Environment Agency crack down on boat owners

[SimonA]

And that's about it. Their only evidence is a digital photograph and a signed statement by the rivers inspector which states on the 16th August he was making an inspection of boats in the marina and found this vessel did not have a registration certificate.

The whole case takes up 2 A4 sides of paper.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Marsupial]

if you have insurance, any sort of insurance, you might be covered for legal costs; it's worth a try.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: From what you say and show

You are guilty as charged.

That being said you have heaps of mitigation though this is dilluted by the fact that, like most people do and are encouraged to do, you've used the phone when a letter would have been best. It's a shame you didn't prime a lawyer early doors too.

If the EA have misled you, if you can muddy the waters about private property rights, I doubt if this one will fly because of riparian rights but ho hum, if you sent them the dosh and they kept it, it's hard to believe your going to be fined the maximum. It might help if you could show that you are attempting not to offend further. i.e. get the boat ashore asap. It might be an idea to phone the Clerks to the Justices office and explain your difficulty in obtaining specialist representation they would rather change the hearing date before you appear, freeing up a valuble slot, than you all turn up for nothing.

I can't believe they've (EA) missed such a big trick here. If they'd put the onus on marina & mooring operators to not rent moorings to unlicensed boats they'd have this problem cracked on the cheap.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PaulF]

I get the impression that the whole matter has been poorly managed by the EA with inconsistent and contrary information being dished out.
Whatever happens, if you are going to use your boat eventually, there may be some bridge building by way of relationships, to be done with Mr River Warden, unless he gets fired of course.

Dont count on him for a working party volunteer!

Good luck and let us know how it goes.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Planty]

Re: From what you say and show

"I can't believe they've (EA) missed such a big trick here. If they'd put the onus on marina & mooring operators to not rent moorings to unlicensed boats they'd have this problem cracked on the cheap." :

but then they couldn't create loads of arsehole jobs summoning people and possibly wasting even more Taxpayers money, just to spend any fine on solicitors fees. Whilst of course leaving a perfectly law abiding citizen with a criminal record. Good God man don't you understand Blairist economics!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[brianrunyard]

Another option is to take the boat out of the water.

<hr width=100% size=1>Brian
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brunyard

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Sorry

I'm a Thatcherite. More money generated by less people. I must get over that.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alb40]

Take the boat out of the water. I did that last year when i recieved a warning. Phoned them up and said the boat had been removed from the water and they said ok. All sorted.

If your on dry land, you dont need a river licence.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[miket]

I tend to agree with Brian.
It could be as the marina is open to the river it is, possibly marginally, using their water.

I have been approached by another organisation reference the new proposals from EA relating to the Thames.
I don't object in principle, but they need to incorporate a few exceptions to cover boats under restoration, etc. However, if the boat is seriously being restored it would be better done out of the water.

Good luck with your court appearance. As said elsewhere, take as much documentary evidence as possible.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TrueBlue]

Told you so!

You all rubbished me somewhat, so I went back into my muddy corner

Sitll objected in the consultation process. Hope others did likewise.

<hr width=100% size=1>

Stop what you're doing and wait my signal

 

[SimonA]

Update.

Today I have spoken with the legal department of the EA and got nowhere. They won't drop the case if I remove the boat from the water. They won't accept my cheque, they won't put any of this in writing.

I was told they might consider dropping the case if I got the BSS this week and then applied for a licence. However they where unwilling to put this in writing.

I aksed if I could have more time to get the BSS and was told No.

They seem to have this all sorted out and as I don't have a shred of evidence (due to them not putting anything in writing) it looks like I am stuffed.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TrueBlue]

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>


From what I can gather I have a few choices.
a) Plead guilty, get fined, get a criminal record
b) try and argue that a flooded gravel pit is not part of the navigation
c) hope the magistrates see sense in the fact the boat has been in the marina for years with the EA's knowledge and yet they have no bothered with it. Also the fact I have sent a cheque to the EA for the loss of revenue caused by not having a licence.
d) spend hundreds if not thousands on a solicitor.



<hr></blockquote>




(b) and (c) seem likely avenues;

For (b) you could cite the forthcoming Transport and Works order which seeks to make marinas and the like "adjacent waters" etc, which implies that they are not already - but that depends on your local legislation - Anglian Waters Act.

For (c) you might have obtained a prescriptive right - because they've ignored you for years.

I'd think about doing two things:-

Contact the Court and explain that you may be defending in person, ask for an adjournment to gather more facts as this is a complex and obscure part of the Law.

Seek general advice from the CAB's duty solicitor as to the geralities of (b) and (c).

If you get a positive response from the Court (telephone them generally to sould the water), then you can make application in writing.

It may be that the EA back down - in which case ask for costs.

In my limited experience of our legal system, magistrates can be kindly disposed to applicants in person - but only if your case is well prepared and you have made an effort to resolve the issue - which you have. The magistrate will not know this bit of Law, nor will his Clerk....

You, however, must be prepared to do some legwork - which you may find to be "fun", that is if you have the time.

I am not in anyway legally experienced or qualified, merely passing on what I have found out elsewhere.

Good luck!

<hr width=100% size=1>

Stop what you're doing and wait my signal<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by TrueBlue on 30/11/2004 15:45 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[PaulF]

Simon you said 'I dont have a shred of evidence' . Not so.
Very carefully document every conversation. Word for word if possible, making actual quotations where possible. You appear to have tried on more than one occasion to settle this, and have been rebuffed. Try to prove this again, even by taking cash to the EA, along with a witness.
Chronogically document everything, telephone conversations and where they took place, what time of day and with whom. Even if the EA make this stick, which is likely, they have been, a lousy example of how a government agency should conduct itself. At the very least there is a fair chance of a roasting for taking court time unnecessarily. If you have the time I wonder if it is worth trying to find out if this blanket change of rules was administered in the correct way, and legally. I dont know how, but you do have 3 weeks to check it out. Has anybody else been similarly charged? Were they properly notified etc.
What the EA appear to have done is apply similar to a road fund licence, but to include private property, like owning a field with a gate in it on to the road, but according to them they have the right to apply the tax whether or not you go into the road or not. Stinks a bit doesn't it?Good luck.

Another post suggested CAB legal rep, good idea. How well do you know your local MP?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailorman]

JOIN THE R.Y.A.
& seek thier advise

<hr width=100% size=1>Nil iligitmo carborundum

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Fax your offers to them (remove boat, pay etc), then produce fax as evidence that they must have received your offers but haven't replied......should land them in the clag with the beak.

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based

 

[mikewilkes]

< : You appear to have tried on more than one occasion to settle this, and have been rebuffed. Try to prove this again, even by taking cash to the EA, along with a witness. : >

I like that idea. Go with cash and a reliable witness.




<hr width=100% size=1>

Ceum ur

 

[plombier]

As the EA seem reluctant to put anything in writing (back protecting on behalf of the individuals you spoke to I fancy) could you not write to them confirming the contents of your conversations. Send Special Delivery. If they do not reply (in writing) I would have thought this would gone in your favour with the mags.as you have clearly tried your best to sort the situation out.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Admiral]

Re update

Simon, You still have time to write to them repeating all you said on the phone. They are then bound to reply in writing to you, if they don`t reply it is another arrow in your armoury when in court. Don`t foeget to keep a copy of the letter.
This appears to be yet another example of the nanny/police state hitting on a person trying their best to comply.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Medskipper]

Yes I agree with ALB40, take the boat out of the water and leave it on dry land for a few months!

Also if you have insurance, do you have legal cover? they will know all about marine law! It strikes me that this is a complete nonsense! you are between a rock and a hard place! I would have thought that even if you go to court, the judge would see sense and throw it out if the whole case is explained properly!

Of course the other option is to have the boat taken by lorry to a marina where the E.A. don't have any say in the matter! like the coast, I'm in Chatham on the medway and we don't even have to have a safety cert at all! bugger the EA! This is the very reason I took my boat off the Thames, I refused to do all the daft things that they insisted I do, The inspector said I had to have it all done and I said no I don't and left the Thames!

Hope it all works out OK for you!

Regards Barry


<hr width=100% size=1>I just want to retire with my boat to the Med!

 

[SP2]

Simon, sorry to hear of your plight.

Most Magistrates Courts operate a system where only guilty pleas are dealt with on the first hearing date. If you intend to fight the case then it is likely to be adjourned anyway which could give you some more time. Worth calling the court and just check this with the Clerk.

Many of these types of prosecutions are "technical" and often there is strict liability - you either comply with the law or you do not. Without hunting through the legislation and the regulations I wouldn't know if there are any loopholes and it is unlikely that any of the "free" lawyer services will have the expertise to help you. The RYA has to be the place to start and they can direct you to someone who will know, I am sure.

Bear in mind that courts deal with all sorts of people and have to treat them accordingly. In some cases they will see that there is no justice in a prosecution no matter if you are guilty and impose a conditional or absolute discharge.

Like other posters, I would recommend that you get the boat out of the water ASAP as this at least demonstrates to the court that you are doing all you can not to be in breach of the rules.

Good luck, Mike

<hr width=100% size=1>That's Haswell - not hassle - www.spectrumtoo.org.uk