Trotman barge below Hampton court

Update from CARA
28 February 2017

Environment Agency moorings – Teddington Lock
We are pleased to tell you that today the Environment Agency removed the three large ‘slum boats’ and four smaller boats from land adjacent to Teddington Lock. The EA were supported by High Court Sherriffs, Richmond and Kingston Councils, the Port of London Authority and the police. As you will know, nearly four months after the court decision in November 2016 to award a possession order, the requirement to leave had not been complied with by the owner and the boats at the Lock remained and continued to trade.
The EA took further legal action and today High Court Sheriffs enforced the possession order. The occupants were evicted and the boats towed away. The boats have been taken to moorings elsewhere and will be destroyed unless the owner pays a considerable sum of money to reclaim them. We are grateful to the officers of the EA who have been persistent and determined in pursuing this difficult case against a boat owner who has blighted our special stretch of river for some eight years. Many supporters of Reclaim our Riverbank have already expressed their pleasure and appreciation.
This owner continues to moor a similar ‘slum boat’ at Hampton Court Bridge to land belonging to Surrey County Council.

Good news if his slumboats get broken up, but I didn't realise he was still operating a squat at Hampton Court:disgust:
 
Under normal circumstances the cost of removing and disposal of any vessel is claimed back from the owner if he/she has any assets.
If the owner cannot be traced costs have to be absorbed...... by the EA in this case. ?
Looking at the amount of time trouble devoted to this affair,several hundred thousands of pound.
Now only one other mosquito in the Thames ointment matter to be resolved ?
 
Last edited:
Following is an extract from an announcement received from the EA this morning:

"REMOVAL OF BOATS MOORED WITHOUT CONSENT AT TEDDINGTON LOCK
On Tuesday 28 February, a multi-agency operation at Teddington Lock on the River Thames involving The Environment Agency, Metropolitan Police, London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames and High Court enforcement officers resulted in a number of boats, including three large barges, all of which were moored at the lock without our consent, being removed.
As the registered owner of the Teddington Lock site, we used civil proceedings to obtain a Possession Order for our land, and a court order requiring the owner of the barges to remove them from our land, with immediate effect. These were granted at Kingston County Court in November 2016.
Although we made it clear to the owner on numerous occasions what the consequences of ignoring the court order would be, the boats were still moored to our land at Teddington Lock on Tuesday morning.
In anticipation of this, and as part of a pre-planned operation, once High Court enforcement officers had ensured all occupants were safely removed from the boats, we towed them to secure areas at Environment Agency sites.
The boats will remain at secure locations until the owner makes arrangements to remove them using a method which, in our role as navigation authority for the non-tidal River Thames, we are satisfied is safe."
 
Last sentence seems a bit overoptimistic !

Would have thought the owner will disappear and leave the ea to dismantle the vessels.
I guess as it was ea who towed them the cost of breaking up the vessels will come out of the ea navigation budget ?
 
I don't understand the last line, which states that he can't have his boats back until the EA is satisfied that his method of removal is safe. Tha method would surely be the same one that delivered them to the pits in the first place? i.e. A small tug?
What about court costs, fines etc.? CARA Seems to think he has to pay a heavy sum to get them back.
Wishful thinking?
 
I understood most of the small Tug operators had been told not to assist him, didn't he use a small outboard cruiser before, that's not going to be safe to manoeuvre his barges in the eyes of the EA,
Basically reading between the lines they won't be going anywhere, he will have a time limit to sort it but he won't be able to comply so the EA will destroy them.
 
Chris_d said:
I understood most of the small Tug operators had been told not to assist him, didn't he use a small outboard cruiser before, that's not going to be safe to manoeuvre his barges in the eyes of the EA,
Basically reading between the lines they won't be going anywhere, he will have a time limit to sort it but he won't be able to comply so the EA will destroy them.
Click to expand...


IIRC - and it was some many years ago - there were reports of boats being seized by EA and held pending payment of fines. However, nothing more has been heard since then.
It's not unreasonable to guess that this whole process ended up being costly to EA, hence it's used only in exceptional circumstances....
 
The boats aren't exactly valuable as cruising vessels ok so the steel hulls may have some value for houseboat conversions if they were at Port St Werburgh on the mudway or similar but basically they are scrap.

The suggestion of the owner paying to get them back comes across as a joke to me. The capital invested in the boats will have been paid back quite a few times while the business was active.

I expect the owner is quite happy to have them taken off his hands - disposing of that sort of waste is rather expensive !
 
Last edited:
He needs his feet nailing to the floor,passport taken off him until all costs are stumped up.Wishful thinking I know.

Playing devils advocate what's stopping him buying more boats and starting the whole process again?
 
Flynnbarr said:
Playing devils advocate what's stopping him buying more boats and starting the whole process again?
Click to expand...

He's still operating his business from his remaining slumboat at Hampton Court. It's all official, he's registered the business as Kingston Riverside Bed and Breakfast', he's even on LinkedIn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top