize a boat owner who keeps a boat on a marina mooring, private mooring, or private water body such as a pond or lake but choose not to navigate the river Thames. The Secretary of State decided that it would be ultra vires section 3 to apply registration and charging requirements to the adjacent waters and ordered the EA to remove the relevant provisions.”
The rest is as they say is history.
I am disappointed that in spite of the forgoing you do not appreciate my concerns. To make it clear I object to the EA,s deceptions both before and after the introduction of the IWO2010, I object to the misinformation that they propergate to continue their deception, I object to the enormous amount of money spent on the flawed legislation and subsequent legal advice .
Stuart Taylor, on behalf of the chief executive of the EA, wrote by way of justification/explanation;
“Section 4 of the 1932 Act defines the river Thames and includes “locks cuts and works”
covering the majority of Thames marinas.
As someone who chooses to represent river users, I find it alarming that you would not concern yourself with the legality of EA actions.
djm
Active Member
Thank goodness that TT_WO, whoever he is, and despite his being put down at every opportunity by some who appear to think they must dictate what is said on this forum, is prepared to stand up against the arrogant tyranny of the Environment Agency that continues to ignore the wishes of Parliament and make up the law as it goes along. It took the EA over five years and not a small fortune to try to get approval for the legislation they sought. They failed; the minister rejected it. The legislative vehicle they used, a Transport and Works Act Order was inappropriate and didn't provide the power to change the Thames Conservancy Act definition of the River Thames. So they settled for deceit and then spent many more thousands of pounds and the next two years searching desperately for one friendly QC who would provide an opinion that suited them. Not a judge - in open court. They have fought shy of that and will probably continue to do so for as long as they can bully people into submission. And so the EA deceit goes on. Can you really trust them with anything?
CJL
Well-Known Member
TT_WO;4950359 I am disappointed that in spite of the forgoing you do not appreciate my concerns.[/QUOTE said:
Flynnbarr
Well-Known Member
No one can ever have a day in court if the EA fight shy of it/don't want a test case.
How do you suggest someone achieves this?
As stated on here by some the reason is the EA have no money,IMHO I have never heard of anyone or anyone organisation that would shy away from said actions if they are confident of their position.
Surely a forum is exactly the place to discuss such matters or is it as when the the CRT or EA question came up nobody wanted to rock the boat so to speak?!
If it gets people posting surely that's a good thing?over on the east coast forum some wish to know why The Thames forum is so high on the forum list as they are far more active over there.
Margot
Member
Has the EA backed out of a court case on this matter? If so, when was that?
boatone
Well-Known Member
Not to my knowledge but all the cases so far have been undefended i.e. the boat owner has pleaded guilty or found guilty in their absence. The EA have yet to bring a case where the boat owner pleads not guilty and defends the case. The EA have stated that they have no such current cases pending but that they will pursue through the courts should any arise. We can only wait and see.