Enforcement in marinas.

[Phill]

It's not your concerns that count, thought, it's what the law says.

Like I said, it's only my view, but it's the view of a sane and fair human being

 

[N69]

What is sane and fair about paying for something you don't use and from which you get nothing?
Other than reducing the costs of those that do?

If I was one of the many on this forum that 'do use the Thames ' regularly - I do understand why they want to pay as little as possible - the 'Bray mafia' comes to mind!!! This is one way of reducing your costs - instead of paying for the time you spend on the river - get others who don't use The Thames to pay for you! (sic)

I believe this is all about 'life -style ' choices.
The Thames Gestapo have decided 'on our behalf' how we should use The Thames. ( Even suggesting caravans instead of boats! - because we don't use the River as regularly as they want us to!!!)

Fortunately the Judge at Reading Magistrates Court realised how 'repugnant' it was that a small group of the 'Rich and Wealthy' could and should be allowad to dictate who and how the Thames should be used!!!

I do not look forward to the attacks that will now ensue from the 'Thames Inteligentsia' who do not want to 'pay thier way' but want to reduce their costs by forcing those who do not use 'The Thames' to pay for them!!

Please remember - on those occasions when those that are NOT MOORED ON THE THAMES have the temerity to use it - we WILL PAY!!! ( and always have!!!)

Nothing 'sane and fair ' about wanting to use others to pay your bills!!!

Apologies 'No Regrets ' - couldn't resist the hypocracy of the 'Rich and well off' - who want to turn The Thames into the play ground of the 'monied gentry'

I look forward to the 'Appeal' and to finally revealing the 'hypocracy' of what the EA has done (with the support of so many on this forum) to innocent law-abiding citizens who have not retired (yet) and who do not simply want to travel up and down The Thames in thier 'over powered ' Gin Palaces during the summer in the knowledge that 'others' are paying for their pleasure!!!

 

[Phill]

I look forward to the 'Appeal' and to finally revealing the 'hypocracy' of what the EA has done (with the support of so many on this forum) to innocent law-abiding citizens who have not retired (yet) and who do not simply want to travel up and down The Thames in thier 'over powered ' Gin Palaces during the summer in the knowledge that 'others' are paying for their pleasure!!!

I don't think all the name calling and use of words like "over powered gin palaces" is really getting us on your side but you never know.
Purely for my benefit, because I haven't time to re-read this thread, can someone please remind me of the reasons some moorers are assuming they are exempt.

 

[rosssavage]

Very simply put, because they don't use the river per se, only the water in the marina to statically moor. The argument from the EA is that the water in the marina is The Thames and hence registration fees are due, the argument from the defendants is that it isn't and so fees are not due.

Tbh, I have some sympathy for the defendants position. I don't think the water in the marina is The Thames, and the EA sure as hell aren't going to accept responsibility for maintaining the water (depth, dredging etc) within the confines of a marina.

The only caveat is if the defendants are using their static vessels as their primary residence - they should be paying council tax and tv license etc. I would hasten to add that I don't know that they don't pay these charges and I'm not accusing anyone of not paying fair dues, but when I was a residential live aboard at the Willows we were expected to pay both EA license (we were on the main river - fair) AND council tax (we availed ourselves of local amenities like refusal disposal, the local fire, police and ambulance etc..fair.)

 

[rosssavage]

Oh, and N69 - I would caution against using phrases such as over powered gin palaces. You don't know how we use our boats - yes I'm based on the upper Thames and enjoy travelling it, but we also go down to the coast at least once a year where the size of engines suddenly becomes relevant.

Let's not start getting into the argument about the type of boats we all choose to own.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Very simply put, because they don't use the river per se, only the water in the marina to statically moor. The argument from the EA is that the water in the marina is The Thames and hence registration fees are due, the argument from the defendants is that it isn't and so fees are not due.

I don't think they were arguing about the water; they were arguing about the law. It really doesn't matter where the water comes from, or what's fair, only what the law says.

Oh, and N69 - I would caution against using phrases such as over powered gin palaces. You don't know how we use our boats - yes I'm based on the upper Thames and enjoy travelling it, but we also go down to the coast at least once a year where the size of engines suddenly becomes relevant.

I suspect that a few of those who think that people in marinas linked to the Thames should pay fees because they have access to the river even if they do not use it would be a bit peeved if the PLA started demanding harbour dues from all boats on the non-tidal Thames because they have access to the tidal bit, even if they do not use it.

 

[N69]

Oh, and N69 - I would caution against using phrases such as over powered gin palaces. You don't know how we use our boats - yes I'm based on the upper Thames and enjoy travelling it, but we also go down to the coast at least once a year where the size of engines suddenly becomes relevant.

Let's not start getting into the argument about the type of boats we all choose to own.

I agree completely - but having been told to get a 'caravan' and get off The River and how to lead our lives if we dare to stay on The River by a few very vociferous and agitated folk on this forum - forgive me if I have disparaged your choices - that was not my intention.

Importantly the point you make is key . We are all individuals who have the right to 'choose' what we do, what boats we acquire and where and how we live - no one has the right to tell us what to do!! Nor to charge us £1000 per year if we decide not to do it their way!!

 

[Actionmat]

Do you and the other marina residents pay council tax?

 

[P4Paul]

Do you and the other marina residents pay council tax?

Surely that is only relevant if it is their residence rather than their leisure craft?

 

[N69]

Yes!! £2250: 00 on my primary residence! + £7500 to moor the boat at the marina. The EA will make more money for a phony 'registration' ( approx. £1000:00 for each boat) in adjacent waters over which they have no jurisdiction, and for which they will do nothing for those moored in the marina. They are taking money without providing a service - that is little better than 'theft'!! There are approximately 600 boats in our marina and 32 marinas on The Thames. The issue is really simple - thousands of boats - millions of pounds - quick , easy money!!

If they lose the 'appeal' they may well have to re-pay the monies extorted for the last 5 years from individuals who didn't realise that the law did not give them this authority - the EA had been told specifically to exclude the 'adjacent waters' point from the 2010 IWO . They simply ignored this and went ahead demanding money with menaces!!! Surely you can accept this is 'repugnant' Actionmat?

 

[Actionmat]

I don't find it repugnant. We all pay and it's our choice how little or often we use our boats. I find it a bit sad that boats are sitting there and never get used. Anyway, I wasn't digging at you personally, if you pay council tax on a property then you do contribute to the pot, but if it's a second residence then that's a bit different. I pay council tax on both of mine. It's the live aboards that make a business of not paying for anything that I object to.

 

[Flynnbarr]

I doubt the marinas involved want anyone registering for council tax,that way lies a whole raft of different rules/legislation etc.The councils would love it,more money,more bean counters to enforce it.
Some of the people being critised are 'living under the radar' and all that that brings.No security,no rights.Not that doing the right thing helped the people at The Willows did it.
Provide proper residential moorings and they would be filled,many times over I suspect,and people need to distinguish between people living in marinas and the bankside dwellers.
Last few posts have commented on fairness and putting into the pot....I wonder who on here has contacted the council to ask to be re banded as their houses have substantially increased in price since the council tax was introduced

 

[boatone]

+ £7500 to moor the boat at the marina........There are approximately 600 boats in our marina and 32 marinas on The Thames. The issue is really simple - thousands of boats - millions of pounds - quick , easy money!

Must be a bl**dy big boat or a VERY expensive marina !
You seem to make up numbers to suit your purpose - there are approximately 9000 powered craft registered on the Thames, most of which do actually use the river. We don't know how many unregistered boats there are but a conservative estimate is probably 10% = 900. Even if they were all in marinas - which they are not - at an average registration fee of £500 this equates to no more than £500k - certainly not the "millions" you allude to.

 

[Flynnbarr]

A friend of mine mentioned somewhere in the region of £600+ a month to put her 60' barge in Thames and Kennet.

 

[N69]

Thanks Flynbarr.

Clearly boatone is not good at Maths!!
(while, like the rest of his mates, unable to resist the insults!!!)

Flynnbar your friend was therefore expected to pay - £600 X 12 months = £7200: 00 as an annual mooring fee!!!
There are certainly other Marinas more expensive than T & K

To continue using boatones own figures - 9000 registered boats (apparently) currently earns the EA ( say conservatively each pay £800 for their annual 'registration' fee - boatones £500 is for a very small boat!) = £7, 200, 000 - £720, 000 ( using boatones 10% estimate of non payers) = current income annually of £6, 480, 000 : 00!!! - which they have been 'raking' in for the last 5 years ( since say 2011). A rough estimate of income accrued so far on these 9000 boats on the Thames alone = £37, 400, 000 : 00.
No doubt every penny spent 'Conserving The Thames' navigation!!? This doesn't include the fees from other boats buying V-licences etc when they actually use the river. I would really like to know what the total income is they have received from Thames usage and registration charges for the last 5 years and what they have actiually spent on maintaining the river?

However, not all of these boats are moored in marinas in 'adjacent waters' - lets say 50% are? ( ie 4,500 boats based on boatones figures) - so effectively
£3, 240, 000 : 00 is at stake annually, if they lose this case. Then there is the small matter of paying back the money they have taken off the 'boaters ' illegally for the last 5 years - say £3, 240, 000 X 5 = £16, 200, 000 : 00!!!! As we have said all along, this could turn into the EA's PPI scandal.

This is why they had to appeal ( all those charged knew they had no option) - what they spend on 'Barristers', 'Lawyers' and court costs is insignificant compared to what they might lose financially if we succeed.

It is also why like others on this forum I think 'as one of the 23' that we will not be allowed to win - the 'system' will ensure we 'lose' to protect the income stream for the EA. I know many of you will be delighted with that - even if it is all totally illegal!

Lets hope 'good old British Justice' prevails and someone is forced to think of a fairer way to fund the upkeep of this beautiful river!

 

[boatone]

Clearly boatone is not good at Maths!!
(while, like the rest of his mates, unable to resist the insults!!!)

I am very competent at maths but I much prefer to work with accurate figures.
Approximately 9,000 registered powered craft bring in about £3million - an average of approximately £335, well under half the £800 you choose to assume.

 

[SSN 13 unlucky for some]

I don't think they were arguing about the water; they were arguing about the law. It really doesn't matter where the water comes from, or what's fair, only what the law says.



I suspect that a few of those who think that people in marinas linked to the Thames should pay fees because they have access to the river even if they do not use it would be a bit peeved if the PLA started demanding harbour dues from all boats on the non-tidal Thames because they have access to the tidal bit, even if they do not use it.

Hello JumbleDuck, Your post above is about as spot on as you can get. The point about access to the coast via the Thames is oh so poignant. If some of the other forumites were hit for fees in/on areas/waters they could access if they wanted to then their tune may be a little different I feel.

And a note to all, some people taken to court would love to live ashore if they could but are limited by their financial or personal situations. Life isn't rosy for all, please have some compassion for those less fortunate than yourselves. After serving my country for 23 years and fighting in the 2nd Gulf war, I feel I've earned it

 

[No Regrets]

And a note to all, some people taken to court would love to live ashore if they could but are limited by their financial or personal situations. Life isn't rosy for all, please have some compassion for those less fortunate than yourselves. After serving my country for 23 years and fighting in the 2nd Gulf war, I feel I've earned it

You were paid for that. Lets not try to make people sympathetic because you chose your path...

 

[TT_WO]

Hello JumbleDuck, Your post above is about as spot on as you can get. The point about access to the coast via the Thames is oh so poignant. If some of the other forumites were hit for fees in/on areas/waters they could access if they wanted to then their tune may be a little different I feel.

And a note to all, some people taken to court would love to live ashore if they could but are limited by their financial or personal situations. Life isn't rosy for all, please have some compassion for those less fortunate than yourselves. After serving my country for 23 years and fighting in the 2nd Gulf war, I feel I've earned it

Just to remind all;
High court appeal judgement February 2013.
Lord Justice Lewison :


54. English law does not recognise the ownership of water. Instead it recognises ownership of "land covered by water". Sir William Blackstone summarised the common law in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (vol 2 p…………………………………..

Is there any doubt that the EA has spent £1million plus on the Inland waterways order 2010? The route via secondary TWO legislation was an attempt hide what they were doing and should not have even allowed the 'Kept' boat legislation to be introduced, this was just as ultra vires as ' the intended 'Adjacent waters legislation.
The 1932 legislation has been well understood by successive navigation authorities, including the EA, over the last 80 years, to suggest that it needs to be tested in court now is contemptible and I have a lot less respect for the EA management than I do SSN 13. I suspect they are paid a lot more for their service than SSN 13 was for his service in the Gulf.

 

[Actionmat]

This is getting boring now:sleeping:. Is the purpose of posting on this single subject to inform or have you come here expecting a Robin Hood style round of applause? Wait for the process to run its course and then we'll see. Anyone else got their orange licence yet?