Licence fees up 8.5%

[Richard Fairhurst]

BW licence fees for 2009 just announced. The CC and wide-beam proposals have been dropped.

 

More (excuse the plug): http://www.waterwaysworld.com/latest.cgi

[GSer]

A roving mooring permit seems fair enough to me, as long as moorers on private marinas have to pay it as well, just so they are seen to be putting into the pot as well, you understand

 

Can't see how thats going to help with the suggested congestion though

 

Paul

Edited November 25, 2008 by GSer

[Pippi Longstocking]

Quote from Waterways Word article

 

"However, we (BW) continue to support the view expressed by many boaters in the 2007 consultation that it is unfair that continuous cruisers do not make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways that is commensurate with those who take a home mooring."

 

Well of course they do!!! Anything to get more money out of us!!

[Boatgypsy]

I note this comment by Simon Salem:

 

"However, we continue to support the view expressed by many boaters in the 2007 consultation that it is unfair that continuous cruisers do not make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways that is commensurate with those who take a home mooring."

 

So, he thinks that people with a mooring are making a greater contribution to the upkeep of the network - just goes to show his level of understanding of the issues.

[mayalld]

I note this comment by Simon Salem:

 

"However, we continue to support the view expressed by many boaters in the 2007 consultation that it is unfair that continuous cruisers do not make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways that is commensurate with those who take a home mooring."

 

So, he thinks that people with a mooring are making a greater contribution to the upkeep of the network - just goes to show his level of understanding of the issues.

 

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

[grahoom]

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

 

I have a mooring, and I contribute very little to BW.....

[cotswoldsman]

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

 

As I have never lived in a marina can I ask is the connection fee that the marina pays to BW charged sepratly to the boat owner in the marina.

Or is the connection fee paid by the marina owner to BW simply an overhead the marina owner pays to BW to allow him to operate a marina and make a profit.

As I pay more income tax that some other boaters does this mean that I pay more to BW than some others therefore I think this is unfair and people who pay less tax than I do should pay higher licence fee than I do.

[Pippi Longstocking]

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

 

Oh dear - here we go again!!!!

Edited November 25, 2008 by Pippi Longstocking

[Jason Wilson and Family]

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

Not to the cost of maintaining the waterways they don't.

 

The additional amount you pay is toward the lease of your mooring, nothing else, and that amount it passed on to you by your land-lord.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Jason Wilson and Family

[mayalld]

Not to the cost of maintaining the waterways they don't.

 

The additional amount you pay is toward the lease of your mooring, nothing else.

 

Do keep up at the back!

 

Mooring providers pay connection fees to BW (9% of what you pay to your mooring provider)

 

Which means that every year, in addition to my licence, I pay £130 that ends up in BWs coffers.

 

Oh dear - here we go again!!!!

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot that if enough people don't like the truth, it isn't allowed to be spoken of any more.

[carlt]

Do keep up at the back!

 

Mooring providers pay connection fees to BW (9% of what you pay to your mooring provider)

 

Which means that every year, in addition to my licence, I pay £130 that ends up in BWs coffers.

That's nowhere near the £1k+ I was contributing, on my BW mooring.

 

Do you think you should pay a surcharge, to balance things up?

Edited November 25, 2008 by carlt

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Do keep up at the back!

 

Mooring providers pay connection fees to BW (9% of what you pay to your mooring provider)

 

Which means that every year, in addition to my licence, I pay £130 that ends up in BWs coffers.

 

To cover the CONNECTION FEE, not towards the upkeep of the waterways.

 

Licence Fee = waterways upkeep

Connection Fee = marina

 

It's not that bloody difficult Dave! It is an extra fee you choose to pay so that you get a mooring in addition to what everyone else gets.

[Pippi Longstocking]

As I have never lived in a marina can I ask is the connection fee that the marina pays to BW charged sepratly to the boat owner in the marina.

Or is the connection fee paid by the marina owner to BW simply an overhead the marina owner pays to BW to allow him to operate a marina and make a profit.

As I pay more income tax that some other boaters does this mean that I pay more to BW than some others therefore I think this is unfair and people who pay less tax than I do should pay higher licence fee than I do.

 

As far as I know - the fee that the marina owner pays to BW is an overhead that is passed on to the moorer, and not charged seperately by BW to the moorer. Well it always was when we had a marina mooring.

[mayalld]

As far as I know - the fee that the marina owner pays to BW is an overhead that is passed on to the moorer, and not charged seperately by BW to the moorer. Well it always was when we had a marina mooring.

 

Yes, so?

 

Where do you fondly imagine that marina owners get the money to pay their overheads?

 

The money fairy perhaps?

 

Or do they, just maybe, pass on the cost of their overheads to the moorers?

 

To cover the CONNECTION FEE, not towards the upkeep of the waterways.

 

And upon what are connection fees spent?

 

Could it be that they go into the same pot as licence fees?

 

Oh, surely not, that would be such a novel idea.

[carlt]

Yes, so?

 

Where do you fondly imagine that marina owners get the money to pay their overheads?

 

The money fairy perhaps?

 

Or do they, just maybe, pass on the cost of their overheads to the moorers?

 

 

 

And upon what are connection fees spent?

 

Could it be that they go into the same pot as licence fees?

 

Oh, surely not, that would be such a novel idea.

Perhaps I can get a rebate on my council tax, as I'm paying the guy who rents me a garage and a proportion of that goes towards his business rates.

[Pretty Funked Up]

Great news - and work isnt even over yet ... YAY

 

It is an undisputable fact that those with mooring contribute more income to BW than those without.

 

BW income doesnt appear to be linked in anyway to the upkeep of the canals, sadly.

 

 

"However, we continue to support the view expressed by many boaters in the 2007 consultation that it is unfair that continuous cruisers do not make a contribution to the cost of maintaining the waterways that is commensurate with those who take a home mooring."

 

Hang on, so the people who chose to get ripped off are now trying to force their chosen situation onto us aswell?!?!?!

[Pippi Longstocking]

Yes, so?

 

Where do you fondly imagine that marina owners get the money to pay their overheads?

 

The money fairy perhaps?

 

Or do they, just maybe, pass on the cost of their overheads to the moorers?

 

 

 

Why so rude, Mayalid - I was just answering Cotswoldman's question?

[cotswoldsman]

Do keep up at the back!

 

Mooring providers pay connection fees to BW (9% of what you pay to your mooring provider)

 

Which means that every year, in addition to my licence, I pay £130 that ends up in BWs coffers.

 

 

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot that if enough people don't like the truth, it isn't allowed to be spoken of any more.

 

I do find it difficult to keep up with 3 threads going now forget which one I am on.

So as I said it is an overhead for the marina owner that he passes on the same as he does with all his other overheads.

So if I understand correctly what you object to is the £130 paid to BW that allowed the marina owner to build the marina that you choose to moore in. So you would not object to the £130 if I as a CCer paid an extra £150 to BW.

I guess the otherway round would be if the marina owner filled in his connection to the system then you would not have to pay it.

Edited November 25, 2008 by cotswoldsman

[david and julie]

Its divide and conquer time again guys.

 

The argument here should be the 8.5% price rise and not what different groups should or should not pay.

[mayalld]

I do find it difficult to keep up with 3 threads going now forget which one I am on.

So as I said it is an overhead for the marina owner that he passes on the same as he does with all his other overheads.

So if I understand correctly what you object to is the £130 paid to BW that allowed the marina owner to build the marina that you choose to moore in. So you would not object to the £130 if I as a CCer paid an extra £150 to BW.

I guess the otherway round would be if the marina owner filled in his connection to the system then you would not have to pay it.

 

That would seem fair and equitable.

 

Its divide and conquer time again guys.

 

The argument here should be the 8.5% price rise and not what different groups should or should not pay.

 

Oh, should it?

 

Is there some central authority that decides what the argument should be?

[david and julie]

BW has announced an 8.5% rise in licence fees next year - or a 6.2% increase taking into account yesterday's cut in VAT.

 

Does anyone inderstand the maths in this comment?

[RLWP]

Please can we include: BW owned marinas and; BW owned on-line moorings in this discussion? Clearly these do contribute directly to BW in addition to their licence fee.

 

Richard

 

On-line mooring, Hatton Top Lock.

[Richard Fairhurst]

To cover the CONNECTION FEE, not towards the upkeep of the waterways.

You could always ask some marina owners whether they think the fee they pay to BW is

 

a) too high

about right

c) too low

 

to cover the cost of connection. I've got a pretty good idea what the average response would be.

 

David and Julie: £450 typical licence fee, divide by 1.175 to take off 17.5% VAT, multiply by 1.15 for new VAT, multiply by 1.085 for licence fee rise, you get £477.86. Which is 6.2% more than £450. (I think.)

Edited November 25, 2008 by Richard Fairhurst

[david and julie]

That would seem fair and equitable.

 

 

 

Oh, should it?

 

Is there some central authority that decides what the argument should be?

 

I think you would like to think there is sometimes Dave.

[Pretty Funked Up]

Yes, so?

 

Where do you fondly imagine that marina owners get the money to pay their overheads?

 

The money fairy perhaps?

 

Or do they, just maybe, pass on the cost of their overheads to the moorers?

 

 

 

And upon what are connection fees spent?

 

Could it be that they go into the same pot as licence fees?

 

Oh, surely not, that would be such a novel idea.

 

A fiction novel idea perhaps.

 

 

Another question, is it fair that marina owners just pass on the cost to its customers? I'd of thought it better to improve facilities to get the extra cost out of the users.