If you haven't got a licence ........

if a boat is permanently in a marina, and the owner has no intention whatsoever of going out and mixing with the dangerous robos, mobos, kayakers, and other forms of nautical life on the raging river, is there a need for a licence ?


Just a hypothetical question, of course :)
 
sarabande said:
if a boat is permanently in a marina, and the owner has no intention whatsoever of going out and mixing with the dangerous robos, mobos, kayakers, and other forms of nautical life on the raging river, is there a need for a licence ? Just a hypothetical question, of course :)
Click to expand...
If the boat is afloat between Teddington and Lechlade it needs a licence. Just an un-hypothetical answer, of course ! :D
 
Last edited:
oldgit said:
Darn ere on the Mudway,they can go into marinas n have a pog to see if youve gotta ticket :)
Click to expand...

As I understand it from my marina they dont allow them in, but can obviously plod past the boats on the outer pontoon, but cant see why anyone would not have one as its under 60 quid iirc?
 
If your boat is in a private marina, then as per cars, why can't you SORN (Statutory Off River Notice) and not tax/licence your boat?

Which also got me thinking: why do you "tax" a car but you "licence" a boat?
 
Last edited:
lynall said:
Its quite a bit more up above Allington lock I think 300 quid for our 23 footer, but still cheap compared to your 800!
Click to expand...

Bit less than that about £250.00 ? Thames would be £400. Then again on the Thames you get 120 miles of world class navigation,umpteen locks and a vast army of staff,mainly paid for by the largess of the taxpayer,to ease your passage.:)

Very much doubt any public marina can deny entry to EA staff checking licences.

If you park your car on your car on your private property you can SORN it.
If you are floating on water provided by EA you need a licence.
If you do not wish to buy licence all you have to do is put it ashore ?
 
Last edited:
oldgit said:
Bit less than that about £250.00 ? Thames would be £400. Then again on the Thames you get 120 miles of the world class navigation,umpteen locks and a vast army of staff,mainly mainly paid for by the largess of the taxpayer,to ease your passage.:)
Click to expand...
Time you stopped spouting this emotive and inaccurate nonsense :D
The fact is that some 50% of the total cost of managing and maintaining the Thames is paid for by direct revenue, the bulk of which comes from licence fees. I believe that is actually rather more than the total salary bill of which lock keeping staff is the largest single item. There are no longer enough lock keepers to provide full day cover at every lock. This year no summer assistants will be hired and, although some seasonal reliefs will be employed there will be fewer than last year. Cuts in the departmental budget are predicted to be around £1million.
October will no longer be a "boating season" month so "Expect Self Service" will be the norm.
Yes, public money does contribute the other 50% but the Thames is a public waterway and a national asset, particularly a high earning tourist region and it is reasonable that the nation should contribute to its well being just like any other major infrastructure.
That does not mean we users should not pay our way, but, until there is a form of Customer Charter that clearly defines the charging regime and also specifies the services that will be provided we are up one of the creeks where there may be a licence fee evader not paying their way.
 
sarabande said:
if a boat is permanently in a marina, and the owner has no intention whatsoever of going out and mixing with the dangerous robos, mobos, kayakers, and other forms of nautical life on the raging river, is there a need for a licence ?


Just a hypothetical question, of course :)
Click to expand...

Its a shame there is no nautical equivalent of a SORN for cars, so at the moment if its in the water it needs a license.
 
Yes, public money does contribute the other 50% but the Thames is a public waterway and a national asset, particularly a high earning tourist region and it is reasonable that the nation should contribute to its well being just like any other major infrastructure.
Click to expand...

So the Lake District can look forward to a public subsidy one presumes ?
 
oldgit said:
So the Lake District can look forward to a public subsidy one presumes ?
Click to expand...
Looks like they already do:
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/aboutus
Each National Park is administered by its own National Park Authority. They are independent bodies funded by central government to:
conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and
promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public.
Click to expand...
Some years ago I advocated that the non-tidal Thames could benefit from becoming a National Park - my suggestion was ignored/fell on deaf ears. (no change there then!).
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
Looks like they already do:
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/aboutus

Some years ago I advocated that the non-tidal Thames could benefit from becoming a National Park - my suggestion was ignored/fell on deaf ears. (no change there then!).
Click to expand...

Then why cannot the Thames not get something along those lines.
Most certainly just as important and visited by far more people. ?
There must be at least as many local authorities and other warring interest groups as you have,but they seem to manage to work together.
 
Last edited:
boatone said:
my suggestion was ignored/fell on deaf ears. (no change there then!).
Click to expand...
4453889852_98709ca412_o_fix-200x200.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Z
Engine Problems.....
2
Replies
22
Views
710
billcole
B
C
Arround UK cruising guides
Replies
1
Views
97
dunedin
D

Share this page

Top