Is this the situation on the Thames ?

[oldgit]

Regards the Medway.

We are making important changes to River Medway boat
registration from 23 August 2013. This will affect you if you
keep or use your boat on the river.
From 23 August 2013 all boats kept on the river must be
registered. This requirement now extends to every part of
the River Medway, including marinas. If you keep your
boat on the River Medway, you will now need to register it
and pay the full annual charge, even if you do not use it.
We understand that for owners of boats in marinas this is
very short notice to comply with our conditions for
registration. We are therefore offering boats in marinas a
grace period until 10 November 2013 to register their
boat, or remove it from river before we take enforcement
action. Please note, we will still take immediate
enforcement action if any boat

Comments ?

 

[IAIA3259]

yep

 

[TrueBlue]

It's a bit late - or have you only just got it?

It's always been the case on the Thames (though others will dispute that). The 2008 TWO tried to clarify it. The Secretary of State said "wrong" and the EA said (sotto voce) Oh yeah, try me - do you feel lucky - or some such.

 

[oldgit]

Though that everyone was whispering Shhh and side stepping this issue and it has not actually been settled yet.
EA worried that if they enforce this, take someone to court in a marina/cut/backwater et al to make an example of them and......... lose at great expence,those reluctant to put anything into the EA (soon to be CaRT ) pot will feel encouraged. ?

 

[LenT]

Is it the 1st April, or have I missed the joke? Or is there another River Medway that I am not familiar with?

Despite attending the MSBA conference in May last year, I have heard nothing about this.

You are telling us that registration started on 23 August 2013 and that we have a grace period up to 10 November 2013, now gone.

Are you refering to the conservation license administered by Peel Ports or something else specific to the non tidal Medway?

....and who is the "we" in this situation?

More details please.

 

[LenT]

Two mins on Google and I have answered my own questions.

Registration refers to the non tidal River Medway.

EA reference: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/recreation/130049.aspx

 

[oldgit]

Sorry, it is easy to assume that the outside world is aware of the politicking which is going on above tidal locks.
Should have been more specific.

 

[boatone]

Regards the Medway.

We are making important changes to River Medway boat
registration from 23 August 2013. This will affect you if you
keep or use your boat on the river.
From 23 August 2013 all boats kept on the river must be
registered. This requirement now extends to every part of
the River Medway, including marinas. If you keep your
boat on the River Medway, you will now need to register it
and pay the full annual charge, even if you do not use it.
We understand that for owners of boats in marinas this is
very short notice to comply with our conditions for
registration. We are therefore offering boats in marinas a
grace period until 10 November 2013 to register their
boat, or remove it from river before we take enforcement
action. Please note, we will still take immediate
enforcement action if any boat

Comments ?

I understand that this information is correct as per the notice on the Allington Lock website - http://allingtonlock.co.uk/IWO.pdf

 

[oldgit]

I understand that this information is correct as per the notice on the Allington Lock website - http://allingtonlock.co.uk/IWO.pdf

Spoke to lockie last summer and he indicated that they were waiting for permission to go after people who were not actually on the main river,but had been told to hold fire until something or other had been cleared up at head office.

 

[boatone]

Spoke to lockie last summer and he indicated that they were waiting for permission to go after people who were not actually on the main river,but had been told to hold fire until something or other had been cleared up at head office.

I believe that was the case but whatever the problem was was sorted and I have been assured that the notice is correct.

 

[djm]

I hope the proud men of Kent will see through the EA's deceit on this issue rather better than some of their Thames colleagues!

The fact remains that whatever the rights and wrongs of the EA seeking to widen its revenue base, the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 gives them no legal authority to require licensing of unused boats in marinas adjacent to either the Medway or the Thames.

The Amendment to the Order which came into effect on 23 August 2013 changes nothing and is yet another example of EA smoke and mirrors deceit. All the amendment did was to correct a small technical error which referred to Section 32(a) in the Southern Water Authority Act 1982 when, in fact, there was no Section 32(a). The sole effect is to confirm that the definition of the Medway Navigation remains as given in Section 32 of the 1982 Act. Nothing has changed. The EA's pretence that the Amendment signed by the Minister on 24 July 2013 changes the definition of the Medway Navigation to include adjacent marinas is nothing short of a disgrace. If there was no reason to license an unused boat in a Medway marina before 23 August 2013, there is certainly no reason now.

Please remember that in applying for the 2010 Order, the EA sought to have the description of the Thames and the Medway altered to include 'Adjacent Waters' which they described as including marinas and backwaters. The 'adjacent waters' clause was removed entirely from the Order as being 'ultra vires' at the request of the Minister before the rest of the Order was passed into law.

 

[oldgit]

You can impune their sexual prowess.
You can cuckold their wife.
You can deride their boating skills
You can even step on their blue suede shoes.

But have the temerity to ask for a contribution towards something to benefit both them and the rest of the boating community....
and not a trace of embarrassment in asking everyone else to pay their share.

 

[TrueBlue]

I hope the proud men of Kent will see through the EA's deceit on this issue rather better than some of their Thames colleagues!

The fact remains that whatever the rights and wrongs of the EA seeking to widen its revenue base, the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 gives them no legal authority to require licensing of unused boats in marinas adjacent to either the Medway or the Thames.

The Amendment to the Order which came into effect on 23 August 2013 changes nothing and is yet another example of EA smoke and mirrors deceit. All the amendment did was to correct a small technical error which referred to Section 32(a) in the Southern Water Authority Act 1982 when, in fact, there was no Section 32(a). The sole effect is to confirm that the definition of the Medway Navigation remains as given in Section 32 of the 1982 Act. Nothing has changed. The EA's pretence that the Amendment signed by the Minister on 24 July 2013 changes the definition of the Medway Navigation to include adjacent marinas is nothing short of a disgrace. If there was no reason to license an unused boat in a Medway marina before 23 August 2013, there is certainly no reason now.

Please remember that in applying for the 2010 Order, the EA sought to have the description of the Thames and the Medway altered to include 'Adjacent Waters' which they described as including marinas and backwaters. The 'adjacent waters' clause was removed entirely from the Order as being 'ultra vires' at the request of the Minister before the rest of the Order was passed into law.

IMHO EA were not seeking to apply for fresh powers, more to clarify what they think they already have and they are proceeding on that basis.

If you think otherwise then it's up to you to challenge it in Court - and that can / will be costly.

 

[TT_WO]

It's a bit late - or have you only just got it?

It's always been the case on the Thames (though others will dispute that). The 2008 TWO tried to clarify it. The Secretary of State said "wrong" and the EA said (sotto voce) Oh yeah, try me - do you feel lucky - or some such.

You took part in the TWO objection process as did I. On the Adjacent water section, the EA, when responding to the objections, never suggested that they already had these powers and the adjacent waters section was to clarify anything. These were new powers being sought and denied by the Secretary of State.

 

[TT_WO]

I hope the proud men of Kent will see through the EA's deceit on this issue rather better than some of their Thames colleagues!

The fact remains that whatever the rights and wrongs of the EA seeking to widen its revenue base, the EA (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 gives them no legal authority to require licensing of unused boats in marinas adjacent to either the Medway or the Thames.

The Amendment to the Order which came into effect on 23 August 2013 changes nothing and is yet another example of EA smoke and mirrors deceit. All the amendment did was to correct a small technical error which referred to Section 32(a) in the Southern Water Authority Act 1982 when, in fact, there was no Section 32(a). The sole effect is to confirm that the definition of the Medway Navigation remains as given in Section 32 of the 1982 Act. Nothing has changed. The EA's pretence that the Amendment signed by the Minister on 24 July 2013 changes the definition of the Medway Navigation to include adjacent marinas is nothing short of a disgrace. If there was no reason to license an unused boat in a Medway marina before 23 August 2013, there is certainly no reason now.

Please remember that in applying for the 2010 Order, the EA sought to have the description of the Thames and the Medway altered to include 'Adjacent Waters' which they described as including marinas and backwaters. The 'adjacent waters' clause was removed entirely from the Order as being 'ultra vires' at the request of the Minister before the rest of the Order was passed into law.

Thank you for exposing further deceptions by the EA on this issue.

Perhaps it is time for all concerned to accept that the EA did not get the legislation they needed to impose these charges and regardless of the amount of legal advice they take, nothing will change that.

 

[oldgit]

Thank you for exposing further deceptions by the EA on this issue.

Perhaps it is time for all concerned to accept that the EA did not get the legislation they needed to impose these charges and regardless of the amount of legal advice they take, nothing will change that.

"and not a trace of embarrassment in asking everyone else to pay their share."

C,mon lads times are obviously hard in certain sections of the community,how about whip round for those less fortunate than ourselves.
Or perhaps a CH4 expose may bring attention to their cruel plight.
Will the social cough up for new set of fenders or bowl of gruel at the Beetle and Wedge ?

 

[TT_WO]

"and not a trace of embarrassment in asking everyone else to pay their share."

I find your sermonising on paying your fair share sometimes difficult to take especially as I have paid my £542 for this year but I don't think you need to buy a license except as a visitor?

It is always easy to spend somebody else's money.

 

[oldgit]

I find your sermonising on paying your fair share sometimes difficult to take especially as I have paid my £542 for this year but I don't think you need to buy a license except as a visitor?

It is always easy to spend somebody else's money.

Those with a marked reluctance to pay their fair share are placing a further burden on all other river users.
When we visit the Thames, we fully expect to pay for the privilege of being able to enjoy this wonderful river and the hundred or so pounds it costs to buy me a few days on the Thames is an absolution bargain.
It would appear that those with it on their doorstep are less appreciative !
Welcome as your somewhat begrudged donation of £500.00 quid is, suspect the funding from the pockets of the rest of UK towards the Thames is a tad greater.

 

[TT_WO]

Quote Originally Posted by oldgit View Post
"and not a trace of embarrassment in asking everyone else to pay their share."

Another lesson endeth!

 

[oldgit]

Quote Originally Posted by oldgit View Post
"and not a trace of embarrassment in asking everyone else to pay their share."

Another lesson endeth!

Eh ?