senator

Why the obsession with speed? Speed over ground is irrelevant, only speed through the water has any affect on the banks, small craft and moored boats. Reaction times are hardly tested by 5 or 6 miles an hour, so it is not as if speed kills, but with water flowing at up to 3 or 4 knots through Reedham Yarmouth and the lower reaches of the Waveney you could be doing up to 8 knots difference going with it downstream to against it upstream at the same speed over ground, 8 knots is one hell of a wash on most boats Why not campaign for speed to be in through the water instead on over ground if you want to make any difference. That way the speed limit is 2000 rpm or whatever it equates to and if you want to get there quicker go when the water is going the same way as you.

We now moor Riverside at Reedham and do notice how many boats push the limit, Ironically it is the bigger private boats that are responsible for some of the worst offences due to the Rail bridge closing for up to 40 minutes at a time, if they are five minutes away and told the bridge will close in 5 minutes they are going to push it. Biggest problem with 5,6,7 or even 8 miles an hour is you are never going to get a successful prosecution for speeding. There is no accurate measure of speed on the boats, the water is tidal and runs in different directions at different speeds, it is unreasonable to expect someone who has never helmed a boat before to be able to tell the difference between 4 and 6 mph. Catch a boat on the plane and your onto a winner but other than that the only chance you have is recless behavoir by causing such a large wake it is obvious that something is wrong.

Obviously as moderators of the site I respect your decision. Why you would want to put an end to such a hot topic I have no idea but I will post no more .

Are you saying that you would like to stop the debate now john?

I agree that the tolls are charging twice for the same boat but only in certain circumstances. Just in the interest of fairness. If you pay the toll in January you will only have to pay 6 months for your 3 months use. Why I have no idea, I would think given that they have acknowledged the shorter cruising time available, in that you only have 3 months before renewal, then they would charge for 3 months, especially as they are winter months in off season. The Bridges are contentious in that they would have to offer Southern tolls, Northern Tolls or Whole System. Not sure what the logistics for that would be nor the effects on local businesses both north and south. Other than that everyone knows the height of the Yarmouth Bridges so if you want to go to bumper car land by a dodgem so to speak. that one would open up the above potter debate as well. The BA will also tell you that you are not paying to Navigate the rivers but to keep a boat on them or waters connected to them. not too sure why they call them navigation tolls or why you pay them to the navigation authority but think it has more to do with the fact that if the BA fail in their duty to maintain navigation (Mutford Lock) etc. then they don't have to give you any compensation for it. If the boat being sold is staying on the system and the toll is sold with the boat then there would be no justification for a refund unless the BA were to give the option of transferring it if required, in which case the new owner would be subject to the new 12 month toll. I really appreciate your support on this but it is quite specific in that if a toll is no longer on the system and the payer of that toll brings a new boat to the system within the toll year they should be able to transfer the toll, or they are being charged twice for the same thing. I do also agree that on first registration any boat coming to the Broads should be charged for the months remaining. the same colour sticker can be provided and there is absolutely no admin charge other than registering the boat, which should cost pennies. Why when the boat quite blatently wasn't on the system for the first 4 months of a year should that boat be charged for them?

Thank you JM your comments are most welcome

MM your opinion is yours and perfectly valid. As you correctly say I have posted this in a number of places and in general there is a high degree of support. As the saying goes you can never please all of the people all of the time. I do feel that the way the tolls are collected is unfair and unjust so will continue to campaign in an attempt to change it. It does also seem that I have been told a few little untruths along the way which may have negated the need to toll my other boat at all, as that all needs to be checked legally I will say no more. What does look very likely is that despite parliamentary debate and agreement, what is written in the act at least ignores what was agreed in parliament and may even attempt to mislead. It is highly unlikely that I will ever see my money again but even if it costs me more each year I seriously believe it is wrong for me to expect those that wish to change their boat to subsidise my tolls. The set of circumstances you describe is far more common than you may suspect, possibly with exception of the use of a broker. I know to at least a dozen owners that have been caught by having to pay two tolls for the same year despite their old boat leaving the system and their new one coming from somewhere other than the Broads. I'm guessing it is more common on the Southern Broads where most of the less traditional Boats are kept but if I know to 12 in the last year there are bound to be far more.

Thought about this and it would probably be better to respond by saying it would be like buying a steak at a restaurant, eating 10% of it and then sending it back to have a bit of sauce added. Would you expect the restaurant to bring back the same Steak that the chef has cut 10% off and added a bit of sauce but charge you for all of the steak again along with a bit extra for the sauce. It is the same bit of water that the boat is sitting in, it just has a bit more in front.

I think I may consider very carefully any restaurant that would expect you to take 12 months to eat a fish. besides the fish would be unsaleable at that point and as such chargeable. the water that my first boat sat in has been sold again at a higher price to me.

From a point of how this effects me in the scheme of things it is almost irrelevant but the principle is wrong, whichever way you look at it. MM I really beg to differ with your statement as to the simpler the cheaper, Left to run riot the BA will raise the toll as high as possible. and have done with a view to tenders etc. I class myself as lucky in that, with enough sacrifices, I can find a way to keep and run a vessel that could be seen as luxurious. Despite this I do not toll a Dinghy for use on the Broads as just for having a boat that spends 99% of it's life carried by the main tolled vessel and has a small outboard attached I am expected to pay out around £100. On the Broads the only place I would use it would be if there are no moorings available and I have to moor the opposite side of the river. or possibly to go from Beccles to The locks. To me this is worth a small charge, lets say £50 but at £100 I have to question value and instead choose not to toll, as do a lot of other people I know. Every lost toll is costing all the other toll payers money.

Good principle but it would have to be for the same amount plus £160

Tough Life isn't it, sorry about the weather out there, bet you can't wait to get back and use the boat

Quo Vadis, I don't suppose your boat is in the water on the Broads is it?

Ok MM possibly the act of charging twice for the same thing is perfectly reasonable in certain quarters but could I ask how me paying more for my toll than the Broads authority was expecting on April 1st is going to increase your toll? If you were to pay an extra £160 over what you paid in April now how would it increase anyones toll?

Understandably Dave as this would reduce the income budgeted for by the Marina owner at the start of the year. Likewise I would not expect to move my boat to the Thames and expect the Broads Authority to pay the toll. You have to come up with something that actually increases the amount of funds they were anticipating receiving if you want to compare it with something. As a mark of decency the Marina owner where I am moored will refund the unused balance of mooring fees from the point that a new boat moves in if he can re let the mooring. I would certainly not expect the Broads Authority to do something out of decency but the policy of embezzling money from toll payers seriously does need attending to.

Same contract where I moor but the moneys paid for the existing mooring are used towards the new boats moorings if you change during the mooring period.

the reason mine are still in the envelope is because I hadn't been to the boat due to being out of the country, year before I left them at home so it took me 3 weeks to put them on but 8 weeks to get the glue off from the no toll sticker envelope round the hand rail. Nice to here from you and good to see you are still so reticent, how is that boat share of yours going, have seen thunder around a few times. Warp thanks for the support, it is appreciated.

Imtamping2. There is a law in this country that rules terms and conditions invalid if they can be proven to be unfair. You really are not allowed to just write what you want in t&cs but it would be a judges decision to decide if they were fair or otherwise.

MM pretty certain that the rangers use their little gizmo when checking boats, rather than relying on the plaque. a simple declaration that the toll plaques have been removed should cover it if the plaques can't be returned, in my case they could as they have not been applied to the boat. and before you say a declaration is open to abuse, when was the last time you sent your insurance details with your toll payment?

imtamping2 Thanks for your response but going back to car tax in the absence of anything similar the tax used to be put on a car, with its registration stamped on and without date belonging to the car. Guess what happened to that if the owner didn't want to sell it with the vehicle. The toll was of no use whatsoever in supplementing the sale, if the boat had been staying on the Broads then I would accept it as part of the sale, the reality of it is it is paid by me not the new owner.

Now you are really clutching at straws Matt. The argument was "you can't charge someone a years tolls for two boats when they have only ever owned one at a time", At no time did I mention carrying from one year to another, it was one years tolls on two boats so unless you can introduce another boat to your argument you are going to struggle. The only people it may benefit are people that have more than one boat who could if they really wanted to remove one boat from the system and use the tolls paid on that to offset tolls on the other. Personally I wouldn't see a problem with that as if you only have one boat in the water why should you pay for two? it could be abused and create admin, possibly by those with a sailing boat and a motor boat wanting to change it on a daily basis but I don't see it being that difficult to only allow it once or maybe twice in a toll year.

Thanks John, Like I said not the sort to do nothing if something is wrong but just to counter there were not that many witches either but even the Broads no longer ducks them in the river. Anything that is wrong should be changed and there is no reasonable argument to make this one right. Oh and just to add, I did argue but ending up paying the extra £500, this is also likely to be the last boat I ever buy so realistically this is likely never to affect me. My argument now is purely to do everything I can to make the Broads Authority change its rules to prevent it profiteering from others

Really Mat? considering I am advocating a no refund policy how are you going to get any money back? the only thing I have said is that the money should be allowable in part payment towards your new toll, you could claim to have sold your old boat in October but you would have to pay out for another boat to get the transfer and before you say I'll toll a canoe, that would involve a refund and there are no refunds in my suggestion. As I say, the only way to defend it is by hiding it under something else, there is no valid reason to adopt the policy that is in place. Also already said that although a no refunds policy may be unfair at least it is justified.

I wasn't in the country at the time as I was in Croatia and can prove it, but that is just going away from the real issue here and the issue that would be for every one is you can't charge someone a years tolls for two boats when they have only ever owned one at a time, which ever way you look at that it is unfair, unjust and plain old profiteering I would love to see the argument made for doing so without trying to hide it under a load of scare stories about what would happen if a butterfly flapped its wings.

Hi Dave, I was advocating the same treatment for all groups. anyone taking a boat off the system and replacing it with another would be able to apply for this. My boat was up for sale but if it is on your own berth it doesn't fit the rules, it has to be in the registered premises of a boat sales company although why this does not apply to all groups selling a boat I have no idea, or maybe one rule for one is OK if it suits.