apollo
...
I hope the EA builds a dam round them and pumps the water out.
Enforcement in marinas.
- Thread starter TT_WO
- Start date
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Unless the "defendants" have aquired the right to remain anonymous,it will of course now be matter of public court record who they are ?
Will be of interest to know if they are individual members of the public,a commercial company or some other organisation.
Justice seen to be done by their peers and all that .
Anybody know which court the hearing was held in and when?
Last edited:
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
Yes but they engaged a barrister to defend them.
djm
Active Member
How dare they?
They engaged a barrister to advise the judge on points of law and thus put themselves in an equal position with the EA who were also represented by a barrister - at your expense.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
As an obviously public spirited citizen with some knowledge of this particular hearing ,could we trouble you to enlighten us with the details regards the where and when the case was heard.
Last edited:
djm
Active Member
As an obviously public spirited citizen with some knowledge of this particular hearing ,could we trouble you to enlighten us with the details regards the where and when the case was heard.
If you simply take the trouble to read the letter sent by Andrew Graham to the TNUF which is quoted in full within this thread you will have all the information you seek.
Chris_d
Well-Known Member
No you missed the boat, I merely said that we don't know who the boat owners are who engaged the barrister, which marina they are in etc....
I presume you do however?
Have to say this forum is no longer a very pleasant place to be, much like parts of the Thames.
I think I will leave you to it.
boatone
Well-Known Member
I haven't heard the fat lady singing yet - or even clearing her throat.
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
I'm with DJM.
The court has spoken, and although I have no personal issue with either side (Apart from Ian and Tony, who both well know why!) but this result has simply shows the boundary of the EA's jurisdiction, which is the River, not everything it touches.
As much as I like the EA, they cannot assume total command over everything, as that would be silly ...:encouragement:
The court has spoken, and although I have no personal issue with either side (Apart from Ian and Tony, who both well know why!) but this result has simply shows the boundary of the EA's jurisdiction, which is the River, not everything it touches.
As much as I like the EA, they cannot assume total command over everything, as that would be silly ...:encouragement:
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
Sorry for late response,been away.
Your question deserves an answer, the owners in question do not use their boats on the Thames that would be in contravention of the IWO2010.
The water may come from the Thames but that does not make it the Thames. Water is owned by the ownership of the land underneath it.
Water level regulation is not paid for out of registration fees it is centrally funded.
SSN 13 unlucky for some
New Member
As a new member to the forum I think this all a little bitter. I would like to say a challenge to the law the right of all members of a society. This was done by some people and a respected judge agreed with them. What's the problem?
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
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.
I know RCC well enough, stayed there many times and I know how fortunate its members are especially those that enjoy an £800 per annum mooring that enables them to visit EA Medway and the Thames as a visitor on a pay as you use basis, a bargain given annual registration fees approximately half of a Thames registration. The Peel Ports subscription, what £50 per annum? And most private boaters do not subscribe.
You are fortunate and I do not begrudge your good fortune but I do begrudge you trying to demonize people that keep their boats in a private marina adjacent to the Thames at a cost of some £4000 (for a 36’boat) and as they are not using any of the Thames moorings or other navigation assets an additional registration charge of £650 would amount to an unfair tax.
I suspect that you would be calling foul if the EA decided that you are required to pay a registration charge even if you are not on waters under their authority.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Your still Floating on Thames water.
A frequent visitor,the mystery deepens,a RCC club member perchance ?....and still not the slightest trace of embarressment with cuts of 30% or 40% heading your way which will impact on 8000 odd other boaters with the curious exception of 23 boaters in two particular locations. ?
All RCC boats pay the same fees with no exceptions whatever for those not using their boats for whatever reason.
Unless everyone chips in equally there is no club.
Surely 23 resourceful chaps could get together,form their own club,rent a bit of river bank and get your costs down,no need to pay another marina bill,you might need EA permission tho !
A frequent visitor,the mystery deepens,a RCC club member perchance ?....and still not the slightest trace of embarressment with cuts of 30% or 40% heading your way which will impact on 8000 odd other boaters with the curious exception of 23 boaters in two particular locations. ?
All RCC boats pay the same fees with no exceptions whatever for those not using their boats for whatever reason.
Unless everyone chips in equally there is no club.
Surely 23 resourceful chaps could get together,form their own club,rent a bit of river bank and get your costs down,no need to pay another marina bill,you might need EA permission tho !
Last edited:
Flynnbarr
Well-Known Member
Scratching my head at this!
I thought everyone on here wanted a court case,clear up the confusion,or would everyone prefer that the EA were allowed to do as they please?
But because some on here didn't get the result they wanted they've got the hump and are going to take their toys home and sulk
Whatever the final result,and as B1 has said it may not be over yet,surely no one wants a large government department riding roughshod over the laws of this land,whatever your stance on the matter.
oldgit
Well-Known Member
The Thames Forum
A place to discuss boating issues specific to the Thames and other inland waterways
It depends entirely of course on a the interpretation of the wording in a particular sentence.
Does it not strike you as odd that of the 8000 or more boaters on the Thames and the thousands of other boaters on other waterways who could be affected,many of whom will be in exactly the same position as the defendants have choosen not to avoid paying a contribution towards the running of the river.
The main argument appears to be that the The Thames is an awfully expensive place to boat,marina fees etc and can we please have a little relief,as though locating your boat on the Thames was compulsory.
By now you would have thought that this cause celebre would have been all over the local press,plucky little boaters against a big bad organisation,perhaps even similar to the Barons against the nasty old King. Letters to the letters page,petitions signed,MP lobbied...nope not a whisper all being kept very sotto voiced and not single person prepared to stand up and say its me being affected merely a couple of voices cheering from the side lines.
A place to discuss boating issues specific to the Thames and other inland waterways
It depends entirely of course on a the interpretation of the wording in a particular sentence.
Does it not strike you as odd that of the 8000 or more boaters on the Thames and the thousands of other boaters on other waterways who could be affected,many of whom will be in exactly the same position as the defendants have choosen not to avoid paying a contribution towards the running of the river.
The main argument appears to be that the The Thames is an awfully expensive place to boat,marina fees etc and can we please have a little relief,as though locating your boat on the Thames was compulsory.
By now you would have thought that this cause celebre would have been all over the local press,plucky little boaters against a big bad organisation,perhaps even similar to the Barons against the nasty old King. Letters to the letters page,petitions signed,MP lobbied...nope not a whisper all being kept very sotto voiced and not single person prepared to stand up and say its me being affected merely a couple of voices cheering from the side lines.
Last edited:
Flynnbarr
Well-Known Member
Doesn't all law hang on the wording?
'Not a whisper',yes I was suprised B1 didn't flag it up on here!
....I do sometimes wonder if TT_WO is your alter ego Mr Old Git Sir,on here to raise the blood pressure of some forum members and drive B1 nuts with his knowledge of the subject...
'Not a whisper',yes I was suprised B1 didn't flag it up on here!
....I do sometimes wonder if TT_WO is your alter ego Mr Old Git Sir,on here to raise the blood pressure of some forum members and drive B1 nuts with his knowledge of the subject...
boatone
Well-Known Member
It will not surprise you to know that it has not escaped my notice !
I have been staying relatively quiet on this because I have no wish to add further fuel to an already well stoked fire.
I have always said that the right way to arrive at a conclusion regarding the EA right to charge was for it to be brought to court. That has now happened and a judge has, apparently, ruled in favour of the defendants. However the EA will have a right to appeal that decision which I, personally, sincerely hope they will do. We will then get a further decision which may or may not uphold the initial judgement.
All the arguments are about interpretation and that is what these court cases will, hopefully, eventually settle.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I'm getting confused. Under what circumstances do people using their boats on the River Thames itself, and not merely on connected waters, now escape paying a license fee?
TT_WO
Well-Known Member
You are correct, this decision will not affect the registration requirement for boats using the Thames at all.
Some boat owners who are in the same position i.e. keep an unused boat in an adjacent water marina, will have paid an annual registration charge. This is clearly not because they choose to help fund the river even though they are not using it (not even OG does this and he does use it) but because the EA claimed that they gained this power as a result of the IWO2010 and when challenged, then claimed that although they did not gain all the power they needed these private marinas were always part of the Thames and under their authority. This part the Judge disagreed with, so some will have paid for a registration when there was no legal requirement to do so.