Post by erivers on Jul 24, 2021 12:56:56 GMT
Tony, how does that sit with more recent legislation - the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 at Section 23?
Charging
23. Without prejudice to any other power available to it, the Agency may demand, take and recover or waive such charges for or in connection with the use of the waterways and for any services or facilities provided by it in connection with the waterways as it thinks fit.
and 6:
General requirements for registration
6. The requirements for registration of a vessel are—
(a)presentation to the Agency—
(i)in such manner as it may require of the particulars set out in Schedule 2;
(ii)of such additional information as the Agency may require respecting the characteristics and location of the vessel; and
(b)payment of the registration charge applicable under any enactment in respect of the registration of the vessel by the Agency.
and later on said : --
Yes, the only reference to a 'licence' I can find is ........ surprise, surprise ........ a CRT Gold Licence!
S.23 of the Environment Agency (Inland Waterways) Order 2010 is in effect a concoction of bits and pieces from S.43 of the Transport Act 1962, and bits and pieces from S.5, S.6 and S.7 of the British Waterways Act 1971.
I wonder if the EA will at some point take the cue from C&RT's success with regard to treating the extant common law PRN, as applicable to EA navigable rivers, as a meaningless anachronism extinguished by default by virtue of the numbers of pleasure boaters who plainly don't understand or don't care about its value and its significance.
It was intended to ask for your thoughts on how the "catch-all and hope to God that no-one ever has the nous or wherewithal to challenge it" sections of recent legislation appear to enable navigation authorities to ignore older legislation without amending it. In particular S23 of the EA(IW) Order 2010 which appears to allow them to demand, take and recover whatever they like, and 6b which appears to make payment of a "registration charge applicable under any enactment" compulsory.
In reality I think I know your thoughts on this well enough and I have my own strong amd broadly similar views on the way both CRT and the EA arrogantly seek to undermine extant legislation.
You will be very aware, I'm sure, how the EA's complete and utter disregard for both its own responsibiliies and the relevant provisions of the Thames Conservancy Acts in appointing a private contractor to enrich itself by imposing £150 penalty charges for lawful mooring will soon have its day in court. It is satisfying that at least the work we have done over several years has finally persuaded the EA that its original stipulation that boaters must always register their arrival at any EA public mooring with the same cowboy parking company or face a £150 charge has now been quietly dropped.
Still more to do!