Enforcement in marinas.

[Ramage]

EA took opinion from an eminent QC. They did not disregard the law. It remains to be seen if they now go on appeal to the High Court to get a binding decision. Meanwhile I am sure it is costing a lot of money that is actually needed to run the river....

 

[JumbleDuck]

EA took opinion from an eminent QC.

How often do eminent QCs say "No, you have no case, and there is absolutely no need to pay me £1,000 per hour for a week to discover that" ... ?

 

[byron]

How often do eminent QCs say "No, you have no case, and there is absolutely no need to pay me £1,000 per hour for a week to discover that" ... ?

ha ha!

 

[TT_WO]

I don't know about egg on face more like outrage that some local judge has done this, how much knowledge of the Thames and the wider implications do they have. Doesn't matter what the exact legal wording or case is, the message sent out is that if your boat is not in use you don't need to pay! Shame on those that brought this case, I pay my council tax and don't use maybe 90% of their services but I still pay my share.

I share your outrage and agree with your comment "shame on those that brought this case" The EA chose to use our money to prosecute boat owners that did not either keep their boat on the river Thames or visit the Thames despite the fact that they were denied the legislation intended to allow them to do this legally.

I suspect however that your outrage was intended to be directed to the boat owners that had the nerve to defend themselves against criminal charges that, if sustained, would have carried severe penalties in terms of fines, costs and criminal sanctions. The sensible alternative and I suggest, expected alternative, would be to plead guilty to criminal charges which they knew they were not guilty of.

Well done boat owners! I hope the judge's 'full reasoned ruling' will make it clear to the EA that they should not have brought these prosecution to court and when the EA reflect on this decision they will not inflict further distress on these boat owners and waste yet more money by appealing the decision of this eminent judge whose sole job was to interpret the law having listened to the arguments from both sides.

 

[Actionmat]

I share your outrage and agree with your comment "shame on those that brought this case" The EA chose to use our money to prosecute boat owners that did not either keep their boat on the river Thames or visit the Thames.......

So what what are they floating on? Anglian Water?

It's up to courts now, but I have a feeling that the only winners will be the legal teams. Any fees due will be a drop in the ocean compared to their pay cheques.

 

[boatone]

Peeps need to take care when quoting excerpts from others posts. Several quotes are wrongly attributed and give completely wrong impressions of individual views.

 

[Actionmat]

Very true, just noticed that. I wasn't responding to Chris, but willow, titwillow, titwillow!

 

[Mirror Painter]

Peeps need to take care when quoting excerpts from others posts. Several quotes are wrongly attributed and give completely wrong impressions of individual views.

 

[savageseadog]

I share your outrage and agree with your comment "shame on those that brought this case" The EA chose to use our money to prosecute boat owners that did not either keep their boat on the river Thames or visit the Thames despite the fact that they were denied the legislation intended to allow them to do this legally.

I suspect however that your outrage was intended to be directed to the boat owners that had the nerve to defend themselves against criminal charges that, if sustained, would have carried severe penalties in terms of fines, costs and criminal sanctions. The sensible alternative and I suggest, expected alternative, would be to plead guilty to criminal charges which they knew they were not guilty of.

Well done boat owners! I hope the judge's 'full reasoned ruling' will make it clear to the EA that they should not have brought these prosecution to court and when the EA reflect on this decision they will not inflict further distress on these boat owners and waste yet more money by appealing the decision of this eminent judge whose sole job was to interpret the law having listened to the arguments from both sides.

Quite agree. The boat owners will presumably have had a Barrister's or QC's opinion that said the opposite to the EA's one. This will run and run and may well end up at the Supreme Court.

 

[rotrax]

How often do eminent QCs say "No, you have no case, and there is absolutely no need to pay me £1,000 per hour for a week to discover that" ... ?

A Barrister wiil provide a legal opinion for a set fee. The fee comensurate with the complexity of the law.

The one I had twenty five years ago in a Motorsport matter cost £400.00.

It was worth every penny.

 

[JumbleDuck]

A Barrister wiil provide a legal opinion for a set fee. The fee comensurate with the complexity of the law.

I was thinking of the trial fees.

 

[Chris_d]

Don't know what is wrong with this forum, why are all those posts being attributed to me?

Where is the moderator?

 

[boatone]

Don't know what is wrong with this forum, why are all those posts being attributed to me?
Where is the moderator?

I mentioned this earlier Chris. I think its simply because people are being careless in their use of the "reply with quote" facility when they select what to include.
Doubt very much that the mods will even notice, let alone get involved, unless you report it to them.

 

[oldgit]

At some point,those not wishing to make a contribution to the upkeep of the Thames,even in its hour of need ie. with cuts of 40% percent on the horizon,were bound to man up and attempt to use the law to escape paying their dues.
An interesting question would be who is funding the case,if they cannot rustle up £20 pounds a week for an EA license fee.
One fervently hopes for the good of the greater boating community the EA persues this case in a higher court and gets a more enlightened interpretation, relevant to the circumstances of the river in the 21st century.
This is not a case of the EA unfairly treating a few innocent hard done by poverty stricken citizens but a few folks cynically using the law to the future detriment of both the The Thames and other rivers and hence eventually the vast majority of their users ?

 

[Actionmat]

I agree. For all the cheery waving and assisting each other through the locks, there is a selfish side to the Thames.

 

[TT_WO]

This is not a case of the EA unfairly treating a few innocent hard done by poverty stricken citizens but a few folks cynically using the law to the future detriment of both the The Thames and other rivers and hence eventually the vast majority of their users ?

Earlier in this thread Boatone reported spending his time at a TNUF meeting and reported that the EA's (new) interpretation of the law will enable them to charge for the accommodations in the off channel marinas. As this will amount to many tens of thousands of pounds of additional cost to these marinas it will be passed on to the vast majority of river users in terms of additional marina charges. I suggest that it is in the interest of all that the EA are not allowed to cynically make up the law in the knowledge that most will not risk the potential consequences of defending themselves. Many on this forum advocated that the only way forward was to use the law to interpret the meaning of the 1932 Act (S4) this only became necessary when the EA gave it a new meaning to suit their purposes.

You keep your boat on a cheap club mooring on the tidal Medway where the EA have no jurisdiction and therefore are not required to register your boat unless you visit the EA waters. No different to the people in the marinas in question except that they pay approx 4 times the price for their mooring than you do. Not sure what gives you the right to pontificate on what others should contribute.

 

[JumbleDuck]

At some point,those not wishing to make a contribution to the upkeep of the Thames,even in its hour of need ie. with cuts of 40% percent on the horizon,were bound to man up and attempt to use the law to escape paying their dues.?

Am I right in thinking that the boat owners in question do not actually use their boats on the Thames -although the water in which they float may come from there?

 

[Chris_d]

Am I right in thinking that the boat owners in question do not actually use their boats on the Thames -although the water in which they float may come from there?

We don't actually know which boat owners brought this action, just that they were in a marina.

 

[oldgit]

You keep your boat on a cheap club mooring on the tidal Medway where the EA have no jurisdiction and therefore are not required to register your boat unless you visit the EA waters. No different to the people in the marinas in question except that they pay approx 4 times the price for their mooring than you do. Not sure what gives you the right to pontificate on what others should contribute.

H,mm something in my post obviously hit a nerve.
A more careful search would have given a little more information.
The club of which I am fortunate to be a member,constructs and installs its own moorings piles and pontoons,thereby saving a little money to keep down costs.All the up keep and maintaince is carried out by club members who freely give their efforts for the benefits of all club members and for visitors to enjoy our wonderful location overlooked by Rochester Castle.
It will gladden your heart to know that all tidal river users pay an annual subscription to a private company "Peel Ports" this goes towards the various services required to assist boaters on the lower Merdeway.
Further research by the diligent,would revealed that a Royal Charter requiring anybody driving a pile or laying a mooring in the lower Medway,requires a payment or rent to be paid to the Rochester Floating Fishery,our club is no exception.
Just organised a club cruise up to Allington Lock, paid the EA fees for my size of boat and paid both mooring fees at the lock and the private moorings at Allington Castle,without complaint.
A privilege to be in the fortunate position to afford any of it.
Should you wish to bring your boat round anytime soon will be pleased to show you around. Should this present a bit of challenge,can recommend,several boat clubs on the Thames who would love to recruit new members and are happy to guide new boaters to exotic new locations.

 

[djm]

We don't actually know which boat owners brought this action, just that they were in a marina.

They did not bring an action. They exercised their right to defend a criminal prosecution brought by the EA and the judge found that the charge had no basis in law.