Enforcement

[TT_WO]

The water in an adjacent water marina is owned by the marina whilst it is on their private property. Of course if the marina is located within the confines of the Thames then the water is Thames water and any vessel kept there is required to be registered even if it does not use the navigation.


"Oldgit, you always claim that all accused are trying to avoid paying their fair share, but if they keep an unused boat in an adjacent water marina why should they be expected to pay for a navigation (locks, lay bys, water points etc) that they are not using."


If your marina/cut/backwater/boatyard is only able to obtain water to keep your boat floating because it is connected the Thames, the infrastructure needed to keep you floating is maintained by the EA has to be paid for,at the moment by others.
Unless of course you have a very large tap constantly left running somewhere you are using Thames water to float....
The water I float on is provided by the moon.......and not sure of the exact address to send the cheque too.
Suspect by now you have finally realised this freebie is fast approaching its end.There probably is a invoice being entered into a computor somewhere at this very moment

The infrastructure to which you refer is indeed paid for by all of us through central government taxation and is for flood control. The infrastructure to navigate a boat on the Thames is at least partially paid for by registration fees but if you are not using the navigation, why should you be charged for it?

I think you view may be slightly different if you were required to pay a registration charge for a boat that was not going to venture onto the navigation especially if that charge were twice what you would be charged to navigate on the Medway.

As you do not have an address for the moon why not send payment to the EA instead, that would help maintain the infrastructure in case you need to use it and provide a free visit to the Thames.

Last time I looked at my registration plate it said £522 and so far I have used it 1 day. I intend to use the Thames a few more times in this registration period but if I did not intend to use the Thames and remained on private water I do not expect to have to pay for the navigation for others to use.

 

[No Regrets]

if you are not using the navigation, why should you be charged for it?

Why have a boat? Seriously?

 

[Chris_d]

The infrastructure to which you refer is indeed paid for by all of us through central government taxation and is for flood control. The infrastructure to navigate a boat on the Thames is at least partially paid for by registration fees but if you are not using the navigation, why should you be charged for it?

I think you view may be slightly different if you were required to pay a registration charge for a boat that was not going to venture onto the navigation especially if that charge were twice what you would be charged to navigate on the Medway.

As you do not have an address for the moon why not send payment to the EA instead, that would help maintain the infrastructure in case you need to use it and provide a free visit to the Thames.

Last time I looked at my registration plate it said £522 and so far I have used it 1 day. I intend to use the Thames a few more times in this registration period but if I did not intend to use the Thames and remained on private water I do not expect to have to pay for the navigation for others to use.

There are lots of things we pay for but don't use, I fund all sorts of stuff every month with my Tax bill that I will never use, it is the price we pay to live in a civilised society. If your boat is in Thames water you have to pay, if you don't like it move it it elsewhere... simples.

 

[TT_WO]

if you are not using the navigation, why should you be charged for it?

Why have a boat? Seriously?

Probably a question that anybody who boats on a budget should not ask themselves. This is a purchase that is ruled by the heart and carries expectations that most people will never realise to the full.

You have changed your boat and increased the engine power by a factor of 6, but you can still only travel at 5kph on the Thames why, have big engines, seriously?

I suspect that if the EA said as a result of the inland waterways order they were going to surcharge the registration of large engined boats, you would, with justification, call foul play.

I know, the EA know, and I suspect a lot of people on here know that, by claiming that registration charges can, as a result of the IWO, be applied to unused boats kept in private adjacent waters, including marinas, are acting beyond their powers.

 

[apollo]

Probably a question that anybody who boats on a budget should not ask themselves. This is a purchase that is ruled by the heart and carries expectations that most people will never realise to the full.

You have changed your boat and increased the engine power by a factor of 6, but you can still only travel at 5kph on the Thames why, have big engines, seriously?

I suspect that if the EA said as a result of the inland waterways order they were going to surcharge the registration of large engined boats, you would, with justification, call foul play.

I know, the EA know, and I suspect a lot of people on here know that, by claiming that registration charges can, as a result of the IWO, be applied to unused boats kept in private adjacent waters, including marinas, are acting beyond their powers.

 

[TT_WO]

There are lots of things we pay for but don't use, I fund all sorts of stuff every month with my Tax bill that I will never use, it is the price we pay to live in a civilised society. If your boat is in Thames water you have to pay, if you don't like it move it it elsewhere... simples.

Its not in Thames water, I pay because i choose to visit the Thames.

The civilised society that I expect is one that is subject to the rule of law.

 

[Chris_d]

Its not in Thames water, I pay because i choose to visit the Thames.

The civilised society that I expect is one that is subject to the rule of law.

Thames Water is water connected to the Thames, but I think we've been through that....

 

[TT_WO]

Thames Water is water connected to the Thames, but I think we've been through that....

I let you make that assertion before and should not have done so because unsubstantiated statements may be believed merely because they sound plausible. This one is just not true.

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

But then again perhaps Lord Lewison was mistaken when he made these comments at a appeal court hearing earlier this year.

 

[boatone]

Haven't heard of anyone taking the EA to court to contest the decision yet. However there have been quite a few successful prosecutions for not having a valid licence !

 

[oldgit]

I let you make that assertion before and should not have done so because unsubstantiated statements may be believed merely because they sound plausible. This one is just not true.

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

But then again perhaps Lord Lewison was mistaken when he made these comments at a appeal court hearing earlier this year.

Relevant perhaps for the specific case the good judge was commenting on at the time,but the right to use the water does not always belong to the owners of the land bounding it.
Since time immemorial charters have given exclusive rights to use the water to parties other than the owners of the land.
In fact the owners of the land have to get permission to use the water and have to pay the owners of the rights to do so.

 

[TT_WO]

Relevant perhaps for the specific case the good judge was commenting on at the time,but the right to use the water does not always belong to the owners of the land bounding it.
Since time immemorial charters have given exclusive rights to use the water to parties other than the owners of the land.
In fact the owners of the land have to get permission to use the water and have to pay the owners of the rights to do so.

So which marinas pay the EA for the use of the water? Most do not pay for the pontoons and piles placed in or on the water. The EA would charge if they could but as adjacent water marinas are not on the Thames and the water does not belong to the EA no charge is applicable.

 

[No Regrets]

Probably a question that anybody who boats on a budget should not ask themselves. This is a purchase that is ruled by the heart and carries expectations that most people will never realise to the full.

You have changed your boat and increased the engine power by a factor of 6, but you can still only travel at 5kph on the Thames why, have big engines, seriously?

I suspect that if the EA said as a result of the inland waterways order they were going to surcharge the registration of large engined boats, you would, with justification, call foul play.

I know, the EA know, and I suspect a lot of people on here know that, by claiming that registration charges can, as a result of the IWO, be applied to unused boats kept in private adjacent waters, including marinas, are acting beyond their powers.

How very naive!?

I changed from the 50hp Broom so I could do more tidal cruising at a speed required by having Dogs on board, and safety factors afforded by twin engines. I cruise on the tidal river on one engine, which is, surprisingly as economical as the Broom, and use the twin engines for close quarter manoeuvres, especially when it's very windy!

If the eA raised their fee, I would move it, and move it in a way that would shaft them good and proper!

My point is more pertinent: why have a boat and not use it. You appear to have ignored that, in favour of a cheap jibe at me, when I'm not the one squealing...

 

[TT_WO]

How very naive!?

I changed from the 50hp Broom so I could do more tidal cruising at a speed required by having Dogs on board, and safety factors afforded by twin engines. I cruise on the tidal river on one engine, which is, surprisingly as economical as the Broom, and use the twin engines for close quarter manoeuvres, especially when it's very windy!

If the eA raised their fee, I would move it, and move it in a way that would shaft them good and proper!

My point is more pertinent: why have a boat and not use it. You appear to have ignored that, in favour of a cheap jibe at me, when I'm not the one squealing...

No cheap jibe intended. I did not expect an explanation, I expected "what has it got to do with you what boat I choose to buy and why?" It was my too subtle way of saying "none of us have to explain why we make the decisions we do" that may be too subtle as well!

Just trying to respond without appearing rude.

 

[No Regrets]

You're STILL avoiding answering though!!

If you want to stand on the parapet throwing your opinions to people, it would be reasonable to expect an answer wouldn't it!?

Or are you hiding some deep dark secret!?

 

[boatone]

To continue arguing and complaining about the rights and wrongs of the EA decision to impose the TWO on all boats afloat does seem somewhat futile when some 10,000 or so individual power boaters have paid up. What is more, all the people I speak to are in agreement that the decision is a good one and it is right that all who derive advantage from the management of the waterway should contribute - even dumb barges and houseboats can only float because the water levels are maintained.

As we have said before, anyone wishing to challenge the position is at liberty to do so through the courts. The EA have successfully prosecuted quite a number of people who did not have a valid licence and I am not aware of any case where a defence of illegal charges was pursued.

The real issue is how to find further significant sources of income to replace the public money that is now being severely curtailed. Boaters alone cannot be expected to fund all the associated costs (already recognised by the C&RT) but neither can we expect licence fees to be exempt from further increases.
It is time all those who claim to care about the future of the river and services to boaters started putting their heads together and realising we must all assist in solving the problem.

I get the feeling that some think the government is bluffing and that when push comes to shove more money will magically appear from the government purse. I am sure funding will continue to be found for key areas such as flood relief but the continued provision of lock services, as one of the greatest areas of expenditure, just cannot expect to be immune - without replacement sources of income you can only save significant sums of money by reducing significant areas of expenditure.

Historical failures to manage the river effectively and preserve primary sources of income (all local authorities used to pay a contribution in the days of the TC and the NRA) have contributed greatly to the problems but if we are to find solutions we really do need to get to grips with how to manage the future.

Now we know that responsibility for managing the river will continue with the EA for the foreseeable future it is even more important that users are well represented and seen to be contributing responsibly to the way ahead. If you don't already belong to the TMBA I urge you to join - every new member is another vote for common sense.

 

[TT_WO]

You're STILL avoiding answering though!!

If you want to stand on the parapet throwing your opinions to people, it would be reasonable to expect an answer wouldn't it!?

Or are you hiding some deep dark secret!?

As I said "probably to subtle"

The reasons why one may choose not to use a boat adds nothing to the debate.

The question is "are adjacent water marinas private or not" and if they are private why do the EA continue to pretend that they are legally entitled to charge Thames registration fee for a vessel that is not kept on or using the Thames.

Surely this is the right forum to advance such opinions and I remain open to reasoned arguments to explain why they are legally justified in their actions.

 

[Chris_d]

As I said "probably to subtle"

The reasons why one may choose not to use a boat adds nothing to the debate.

The question is "are adjacent water marinas private or not" and if they are private why do the EA continue to pretend that they are legally entitled to charge Thames registration fee for a vessel that is not kept on or using the Thames.

Surely this is the right forum to advance such opinions and I remain open to reasoned arguments to explain why they are legally justified in their actions.

The answer to your question is NO and frankly nobody on here is interested, sorry. See Boatone's post above and divert your efforts towards the rivers future rather than futile arguments about adjacent waters.

 

[TT_WO]

The answer to your question is NO and frankly nobody on here is interested, sorry. See Boatone's post above and divert your efforts towards the rivers future rather than futile arguments about adjacent waters.

The future of the river would be better served by a navigation authority that acts within the law, if we encourage the EA to make up the rules to suit their purse strings it will eventually come back to bite all of us!

Please do not assume that nobody reading this thread is interested. I hope that even people that fully support the EA objectives would see the folly of allowing them to exceed their powers.

People facing prosecution and those that have been fined may well have committed no wrong, those people are entitled to information that may well enable them to defend themselves. The EA chose not to inform us either directly or through organisation such as ATYC, BMF, RUGS, and yes even the TMBA (previously B1) that the legislation needed to apply registration requirements to adjacent waters and marinas was expressly denied to the the EA and ordered removed from the Transport and works Order.

 

[TT_WO]

To continue arguing and complaining about the rights and wrongs of the EA decision to impose the TWO on all boats afloat does seem somewhat futile when some 10,000 or so individual power boaters have paid up. What is more, all the people I speak to are in agreement that the decision is a good one and it is right that all who derive advantage from the management of the waterway should contribute - even dumb barges and houseboats can only float because the water levels are maintained

As we have said before, anyone wishing to challenge the position is at liberty to do so through the courts. The EA have successfully prosecuted quite a number of people who did not have a valid licence and I am not aware of any case where a defence of illegal charges was pursued.

I accept that they gained the right to impose the TWO on all boats kept afloat on the Thames, but as you well know they were denied the legislation to impose the same on private adjacent waters. As you told OG most marinas are private and I would add their water is private.

Can I suggest you speak to some of your neighbours in PH who were targeted by enforcement officers in October last year, the ones that do not move their boats from the marina are likely to feel that they derive no advantage from a registration charge when they do not use the navigation. They are already paying for water level regulation.

If you did speak to them you would find out that the EA were challenged on the legality of an enforcement notice served on a vessel in a private marina. The EA are said to be reviewing the matter. My guess is that no more will be heard as I think the EA will not progress an action that just may be defended.

The real issue is how to find further significant sources of income to replace the public money that is now being severely curtailed. Boaters alone cannot be expected to fund all the associated costs (already recognised by the C&RT) but neither can we expect licence fees to be exempt from further increases.
It is time all those who claim to care about the future of the river and services to boaters started putting their heads together and realising we must all assist in solving the problem.

I get the feeling that some think the government is bluffing and that when push comes to shove more money will magically appear from the government purse. I am sure funding will continue to be found for key areas such as flood relief but the continued provision of lock services, as one of the greatest areas of expenditure, just cannot expect to be immune - without replacement sources of income you can only save significant sums of money by reducing significant areas of expenditure.

Historical failures to manage the river effectively and preserve primary sources of income (all local authorities used to pay a contribution in the days of the TC and the NRA) have contributed greatly to the problems but if we are to find solutions we really do need to get to grips with how to manage the future.

Now we know that responsibility for managing the river will continue with the EA for the foreseeable future it is even more important that users are well represented and seen to be contributing responsibly to the way ahead. If you don't already belong to the TMBA I urge you to join - every new member is another vote for common sense.

Perhaps we should make sure that the EA are not finding new ways to waste our money as they did with the TWO legislation, care to put a price on it within the nearest million or two?

The cost of enforcement should also be reviewed, by your own admission, it costs more to administer than it brings in.

Of one thing I am sure of trying to raise revenue from people that derive no advantage from the navigation is short sighted and If proved to be illegal I think will eventually be required to be repaid.

I feel sure you would have explored any evidence that would have disproved my claims and as you only refer to the decision as a good one as opposed to a legal one you perhaps you do harbour some doubts as to the legitimacy of the action. Your enthusiastic reproduction of enforcement action by the EA, peppered with references to delinquents without qualification does make me want to redress the balance.

 

[mikemanor]

To the best of my knowledge the EA has not prosecuted anyone who has made clear their intention to plead not guilty. In every single case of a successful prosecution published by the EA in their press releases the defendant has either pleaded guilty or not attended.

Clearly many were guilty because they were certainly on Thames water.

However, The EA clearly does not want to test the adjacent waters issue in court.