Lady M
Patron
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Lady M
-
-
Unfortunately, instead of discontinuing the scheme, the government decided that charging the extra duty on boat propulsion was a green initiative.
-
The underlying issue is that the intentions of a poorly worded law are being misused on a scale that adversely impacts home moorers and is increasing. Surcharging may make some think twice. This is the same approach as charging extra for widebeam boat licences.
-
1
-
-
It wasn't great when CRT took over.
-
3 minutes ago, IanD said:
Thanks but I already give to various charities -- and who I give to and how much is personal, and I'm not going to post it on here... 😉
Age of a boat is a good -- but not prefect -- proxy for boater wealth, without means testing. Anyone who can afford to buy a new shiny boat can afford a higher license fee, those who are of limited means are much more likely to have an older boat and would pay less.
If you keep the total license fee take constant and have a 2:1 fee variation with age, this could mean something like +40% for a brand new boat, 0% for 12yo, -30% for 25+yo which is what insurers count as "old". On this scale you'd get about 20% off compared to the current flat-fee-with-age, I'd pay 40% more.
What's your objection to this?
Not all boats can be date identified.
-
52 minutes ago, MtB said:
Yes that's easy. CRT asks "Do you have a home mooring?"
Answer no and that means you must be mooring out on the towpath all year round so a bill is issued for 365 nights at £10 a night. Cheap and easy. I can't imagine that costing £10, let alone £10 a night.
The problem with this approach and the current surcharging arrangement, as I see it, is that it doesn't take any account of CCers and others who use a winter mooring for several months of the year.
-
What, including bona fide home moorers? I wonder how much it would cost CRT to collect and process all those £20 payments. Doesn't adding a surcharge to the licence achieve a similar, if smaller, outcome? Perhaps all the boaters would move onto a different navigation authority's water.
-
Yes, but when they move water is consumed and sometimes the infrastructure is broken. It is a really difficult situation based on a bad law.
-
Why can't they see the difference between 'I have to move after 14 days' and 'I can stay here for up to 14 days if I so wish'.
-
1
-
-
Licensing of boats on the canals is a relatively recent arrangement. Olive at The Anchor on the Shropshire Union Canal used to say that her old boat did not need to have a licence or pay for its mooring alongside the towpath. Perhaps this boat has been there so long that it pre-dates the licence system.
-
The maximum number of people you can take on a moving boat is 12 plus one or two crew.
-
Unless you can get HVO, it will be better to buy little and often in future.
-
43 minutes ago, Higgs said:
As a moorer, you pay exactly what you signed up to pay. Your licence, per boat, is exactly, or would be exactly what a CC'er would pay, for the same size boat. There will be home moorers that will use the canal more than a CC'er that moves every 14 days. The home moorer's use should be similarly equatable, to be fair.
The concept of pay by use has now been established. If it's valid for one group, it should be valid for others.
Perhaps the unfair aspect of the new charging regime is the requirement to take a home mooring for a minimum of six months to change from CC-er to home moorer - and pay a fee to make each change. I would prefer it to be based on each full calendar month of paid mooring fees but even a minimum of three consecutive months would be much fairer and reflect what many boaters do in the winter. The scheme as currently set up discourages CC-ers from taking their boat off the system when they can't or don't wish to travel.
-
The actual wording can be found in Excise Notice 554. Paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 are relevant. Here they are:
5.7 If you’re a residential boat owner and only move your boat short distances occasionally
We recognise that there are boat owners whose primary, or only residence is their boat.
Some of these will be at fixed moorings or move just a very short distance along the tow path from permanent moorings. If you live aboard your craft permanently and hold certain documentation, such as a Houseboat Licence, Residential Mooring Licence, Council Tax bill in respect of the mooring, or other documentation, such as invoices or bills which provide proof of permanent residency, you may purchase all your fuel at the rebated rate (as if you owned a commercial vessel). You are not required to make a declaration.
However, it will be your responsibility to make sure that you hold the requisite documentation should we wish to check this at a future date.
5.8 If you’re a continuous cruiser
If you’re a ‘continuous cruiser’ you may not claim all of your fuel for non-propulsion purposes under the arrangements for residential boat owners. Even if you reside permanently on your craft, you must declare your actual intended usage for propulsion.
-
Alan is absolutely correct. You have the option to purchase elsewhere or adjust your declaration next time. Only boats on official residential moorings are supposed to be allowed to declare 0% propulsion.
-
1
-
-
I don't actually agree with the CC surcharge approach but, as a home moorer, I know I pay a lot more to CRT than any CC-er. Therefore I am offended by the behaviour of CM-ers, especially when it affects other waterway users. Having, on holiday, followed a group of 3 CC-ing boats round the Four Counties ring and sometimes found my preferred stopping place full, sometimes I get annoyed by CC-ers too. On one occasion, they told me they had decided to stay on a 48 hour mooring for a third night because they liked it there.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:
I know it's pointless trying to educate you, but when I started boating there were no BW mooring fees, there were boats that cruised continuously and there were boats with home moorings for which they paid no fees to BW. And no home mooring requirement.
It's been pointless debating with you since you were whinging about licences in marinas. I shan't respond again.
PS ghost moorings were a myth.
What Arthur is saying is that 'end of garden' mooring fees did not exist then. Nor had the new marina percentage fees been introduced. However, mooring sites leased from BW certainly paid them rent money.
-
In response to your final point, not necessarily.
The aspect that is being missed here is that CRT gain some extra income from the majority of home moorers, many of whom are also keeping their boats out of the way off the cruising waterways when out of use. Additionally, CRT report some or all of this income as being part of their investment portfolio and do not identify it as coming from boaters. They also seem to overlook the potential effect on this investment income from closed or inactive canals. All those waterside businesses ceasing to pay rent could make a big difference.
-
1
-
-
As it is coming up, Crick sounds like a good suggestion to me. A lot of the boat exhibits will not be for sale but there will be plenty of opportunity to talk about boats and layouts, meet builders and boaters. Spending another day or two in the area will allow for visits to a number of nearby second hand boat brokerages.
-
Isn't there a stoppage on the Stourbridge?
-
1
-
-
They certainly added to the mayhem at Cavalcade.
-
Thanks cheesegas, this is an significant improvement since we last went that way.
-
The ones based in the Paddington Arm have a small light on top of a tall stick like mast. It's still very difficult to see them in a tunnel if they get too close to you because they are so low on the water.
-
Quite dangerous in Maida Hill tunnel.
-
Yes its the Daily Mail, but its still news?
in Waterways News & Press
Posted
Most home moorers do pay more to CRT. Their mooring fees would be lower if this did not happen.