paulmorgan

hi All, To hopefully clarify things a little, the format for BW Functional Locations goes like this: First two characters identify the waterway .e.g GU = Grand Union, GA = Grand Union Aylesbury arm, TM = Trent and Mersey etc.. Next set of three characters identifies the kilometre length, so 01 is the first, 025 is the 25th kilometre and so on. The next set of three characters pertains to an asset on that kilometre length, these can be things such as a bridge, a lock, a pump-out station and a whole host of other things. For auctions, there will often be another two digit number which is the mooring slot at a particular functional location. Codes starting with 'BW' would I guess, be related to licences as there is not a waterway assigned to the code 'BW'. I'll see if I can find out when I'm back in the office later in the week. @Alan What did / do you make of all the trees felled down by Fishery Inn? I was a little put out at first, but I like it now, you can see the river much better, and the free wood was good Cheers, Paul

Hi all, You can find the 2011 gold licence and the updated long term Eng & Wales fees on this page paul

Hi Alan, I do agree here, and as you say, coming back to them after a longer time period, it can be hard to work out what happened. If you can give me some time, again, I will check things over with somebody and hopefully provide a fuller description. I'm not a spokesperson for BW, so I do like to check things over before commenting on something that is _not_ my area of expertise. In many ways, I'm in the same boat as yourself, other times I might be an informed observer. It depends on the topic really. The good thing about the web is that at least it's not printed on paper and can be corrected / amended if improvements or clarifications are undertaken. I will ask if this is feasible to be done in the near future as I think it gives more transparency to the auction in retrospect. atb, Paul

Hi Allan, AFAIA Chris Gray should be sending you the information as he is the person responsible for FOI requests. So long as he understands what information should be sent, then you should get it. Doing a quick google over the FOIA, I would guess that any other reports you may be after, may or may not be forthcoming depending upon whether they fall under an exemption clause or not, but it might be worth clarifying with Chris on this. As ever, IANAL, so see your own legal advice etc.. What I can say, is that I fulfilled what I set out to do, which was get the Sept minutes on the site for you asap, and you have them in time for the A/M tomorrow. atb, Paul

Hi Steve, No. What I stated at that time was correct and the bid history reflected that. I'll have to speak with somebody to see if they mind if I (and I am able to) fill you in on the rest of the story - it was quite unusual, a unique occurrence AFAICR. Sometimes it is as frustrating for people inside BW, NOT being able to say things as it is for you people outside. I just want to make sure I don't contravene the Data Protection Act, which at the end of that day, is there for the customer's protection. I do think BW need to modify the display of bid histories though and am discussing that with the relevant people. atb, Paul

Hi ymu, Some people like having the option of just submitting the amount that is the next accepted price in the auction. I guess they might not fully trust the system to do it for them? I think sometimes, it's also down to not reading the FAQ's / T&C's and understanding what the system can do and what is expected of them in taking part in the bidding process. I don't think auctions on the internet have quite achieved the same mindset that someone might have when at a live auction. I wonder if they read the FAQ's? atb, Paul Hi Toddlesocks (great name btw), I wouldn't say it is advisable, but the fact is, if you are the second highest bidder and the winning bidder defaults, then you would be offered the chance to take up the vacancy at the price you bid. Obviously, there is a massive risk that you wouldn't get the mooring you were after, but you might operate like that in the hope that the auction you have bid on eventually goes to you. NOTE: it is also worth bearing in mind that BW advises caution when bidding on more than one auction at the same time. IF you win both, you may be liable for a default fee on the one you do not take up. I DO advise that you read these: FAQ's and T&C's atb, Paul

Hi Alan, I should be able to explain it after the auction has finished. I won't say anything whilst it is still running. I hope you can appreciate that. atb, Paul

Hi Allan, I so would love to see any evidence for this. Sounds like someone's spreading a little FUD around. atb, paul

@Allan Sept board minutes have just been given to me and I have posted them at: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/about-us/board-and-directors/board-papers The CEO report and Agenda were already there. I'll check and see if someone who deals with FOI requests will also post them to you on that ticket. atb, Paul

Can you let me know the url you're trying? Just tried the base url: http://www.waterscape.com/ and it worked for me. Have you tried putting the url in the location bar, hitting Enter and then forcing a hard refresh by pressing Ctrl + F5, just in case something is cached locally on your machine which is messing it up. Thanks, Paul

As a general reply on two points related to the O/P. 1. The auction process is being changed to allow a confirmation page of the price entered. There will also be a check for a 5 digit number (10,000+) which also equates approximately to a 10x guide price check with a prominent notice of the high bid amount. 2. Kim Dale (National Moorings Manager) was busy today, so I couldn't speak with her, but I should hopefully be able to speak with her tomorrow. I will point out the concerns expressed thus far and point her to the thread. As ever, no guarantees on any outcome, but at least she will be aware. atb, Paul

Hi Allan, Why don't you just tell me the name of the doc and we can see if it's supposed to be on the website or not? Given your description, I doubt it would be, but then again, not every document ever produced within BW goes up on to the website either. So sometimes it pays to ask, as you have clearly done here via a FOI. Also, I appreciate this is the internet and meanings can be misconstrued so, could you clarify what you are implying by putting the word 'missing' in quotes? I put up the documents I am requested to onto the website. I do not keep a full inventory of all documents produced within BW and BW does not publish all documents produced within it onto the website... not yet anyway, but it might be an aim for the future. I'll leave all the attendant pro's and con's of that for another time. atb, paul

Hi Sue, Thanks for the tip off, what region was the user group under? So I can have a gander when the notes are published... Sally has been busy with quite a few trade and organisation annual meetings IIRC - seems that they all pitch up around the same time, and she's been up in Hatton or Leeds a lot lately, I would guess partly to do with the Boat licence fees and such. atb, paul

Hi Allan, Yes, I get that. No one is disputing that. Yes, you can clearly see that also on the WDTK page. Again, no disagreement. Yes, can see all that. Keep at them. It will be interesting to see which Director it is - I guess some of them will be prepping for the Annual Meeting as well. I'm not attempting to defend the indefensible (the clue is in the word ), at what point have I ever said you're wrong? Rather, I've offered my humble opinions on what may be dragging them behind that's all. You do not have to accept any of it. This is a forum, I'm allowed to express my opinion. I am simply trying to round out the thread. It is quite clear looking over the WDTK page, that they have missed the dates. No, I did not. The first I heard of it, was when I spoke briefly to the PA of the Scretariat chasing up the minutes for the website, and it was mentioned that the meeting was the day before and that the Sept minutes should have been agreed at that meeting. I think I was clear about this earlier in this thread. As an addendum to that point, I spoke again to the PA and they are still chasing for the document, we'd like to get it there before the A/M on Thursday, but as I said above, the Director concerned may also be assisting or prepping for the A/M. If you're going to that, perhaps you could ask? or Tom could? Obviously you should not have to, and you're right to hold them to account. I'll ask again - Have you asked for a face-to-face meeting? That would seem a good way to communicate your grievances and they can explain the delays. No firm evidence for this, but would it? I mean, you can have a mooring separate from having a boat AIUI. So you could sell your existing boat and get a new one to stick on the same mooring - in effect, you don't have to move, you're just changing the type of home. Guess it's like static caravans on holiday homes? Alternatively, you can argue that most ppl might change their location at the same time as changing their boat - double change is as good as a rest so to speak *sparking some ideas in my head for data mining*

Hi, The Gold Licence info should be up on the site early next week, we are awaiting on some info to come through and then be signed off by various parties. The Customer Service team are very keen to get it out there asap, as there are enquiries coming in, as you rightly point out. I'll try and remember to post the link in here as soon as we get it. And, yes, I agree on the 21stC point. Jean is a boater, so she definitely appreciates the importance of your requests. atb, Paul

@ymu right, ok, thanks for the clarification. @Allan. No. I do not know whether you have been on a committee or board before, but you have to have a period where the minutes that the note-taker took are confirmed by all that attended - to make sure any actions that were not captured are recorded, and to make sure those that where there in attendance agree with what was said. You cannot escape that process. I can see why your frustrated at the delay, but I don't totally buy into the idea that they're busy with their black pens on a line by line basis. I've experienced first hand how hard it can be getting a meeting with just two directors due to the various calendar clashes. So, if you have the execs and the non-execs providing amends back to you, then you have a classic diff/merge/priority problem that needs to be resolved... and hopefully in a timely manner. Have you requested a meeting with them to go over the problem face-to-face? It might at least clear things up on both sides, you can explain your grievances and they can explain the process they have to go through? @sueb oooh! where did he say that then, was it to one of the magazines or a U/G meeting? @steve hayes Thanks for the figures, do moorings suffer from the same sympton as houses where the market becomes slow around winter and then picks up again in the Spring? When would you expect the peak(s) and trough(s) to be? I guess not many go in the main summer cruising season as people are out and about? thanks, paul

@ymu Thanks for your very full response and your succint assessment of the market now. I was under the impression that M/O's managed only the mooring areas (hence the title) whereas the Lengthsmen are the ones that do cover the whole system. To me, it makes no sense for a M/O to go walking miles away from their areas of responsibility. They have enough of a job doing what they do, so would it really make sense to move them away from that? @Allan I think Simon did a webchat recently with Waterways World and he gets out and about, different people will try different things at differnt rates of adoption. Interesting point about scrapping the auctions. @romarni123 No I can't sorry. I've started to ask the questions myself, but sometimes the people aren't about or it's not top of their list, they have other priorities. @alan_fincher That is one of my aims, if I can help, I will. WRT, to the advertising change affecting the price, was the lower price, the price paid for the first mooring that went? i.e. could the M/O have used their 'nowse' and added more details which made it more attractive?

Hi Allan, Thanks for the links. Looking over the TWFY page, I can see the frustration. On the Sept minutes, I think we'll get them for the website early next week after asking at work. It seems to come down to when the Secretariat gets back all the amends and then passes them on to be typed. I'll be sure to read them when they are released. atb, Paul

hi Alan, I'm asking questions, I'm trying to learn and grok this stuff in a short space of time. I'll suggest things in order to learn, if I don't understand something, I'll either ask a question or state a view and see what comes back. It's how I learn, that and reading and doing. I can see reading over the thread that yourself and others have serious problems with the pricing and have a longer experience with it, but to me, you're the people to talk to and ask the questions / share views with as you have the knowledge from the boating community on this. I'd like if possible, to understand both sides, I may end up understanding neither. But, it helps me to understand the area I need to work in. So, yes I offered a suggestion and you knocked it down with your points. I appreciate that, as i said, it's going to be worth me understanding the 75% and how that is derived. Right, it's late, I'm tired, there's something in my head which I keep coming back to which is niggling me. I'll sleep on it, see if I get an 'aha' moment. Thanks for your time, Paul

Will ask about the 75%, what's behind that at least. There must be some reasoning. Reasonably, it should set a market expectation that perhaps they can bid lower, at least unless the conditions change and someone else wants that auction as well. Chris_r's post is interesting as well and seems to support your point.

Heh! Bless you Chris, the last thing I wanted to do was come across as corporate. failed there. Great, thanks for educating me Chris. Ymu has also pointed out the difference. I now have an idea why you think it's corporate garbage. Sorry, not intentional, I just misunderstood. I am of course, gutted to be compared to a politician. Yes, I get your point, a kind of 'double whammy', so to speak. atb, Paul

hi Ymu, Yes maybe, but if we don't do something then the gap just widens between us. It means that potential rumours spread that can at least be answered, it means we get to know each other, it's another way to inform you of things we might be thinking of doing in the future. We will make some mistake(s) at some point, but as long as we don't cross any data protection lines then why not give it a shot. As you said, plenty of others have done it. I recall that Eugene tried it many a year ago, but it didn't seem to work out then. Have no idea on the facilities. I do know that the M/O's are collecting data on all the mooring locations and the facilities located at each at this time, so I would guess by around the new year(?) there may be an answer for that one. I'd like to get that information updated onto the site and also fed through to the Boater's Guides as it might be getting stale. Didn't know about that definition for a mooring, is it in the T&C's or similar - thanks for letting me know. BTW, you do know I'm not a mooring expert right? I've got something to read over for a future lunch break now. Agree, no disagreements there. Yes, I can see your point here. I guess a point I would make would be that one factor that could skew it would be location. For sure, adding another PM close to an existing one is not going to incur a large cost because the M/O can walk(?) to that PM and check it over, process any problems etc, but supposing the locations are dispersed by a significant distance. The M/O has to get between each PM, check them over, process any problems. Now, I don't know this, I surmising, but what if the cost of the M/O is factored into the cost of mooring along with their travel costs - after all, someone has to check the permits? Adding another PM to that area could make a significant difference. I can see where you going and it makes sense just logically thinking it through, especially for close-by moorings. thanks, Paul

Thanks Tony I really appreciate that honesty. It's how I imagined things would be anyway. There are some points of your posts which I just would not comment on for (hopefully) obvious reasons. But the point about poisoned perceptions is spot on I would guess, and I would hazard a guess that that also exists in BW from bad experiences with the community - not all of it's own doing. Totally agree it might take years for trust to be built up, but as I've said previously, I think we also need to let go a little more and I really think that trust will be established in different areas of the business at different speeds. It's also worth noting that I think in some areas that trust already exists and has done for a long time - perhaps it's related to the people in those areas? Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks? Didn't know about the FOI requests being held up, what was it you were after? did you get it in the end? WRT to the minutes, we always put them up on the site when we're given them. I've just had a check and can see that Sept doesn't have minutes, but a CEO report instead. I'll ask if there's a Minutes doc that should be up there. You probably won't like this, but a new consultation has just gone up today about boating licenses as well, so in the spirit of openess, it might be worth you reading over it Licensing consultation Once again, appreciate your honesty, at least I understand the lie of the ground. I suspect that on the other boards it's fairly similar based on the threads I've read. Everyday's a school day as they say. atb, Paul Hi Athy, Our hosting provider had a network issue from about 5:09pm to around 6pm ish. I tweeted it at the time, but yes, the site was down. The corporate site and other sites were unaffected as they were on a different network. Cheers, Paul

Hey Gibbo, 1. Well I guess it does, it's stated as much in it's press releases hasn't it? On the reducing fees part, I have no idea. Have you tried contacting the mooring vacancies email address and asking them such? To me, it kinda makes sense to do that as long as the price isn't below the cost to service the mooring - that's economics101 right? If you still can't attract customers then you have to do something else, perhaps remove moorings (decrease supply), or spend some money to make them more attractive to customers in some way (try to increase demand). What the actual outcome is, I have no idea, there are so many other factors that would be involved in a customer's decision as to where they moor which will also affect the local market. So for instance, is there a marina nearby which is offering the mooring cheaper, or a mooring which is more expensive, but has better facilities so people choose there. Or perhaps, it's near to their place of work, or family. I would say that price has a significant part to play, but for many customers it's not the only defining criteria. Buying / renting a house has many of the same attendant problems I think. Sorry, it's a bit long-winded, but I thought it best to explain my reasoning. 2. See 1. Apologies if we have got off on the wrong foot. Paul

Morat, thanks for the pointer. I think you've hit the nail on the head to an extent though, we have a freeze on any freelancers, we have a freeze on pretty much anything atm unless it is essential. I'm sure the lady is expensive because a)she is very good at what she does, because there is a lack of supply to the demand as more banks move more and more of their operations online, so she can charge that price and c) it can monotonous, so you need to focused, which makes me understand why we haven't had masses of volunteers lining up to help Still, Winter is coming now and what could be better than settling down in front of the computer with a nice hot drink and jumping on our test server to attempt to bust the system in all sorts of ways for the benefit of others?? Now, and for the forseeable future we have to be 'creative' in how we do things.