Charges or fines ?

[Iain_S]

9 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

An added twist to CRT's attempts to impose fines/charges is that, whilst many of the functions of the British Waterways Board (in England and Wales) were transfered to it on 2 July 2012, ministers failed to transfer properties, rights and liabilities via statutory instrument. The statutory instrument known as "The British Waterways Board Transfer Scheme 2012" would transfered property, rights and liabilities other than those to be retained by BWB in Scotland (i.e. Scottish Canals). The transfer would have been devided between CRT's Community Interest Company and CRT be held in trust for the benefit of the nation.

Whilst drafts of this legislation exist it never came into force.

Perhaps CRT should be asked if they are acting as agents for the owner - Scottish Canals!

OK, I guess so long as any monies raised are remitted to Scottish Canals 🤫

[TheBiscuits]

20 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

it's a simple business calculation - if I can pay licence (800), mooring fees (1200), then to the businessman, anyone with a forty foot boat should stump up two grand, and if they aint paying it to CRT for a mooring, they can pay it to be allowed not to have one - it's their choice.

 

Do you know what percentage of your mooring fee CRT get Arthur?

 

If you have a separate EoG permit from CRT it will be easy to discover, if it's included in the mooring fee you pay the farmer(?) it won't be as obvious.

 

Some of the farm moorings I know about are around £150 a year for 40' but the moorer also pays EoG fees directly so the mooring works out at about £900 a year and CRT get around £750 of it.

 

In a marina subject to NAA CRT would get 9% of £1200 so £108 per year from your fee assuming the marina was full.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Did they perhaps fail to convince parliament because of the existence of the Transport Act 1962 S43?

 

I asked the same question a few pages ago.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

There is no 'changing back' the laws still say that they must be displayed - it is simply that C&RT have said no need to display your licence as we can check from the registration number if you are licenced.

 

The fact that some boaters 'get away with' not displaying, registration number, name and licence  is down to the lack of enforcement (again).

 

Any boater not 'displaying' should feel the full force of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

But its not all about 'income' anyone can be a "busy fool", you only need to look at the giving figures of costs against income (that you have so often provided) to see why sometimes it is better to have a lower income and still end up with more 'disposable income'.

Absolutely agree.

Examples would be CRT's loan for which is costing them £4.5m a year or BWML where they always quoted gross income rather net return via charitable donation. 

However, the point that I was trying to make was that CRT continuously snipes at boaters suggesting that the contribution they make to income a quite small but, in reality, this is untrue.

It would be interesting to see what the average net income per boat is.

 

Also

[Allan(nb Albert)]

13 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

OK, I guess so long as any monies raised are remitted to Scottish Canals 🤫

I suspect Scottish Canals, who appear to have been provided with a bogus statutory instrument, will be more concerned about any liabilities that were not transferred to CRT. 

Mind you, if there are still any Scottish Ministers who were around ten years ago, I can see them cutting up rough because they agreed to a draft statutory instrument which never came into force.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

31 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Did they perhaps fail to convince parliament because of the existence of the Transport Act 1962 S43?

If the position at present is that (as some suggest) CaRT have no power to control moorings, then parliament must have been in error.

 

I’ve always been under the impression that the 14 days is a hangover from the poor laws, when a parish was responsible for anyone who was destitute and had been a resident for 14 days. 

It was the opposite of what you suggest.

BW told the committee dealing with the bill that, although it had been established for decades that they could charge for permanent moorings on the waterways they were unable to do this for shorter periods because it was included in the licence fee. Basically, the argument was that that a license enabled a boat to be on the waterway rather than be used for just for navigation. The argument was slightly different for PBC's. 

Because of perceived  problems with mooring the bill that BW was promoting asked for two powers -

- The power to compel boats to have a home mooring (or "other place" etc).
- The power to erect signs restricting or prohibiting mooring and impose fines for contravention.

The committee accepted that it was not desirable to have boats permanently moored where they chose without moving (i.e. without a houseboat certificate) but rejected everything else because BW could not show that existing powers (e.g. for dealing with obstruction) were being used but were not sufficient for operational needs.

The 14 days has nothing to do with poor laws just as "place" has nothing to do with parishes. As stated before, it was Kenneth Dodd (BW marketing executive) who suggested it as a test that a boat was being used bona fide for navigation. Even then, he was unable to convince why 14 days was better than 28 days suggested by the committee.

From my reading of the parliamentary records, Dodds was very unhappy that the committee were watering down the bill and removing proposed draconian powers. He said something to the effect that there was "more than one way of skinning a cat". This was picked up by the committee but he refused to explain himself.

My guess is that he was suggesting that BW would "forget" what the committee were told re S43. 
 

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

The picture doesn't show up (even when clicked on), as you can see...

 

Ooh, but it does (when clicked on) when quoted like this. Anyone knows what's going on?

 

Aha, in the original post it opens up a window showing a broken image, if you click on this it then appears. Probably due to how it was included in the post in the first place...

 

Anyway, it's very similar to the first post in the thread -- without explaining how to make a payment (e.g. via an app or SMS link) or having any local way to do it (e.g. a payment machine) it's probably not an enforceable contract, same issue as with car parks or street parking machines.

 

Doesn't mean CART can't make such a charge, but I doubt that this sign can enforceably do this -- 10/10 for effort, but 0/10 for delivery. IANAL... 😉

 

 

[MtB]

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The reason 2 1/2 times the licence fee for continuous cruisers was suggested is that simply brings their boating costs more or less up to the equivalent of a moorer.

 

And despite me being an incredibly laid-back kind of guy, it still grates ever so slightly when supposed CCers hog the 48hr VMs free of charge for six months at a time, just along from my £3,500 a year CRT online mooring. 

 

But I guess the two £250K Wide beams that have been on there for the past couple of months are a bit short of cash, so ought to be cut some slack.

[TheBiscuits]

22 minutes ago, MtB said:

And despite me being an incredibly laid-back kind of guy, it still grates ever so slightly when supposed CCers hog the 48hr VMs free of charge for six months at a time, just along from my £3,500 a year CRT online mooring. 

 

If that only slightly grates you are incredibly laid back.  I'd be furious.

 

But only for two weeks or less, obviously ...

 

24 minutes ago, MtB said:

But I guess the two £250K Wide beams that have been on there for the past couple of months are a bit short of cash,

 

They might be now they've bought a boat!

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And despite me being an incredibly laid-back kind of guy, it still grates ever so slightly when supposed CCers hog the 48hr VMs free of charge for six months at a time, just along from my £3,500 a year CRT online mooring. 

 

But I guess the two £250K Wide beams that have been on there for the past couple of months are a bit short of cash, so ought to be cut some slack.

It's what John Sloan once called "the politics of envy"... 

[IanD]

31 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And despite me being an incredibly laid-back kind of guy, it still grates ever so slightly when supposed CCers hog the 48hr VMs free of charge for six months at a time, just along from my £3,500 a year CRT online mooring. 

 

But I guess the two £250K Wide beams that have been on there for the past couple of months are a bit short of cash, so ought to be cut some slack.

When you say "cut some slack", are you referring to their mooring ropes? 😉

[Rambling Boater]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It's what John Sloan once called "the politics of envy"... 

Whilst there might be something in that, it's worth bearing in mind that  P takers are messing it up for everyone else (including those who genuinely want to explore the system).

 

At the expense of sounding like a conspiracy theory, I have wondered whether some of the 'errors' , 'inconsistencies' and P taking are all part of a plan to divide the boating community. Surely not? Perhaps we are doing that quite well all by ourselves?

Edited April 15, 2022 by Rambling Boater

[Quaffer]

21 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

BW / C&RT themselves have suggest 2.5x the current rate for continuous cruisers and hire boats.

 

This was their proposed scale of charges as a multiplyer of the 'base licence fee'

 

 

I thought this table was issued by the IWA in a submission to (the then) BW.Is it possible to show the origin of this document ? Many thanks and apologies if my memory has not served me well..

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Quaffer said:

I thought this table was issued by the IWA in a submission to (the then) BW.Is it possible to show the origin of this document ? Many thanks and apologies if my memory has not served me well..

 

I dont know the 'original' origin but I got it (some years ago) as an extract of a C&RT/BW document - I do not know if they had simply used a table from elesewhere (IWA ?) or if was their own.

 

The figures were put forward (in a different form) in the original consultation document (see pages 7/12 to 9/12)

 

4. PROPOSED CHANGES

4.1. In light of the preceding analysis, BW is confident that its basic fee structure is appropriate and defensible since in general fee differentials are related to relative cost impact and/or ability/willingness to pay on the part of the customer. There should therefore continue to be two main categories of licence equivalent to the current business and private licences with the former costing 2.47 times the latter.

 

Continuous cruisers (boats that have no home mooring)

1. These boats also have a higher intensity of use. BW’s 2004 boat owners’ survey3 indicated that they cruise on average for 177 days per year, which is significantly more than that of a hire boat. The case for the higher rate is therefore strong on cost impact grounds.

 

2. In terms of willingness to pay, there is evidence from the same survey that the typical household income of continuous cruisers is significantly lower than that of boaters with home moorings and this might suggest a lower ability to pay. On the other hand, since the boat is frequently the primary residence, the licence fee is a  component of housing cost and as such, likely to be subject to different price considerations. In particular, an individual’s willingness to pay for housing is generally substantially higher his willingness to pay for leisure boating.

 

3. Although it is difficult to be precise about the relative balance of the two above factors, we believe there is probably a case to be made for charging the higher rate for continuous cruisers. We invite views on this.

 

4. If the higher rate were introduced, we would propose phasing the increase in annual licence fee for existing customers over two years. There would be stepped rises from April 2006 and April 2007 with the full 2.47 multiple payable from April 2008. New customers without a home mooring would pay the higher rate immediately.

 

5. Higher rate licences would be offered to continuous cruisers for periods of three, six or twelve months, with the relative cost of the shorter periods being the same as for the current private boat licence (i.e. 35% and 60% respectively of the twelve month rate). This would reduce the impact of the change on people who cruise continuously for only a part of each year. 6. Licence applicants already declare their home mooring location on the application form. BW would introduce a validation process to minimise the risk of false declarations.

 

The fee structure for boat licences in england and wales, a consultation 2005 (76Kb PDF) (britishwaterways.co.uk)

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Continuous cruisers (boats that have no home mooring)

1. These boats also have a higher intensity of use. BW’s 2004 boat owners’ survey3 indicated that they cruise on average for 177 days per year, which is significantly more than that of a hire boat. The case for the higher rate is therefore strong on cost impact grounds.

 

This is rubbish. No one pays on the basis of how many goes they have on the canal. Some people never have a go, but pay licence fees. They don't get a rebate or any consideration, based on use. 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

This is rubbish. No one pays on the basis of how many goes you have on the canal. Some people never have a go, but pay licence fees. They don't get a rebate or any consideration, based on use. 

 

 

 

You will soon be paying "pay per mile" on the roads - why not the canal.

 

"The user pays" is always the best way of charging for anything.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You will soon be paying "pay per mile" on the roads - why not the canal.

 

"The user pays" is always the best way of charging for anything.

 

Great, I'll have a free one, each year I choose to spend in a marina. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Great, I'll have a free one, each year I choose to spend in a marina. 

 

 

 

Of course - but you can already choose from the dozens of marinas that don't require you have have a licence anyway..

[Quaffer]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I dont know the 'original' origin but I got it (some years ago) as an extract of a C&RT/BW document - I do not know if they had simply used a table from elesewhere (IWA ?) or if was their own.

 

The figures were put forward (in a different form) in the original consultation document (see pages 7/12 to 9/12)

 

4. PROPOSED CHANGES

4.1. In light of the preceding analysis, BW is confident that its basic fee structure is appropriate and defensible since in general fee differentials are related to relative cost impact and/or ability/willingness to pay on the part of the customer. There should therefore continue to be two main categories of licence equivalent to the current business and private licences with the former costing 2.47 times the latter.

 

Continuous cruisers (boats that have no home mooring)

1. These boats also have a higher intensity of use. BW’s 2004 boat owners’ survey3 indicated that they cruise on average for 177 days per year, which is significantly more than that of a hire boat. The case for the higher rate is therefore strong on cost impact grounds.

 

2. In terms of willingness to pay, there is evidence from the same survey that the typical household income of continuous cruisers is significantly lower than that of boaters with home moorings and this might suggest a lower ability to pay. On the other hand, since the boat is frequently the primary residence, the licence fee is a  component of housing cost and as such, likely to be subject to different price considerations. In particular, an individual’s willingness to pay for housing is generally substantially higher his willingness to pay for leisure boating.

 

3. Although it is difficult to be precise about the relative balance of the two above factors, we believe there is probably a case to be made for charging the higher rate for continuous cruisers. We invite views on this.

 

4. If the higher rate were introduced, we would propose phasing the increase in annual licence fee for existing customers over two years. There would be stepped rises from April 2006 and April 2007 with the full 2.47 multiple payable from April 2008. New customers without a home mooring would pay the higher rate immediately.

 

5. Higher rate licences would be offered to continuous cruisers for periods of three, six or twelve months, with the relative cost of the shorter periods being the same as for the current private boat licence (i.e. 35% and 60% respectively of the twelve month rate). This would reduce the impact of the change on people who cruise continuously for only a part of each year. 6. Licence applicants already declare their home mooring location on the application form. BW would introduce a validation process to minimise the risk of false declarations.

 

The fee structure for boat licences in england and wales, a consultation 2005 (76Kb PDF) (britishwaterways.co.uk)

Thanks that's much clearer,it was a consultation proposal in 2005 .

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Of course - but you can already choose from the dozens of marinas that don't require you have have a licence anyway..

 

No, we're arguing on the basis of making use of the canal. That's the premise of your previous point.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

No, we're arguing on the basis of making use of the canal. That's the premise of your previous point.

 

 

 

Have you already forgotten what you wrote ?

 

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Great, I'll have a free one, each year I choose to spend in a marina. 

 

 

 

 

 

You can, in effect, already do that (as you well know' but love to argue about)

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Have you already forgotten what you wrote ?

 

 

 

 

You can, in effect, already do that (as you well know' but love to argue about)

 

What has that got to do with the point you're trying to make over use? 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

What has that got to do with the point you're trying to make over use? 

 

 

 

I'll say this s...l...o...w...l...y for you.

 

You suggested if you stayed in a marina you would not have to pay anything.

 

I agree (pay by use means do not use do not pay)

 

I then pointed out that (as you well know) there are already many marinas where you do not need to pay for a licence which is exactly 'pay by use' as you are not using the canal you do not need pay for a licence.

 

 

Is that difficult for you to understand - particularly as it was you who raised the subject of Marinas.

 

[Quaffer]

12 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Sadly I believe the notice above is incorrect.The original 48hr Visitor Mooring at Stanstead Abbotts was shortened under the London Mooring Strategy and the section directly opposite the Jolly Fisherman  changed permanently to 14 days as shown in the sign above.Further along to the south there is another sign indicating where the current  2 Day VM starts and this is subject to the extended stay charge between April 1st and 31st October.Outside these dates this VM also reverts to 14 Days.

 

There is a team of Volunteer Mooring Rangers   who  collect boat index data in the area sufficient so that Canal & River Trust could in theory make an overstay charge.This is a matter between CRT and the boater in question ,so I don't know if this happens.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'll say this s...l...o...w...l...y for you.

 

You suggested if you stayed in a marina you would not have to pay anything.

 

I agree (pay by use means do not use do not pay)

 

I then pointed out that (as you well know) there are already many marinas where you do not need to pay for a licence which is exactly 'pay by use' as you are not using the canal you do not need pay for a licence.

 

 

Is that difficult for you to understand - particularly as it was you who raised the subject of Marinas.

 

 

It seems difficult for you to understand that the discussion started from a point of use of the canals and costs per use. If you want to discuss the issue of licences and the extortion practice of Marinas/CRT, feel free.