Jump to content

Moorings That Do Not Require The Boat To Be Licenced


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I had to think a moment to understand  PRN= Public Right of Navigation.

So the  annual registration certificate  (otherwise known as a river license) is the  scap of paper  we have to pay C&RT for. They got the wording of the certificate  wrong but they have the legal right to charge us. So you do need a C&RT license on the R Trent (above Gainsborough).

On the R Trent below Gainsborough there are, as far as I know ,  no license or registration certificate required . I believe the same law that says C&RT (or whatever they care to call themselves)  may charge us  it defines the limit of C&RT's authority to charge for navigation. 

 

No you do not need a 'licence' upstream of Gainsborough.

There is a very different legal meaning between 'registration' and 'licence' which Nigel Moore has explained on a number of occasions.

 

C&RT are being very clever in calling it a licence as the legal connotations are much more severe than for a licence.

Yes you are correct that C&RT erroneously call it a River Only licence.

Yes you are correct that we have to pay C&RT for the right to navigate on the River

 

You are incorrect in saying we need a C&RT licence to navigate the river.

 

A couple of 'snippets' of the many posts on the subject by Nigel Moore.

 

For what it is worth, the Select Committee minutes for the 1970 Bill reveal BW’s claim that while there was PRN over the relevant rivers, tolls could be levied for the use of their locks; the only means at that time for recovering any charges from pleasure boats on those rivers. Holders of the newly created pleasure boat registration certificates were to be exempt from those tolls.

 

It is the 1976 Byelaws that require a boat to be licensed on the canals; the 1971 Act that requires registration on certain rivers (as defined).

Breach of either is a criminal offence. Simplistically, the 1995 Act 'merely' added a few reasons why the authority could revoke or refuse either.

2 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Is this a healthy thread?  I wonder if it might swell the waiting lists at said moorings with a whole bunch of boats that will never move, thus turning them I to static parks for those uninterested in boating and merely wishing to avoid a licence fee. Only a thought... :)

 

Does it matter - those in a marina not paying for a licence are not 'causing mayhem' on the cut and so why should they pay a licence ?

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Does it matter - those in a marina not paying for a licence are not 'causing mayhem' on the cut and so why should they pay a licence ?

In some ways no, and this agrees with my previous point elsewhere about boats in marinas who never move being looked down on, wrongly in my view. The difference is though, that those in marinas doing that are still contributing, whereas these don't. Again that in itself is ok, but then those wishing to base their boats from the moorings in this list may find themselve denied of a mooring because they're full of static boats avoiding the licence fee and contributing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

those wishing to base their boats from the moorings in this list may find themselve denied of a mooring because they're full of static boats avoiding the licence fee and contributing nothing.

Possible but  a bit extreme  as a good number of boats do get some use.

I am grateful on the days I take the boat out to the static boats for clogging up the marina and leaving the river to me. Just as skippers and crew of boats going out while i sip my G+T  at the mooring may, if they think about it,  be  grateful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is a very different legal meaning between 'registration' and 'licence' which Nigel Moore has explained on a number of occasions.

Possibly he has .

Sounds like I have been ripped off over a decade for  river licenses that I do not need . On the other hand no one has asked  me  to pay a toll or  asked me to buy  a registration certificate for which I may well have parted with the same amount of money.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Possible but  a bit extreme  as a good number of boats do get some use.

I am grateful on the days I take the boat out to the static boats for clogging up the marina and leaving the river to me. Just as skippers and crew of boats going out while i sip my G+T  at the mooring may, if they think about it,  be  grateful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

You missed my post 27 above Martyn and my point really, so perhaps I didn't put it well enough.  I also made a previous one in another thread defending the little used boats in marinas, so I think we're in agreement really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2012 a FOI request was made to CRT (was it still BW then?) asking for such a list.  It was refused.  This is part of their reply:

 

The information you request is exempt from disclosure under the provisions


of s.43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which provides that "
Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would,
or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person
(including the public authority holding it)".  The disclosure of the
information you seek would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests
of a number of marina and mooring operators.  It would also be likely to
prejudice the commercial interests of the Trust as it would be likely to
increase the propensity for unlicensed use of the waterways the Trust
manages.

 

I have been led to believe that Orchard Marina on the T&M near Northwich doesn't require a licence, but can find no evidence of it on their website or elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would be very grateful if you could use your 'powers' to monitor replies and any that are on topic, and can be added to the list, are added.

Maybe even insert them in alphabetical order (if that's not asking too much)

I think having a single list rather that 20, 30, 50 ???? posts in a thread is much easier to read and find what you want.

 

Many thanks.

About to do it - I've been watching boats go up and down Fonserrannes staircase all day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stilllearning said:

Amazing how at least one particular member of this forum hasn’t jumped to expound on the iniquities of the NAA.

 

I nearly posted something similar earlier. 

 

Maybe he has acquired himself a life, or something!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The 'NAA' (National Access Agreement) which forms the contract between C&RT and the marina owner stipulates that any boats in the marina must be licenced - this is a commercial contract and nothing to do with any 'legal requirement' under the various waterways acts.

Slightly OT, but presumably in that case if you don't licence your boat whilst in a marina with a NAA it's simply the contract with the marina you're breaking and it's up to them to enforce that (or not, though such enforcement is presumably a requirement of the NAA). I note that I was asked for evidence of insurance and BSC by my marina, though not of the boat being licensed - presumably they can get licensing status direct from CRT, but if they're getting that, why do they need evidence of the others which are required for a licence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aracer said:

 I note that I was asked for evidence of insurance and BSC by my marina, though not of the boat being licensed - presumably they can get licensing status direct from CRT, but if they're getting that, why do they need evidence of the others which are required for a licence?

There is the facility on the CRT website to check any boat for which you have the number (so I am told).  Presumably they ask about the BSSC and insurance to be certain they haven't lapsed in the months since you paid for the licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, aracer said:

Slightly OT, but presumably in that case if you don't licence your boat whilst in a marina with a NAA it's simply the contract with the marina you're breaking and it's up to them to enforce that (or not, though such enforcement is presumably a requirement of the NAA). I note that I was asked for evidence of insurance and BSC by my marina, though not of the boat being licensed - presumably they can get licensing status direct from CRT, but if they're getting that, why do they need evidence of the others which are required for a licence?

Same where I moor, I provide my insurance and BSS to the marina.  About twice a year or so CRT licence checkers come round the marina logging the boats that are there.  I suspect that happens at all marinas that have an NAA, so would catch any boats that never leave the marina but who have no licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aracer said:

Slightly OT, but presumably in that case if you don't licence your boat whilst in a marina with a NAA it's simply the contract with the marina you're breaking and it's up to them to enforce that (or not, though such enforcement is presumably a requirement of the NAA). 

Exactly - and in the instances I've heard of the only enforcement available to the proprietor is to ask you to take your boat out of their marina, which then leaves CRT with the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackrose said:

How does evrryone replying know which marinas preceed the NAA? 

In my case I refer to the marina where I have kept  my boat 10 years. You just get to know these things. I did not realise there were so many others .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, blackrose said:

…..was the NAA only on CaRT administered waterways, or is it also the same situation on EA rivers?

No

Yes

 

There was a recent case that went to court where the EA demanded that boats in an 'offline' marina must be licenced.

Long story short - the EA lost.

 

"E-Rivers" (and others) posted a (long) thread about the case

 

This letter followed the 1st round in the courts :

 

Dear 

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

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

No

Yes

 

There was a recent case that went to court where the EA demanded that boats in an 'offline' marina must be licenced.

Long story short - the EA lost.

 

"E-Rivers" (and others) posted a (long) thread about the case

 

This letter followed the 1st round in the courts :

 

Dear 

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

3

Try to keep up please Alan!!! :0  Things have moved on a bit since then.

 

The Reading Magistrates Court decision was later overturned in the Appeal Court in favour of the EA, so boats in Thames marinas must now be licensed, but it only applies to the EA Thames waterway because of the specific wording of the Thames Conservancy Act 1932.

 

On EA Anglian waters, the legislation is different - the Anglian Waterway Authority Act 1977 - and although the definition of waterway here includes "any cut, inlet, creek" the relevance to marinas has yet to be fully tested.  Meanwhile, the EA claim that boats in marinas must be licensed.

 

The subject was one of the arguments in the EA v (Hartford Marina floating lodge owners) appeal which the EA lost.  However, as this was so clearly decided against the EA by the High Court Judges on the definition of 'vessels' alone, it was not necessary to pursue or for the judges to consider the 'marina' issue.  

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, erivers said:

Try to keep up please Alan!!! :0  Things have moved on a bit since then.

Thank you for the correction / update.

I did state that the letter was only 'round one', and I must admit to not following the case further as by then it had little personal interest.

 

I did quote your name hoping that you would read it and would be kind enough to update the situation, so at least now Blackrose has the answer to his question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Thank you for the correction / update.

I did state that the letter was only 'round one', and I must admit to not following the case further as by then it had little personal interest.

 

I did quote your name hoping that you would read it and would be kind enough to update the situation, so at least now Blackrose has the answer to his question.

Apologies!  I overlooked your reference to 'round one'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

How does evrryone replying know which marinas preceed the NAA? Also was the NAA only on CaRT administered waterways, or is it also the same situation on EA rivers?

the NAA is a CRT agreement, not just rivers canals as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alvecote colliery basin does not require a licence.  The marina on the offside is covered by an NAA I think.

I also don't think Cowroast marina was covered by an NAA when built but subsequent transfers including to BWML may or may not have changed that.

It is also possible that marina owners and operators may impose a mooring contract term that boats must be licenced or registered even though there is no corresponding liability to the navigation authority on their part.

N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.