Non-Tidal Thames Off-line Marina Moorings

[Bricksh]

Apologies if this has already been posted, but I couldn't see it anywhere. This applies to EA licences only NOT CRT

 

If you are in an -off-line marina near the Thames do not rush to renew your annual registration next year until this is clarified!

But I suspect the EA will appeal in due course.

 

Dear TNUF member

As you are aware, when the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 came into effect in April 2011, any boats kept on the non-tidal River Thames needed to be registered, not just those that were ‘used’ as required by previous legislation.

The new legislation (the ‘IWO’) uses the definition of the non-tidal River Thames in the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 to set the limits of where its requirements can be applied. Our interpretation of this definition is that it includes marinas that are not within the main river channel but are connected to it – for example, former gravel pits connected by a navigable channel through which boats can enter and leave. In our opinion therefore, any boats kept on the water in these marinas should, under the new legislation, be registered. We have also had Queen’s Counsel opinion that supports our interpretation.

In September last year we carried out boat registration checks in two marinas and initiated enforcement proceedings against the owners of unregistered boats being kept on the water within them. The owners of 23 of these boats do not agree that marinas connected to the Thames should be considered part of it, and chose to collectively challenge our interpretation by pleading not guilty to the prosecution cases we eventually brought against them, and engaging a barrister to represent them in court.

A District Judge heard the arguments from both sides on this point of law at Reading Magistrates Court earlier, Monday 2 November. Disappointingly, the judge found in favour of the boat owners, not us.

Clearly, the judge’s decision was not the one we were hoping for. We have not yet received the judge’s full reasoned ruling. When we do we will then have 21 days to seek an appeal to the High Court for a binding decision. We are considering this. Until we have decided whether or not to seek an appeal, we do not intend to make any further comment on this issue.

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew Graham
Waterway Manager
West Thames
Red Kite House, Wallingford
​

[Steilsteven]

Just my personal opinion ( and I do have friends at this marina that are of the opinion that they shouldn't have to licence their boats if they never venture onto the river ) but, if you have direct access to the Thames by just driving your boat onto it, then the boat should be registered. If you don't want to take your boat out onto the river, perhaps you should consider a caravan or mobile home.

 

Keith

[Lmcgrath87]

If you're planning on using the waterways though, you'd be renewing it anyway, surely it's only people who don't plan to move who wouldn't licence?

[MtB]

The net result of this, if the high court rubber stamps it, is the marinas will be able to raise their mooring charges.

[OldGoat]

Just my personal opinion ( and I do have friends at this marina that are of the opinion that they shouldn't have to licence their boats if they never venture onto the river ) but, if you have direct access to the Thames by just driving your boat onto it, then the boat should be registered. If you don't want to take your boat out onto the river, perhaps you should consider a caravan or mobile home.

 

Keith

 

AFAIK - there are no marinas on the non tidal Thames that are not directly connected to the River (depends on what you mean by 'directly' as there some in backwaters on have a long cut connecting them).

 

The water on which these boats float are managed by the EA, the water ebbs and flows - perhaps imperceptibly - and ultimately removes whatever you put overboard... so why should you get that for free.

 

The Thames charge is NOT a licence to use (because there's a PRN) but a Registration fee - so that logically, like it or not, is payable for anything floating on the non-tidal Thames which EA manages.

 

Quite apart from semantics and poorly drawn legislation, registration fees make a significant contribution to the running of the Thames. Loss of that revenue will either result in even more reduction in services or an increase in registration fees for those boat owners who do pay up.

 

Who would think it reasonable that you could keep a vehicle on a road or verge and not drive it, but not be liable to buy a licence for it??

 

It's perhaps good that the 'rules' are being challenged. The drafting of the legislation was poor - resulting in the need to test them. If it goes to a higher court and the claimants win, then the burden will fall on others who are prepared to obey the rules.

 

I'm very surprised that the owners of the marina(s) in question don't follow up on their own rules - which require their customers to be registered anyway. There's not exactly any shortage of folks wanting a marina berth....

The net result of this, if the high court rubber stamps it, is the marinas will be able to raise their mooring charges.

 

 

Eh? - I don't follow that logic?

[ditchcrawler]

The net result of this, if the high court rubber stamps it, is the marinas will be able to raise their mooring charges.

Possibly the reverse, at the moment they can attract customers by saying they don't require an EA licence so will save money overall.

 

 

 

 

Eh? - I don't follow that logic?

[OldGoat]

Possibly the reverse, at the moment they can attract customers by saying they don't require an EA licence so will save money overall.

 

 

AFAIK (well it's a bit more than that) It's a condition of the contract between EA and the marina operator that all boats in the marina are licenced at all times. Not overly enforced, though (as yet.....)

 

Question - what's the position about Registration of boats on the RIVER Wey (not the Wey navigation)?

[MtB]

Eh? - I don't follow that logic?

 

People at the margin of affordability who don't buy a boat to live on will change that decision and buy one, as the cost of ownership has fallen if the stay in the marina.

 

The marina will see a rise in demand for moorings and put their prices up as a consequence.

(Thus a net transfer of revenue from the EA to the marina owners occurs.)

[David Mack]

AFAIK (well it's a bit more than that) It's a condition of the contract between EA and the marina operator that all boats in the marina are licenced at all times.

So what contract is that then? Whereas BW/CRT can impose a Network Access Agreement on any marina connected to their canals, a riparian landowner surely doesn't need EA's consent to connect; just needs to comply with EA's (reasonable) requrements in relation to flood control issues and the like.

[blackrose]

I think this whole issue would only apply or be of interest to someone who never intends to take their boat out of a marina. I know a lot of boats never move, but most people want the ability to move even if they seldom make use of it. Mind you, if the ruling goes in favour of the static marina boaters then I suppose they could always buy a short-term licence as and when. I have a friend in a Marina on the Rhone in France and he only pays for licences when he wants to take his boat out. Apparently that's the rule over there. Stay in the marina and you don't need a river licence.

[Scholar Gypsy]

There's been a similar case (I think involving houseboats) on the Great Ouse (also an EA navigation).

[ditchcrawler]

There's been a similar case (I think involving houseboats) on the Great Ouse (also an EA navigation).

I was then going to say that but I think they were boats with no engines, ie. Static house boats.

Edit to add link

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Hartford-Marina-residents-claim-victory/story-26330507-detail/story.html

Edited November 7, 2015 by ditchcrawler

[erivers]

There's been a similar case (I think involving houseboats) on the Great Ouse (also an EA navigation).

 

...... and a more recent local TV news item here:

 

https://youtu.be/4rkbRcfz8FM

[OldGoat]

It's something to do with the constitution / acts of parliament / thames bylaws that are 'pecuilar' (a legal term ?) to the non-tidal Thames and not (necessarily) other EA waters.

I've just looked up the contract terms of both marinas which I frequent and they require me to have a valid BSS and EA registration. I have no knowledge of the exact agreement between the two companies and EA - but it would be reasonable to assume that there was some agreement between EA and the companies to make them stipulate those conditions.

In a similar way EA inspectors are allowed to enter the marinas in order to inspect the registration plates.

[Giant]

I have a friend in a Marina on the Rhone in France and he only pays for licences when he wants to take his boat out. Apparently that's the rule over there. Stay in the marina and you don't need a river licence.

 

That is indeed the French system and it's not without its problems. There are lots of static boats, some residential, some just disused, taking up mooring space and not required to pay anything since the "vignette" (license fee) is only payable if the boat moves!

 

Meanwhile the French VNF (their equivalent of BW) are currently proposing to close lesser used waterways to save money.

[Steilsteven]

 

AFAIK - there are no marinas on the non tidal Thames that are not directly connected to the River (depends on what you mean by 'directly' as there some in backwaters on have a long cut connecting them).

 

 

 

 

 

That's not what I meant by direct access, I meant as opposed to keeping it ashore, for example.

 

Keith

[Tam & Di]

Merged from another topic.

 

 

The Environment Agency has stepped up its action against unregistered boats on the non-tidal Thames.
.....
Owners of boats not displaying valid registration plates face possible prosecution,
......
Environment Agency Thames Waterway Operations manager, Matt Carter said: "The income we raise from boat registration fees helps to pay for the upkeep of the entire non-tidal navigation between Teddington and Lechlade, a length of 144 miles, including 45 locks. All boats kept on the river which includes berths in marinas, must display a valid annual registration plate."

 

The quote above from Leo2 is from a 2012 thread but my search did not reveal a more recent one. The following letter has just been published on the DBA forum:

 

Received from the EA Thames Waterways Manager today,

Dear TNUF member

As you are aware, when the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 came into effect in April 2011, any boats kept on the non-tidal River Thames needed to be registered, not just those that were ‘used’ as required by previous legislation.

The new legislation (the ‘IWO’) uses the definition of the non-tidal River Thames in the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 to set the limits of where its requirements can be applied. Our interpretation of this definition is that it includes marinas that are not within the main river channel but are connected to it – for example, former gravel pits connected by a navigable channel through which boats can enter and leave. In our opinion therefore, any boats kept on the water in these marinas should, under the new legislation, be registered. We have also had Queen’s Counsel opinion that supports our interpretation.

In September last year we carried out boat registration checks in two marinas and initiated enforcement proceedings against the owners of unregistered boats being kept on the water within them. The owners of 23 of these boats do not agree that marinas connected to the Thames should be considered part of it, and chose to collectively challenge our interpretation by pleading not guilty to the prosecution cases we eventually brought against them, and engaging a barrister to represent them in court.

A District Judge heard the arguments from both sides on this point of law at Reading Magistrates Court earlier, Monday 2 November. Disappointingly, the judge found in favour of the boat owners, not us.

Clearly, the judge’s decision was not the one we were hoping for. We have not yet received the judge’s full reasoned ruling. When we do we will then have 21 days to seek an appeal to the High Court for a binding decision. We are considering this. Until we have decided whether or not to seek an appeal, we do not intend to make any further comment on this issue.

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew Graham
Waterway Manager
West Thames
Red Kite House, Wallingford

[Mac of Cygnet]

There is a current thread with just this letter http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80455&hl=tnuf

[Tam & Di]

There is a current thread with just this letter http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80455&hl=tnuf

 

Thanks. I seem to be cr*p at using the search facility. I typed in 'Thames charges' and all I got was the 2012 thread.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Tam & Di

[Tam & Di]

 

The Thames charge is NOT a licence to use (because there's a PRN) but a Registration fee - so that logically, like it or not, is payable for anything floating on the non-tidal Thames which EA manages.

Who would think it reasonable that you could keep a vehicle on a road or verge and not drive it, but not be liable to buy a licence for it??

 

 

Who would think it reasonable that you could keep a vehicle on your own private land and be obliged to buy a licence for it unless you actually went out onto the road?

 

These issues are not about whether or not people on CWDF or elsewhere think it is fair for EA or C&RT to charge, but whether or not EA or C&RT have the legal right to make such a charge. They either have the right or they don't, and if they don't why would you pay? You might pay an ex gratia payment out of kindness or some form of guilt, but that makes it something else altogether. A marina operator might have Rights (with capital R) to operate free of charges but agree to pay in order to have a quiet life, but that does not affect the legal position either.

 

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the one about tips? There's not a lot of difference when one thinks about it. You either pay because it is a legal obligation or not, and if it is not you might still choose to pay, but choosing to pay in these circumstance does not mean others must do the same, nor give you some sort of moral high ground.

[Theo]

There is a current thread with just this letter http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=80455&hl=tnuf

Thanks, Mac. I have merged the topics.

 

N

[OldGoat]

 

Who would think it reasonable that you could keep a vehicle on your own private land and be obliged to buy a licence for it unless you actually went out onto the road?

 

These issues are not about whether or not people on CWDF or elsewhere think it is fair for EA or C&RT to charge, but whether or not EA or C&RT have the legal right to make such a charge. They either have the right or they don't, and if they don't why would you pay? You might pay an ex gratia payment out of kindness or some form of guilt, but that makes it something else altogether. A marina operator might have Rights (with capital R) to operate free of charges but agree to pay in order to have a quiet life, but that does not affect the legal position either.

 

Perhaps this thread should be merged with the one about tips? There's not a lot of difference when one thinks about it. You either pay because it is a legal obligation or not, and if it is not you might still choose to pay, but choosing to pay in these circumstance does not mean others must do the same, nor give you some sort of moral high ground.

 

Aye, there's the rub -

 

EA say they have the right to charge, the Secretary of State no they don't (Ultra VIres - not within their power), but the EA have carried on anyway.

Being a cynic, to my mind - and looking at the Andy Wingfield case, it's not a matter of the law, but who your lawyers are and more importantly what / who they know.

 

It's going to cost a lot of money to appeal the case - so open your wallets and say 'help yourself'.

[BEngo]

Regardless, temporarily, of the rights and wrongs of this, what it does do is expose the incompetence of the EA and their legal drafting team and legal advisers. The Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was drafted and steered through the TWO process by the EA. It should have been (excusing the pun)watertight, so that not only the District Judge but even before that, the current litigants legal advisers could see that there was no possibility of winning and not waste money in court.

 

Now either the EA will lose the Registration income, or another bunch of lawyers holiday funds will be boosted at a cost to the boating community.

 

Why do I not expect that someone will be taken to task for this?

 

N

[Tam & Di]

Regardless, temporarily, of the rights and wrongs of this, what it does do is expose the incompetence of the EA and their legal drafting team and legal advisers. The Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 was drafted and steered through the TWO process by the EA. It should have been (excusing the pun)watertight

 

I've not looked at the Order but it is possible the EA was advised that the Order would not get through if it was made so wide as to include every remote possibility. It is always easy to know thing after the event, even for "experts".

[erivers]

 

I've not looked at the Order but it is possible the EA was advised that the Order would not get through if it was made so wide as to include every remote possibility. It is always easy to know thing after the event, even for "experts".

 

The application for the Order, made way back in 2004, sought to add 'adjacent waters' to the definition of the waterways defined in the existing primary legislation. In the application 'Adjacent Waters' were described by the EA as "meaning any lake, pit, pond, marina or other substantially enclosed water adjacent to any of the waterways to which this Order applies and from which a vessel may be navigated (whether or not through a lock or similar work) into the waterway".

 

Extending the definition of the waterway to such adjacent waters was ruled ultra vires of the powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 under which the Order was sought.

 

Since the Order was granted without the 'adjacent waters' powers the Environment Agency has, in effect, refused to accept that simple fact and instead used deceit and obfuscation to force boaters into submission. After five-years of threats and bullying individuals into paying up they have now finally been exposed in court. Will they appeal? Probably, because unlike the boaters at Reading who have struggled to raise funds for excellent legal representation, the EA has an unlimited pot - of YOUR money.

 

The formal judgement will be handed down on 20th November. It will make interesting reading. Let's hope the EA can actually read this time.

 

There may be a case for extending registration to unused boats in marinas that use no navigation facilities. If there is, it should be free (like a SORN declaration for a motor vehicle) or for a small administrative fee. But, of course, that isn't what the EA has in mind at all. Their ultimate aim (on the Thames) is to apply both full registration fees and accommodation licence charges to the private marinas. Bear in mind that the annual accommodation charge for just one scaffold pole in the river is £58 and the charge for a single landing-stage can be £300-£500 per annum and all becomes clear. Not paying a charge arbitrarily imposed by the EA for a few poles in a private water marina for which you are already paying a substantial fee and VAT would be a criminal offence.

 

If there is a case for extending charges to private adjacent waters then it must be properly debated and approved by Parliament through primary legislation, not unlawfully imposed by more of the slippery obfuscation, threats and misuse of public money by which the EA has now permanently tarnished its reputation.

Edited November 11, 2015 by erivers