Enforcement in marinas.

[Alan ashore]

FWIW which isn't much, my own opinion of what would be a reasonable and fair position would be that vessels of whatever kind which genuinely will not venture from an adjacent water onto any navigation should not be liable to a registration fee for that navigation.

It would however be entirely reasonable for the Government to require registration of all vessels in all waters, and equally reasonable for them to charge a fee. It would be reasonable that the fee charged to register a boat which will never leave a privately owned marina would be less than the fee charged to register a boat for use on a navigation.

Having said all that, I sense that I am not alone in imagining that there are a currently a number of boats moored in adjacent waters and not registered, which do in fact "sneak out" from time to time. Any such boats are cheating the rest of us, of course.

 

[Chris_d]

It would however be entirely reasonable for the Government to require registration of all vessels in all waters, and equally reasonable for them to charge a fee. It would be reasonable that the fee charged to register a boat which will never leave a privately owned marina would be less than the fee charged to register a boat for use on a navigation.

Having said all that, I sense that I am not alone in imagining that there are a currently a number of boats moored in adjacent waters and not registered, which do in fact "sneak out" from time to time. Any such boats are cheating the rest of us, of course.

Very nicely put Alan, exactly the point most have been trying to make (except some haven't done it quite so nicely! ).

 

[No Regrets]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Well said Jumble Duck!!!

'Silence' from 'No Regrets' (other than 'Christ, no one gives a monkeys!!' - very offensive to the 23 victims charged by the EA !) 'Apollo', 'boatone', 'actionmat'. 'oldgit', 'chris_d' et al who have attacked and ignored the logic of TT_WO for years!!!!!!

Come on folks - have the 'guts' to join in now that you have been exposed for what you are!!! (Apologists for 'state sponsored extortion', bullying and intimiadtaion

Have some 'guts' to apologise - you got this completely WRONG!!!!

N69

The fact is, I have better things to do than spend my entire life trying to reply with immediate effect to newby forumites who are here with the sole purpose of their personal politics, yet who haven't had the decency to contribute anything to the forum in recent, or past history.

Which begs the question, if you know so much about stuff, why didn't you share it earlier!?

You're either a user or a lurker, and in either case of very little interest to me, nor is your cause. Good day...:encouragement:

 

[No Regrets]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

In previous threads I have given several reasons why boats may remain unused, ill health, working abroad, engine failure and restoration, spring to mind along with of course static residential use.

I don't get why you always have felt so incensed by the fact that these owners do not, or are unable, for whatever reason, to use their boats the way you do. You clearly get very good value from both your boat and your registration, you are entitled to congratulate yourself but what gives you the right to tell others what they should / should not do. It just serves to divert attention from the issue.

It would be different if these boat owners were in any way spoiling your enjoyment by using your favorite mooring, making you queue longer for the lock, pump out, water point etc, but of course they are not.

To quote your earlier contribution to this thread;

"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 ..."

I prefer that No Regrets!

I always find you a pleasure to deal with, disregarding the fact we don't always agree! See you next season no doubt! Have a good Christmas...:encouragement:

 

[N69]

FWIW which isn't much, my own opinion of what would be a reasonable and fair position would be that vessels of whatever kind which genuinely will not venture from an adjacent water onto any navigation should not be liable to a registration fee for that navigation.

It would however be entirely reasonable for the Government to require registration of all vessels in all waters, and equally reasonable for them to charge a fee. It would be reasonable that the fee charged to register a boat which will never leave a privately owned marina would be less than the fee charged to register a boat for use on a navigation.

Having said all that, I sense that I am not alone in imagining that there are a currently a number of boats moored in adjacent waters and not registered, which do in fact "sneak out" from time to time. Any such boats are cheating the rest of us, of course.

Thank you for a balanced and respectful intervention after the personal insults and inaccurate allegations made by some.

You have raised the key issue - which was a critical aspect of the defence case when the '23' innocent boaters (who have been so appalingly ridiciuled and personally attacked for their own lifestyle choices on this forum) won the case against the EA recently - who is the Navigation Authority for the 'adjacent waters' at T&K and Penton Hook?

In The Water resources Act, 1991 - a Navigation Authority is defined as '....any person who has a duty of power under any enactment to work, maintain, conserve, improve or control any canal or other inland navigation, navigable river, estuary, harbour or dock'

To be the Navigation Authority the following needed to be established in our case against the EA:
1. Who sets the 'speed limits' in the marina?
2. Who sets the rules to which licencees and visitors to the marina must abide?
3. Who has the right to ask individuals to stay on the waters or to leave?
4. Who maintains the structures at the marina ( water and land)?
5. Who maintains the banks in the marinas?
6. Who Cuts the weeds in the waters and banks?
7. Who permits access? ( through security fences and gates)?
8. Who controls entry and exit to the Marina's from the land and water side?
9. Who maintains the depth of the waters ( dredging as necessary)? (so sorry Apollo we are unlikely to 'silt up' because that is the marinas responsibilty) and we pay a 'handsome annual fee' to the marina for them to undertake these tasks!!

The answer to each of these questions in both the T&K and Penton Hook cases was NOT THE EA!!!

Your final point about these people 'sneaking out onto the river' is also important. This does not happen. We are law abiding people - who take our reponsibilities to pay our way and abide by the law very seriously. We have all understood that when we leave the marina and 'use' the river we have to purchase a 'V licence' for one day, one week or a month from the first lock we use. These short term licenses are very expensive on The Thames although much less than the approximately £1000 to register with the EA. We have all made individual choices about which route to take. Those of us that use The River often realise it is cheaper to buy the annual licence - as I have this year and will do so next year. Our issue is why pay approx. £1000.00 when some of us do not use The Thames ( BTW the water in T&K comes from the Caversham Hills and many of the 'Caversham lakes' are full from ground water and have no link to The Thames at all). Our big 'mistake' was simply opening a 'cut' onto The Thames!!

Please understand we are not 'con artists' trying to duck our responsibilities as some on this forum will have you believe

 

[N69]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

The fact is, I have better things to do than spend my entire life trying to reply with immediate effect to newby forumites who are here with the sole purpose of their personal politics, yet who haven't had the decency to contribute anything to the forum in recent, or past history.

Which begs the question, if you know so much about stuff, why didn't you share it earlier!?

You're either a user or a lurker, and in either case of very little interest to me, nor is your cause. Good day...:encouragement:

I didn't know the forum existed!!! I was recently advised that a small group of you had been gunning for TT_WO for years and I thought it was time that he received some support!!

I was not expecting the nastiness and vitriol I received and from you in particular Sir.

The fact that you can't acknowledge you got it wrong, or change your mind ( when someone like TT_WO provides such reasoned and sensible arguments) or apologise says more about you than me!

I certainly have a number of 'Regrets' about joining this forum and meeting the likes of you! Nasty

 

[Pump-Out]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

They could even sulk and cordon off the bits they do manage from those they have now been told they dont ,,,,,,,

I'm not sure they can.
The River Thames is a Queen's Highway - the right of navigation thereof is enshrined in Magna Carta - I believe they would be on a very difficult path with that one.

I like Alan's post #221, as a framework/possible way ahead.

 

[JorgeinLondon]

FWIW which isn't much, my own opinion of what would be a reasonable and fair position would be that vessels of whatever kind which genuinely will not venture from an adjacent water onto any navigation should not be liable to a registration fee for that navigation.

It would however be entirely reasonable for the Government to require registration of all vessels in all waters, and equally reasonable for them to charge a fee. It would be reasonable that the fee charged to register a boat which will never leave a privately owned marina would be less than the fee charged to register a boat for use on a navigation.

Having said all that, I sense that I am not alone in imagining that there are a currently a number of boats moored in adjacent waters and not registered, which do in fact "sneak out" from time to time. Any such boats are cheating the rest of us, of course.

+1 for this. I can understand both sides of the argument, it seems to me the best resolution lies in some sort of grading on licences (Different colours maybe?) which could be easily identifiable by Mr Lock Keeper (if there are any left after 15% cuts)..

 

[Chris_d]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I'm not sure they can.
The River Thames is a Queen's Highway - the right of navigation thereof is enshrined in Magna Carta - I believe they would be on a very difficult path with that one.

That depends on what you call the Thames, some say its is all "lock cuts and works" connected to it, others not! Lets not start that again please :sleeping:

 

[apollo]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

Sure they can - by the back door..
"Right of navigation" maybe but now no need to maintain or spend any money on it.
They can stop any planned dredging anywhere past PH weir and just say "not our durisdiction guv."

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

The River Thames is a Queen's Highway - the right of navigation thereof is enshrined in Magna Carta - I believe they would be on a very difficult path with that one.

The only reference I can see to the Thames in the British Library translation (http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation) is

All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast. ​

Does that imply a right to navigation and, if so, does it extend to rivers throughout the whole of England?

 

[Actionmat]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

There has been more than one non payer who went to court and quoted the manga carta(and lost)

 

[No Regrets]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I didn't know the forum existed!!! I was recently advised that a small group of you had been gunning for TT_WO for years and I thought it was time that he received some support!!

I was not expecting the nastiness and vitriol I received and from you in particular Sir.

The fact that you can't acknowledge you got it wrong, or change your mind ( when someone like TT_WO provides such reasoned and sensible arguments) or apologise says more about you than me!

I certainly have a number of 'Regrets' about joining this forum and meeting the likes of you! Nasty

The difference between you and your friend is that he deals with things like an adult, while you throw your teddies out of your pram. You come her as a nooby poster, making your assumptions, and accusations, but do not realise how forums and forumites work.

Either shape up, or, as you hinted at, depart. I care not either way :encouragement:

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

The difference between you and your friend is that he deals with things like an adult, while you throw your teddies out of your pram. You come her as a nooby poster, making your assumptions, and accusations, but do not realise how forums and forumites work.

I've only seen one poster on this thread rant and rave.

 

[djm]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

The difference between you and your friend is that he deals with things like an adult, while you throw your teddies out of your pram. You come her as a nooby poster, making your assumptions, and accusations, but do not realise how forums and forumites work.

Either shape up, or, as you hinted at, depart. I care not either way :encouragement:

I thought we had already seen a fine demonstration of hypocrisy but this little effort surely takes first prize in that department.

There is only small one group of people on here that has "made assumptions and accusations" and chosen to ignore facts. The 'nooby' poster was one of the direct targets of such falsehoods. It cannot be any surprise that he should want to respond here now that a judge has ruled that there was never any basis for any of those assumptions, no basis for the threats and no basis whatever for the criminal charge so repugnantly brought against him.

 

[Actionmat]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

There is an assumption that it's all done and dusted. It isn't, unless the EA decides not to appeal, or appeals and loses, so I wouldn't go spending the licence fee savings on champagne just yet.

 

[apollo]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

There is only small one group of people on here that has "made assumptions and accusations" and chosen to ignore facts.

Nobody has assumed anything or ignored facts, just facing stark reality in this modern world.
Its all cyclical, what do you think will happen now? You take one source of payment away, another one comes along.

EA wont touch the stream up by PH with a barge-pole, the maintenance will as N69 correctly says - fall to the marina.

Its going to cost them more to maintain as they will be out there dredging the big shoal by the yacht club and guess what, they are going to pass it on to their customers.
Either way you pay this time whether you venture out or not, just by virtue of being in the marina.

Its the folks that live up the lake (including a mate of mine) that i feel sorry for.
The marina will maintain its bit, but who will maintain the lake?
And yet again one way or the other those residents will have to pay the dredging if they want to use their boat and that will be expensive.

Sometimes the easiest way is to face up to economy of scale.

 

[No Regrets]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I've only seen one poster on this thread rant and rave.

While you post nothing of consequence from afar ;-)

 

[JumbleDuck]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

While you post nothing of consequence from afar ;-)

This is the internet. Nothing is of any consequence.

I'm interested in this case because it seems to have parallels with a case up her. The Port Bannatyne Moorings Association fought a fairly long battle over the imposition of Crown Estate charges for moorings in Kames Bay in Bute, basing their case on ancient rights given to the town of Rothesay. We - I acquired one of the moorings and joined the PBMA shortly before the case ended - lost, but as an interesting consequence it revealed that the Crown Estate's right to the seabed around Scotland was distinctly dubious, which is possibly why control and revenues are due to be handed over to local councils.

I'm therefor interested in the case, and rather disappointed in the abuse heaped on TT_WO and others on his(?) side. The EA simply cannot and must not try to levy charges to which it is not entitled, there is no dishonour whatsoever in refusing to pay an unwarranted bill and attacking people based on a perception of how they use their boats is pretty pathetic.

 

[No Regrets]

Re: Enforcement in marinas

I have not heaped anything on TT_WO.

Perfectly reasonable bloke.