Jump to content

Reduction in River licence


christophert

Featured Posts

10 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

* I know CaRT does a lot of other fluff stuff, which I feel does detract from the most important bit which is waterway maintenance, but recognising that boaters make up a small proportion of waterway users I consider it a necessary evil.

 

Boat licence fees also make a minority contribution to C&RTs 'coffers'.

 

As just few examples :

 

Farmers & Business pay more in extraction & discharge licence fees than boaters do on their licence.

C&RTs income from property rentals is almost 2x the income from boat licences.

Defra's grant is about 2x the income from boat licences.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Boat licence fees also make a minority contribution to C&RTs 'coffers'.

 

As just few examples :

 

Farmers & Business pay more in extraction & discharge licence fees than boaters do on their licence.

C&RTs income from property rentals is almost 2x the income from boat licences.

Defra's grant is about 2x the income from boat licences.

 

Those may be part of the facts, but they have no bearing on the conditions imposed on marina moorers. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Would you expect to be recompensed, for the failure of your service provider to provide you with a service for months? Moorers in a marina pay for access, on top of the licence fee. I'm not sure how far you want to stretch the term - unfair. Or, how far you're prepared to accept fairness, if you go without your internet service., and continue paying for it.  

What do you mean "Moorers in a marina pay for access"? I don't live in a marina so I don't know how that works. I assumed you pay the marina "rent" for your mooring, and you pay CaRT to license your boat for the network.

 

When you say "failure of your service provider" it suggests that the lockdown is CaRT's fault. This isn't the failure of CaRT, and I see no reason why the canal infrastructure should be made to pay the price. In fact, when I look out my window, the canal looks to be still full of water. When I last filled my tank the tap was working. And the locks are still operational. As far as I can see, CaRT is succeeding in providing this service even during a national lockdown. It's the government that is keeping you from leaving your marina, but if you could, and when (eventually) you can, fortunately the canals are still being maintained.

 

Like Alan points out boating is only one part of CaRT's income (and actually a smaller portion than I thought). It's quite possible that their other activities are even subsidising canal maintenance. My concern is that any more of our waterways are allowed to fall into disrepair or that there would be any greater restrictions on our licenses. I'd happily pay more to maintain my lifestyle. When you live in a glass boat perhaps don't throw stones?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

What do you mean "Moorers in a marina pay for access"? I don't live in a marina so I don't know how that works. I assumed you pay the marina "rent" for your mooring, and you pay CaRT to license your boat for the network.

 

I'll deal with this one, then look at the others.

 

A marina moorer's fee is the rent, levied by the marina, plus a 9% surcharge. It is an access fee. It is a marina overhead, but the moorers pay it. Get your head around this - we all have licences to access the canal. As you have. It is easier, if you know a little bit about the NAA - Network Access Agreement. This is the contract that the marina business signs up to. There isn't an option, that is the only deal. CRT have a natural monopoly.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I take it you have never studied either economics or accountancy, or, run a business,

No need to lower yourself to insults. Yes I did run a business, very successfully. I also have a Master's degree, so I do have some intelligence to work this out. I am making comments because I am aware there are many many people living on boats struggling to make ends meet and pay for their licence. 

Edited by christophert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

When you say "failure of your service provider" it suggests that the lockdown is CaRT's fault. This isn't the failure of CaRT, and I see no reason why the canal infrastructure should be made to pay the price. In fact, when I look out my window, the canal looks to be still full of water. When I last filled my tank the tap was working. And the locks are still operational. As far as I can see, CaRT is succeeding in providing this service even during a national lockdown. It's the government that is keeping you from leaving your marina, but if you could, and when (eventually) you can, fortunately the canals are still being maintained.

 

Lockdown is not CRT's fault. There are many businesses that can claim that. As has been mentioned, CRT have moved to assist licence fee payers, so, I think they have accepted a loss in revenue. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I take it you have never studied either economics or accountancy, or, run a business,

Well he didn't know the difference between 1000% & 30% did he. In the same league as Diane Abbot it would seem.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Like Alan points out boating is only one part of CaRT's income (and actually a smaller portion than I thought). It's quite possible that their other activities are even subsidising canal maintenance. My concern is that any more of our waterways are allowed to fall into disrepair or that there would be any greater restrictions on our licenses. I'd happily pay more to maintain my lifestyle. When you live in a glass boat perhaps don't throw stones?

 

I would accept that CRT have other irons in the fire. Other activities do subsidise overall. Also, the government gives a grant. I've no beef there. I am not living in a glass boat, and I am interesting in dealing with something that doesn't require having a boat as necessary to the argument. I do not make any open friends on here, talking about it, but I take that for granted. The flak is fine by me.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

How else could the marina pay-it ?

Their sole income is from the moorers.

 

 

 

We have licences. Why should we have to pay access. You like your bread buttered on both sides. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

CRT have just announce that all boat licences have been extended for one month

 

Considering that's 1/12 extension on an annual licence or 8.5% ish and our boats are still floating on maintained water, it's difficult to fault the gesture when a £25 rebate on a £1k pa car insurance is only 2.5% and the vehicle's sitting idle on my own property.

Edited by BilgePump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

We have licences. Why should we have to pay access. You like your bread buttered on both sides. 

You are not paying access, the marina is,

You are paying a fee to the marina which has to pay all of the marina overheads, and make some profit,

In effect the marina has an overhead which is 'renting' the access to the canal, and for the water that is maintained by C&RT.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

We have licences. Why should we have to pay access. You like your bread buttered on both sides. 

 

The access payment is ok, we aren't on CRT waters. Therefore, no licence is required by CRT. Forget the bloody marina T&Cs, that was a business arrangement of necessity, to have a business. A contract that disadvantages the moorers. It actually disadvantages the marina, if they cannot keep the marina used. 

 

It all boils down to the abuse of power. It is abuse, no two ways about it. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are not paying access, the marina is,

You are paying a fee to the marina which has to pay all of the marina overheads, and make some profit,

In effect the marina has an overhead which is 'renting' the access to the canal, and for the water that is maintained by C&RT.

 

Do you mean the marina hands over the cheque on behalf of those that pay the bill - twice. We have licences. A licence is payment for access to the canal. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

A licence is payment for access to the canal. 

You are mistaken, the licence does not allow access to the canal it allows you to 'float' on it and 'use' it.

 

The 1995 Act (no doubt you will accept that that is 'law') states :

 

“licence” means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

 

It does not give you automatic access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are mistaken, the licence does not allow access to the canal it allows you to 'float' on it and 'use' it.

 

The 1995 Act (no doubt you will accept that that is 'law') states :

 

“licence” means a licence issued by the Board in respect of any vessel allowing the use of the vessel on any inland waterways;

 

It does not give you automatic access.

 

I think you're trying to split hairs. Can't use the canal, without access. Can't access the canal, without a licence. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

Do you mean the marina hands over the cheque on behalf of those that pay the bill - twice. We have licences. A licence is payment for access to the canal. 

 

 

Some marinas have to pay for their access to the canal. Others don't  depending on the agreement that was put in place when the cut was made between the marina and the canal.  Its not  a matter of paying twice for the same thing.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Some marinas have to pay for their access to the canal. Others don't  depending on the agreement that was put in place when the cut was made between the marina and the canal.  Its not  a matter of paying twice for the same thing.

 

Whilst the marina moorers pay for a licence and an access fee, it is payment twice for the moorer. The distinction has to be made, between private property and CRT managed water. Two different things. Because, you don't pay access, when you are already on CRT water. When you are not on CRT water, it will be when you are in a marina - a private marina. Nothing but a business arrangement, in which the moorers are excluded, is it made necessary to have a licence that isn't required by law. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Whilst the marina moorers pays for a licence and an access fee, it is payment twice for the moorer. The distinction has to be made,between private property and CRT managed water. Two different things. Because, you don't pay access, when you are already on CRT water. When you are not on CRT water, it will be when you are in a marina - a private marina. Nothing but a business arrangement, in which the moorers are excluded, is it made necessary to have a licence that isn't required by law. 

 

 

You are incorrect, whether you are in a marina or canal connected to a marina the water is supplied by CaRT so all the water belongs to CaRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.