senator

Sorry Dave you posted while I was typing but I guess there is your answer from my side

Alan, reading through it appears it is my duty to inform the BA if the vessel is sold to ensure that I do not receive further costs but at that point all the details would need to be change, I may be missing something but that should be all the admin required. I can see a reason not to refund the tolls in any situation as for most boaters the hobby is seasonal. If people were so inclined they could lift the boat at the end of October and put it back in on April 1st and in the process reclaim 5 months tolls. This may be the right way to do things but would undoubtedly lead to an increase in tolls for everyone leaving there boats in the water year round, not to mention the strain on the amount of hard standing available in the Broads area. What I am advocating is that when a boat is sold and removed from the system with the owner replacing the boat with another within the toll year the tolls already payed should be taken into consideration when paying to toll the new boat. To keep it really simple it could just be a case of still paying a full years tolls at the full rate on the new boat, which you have to do currently, but reducing the amount paid by the toll already collected. In my instance, 1st boat 12 months toll at £340. Second boat 12 months toll at £500 less already paid £340 leaving £160 to pay. That still leaves me paying 12 months @ £41.66 for the new boat rather than 10 months @ £41.66 and 2 months @ £28.33 which would have been the monthly equivalent for the old boat. You could call that administration costs if you like.

John the tolls do stay with the boat but if the boat is in North Wales they can not be used. There is the argument that if the boat is sold on the system it is still tolled for the year but is that not a transfer? would think the new owner would also have to toll the boat under the same act but then Mr Packman will interpret the rules in any way he sees fit. To my mind, although the argument may be partly valid to not refund, I can see absolutely no justification to not use the already paid toll as part payment of the new boat. Exactly how much admin is involved in reducing the 12 month ticket by the sum already paid on the old boat?. As far as I can see there is no cost or complication. I m not known for just accepting things but if collective opinion is such that I am wrong fine, if not I could use all the help I can get in changing it.

Having just changed my boat I have been caught up in the BA tolls rip off for the second time in my Broads Boating life and wonder what the collective opinion is. In March I tolled my motor cruiser for the sum of £340. The boat was up for sale through various boat sales websites but on its home berth. The boat did not leave the marina at all and I would not have had to toll it had it not been for the BA instigating its adjacent waters policy. 4 weeks after April 1st the boat is sold, I have not been to the boat at all and still have the toll plaques as they have not even been put on the boat. The boat is leaving to go to Conway so will not be on the Broads, it takes a further 5 days to sort out the financials and then the boat makes one transit from Reedham to St Olaves so that it can be lifted out, put onto transport and removed from the Broads. I then Purchase a Boat in Croatia and bring it back to the UK and put it on the Broads system on June the 6th. The toll for the new boat is £500 As the tolls are set the £340 paid for the first boat is tucked safely in the BA's pocket. I may not agree with this being non refundable but I can understand the justification that that money was allocated to the BA budget for the year and would leave a short fall if refunded. What I can't understand is why I would then have to pay a further £500 to toll my new boat for 10 months use? The initial budgeted sum is still there, the sold boat is not on the system, the differential between the old and new boat is extra un-budgeted revenue, so a benefit to the BA. Why then should it be necessary to charge 12 months full toll for 10 months use, on top of already putting away the original sum paid. Although I have paid, it is under protest and I would now like to do what I can to bring an end to this profiteering. In my opinion the facility to transfer the sum paid against the sum owing should exist. It may not be ideal but I would even be accepting of having to pay a whole years toll at the full rate on the new boat on the understanding that the previously paid sum be used in whole as part payment, so just the difference between the two vessels be paid. What is the collective view of the Forum?

Love fireworks but living so close to Birmingham we have them going off for about 3 months of the year right through to the early hours. That is not the fault of the fireworks, that is down to the exactly the same thing as graffiti, loud music and smashed up telephone box's.

Have you tried it John? Have to say it wasn't pretty when we last tried it and the signs seem to be getting a bit grubbier and more desperate since. Hope they can work out what they were doing wrong as it must be better to have stable ownership/tenantship of pubs, at least that way they develop a character.

is there any need to open it given that the lock doesn't work?

The tidal nature of the Broads means that Sea Toilets are allowed, much the same as the tidal Thames and as far as I know all other tidal waters in the UK. No doubt Holding tanks on Hire boats will have made a difference to water quality and it will be a very small proportion of private boats that don't have a holding tank fitted if they spend most of their time on the river. While holding tanks are not mandatory I have a feeling that emptying them into the water is not allowed until you are a certain distance offshore, purely from memory I think that is 2 miles. If the private boat on Breydon was discharging tanks then that may well have been illegal. If however it was just someone on the lav after a nasty curry the night before that is fine.

Unfortunately especially the back waters of Norfolk at the moment, There are a lot of Outboard thefts, apparently by Eastern European gangs, so if your boat is outboard powered think very carefully about where you store her as they are ripping the transom out to get at the motors. there are a lot more spaces on the Broads than there were 5 years ago but I guess that is true of anywhere, what the position will be like in 18 months time is anyone's guess. Good luck with the refit and photos would be nice.

If Tesco's / ASDA and all the other supermarkets have not contributed huge amounts of money to the local area, including roads,Schools,community centres etc. it would be a massive fail by Yarmouth Council. It is the one chance local councilors get to fleece the big boys and they do it exceptionally well in most cases around the country. Just a shame planning decisions are taken on the basis of short term projects rather than long term sustainability of the area.

Here is Richards web address http://snuggs.me.uk/ or give him a call on +44 (0) 1508 531313 He is based up at Brammerton

Ok, now starting to understand the logic. Looks are irrelevant and totally a personal view so no objection there. Wide beam barges I can totally see the attraction of. Narrow beam steel is designed to bounce of locks, banksides or any thing else it hits with just the occasional scratch to the paint. The yard can now accept the hirers word that they weren't involved in the reported collision and get on with the next hire. Flat bottomed so should be comfortable on the mud over Breydon while they wait for the water to come back Yes starting to make sense now.

650XS, Why? there are many boats that are not purpose designed for the Broads on the system but each and everyone has a reason. The Broads is connected to the sea in two places so the boats designed for sea but with the capability of running on the Broads have justification. Broads Cruisers are specifically designed to make the most of the system, especially those that can fit under potter, and they offer the comfort of 12' beam without the requirement to use twice as much bankside space for every mooring they make, they can also moor stern to where required. What does a narrow boat do that a Broads cruiser can't? I can understand a private owner bringing their boat to the system for a year or two, They have probably spent years getting the boat to meet their own requirements and who wouldn't want to visit the Broads at least once in their boating life. But why would a hire company put a boat that quite clearly is not designed for its intended cruising ground on the Broads. Seem to remember another company trying that with a 38' 500hp Sports cruiser that was not allowed off the Northern Broads and look where that ended. If you are going to hire out a boat in a restricted cruising area it should be suitable for that and not automatically expose its occupants to the venom of other users by using up all the moorings for no people. The only people I can see benefiting if these things start to colonise the Broads will be the people selling moorings by the foot. other Broads businesses will acctually loose out do to fewer boats being able to moor in a given spot.

found the Status 330 really good as Mark (mbird) since changeover we have never struggled for a signal and never have to point it anywhere

Can't be a good thing for the Broads, as they have not been a good thing for any navigation that is wide enough to take boats wider than 6'6. There is no getting away from the fact that they take up twice the bank space for the same accommodation. Time to look again at how the tolls are calculated and move to a £'s per linear meter instead of m2 area. What is the point in charging for width anyway?

well in the spirit of true boating togetherness in the all boaters together vein, I can't see why they would dredge above Potter Bridge unless they are going to knock it down. Virtually everything up there should require no more than 6" of water and it is a complete waste of resources to spend that much on dredging a section that only 10 people in anything bigger than a canoe can access a year. Right I am off to NBF to gather support for my views.

30' waves, could you imagine the ranger from Reedham allowing that?

If it could be proved that the store intentionally advertised the product at a lower price and then charged a higher price at the till they would be guilty of false advertising and would be prosecuted under trades description laws. This would be a criminal prosecution and would not make any difference to the customer. Any fines would be paid to the courts and used by government. As has already been said, for the sake of a couple of quid, especially in a market that serves such a close community as the boating crowed , you would have to be pretty silly to fall out over it. If you really want to be awkward then there is the right to claim n the civil courts for compensation. If you could show that you were enticed to the store by the offer of a false price, which was subsequently withdrawn, you could argue that you had incurred expense in traveling to the store, this expense was due to a direct attempt to mislead you and as such you would be entitled to recover these costs.. I am currently pursing a council through the small claims court, the monetary value is totally insignificant but they did pee me off,

Saily's are going to fight against the paying toll every time you enter idea, can you imagine haw much tacking up the Waveney is going to cost

I see the problem now, once it gets to the A12 it will be tacking all the way up. You can rely on a sailing boat to get in the way lol.

And there is the Rub, The BA will continue with over inflation increases to tolls and big decorating bills for offices until the toll for the Broads gets to the level of a license on the ooze. They are playing at being a business but with the boaters money.

Boaters, there is a reasonable argument for length being the defining factor given that this affects mooring availability. The engine HP has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the available space unless it is being used. When large, especially large modern, engines are used within limits set by the speed limits of the Broads the noise and pollution is far less than so called traditional Broads 1.5 BMC type engines being run flat out. If there is an argument for tolls on HP it is that more should pay less. the only reason for the alternative is "I can't afford it so they should pay more". It is not the same argument that can be applied to small engine cars as big engine cars driven in lower gears are capable of greater emmisions. even then it is dubious given a small engine car driven flat out will use more fuel than a large engine car driven at the same speed. This was duly demonstrated by Clarkson and co when they ran a Toyota Prius and a BMW M5 around a track. the BMW just had to follow the Prius which was being driven as hard as it could. Guess which one used the most fuel?

That is where there is a problem with giving the BA any powers over Breydon. If there was an emergency, for instance a large vessel stranded and in danger of breaking up releasing hazardous cargo or goods. Then they would be justified but strong wind on Breydon is not only not dangerous to a well founded sea going craft but is most certainly not an emergency. Would I choose to leave the mooring in it, probably not. Could I safely navigate Breydon in it if I so chose, without any doubt.

Maybe the BA could start charging day tickets for anglers? or visiting charges for Birdwatchers? access charges for Hikers? I'm sure the list could go on and on. The reality is the Broads are managed for the use of all, this includes putting in facilities such as hides for the twitchers, posh pegs for the anglers, paths for the walkers, visitor centers for tourists etc, all of these then need to be maintained and since the BA have decided to raid the toll pot for uses other than direct cost of Navigation, which they have no matter how they dress it up, boaters are paying for everyone not just the boats. Broads tolls do offer good value when placed against other navigation authorities but isn't that because the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is much lower? No locks, well one but it costs £11 each way to go through it, no facilities, other than at yacht stations and there is a charge to use these.

That would make it legal for them to break the law then by obstructing the free right of navigation that a UK citizen enjoys? Sorry Breydon is an estuary so, regardless of the Harbour authority, must remain open as a passage to sea from the port of Norwich. Could technically be closed to all non seagoing vessels.