Thames Registration Changes from 1st January 2011

[boatone]

For the vast majority of us this argument comes down to one specific issue - are marinas clearly defined in whichever legislation as being included within the licensable waterway?

Whether they are, or they are not (although you can be pretty damn sure that they are intended to be), the key consideration is compliance. Not only do the relevant authority (the EA) have the power to demand payment, but do they a)have the goodwill of the majority of the customer base, who can therefore be relied on to pay when required, and b) do they have the resources and the will to identify and pursue the delinquents.

 

[byron]

`I have been trying to follow this thread but some of it leaves me a little bewildered. As I understand it the EA will now insist boats need licensing if they are on any pond. lake or stream connected to the Thames. I assume the criteria being 'navigable'

My question is "what is 'navigable'?" Citing my neighbour as an example. She had a Lake built 2/3 years ago. This can be seen by finding my house on Google Earth (RG80JL) then going North of Ferry Lane. This is connected to the river under the line of trees and could in theory be accessed by a canoe or a small dinghy by entering the cut by my boathouse and coming up the watercourse across my land, under the little bridge at Ferry lane and into her lake. She does indeed keep a dinghy on the lake. I can think of another similar example near me where the watercourse is direct on to a pond. In fact the pond was originally a turning area for small barges way back in dim history. Rather fascinating story but too long to render here.

 

[Chris_d]

This is developing into a typicaly pedantic English argument, where will it end What Byron needs to know is, if he fills his bath with water supplied by Thames Water does he need to registar his rubber duck or not? or himself for that matter

 

[Lotus_John]

`I have been trying to follow this thread but some of it leaves me a little bewildered. As I understand it the EA will now insist boats need licensing if they are on any pond. lake or stream connected to the Thames. I assume the criteria being 'navigable'

I have emboldened words for clarity

Extract from Secretary of State’s decision 3rd March 2010
(a) Objection to the order in principal

7. There was further concern that the law should not be changed to criminalise a boat owner that keeps a boat on a marina mooring, private mooring or private water body such as a pond or lake but chooses not to navigate the river Thames. The Secretary of state consider that it would be ultra vires section 3 to apply registration charging requirements to the adjacent waters, and asked the EA to remove the relevant provisions.

20. An objection was raised that registration or a charge should not be applied on connected water that is managed by another navigation authority or is privately owned. A further objection was that registration extension was an attempt by the EA to take control of the adjacent waters by stealth. The EA subsequently agreed that the proposed charging and registration requirements for adjacent waters were ultra vires and the provisions have been dropped.

please see defintion of adjacent waters in thread.

 

[boatone]

7. There was further concern that the law should not be changed to criminalise a boat owner that keeps a boat on a marina mooring, private mooring or private water body such as a pond or lake but chooses not to navigate the river Thames. The Secretary of state consider that it would be ultra vires section 3 to apply registration charging requirements to the adjacent waters, and asked the EA to remove the relevant provisions.

That would appear to state categorically that marinas are NOT included - or does it mean that non payment will be a civil offence rather than a criminal one?

Yet the EA Press Release clearly states:
All owners who keep their boat on the River Thames must register their boat and pay the annual charge, even if they don’t use it. This extends to every part of the waterway including backwaters and marinas.

Can't both be right?

Mind you, for those of us that actually use our boats - i.e. actually travel the river, its a fairly academic point. However, for the many that just keep their boats on a marina berth and never go out the implications are significant - as they also, presumably, will be for marina management.

 

[djm]

Can't both be right?
.

They're not.

The EA is wrong.

.... and thanks to Lotus-John for publishing the extract from the Sec. of State's letter which clarifies the point which several of us have been trying to make.

 

[boatone]

The full text of the letter from Sarah Nason, Deputy Director at DEFRA, conveyingthe Scretary of State's decision is available HERE

With respect to Lotus-John he has left out a few rather important words immediately prior to his extract which suggest that the

"EA was perhaps exploiting confusion over registration and licensing. There was also a concern that the EA was intending to charge for registration purposes whether or not the vessel was in use rather than usage of the waterways which was considered to be more understandable'

 

[TrueBlue]

The awful truth -

is that all the references being bandied about here are to my mind in the nature of obita dicta and don't have the force of Law. Indeed with my very limited knowledge of English Law I'm not even certain exactly what force a TWA Order actually has.

This is of course where Solicitors and the like make their money. There has been an increasing trend in recent years for not only due Parliamentary Process to be sidestepped (TWA Order for example), but even Acts of Parliament are drafted very vaguely indeed - leaving the Courts to "interpret" what they think should be correct.

All very well for an intellectual - and disconnected from reality - process, but hugely distant from the certainty which our legal system is supposed to provide.

The actual Order that we have seen is marked "final", but so were the various stages of the original Order, which fell by the wayside.

Soo - what does the actual (signed) Order say???

Feeling bitchy tonight,
I was one of the original objectors to the order and I beseeched folks here to object as well, but nobody did, and I had only one person supporting me here.

To bloody late now - told you so, Ya Boo Sucks.

End Bitch.

Lotus_John has been very kind in researching the data (embarrassing me as I have all the documents here, somewhere and did nowt about it), so perhaps he has a closer understanding of due process than I do, so perhaps he could elucidate on my points.

Our concerns do need addressing, but I'm not hopeful of any enlightenment -
If you (all) were employed in the upper regions of the EA (remember that all real decisions are made well away from the Thames section), would you make any attempt to clarify the issue, especially when it could mean a substantial loss of income..

I think NOT.

So confusion reigns - what's new...

 

[No Regrets]

just a couple of small and possibly impertinent points:

1/ Who would want to bitch about paying a typical £350 EA registration on an unused Boat in a thames Marina, when the Marina themselves would charge ten times that amount?

2/ Who would want to pay the standing charges of a Boat and not use it??


The day I don't want to use our Boat, it's going to be sold, either on the hard, or in the drink. But I won't be paying £3500 a year to watch her bob up and down doing nothing!


It's all a bit futile really.