2020 Toll.

[JennyMorgan]

This has been posted elsewhere. As I read it a private boat moored in a marina is eligible for a toll exemption provided that the boat is stored and NOT being used. Effectively if you pay a mooring fee you are moored on a business owned water. A well worded and logical assessment, in my opinion.

Having reviewed the Broads Acts, I think that this falls under the adjacent waters provisions of the Broads Authority Act 2009. This is, by the way, a spectacularly poorly worded and difficult to navigate (!) piece of legislation, reflecting its controversial and much revised passage through Parliament.

Prior to this Act, tolls were only required for boats which actually used the navigation. The 2009 Act extended this to include boats moored on adjacent waters - with certain exemptions.

Section 16 (6) states:

“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).”

“Specified provisions” includes the vessel registration byelaws described in section 11, which includes the provision for charging tolls (section 11 para 2).

In plain English, what this means (in relation to the current debate) is that any boat which is in business-owned adjacent waters AND not in use AND being stored does not need to pay a toll.

I'm pretty sure that this is the provision which the BA is referring to when stating that “hire boats that are not being used and are effectively in storage in their own yards, do not incur a toll.”

I hope this is helpful.

 

[Vaughan]

44 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

This has been posted elsewhere.

Then you are welcome to discuss it elsewhere.

I don't mean to single you out JM, but at this time, we can't go "surfing" around all the various media outlets. We are quite capable of holding our own sensible discussions.

And I would guess that what you are quoting, was written by one of our own members?

[ChrisB]

The line (b) above I am sure refers to a hire yard holding afloat hire boats that are not being used, as at present.

I am sure it is not intended to cover private boats sat in a paid for berth in a marina. But there is a certain ambiguity in the wording.

[Meantime]

31 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

The line (b) above I am sure refers to a hire yard holding afloat hire boats that are not being used, as at present.

I am sure it is not intended to cover private boats sat in a paid for berth in a marina. But there is a certain ambiguity in the wording.

Whatever the intent the use of the word "any" and the fact that there has been no use of the words "private" or "hire" means it relates to any vessel.

I think the BA have squarely shot themselves in the foot with this one. They would have been better off keeping quiet. They were the ones that bought the clause to the attention of hire yards, whilst wrongly stating it is for hire yards only. I and I suspect many other private boat owners were content to pay my toll for this year even though I am forbidden from being able to use my boat currently, however since the BA has taken its recent stance it has made me think twice, as indeed I suspect it has for many others. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have not and shall not be paying my toll as my boat is currently in storage on a paid for mooring within a business that rents mooring berths, amongst other activities. When the government lifts it's restrictions and I am able to travel again to use my boat, at that point I shall make the decision whether to toll the boat and use it for the rest of the year, or ask the yard to lift the boat onto the hard standing where it will remain in storage and exempt from a toll. Be in no doubt my actions are as a direct result of the BA's stance on this issue.

It is my personal view that they have tried to stiff the private boater one too many times. 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

And I would guess that what you are quoting, was written by one of our own members?

James Knight, he may or may not be a member. Since it's a topic relevant to many of us I thought it quite reasonable to post it here. 

 

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

I am sure it is not intended to cover private boats sat in a paid for berth in a marina. But there is a certain ambiguity in the wording.

You could well be right but the words of the Act are taken verbatim. Exceptional times that we are living through, clearly the Act was never written in anticipation of Corona Virus but the Act is the fact. I hope and prey that we all come out on the other side of this pandemic and will be able to use our boats this summer, in which case we will be due for the FULL toll, the Act is also clear on that. 

Those of us fortunate enough to own our own riverside  moorings have no such relaxations, we have to pay! 

It could be argued that this is a loophole but the Authority presented it to Parliament and it passed through both Houses. Surely, at the end of the day the Authority is duty-bound to apply the Act fairly and without favours. It was the Authority that offered this dispensation. To my mind it is a pity that it was offered without the BA waiting to see what support the government would offer to both industry and the Authority itself.   

Effectively I don't see the Authority losing vast sums of money but they might have to wait a bit longer than usual to be paid.

The Adjacent Water clause in the Act has been a running sore in the minds of many Broads boaters ever since it was enacted. A reaction is surely to be expected! 

[JennyMorgan]

26 minutes ago, EastCoastIPA said:

It is my personal view that they have tried to stiff the private boater one too many times. 

An entirely apt comment with which I wholly agree. 

[ChrisB]

Well, if I still were still an owner, I would pay my toll.  The authority needs cash to carry on, they are trying to help the Holiday trade and keep the rivers in good order.

When these unprecedented times end, there is going to be a bill so large that many calculators won't be able cope with the number. The government can't save every company or job so their receivables will be down. My fear is that given this indebtness things like The National Parks Grants will be very far down the list or even reduced or suspended for a while.

I think that when normality returns we are all going to have to pay! And pay extra for some things we hold dear and wish to see protected.

Somethings are more important than value for money or penny pinching.

[marshman]

I don't want to destroy the Broads or the BA by reducing their income - do that at your peril.

Vaughans words should be heeded - in other posts I think he has pointed out how precarious the overall situation is  and I would not wish to exacerbate that, as I want the general status quo to continue - I want my rivers and my Broads I love so much to remain unchanged, and in overall terms the cost of the toll is acceptable to me given the total investment I have made.

[ChrisB]

9 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

An entirely apt comment with which I wholly agree. 

Sorry Peter and ECIPA but The Broads are the best value boating in the UK, and you know it. The cheapest tolls, cheapest marinas, cheapest workshops. 

Try the Thames or River Great Ouse. Check out the cost of harbour dues and a marina berth in Lymington, Poole, The Solent or Chichester and do the comparison.

I would say that the running costs of a boat on The Broads is the difference between owning a boat and not being able to afford one for a lot of people, when compared with elsewhere

 

[marshman]

I have just had a horrid thought!!

Perhaps if we don't like paying the toll money to the BA, we should consider transferring everything to the control of the EA, like the Thames and the Fens do? Would that make people happier??

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

This has been posted elsewhere. As I read it a private boat moored in a marina is eligible for a toll exemption provided that the boat is stored and NOT being used. Effectively if you pay a mooring fee you are moored on a business owned water. A well worded and logical assessment, in my opinion.

 

Someone reading through rose tinted spectacles in my opinion. Hang on, let me put mine on...Oh yes, I see it now: so I only have to pay a toll for the actual days when I'm using the boat as when I'm not there it's being stored. Brilliant, should save me a fortune. Right up to the point where the BA goes bankrupt and we all have to give our boats away because they have no value.

I don't think so. Paid my toll as soon as it came through.

There is a "Winter lay up toll" which is for project boats on or off the water. But you are only allowed to work on the boat but not use it for any kind of leisure activity. About 1/3 full toll I think. And it ends on April 31st.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Oh yes, I see it now: so I only have to pay a toll for the actual days when I'm using the boat as when I'm not there it's being stored. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all. Once you use your boat, even if it's only the once it is no longer in storage and you would need to pay the FULL toll. What many people are really hacked of is the way the BA has conveniently pointed out a clause to the hire yards so that they do not need to pay the toll because their boats are in "storage" whilst neglecting to mention, or acknowledge that the same clause equally applies to private boat owners. There is NO distinction in The Broads Act, or the adjacent waters clause.

If and when I use my boat for the first time this year I will pay the FULL toll. I realise that it is highly likely, hopefully very likely that I will end up paying the full toll for this year. The BA are an unelected authority who time and time again exceed their remit. Show me where in The Broads Act it says they are meant to act as legal, or financial advisors to businesses. The Broads Acts and its clauses are there for ALL to read and act upon as they see fit. The BA in pointing out the relevant clause to the hire yards have also unwittingly raised the same awareness amongst the many privateers as well, who benefit equally from this same clause.  

[floydraser]

The BA are looking after businesses as a priority and quite rightly IMO.

When the green light goes on we private owners will recover the use of our boats immediately whereas hire companies could take months to recover. It's in all our interests that nobody gives up on the broads. I doubt holding back tolls will have much effect but the BA would be quick to point out that extra staff have to suffer being laid off because of it. How would you feel then?

I think I can answer that myself on the basis of mathematical probability: the BA would be lying because they always do?

[MauriceMynah]

Taking the original post in this thread, I find myself wondering the motives behind the posting.

I also find myself questioning the context in which it was posted "elsewhere" and whether or not the rest of "elswhere's" thread needs to be read.

But, above all, I find myself wondering what the BA would do if their income were to be reduced. Perhaps raise the tolls next year to make up the shortfall as a one off expense...oooh what an outcry there would be then.

 

[Meantime]

46 minutes ago, floydraser said:

The BA are looking after businesses as a priority and quite rightly IMO.

No the priority of businesses is to look after business.

The three EQUAL priorities of The BA are as follows;

Protecting the interests of the navigation.

Conservation and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads

Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of The Broads.

Those three aims are protected by The Broads Act.

[Meantime]

35 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Taking the original post in this thread, I find myself wondering the motives behind the posting.

I also find myself questioning the context in which it was posted "elsewhere" and whether or not the rest of "elswhere's" thread needs to be read.

But, above all, I find myself wondering what the BA would do if their income were to be reduced. Perhaps raise the tolls next year to make up the shortfall as a one off expense...oooh what an outcry there would be then.

 

Maurice the elsewhere is Facebook. As Peter has already mentioned it was posted by James Knight, who as many will know is involved in the running of two large Broads businesses, although he did state that he was posting that in a personal capacity.

It is the opening post of a topic or thread if you like, Facebook doesn't really do threads as such. Someone posts and then others add comments. The rest of the posts are just commenting on James's post, but I can assure you Peter has not taken the post out of context.

[marshman]

James Knight posting in a personal capacity and not without a prior agenda?

Yeah right!!!!!!

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, floydraser said:

The BA are looking after businesses as a priority and quite rightly IMO.

When the green light goes on we private owners will recover the use of our boats immediately whereas hire companies could take months to recover. It's in all our interests that nobody gives up on the broads. I doubt holding back tolls will have much effect but the BA would be quick to point out that extra staff have to suffer being laid off because of it. How would you feel then?

I think I can answer that myself on the basis of mathematical probability: the BA would be lying because they always do?

They have the option to furlough their staff ,as is the option for most employers.

[Meantime]

8 minutes ago, marshman said:

James Knight posting in a personal capacity and not without a prior agenda?

Yeah right!!!!!!

I was only repeating what James said in his post. I may not always agree with him, but I've always found him to be a fair and truthful person.

[unclemike]

how many more times do we have to regurgitate this argument? getting tedious , every thread now has posts about it

[Vaughan]

13 minutes ago, chameleon said:

every thread now has posts about it

And on another of those, I suggested we get real about this.

The boatyards would not have paid their tolls anyway!  They would have just let it become an overdue account, and let the BA chase them for it!  Knowing perfectly well that they would be paying their tolls again before the BA could ever get near a courtroom to pursue them.  Or of course, if the yards do not survive, then the BA finds itself a long way down the list of creditors chasing a few  pence in the pound.

That's the real world, folks!

This way, the BA have had the sense and yes indeed, the courtesy, to waive the situation for the moment and allow a bit of temporary relief.  That way there will be no hard feelings, when we get back to normal.

Common sense, I call it!

[Meantime]

26 minutes ago, chameleon said:

how many more times do we have to regurgitate this argument? getting tedious , every thread now has posts about it

Possibly why Peter started a dedicated thread in Speakers corner so that anyone reading it would know what it was about and not think it was a drift from a corona virus thread.

[rightsaidfred]

Just for once I am going to come down on both sides of the argument,.

I fully understand all those that feel the BA have scored an own goal and could and possibly should have handled this better, unfortunately like the government I think under the circumstances they are dammned if they do and dammned if they dont but I wont judge any individual on whichever course of action they take.

Personally I have paid my toll in full and dont expect a refund or rebate, while the BA wont go bankrupt and are restricted in what they can do at the moment I am not prepared to sacrifice our future or give them an excuse for future upkeep on financial grounds, I could sorn one of our cars for the next 6 months I havnt because once this is over the country and all of us are going to need every penny that can be pumped into the economy, I am not prepared to cut of my nose on a matter of principal.

Fred

[grendel]

I did move all the posts out f the corona virus thread, to the coronavirus and the broads as i thought that was a better fit, i would be happy if we could keep the original corona virus thread clear for specific discussions of the virus, then this thread could be more about specific corona virus and the impact on the broads topics.

[floydraser]

2 hours ago, EastCoastIPA said:

No the priority of businesses is to look after business.

The three EQUAL priorities of The BA are as follows;

Protecting the interests of the navigation.

Conservation and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Broads

Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of The Broads.

Those three aims are protected by The Broads Act.

Not at this time of exceptional circumstances, which is the basis of this thread.