Allan(nb Albert)

You said - "Since one of CARTs KPIs -- set by the government and agreed by CART -- is to increase use of the canals by the general public ......" Please note that I would never try and put words in your mouth when you are speaking out of your backside .... I also suggest that you try not to comment on what you have not read. Here is what CRT were asked in the information request (Full request - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/funding_278

I have actually read all the founding documents and all the revisions. The main one that applies is the Memorandum of Understanding which sets out governments objectives for funding. Government has asked CRT to agree to "retire" this document such reasons for funding change to the recent ministerial announcement. There are no government set targets for visitor numbers as you have claimed. I was asking about the funding gap because I have been trying to get a sensible answer out of CRT using Environmental Information Regulations for about six months. Yesterday CRT provided a response to third party claiming the gap was about £20m.

Here is an example of "fiddling the numbers" from the annual report that fed into the Defra grant review. Visitor numbers more of less double from the previous year presumably to give the impression that public benefit had also risen

You mean alternative facts like the government setting visitor number targets for CRT? Deliberate lie or did you not bother to check? Anybody any idea what the current funding gap is? Anybody any idea how much needs to be spent each year to maintain the waterways?

You forgot to put "rant over" at the end ...

I was not trying to say if the use of contractors is good or bad, just that government have not influenced the use of contractors. Certainly, BW claimed that the use of contractors made large savings in maintaining the network.

Assume you mean does government make them to use contractors - the answer is no. The use of contractors in a big way started under BW but again this was by choice rather than government directive.

There is no requirement set by governent for CRT to increase visitor numbers. As with number of homes built and several other KPI's the only requirement is to publish figures once a year. The only KPI "targets" set by government relate to asset condition.

Government grant has been declining in real terms since 2015/16 with absolutely no guarentee that grant would be extended past 2027. I understand that CRT would like to convert the committed grant into a lump sum and this is under discussion.

CRT's trustees received legal advice on fiduciary duties in a low funding scenario more than eighteen months ago. The £590m was a bit of double counting by government as a significant chunk was already committed as part of the current grant agreement. The actual figure is £400m.

Rather the only verifiable figure available ...

My "less than 200" figure relates to shared ownership boats that have registered with boatshare4u. These mostly describe themselves as self managed ....

I have taken my figures from Ownerships marketing info and the boatshare4u website and am confident regarding the numbers. However, I would accept that some boats may chose not to appear on the boatshare4u website. At the end of the day, a very significant proportion of the 35,000(?) boats on CRT's waters will have more than one owner.

The number of shared ownership boats has not risen from the glory gory days of OwnerShips and Challenger. It has decreased and is now under 200. With regard to hire craft and day boats, BMIB gave a figure of over 2,000 a couple of years back. However, this was for all UK waterways not CRT waterways. I subscribe to the view of about 1,000 on CRT waters.

If HMRC deem the sale to be VAT inclusive, then the customer has already paid the VAT ...

I'd go now while we only have 31 stoppages ...

It seems to me to be similar to clauses found in leases which deal with such issues.

I think that is exactly what it means. That and capacity changes.

I think you are posting based on a summary of the contract rather than the contract itself - It seems to me that the 9% is fixed but the summary badly worded. I can't see anywhere in the agreement where the 9% can be varied.

I think you will find that it is the mooring capacity and mooring rate which are reviewed each year not the 9% which is fixed for 150 years.

From memory, lease period is 150 years.

A bodged repair to the sinkhole of its pension fund ...

For some it will be heat, eat or pay the licence fee. The number of licensed boats on CRT's waterways has already fallen in recent years from 96.9% to 93%. I wonder if we will get back to the BW days when less than 90% were licenced.

Not sure about the 5% but certainly CRT has announced its intention to increase licences above (CPI) inflation for the next five years. I guess some think they will be paying less on the basis that others will be paying more ...

The difference is that with the National Trust you are a member. Your membership subscription is treated as a donation.