A Fully Sanitised BA Press Release!

[JennyMorgan]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/broads-authority-calls-for-urgent-support-after-pausing-hire-boat-tolls-1-6585644

No mention of the BNP!! Perhaps we are listened too.

[Vaughan]

I did notice this quote :

Our financial mechanism means that we are not allowed to divert our DEFRA funding to navigation.

I hope that works In reverse? Are they suggesting that revenue from river tolls has never been used for other than the navigation?

Just asking . . . . 

[JennyMorgan]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I hope that works In reverse? Are they suggesting that revenue from river tolls has never been used for other than the navigation?

30% to 40%, as has been officially admitted, goes towards BA overheads. In my opinion this has probably freed up grant money for purposes other than the more usual overheads, if you get my drift. 

Critical hat off, a well worded press release and perhaps an overdue acceptance that in the long run it definitely pays to tell the unadulterated truth. A corner turned? I hope so,  high praise to the BA if that is the case. Perhaps we can all be friends again.

[Paladin]

 

Either it’s very poor reporting or it's a very disingenuous briefing by the BA.

“The Broads Authority has asked the government to offer “urgent financial support” after it was forced to suspend hire boat tolls during the coronavirus outbreak.”

It wasn’t forced to do anything of the sort. The BA has admitted being proactive in reminding the hire companies of the exemption contained in Section 16 of the 2009 Broads Act. It didn’t have to do that and the hire companies will still have to apply for the exemption. It’s not automatically applied.

“The Broads Authority (BA), which is responsible for maintaining Norfolk’s network of waterways, has activated a clause in its legislation allowing hire boats out of use to be exempted from tolls.”

They haven’t activated it. It’s been active in the legislation since 2009, and has been usually been applied when private boats go into a yard for work to be done or to be sold.

"However, the BA confirmed that the same rule could not apply to private boaters…"

Yes it can. The exemption clause doesn’t mention whether it applies to hire boats or private boats. As long as the conditions in the clause are met, it can apply to both.The exemption applies to tolls, insurance and Boat Safety Certificate. I doubt whether hire boats are individually insured, which gives considerable weight to the argument that the exemption can apply to a private boat.

 

[Vaughan]

12 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I doubt whether hire boats are individually insured,

I don't follow that. If the insurers did not have a list of the boats in the fleet, by name and number, then the "sister ship clause" could not apply in the event of a claim. Of course they are individually insured.

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Paladin, for putting me right! I thought it a well worded and truthful press release, now I know otherwise! Seems that we are no further forward. 

Just to be clear though, doesn't a private boat have to be having work done on it, or be up for sale,  rather than just being stored?

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just to be clear though, doesn't a private boat have to be having work done on it, or be up for sale,  rather than just being stored?

I agree, and why else, would brokerage boatyards need trade plates?

[Paladin]

23 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Just to be clear though, doesn't a private boat have to be having work done on it, or be up for sale,  rather than just being stored?

Broads Authority Act 2009:

Section 16(6)Nothing contained in or in force or done under the specified provisions shall apply to any vessel which—

(a)is not for the time being in use for the purposes of navigation, or for residential or commercial purposes;

(b)is moored on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business; and

(c)is so moored for the purposes of being serviced, repaired or stored by that person or of being sold or offered or exposed for sale by that person (whether acting as principal or agent).

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Paladin,that is my understanding of the Act so it's good to have it confirmed.

Where perhaps we differ is in interpretation,  namely that I don't read it as applying to the business of supplying a mooring, e.g. as in a marina for example. At least that is my understanding as regard the intention of the Act. Granted that the Act is poorly worded, in part,  but in this case I don't see it as being a loophole in this unusual circumstance. 

No, I don't agree with the 'adjacent' water clause, but that is another debate.

[Paladin]

24 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Where perhaps we differ is in interpretation,  namely that I don't read it as applying to the business of supplying a mooring, e.g. as in a marina for example. At least that is my understanding as regard the intention of the Act. Granted that the Act is poorly worded, in part,  but in this case I don't see it as being a loophole in this unusual circumstance.

 

I have found this definition of 'carrying on a business' in Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary:

"A routine and continuous involvement in an activity undertaken for the purpose of making profit."

The Act doesn't define, and therefore doesn't limit, the nature of the business that is to be carried on, only that the vessel is moored "on waters occupied or customarily used by a person carrying on a business".

So the business could be, and this list is not exhaustive, hiring boats, letting out moorings, providing boat repair services, fuel etc., or any combination of those activities.

[JennyMorgan]

I'm mindful of a case regarding a houseboat at the excellent Waveney River Centre. A one time 'harbour master', a man called Allan, lived on a houseboat there. He refused to pay his toll, claiming that he was not using the Broads, that he was moored in a private marina. He referred his case to the High Court twice I think it was. He finally lost his case, the Judge awarding in favour of the Broads Authority. I don't remember the fine detail but basically it was down to upholding the 'intention of the Act'. We can go deep into the semantics of it all but I suspect that if any of us were brave enough to make a stand then we would probably lose on this one! 

  

[Vaughan]

I must have gone to bed last night before all these "sub clauses" started getting bandied about.

You know, we are only going to help the BA (and therefore the Broads) get through this crisis by thinking out of the box.

Do we really, seriously, want to see the BA lose all of its river toll revenue in one "fell swoop"?  Surely not!

I regard the river toll on my boat as my investment in the maintenance of the Broads. To maintain my boat, I pay a mooring to the boatyard. To maintain  The Broads, I pay my river toll. It is as simple as that, in my mind.

Hire boats, once they can start to be hired again, will also pay river tolls again.

For Goodness' sake, lets get real about this!

[JennyMorgan]

5 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Do we really, seriously, want to see the BA lose all of its river toll revenue in one "fell swoop"?  Surely not!

I don't suppose that many of us do but for some folk a chance to save a bob or two is not to be missed. 

Regretfully the Authority does not enjoy the universal support that it did in the days of dear old

Aitken Clark.

[MauriceMynah]

and if it's the BA that chooses to "save a bob or two"?  I can't see that being uncriticised !

 

[JennyMorgan]

12 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

and if it's the BA that chooses to "save a bob or two"?  I can't see that being uncriticised ! 

 

There is an obvious answer to that one! The BA's history in not saving money is long and illustrious, where do you want me to start? Indeed do you really want me to start on that one?

[Vaughan]

13 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Indeed do you really want me to start on that one?

Do you have an opinion on Brexit, while you're at it?

[unclemike]

17 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Indeed do you really want me to start on that one?

NO, much preferred you read the chairmans post and realise what it means,  the broads Will change ,the world is changing, even more so under present circumstances, nice though it may be we cannot live in the past however much you wish it.

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

I'm mindful of a case regarding a houseboat at the excellent Waveney River Centre. A one time 'harbour master', a man called Allan, lived on a houseboat there. He refused to pay his toll, claiming that he was not using the Broads, that he was moored in a private marina. He referred his case to the High Court twice I think it was. He finally lost his case, the Judge awarding in favour of the Broads Authority. I don't remember the fine detail but basically it was down to upholding the 'intention of the Act'. We can go deep into the semantics of it all but I suspect that if any of us were brave enough to make a stand then we would probably lose on this one! 

  

That is the case of Broads Authority v Fry [2014]. The final judgement can be read here.

Mr Fry's case did not rest on the Section 16, which was never even mentioned. If it had, he would still have lost, as his vessel was in use for residential purposes.

[JennyMorgan]

2 minutes ago, chameleon said:

we cannot live in the past however much you wish it.

Please be clear, my concerns are for the Broads that my children, grand children and my dear little great grand child will inherit. As with many things knowing where we come from is relevant in deciding where we are going.

[Paladin]

44 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I don't suppose that many of us do but for some folk a chance to save a bob or two is not to be missed. 

 

My concern is not about getting any sort of discount. But the disinformation being put out by the BA is nothing short of disgraceful. To say that Section 16 doesn't apply to private boats is simply not true!

[Vaughan]

I see we are in Speaker's Corner, for this thread.

Then I say bugger the Law.

Lets concentrate on saving the Broads that we love even if, Heaven forfend, our decisions don't conform to the tablets that Moses brought down from the Mountain.

I seem to remember they didn't have any sub clauses!

[unclemike]

46 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please be clear, my concerns are for the Broads that my children, grand children and my dear little great grand child will inherit. As with many things knowing where we come from is relevant in deciding where we are going.

you are living in cloud cuckoo land pete, the broads will change , what you are saying equates to someone brought up with steam trains  trying to stop diesels and electric becuse they want things the same for future generations,

question ;- who says  your children / grand children will want the same  as you,       

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Please be clear, my concerns are for the Broads that my children, grand children and my dear little great grand child will inherit. As with many things knowing where we come from is relevant in deciding where we are going.

Chameleon got in first but: Peter, why not hand the World over to your children? The future is there's to shape for the next generatons. You've done your bit and earned the right to relax and enjoy what life you are blessed with. If your kids want to go on a crusade for the future of the Broads then fair play to them.

And by the way, you started the other thread and this one because you thought JP included reference to the national park to antagonise. Just under Jenny Morgan in all your posts is similar mention, even when welcoming new members?

[marshman]

Yes indeed I agree with some that what are children want may be entirely different to what the future generation want and although I am one myself , I do sometimes think the elderly quite often lose touch with reality when they decide that what they want and what they think, is the right way forward. The "olds" cannot often see that they might be wrong - and that includes me!

A very classic example of that was when the Brexit referendum result was announced, I had one of my children in floods of tears , quite simply because they were upset that the oldies had decided the way forward! They of course had a point  - its already noticeable that calls are going out for volunteers to help with the harvesting of the soft fruit crop this year!

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, chameleon said:

the broads will change

Indeed, so long as that change is demonstratively positive for Broads users.