CaRT: Corrupt Management Fiasco

[Stroudwater1]

It should all be in the overheads and covered in the general licence fee.  There cant be many people who will never need to cancel a licence outside of the expiring time, other than those who don't have one or have a perfectionist or lucky streak and end the licence just at the time renewal is due. 

 

Whether its a con or theft is a moot point, but its completely wrong. Would never have happened in past years. Its not sending a good message to people, money grabbing goes on all over, many insurance firms slap admin costs on for minor changes to the policy. Its their core business and really must just be in the general overhead cost rather than grab a bit of extra cash were you can. You cant even book a theatre seat now in places without a "Booking fee" 

 

Why not charge more for more locks that you use as an additional "Usage charge"- where does it end?  

 

Money grabbing is probably the best way of describing it. 

[midnight cowboy]

On 25/01/2022 at 15:17, matty40s said:

Of course, it has the company name on the side, and it is oversized for the CAR parking space. Something that can only be dealt with by the flat rental company IF they own the car park, and ONLY if there is something in the rental agreement regarding vehicle size and/or use.

I agree - why are you blaming CaRT for their worker parking incoorectly on private land - shouldn't you report it the landowner or their agents?

[LadyG]

44 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

It should all be in the overheads and covered in the general licence fee.  There cant be many people who will never need to cancel a licence outside of the expiring time, other than those who don't have one or have a perfectionist or lucky streak and end the licence just at the time renewal is due. 

 

Whether its a con or theft is a moot point, but its completely wrong. Would never have happened in past years. Its not sending a good message to people, money grabbing goes on all over, many insurance firms slap admin costs on for minor changes to the policy. Its their core business and really must just be in the general overhead cost rather than grab a bit of extra cash were you can. You cant even book a theatre seat now in places without a "Booking fee" 

 

Why not charge more for more locks that you use as an additional "Usage charge"- where does it end?  

 

Money grabbing is probably the best way of describing it. 

Wrong wrong, wrong, in days long gone insurance companies, in fact most companies jogged along with large margins, lots of overstaffing, etc etc. 

Nowadays companies are slimmed down, competitive, survival of the leanest and fittest, most businesses have a front office, customer facing who input the transaction and the back office runs on computers. Any stoppages interfere with the smooth running. Requires staff to implement changes, that costs money, nothing is free. 

Compare the British Airways business model with Ryanair. No such thing as a free lunch. 

Yes you have to pay to book a theatre company, they use booking agents who take a commission. You might want to travel to the theatre and buy the ticket from the box office, that means you are charging nothing for your own time and travel. 

Businesses don't last long if they don't take your money. Its not theft, dont be ridiculous. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by LadyG

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I think it is common ground that the admin costs will be charged somehow. The only question who pays? It would be unreasonable to charge a licence fee and then separately an admin fee for it (like theatre tickets - but that is also unreasonable, if legal) but a refund is not a general but a specific matter and the cost should be borne by the beneficiary.

 

In any business it is always a matter of choosing when to roll up overheads and when to charge specifically and it will depend on the market and the business's view of what is best for their business.

 

As is always the case (unless we are taking about a basic necessity or a monopoly) it is not up to the customer to decide on the business model but they are free to take themselves elsewhere (subject to an admin fee, of course!)

Insurance companies do it 

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

To charge for admin on top would be to claim the admin cost twice; and for it not to be in the original cost, the original cost quoted would be an inaccurate (incomplete) costing of the  job in the first place. And notification of admin being an extra should be given. 

The price of a standard CRT licence includes the admin cost of issuing that licence in the first place. The cost of reissuing it a year later is covered by the next annual fee. But if you cash it in early, then not only does CRT get less income (because some of the original fee is returned), but it also incurs the additional administrative cost of processing the refund.  Seems fair enough to me that the person who cashes his licence early should bear that additional cost, rather than spreading it across all those licences that run for the full duration.

[Stroudwater1]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

Wrong wrong, wrong, in days long gone insurance companies, in fact most companies jogged along with large margins, lots of overstaffing, etc etc. 

Nowadays companies are slimmed down, competitive, survival of the leanest and fittest, most businesses have a front office, customer facing who input the transaction and the back office runs on computers. Any stoppages interfere with the smooth running. Requires staff to implement changes, that costs money, nothing is free. 

Compare the British Airways business model with Ryanair. No such thing as a free lunch. 

Yes you have to pay to book a theatre company, they use booking agents who take a commission. You might want to travel to the theatre and buy the ticket from the box office, that means you are charging nothing for your own time and travel. 

Businesses don't last long if they don't take your money. Its not theft, dont be ridiculous. 

Are you sure? 😁 (wink smiley if I can find it) 

 

With the theatre I literally turned up to the box office at the theatre (A Provincial one ) and they charged a booking fee then printed out the tickets- no discount for a paperless ticket! 

 

This isnt survival of the leanest but survival of the greediest. In CRTs case its obviously a fixed market so I cant choose another canal licence supplier. 

 

I think most people object to Ryanairs model and they have had to reduce some of their ridiculous charges otherwise the model goes down the pan with the company. I suspect that many wont fly with them after their "speedy refund" policy during the start of Covid.  Its a race to the bottom, completely stupid. Customer service means just that. I maintain that taking additional money in these rather covert ways other that the base upfront cost is theft. This from the theft act (NB I am not a lawyer!) "Theft is defined by section 1 of the 1968 Act as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". I suspect that no one is aware of the "Admin fee" it maybe in the smallprint itself legally difficult. Its not exactly honest to take additional money other than the base amount paid . Its like a supermarket charging a "Checkout fee" for using the checkout. It feels very nasty Im afraid, leaves me with a very bad taste. 

 

 

Other than that I agree with you  😁

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

The price of a standard CRT licence includes the admin cost of issuing that licence in the first place. The cost of reissuing it a year later is covered by the next annual fee. But if you cash it in early, then not only does CRT get less income (because some of the original fee is returned), but it also incurs the additional administrative cost of processing the refund.  Seems fair enough to me that the person who cashes his licence early should bear that additional cost, rather than spreading it across all those licences that run for the full duration.

 

But surely that licence for that boat will be taken on and paid  by someone else unless the boats scrapped so they gain the admin fee in the annual licence?  

[Tacet]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The counter argument to that is - the staff are still being paid to be there irrespective of you calling them or not. There is no additional labour costs to having them actually doing something rather than sitting playing scrabble.

 

Agreed. Why should I be expected to pay for a railway ticket when the train is going to my destination regardless?

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Agreed. Why should I be expected to pay for a railway ticket when the train is going to my destination regardless?

 

Pretty pathetic analogy.

 

How about you go into a bank, you walk straight to the teller, and he/she charges you 10% of what you are planning to deposit because it stopped her / him doing something else.

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Pretty pathetic analogy.

 

How about you go into a bank, you walk straight to the teller, and he/she charges you 10% of what you are planning to deposit because it stopped her / him doing something else.

They do dont they?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, matty40s said:

They do dont they?

 

Not private individuals they don't - business acoounts they do.

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

But surely that licence for that boat will be taken on and paid  by someone else unless the boats scrapped so they gain the admin fee in the annual licence?  

The new licence fee will cover the admin cost for issuing that new licence, but it won't cover the cost of processing the partial refund on the previous licence.

[Murflynn]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Pretty pathetic analogy.

 

 

 

err    ........................   tongue in cheek ????   

[Higgs]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

The new licence fee will cover the admin cost for issuing that new licence, but it won't cover the cost of processing the partial refund on the previous licence.

 

Issuing a licence is a process that uses the same administrative processes as issuing a refund. 

 

 

 

[David Mack]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Issuing a licence is a process that uses the same administrative processes as issuing a refund. 

It's two processes rather than one. Different customers, and not usually done simultaneously. It must cost more.

[Higgs]

Just now, David Mack said:

It's two processes rather than one. Different customers, and not usually done simultaneously. It must cost more.

 

It isn't an unforeseen use of the administrative offices. All the equipment and staff are already employed to issue letters and all manner of business communications and deal with details of administration. 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

It should all be in the overheads and covered in the general licence fee.  There cant be many people who will never need to cancel a licence outside of the expiring time, other than those who don't have one or have a perfectionist or lucky streak and end the licence just at the time renewal is due. 

 

Whether its a con or theft is a moot point, but its completely wrong. Would never have happened in past years. Its not sending a good message to people, money grabbing goes on all over, many insurance firms slap admin costs on for minor changes to the policy. Its their core business and really must just be in the general overhead cost rather than grab a bit of extra cash were you can. You cant even book a theatre seat now in places without a "Booking fee" 

 

Why not charge more for more locks that you use as an additional "Usage charge"- where does it end?  

 

Money grabbing is probably the best way of describing it. 

IN many situations the 'money grabbers' are the customers: we have been encouraged always to look for the cheapest deal regardless of quality which encourages some business to react by creating an artificial headline price which is then supplemented by extras.

 

In the case that so exercises Higgs there is no meaningful suggestion that processing a refund costs money. The only question is who should pay that cost and at what point? There is a lot of scrutiny of navigation licence fees and it is not always so easy to recoup that cost through the basic fee. Hence the pressure to balance the books by means of 'extras'. I know of some situations where the regulated basic charge explicitly excludes most of the elements that almost all customers would consider to be included that it has become a real reputational problem.

 

Since the number of licence refunds must be a fairly small number of licence payments (most boaters keep their boat for several years) it seems to me to be entirely reasonable to recoup via the individual beneficiary. Especially as the next most attractive alternative open to CaRT is to make no refund at all. 

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It isn't an unforeseen use of the administrative offices. All the equipment and staff are already employed to issue letters and all manner of business communications and deal with details of administration. 

 

 

That is wholly irrelevant.

[Higgs]

10 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That is wholly irrelevant.

 

We could then ask for all items to be itemised in a bill (licence), rather than taking it for granted that a business will have running costs of vary time consumption, until you reach a point of saying - why not simply issue a bill, and don't go to the trouble of letting me know how much you spent on accounting for that particular use I made of your company. 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

11 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

We could then ask for all items to be itemised in a bill (licence), rather than taking it for granted that a business will have running costs of vary time consumption, until you reach a point of saying - why not simply issue a bill, and don't go to the trouble of letting me know how much you spent on accounting for that particular use I made of your company. 

 

 

You could ask but might be surprised at the added item for the admin cost of preparing such a bill of quantities - they don't come cheap!

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

You could ask but might be surprised at the added item for the admin cost of preparing such a bill of quantities - they don't come cheap!

 

I don't ask, and assume overheads. 

 

 

[Stroudwater1]

I’m really surprised at efforts  to justify a £30 admin fee from the monopoly that is Cart here. 
if I move house then the council don’t take plunder or whatever an “admin fee” in council tax rebate. Nor if my circumstances change and through disability I get a reduction.   This is wholly wrong of Cart. The actual cost of issuing a refund and sending details by email is absolutely minimal. Almost every boater at some point will need a refund. It probably takes a lowly paid clerk around 3 minutes work. Even assuming it’s 10 minutes at £20 an hour it’s actual additional cost is just over £3. Even taking overheads heat light etc it can’t be more than £5 actual cost. It’s probably less as these transactions are very simple. 
 

As mentioned  the Cart employee would be there anyway  so separating out a cost  is spurious. 

I can’t recall what happens if a transaction takes place middle of a month for a boat, doesn’t the seller get a refund from the end of the month they sell the boat in, the buyer pays for the whole month too, so not only do Cart get £30 admin but two people fund the months licence too. 
 

 

Come on this is a total rip off! 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Stroudwater1

[haggis]

13 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

iCome on this is a total rip off! 

You carry on thinking that if you wish but I think most of us can see the bigger picture. After all, C&RT need all the money they can get to maintain the canals for us so I don't really care if it is a rip off or not. 

[LadyG]

I think Higgs should buy a salt water boat, free salt water, no licence, what's not to like? 

[Stroudwater1]

9 minutes ago, haggis said:

You carry on thinking that if you wish but I think most of us can see the bigger picture. After all, C&RT need all the money they can get to maintain the canals for us so I don't really care if it is a rip off or not. 

 

Councils also need all the money they can get, its not as though Cart spend wisely Im afraid as is often discussed.

 

There always is the option for you to pay twice or three times the amount of your licence fee Cart request from you annually as a donation if you so wish, but  despite Cart needing all the money they can get I dont suppose that you do, not even an additional £10. 

 

Sorry it doesnt wash, its an unfair fee, and Im sad you wont admit  that. I would be happy if Cart asked for a voluntary donation in that situation, perhaps they should, they may well get more money than they do currently if they did that.  

 

Id be happy myself if the total "Admin fee" they got this year is simply put into the overall licence fee. Its the principal here. 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

I suspect this fee is really to recoup part of the disbenefit to CRT from the cancellation of an annual licence, assuming that CRT refund the unused portion in full.

 

3 and 6 month licences cost around 20% more per month than a 12 month licence, hence anyone wanting to cancel a 12 month licence short of the full term is actually getting a benefit compared to buying a shorter term licence. In many cases this fee is probably less than the benefit the purchaser gained from buying an annual rather than 3 and/or 6 month licence(s).

[Ray T]

This was specialist car insurance. I used to have a fully rigged out track day car. None of your regular insurance companies would touch it so I had to go to a specialist and agree to all their terms and conditions. One of them being no refund on cancelled insurance. It was a case of accepting this or not use the car.

 

As the car had not been used for some 18 months due to covid I decided to part with it 1/3 through its cover = no refund.

 

When you enter into agreements with companies for use of their services they call the tune. 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Ray T