Charges or fines ?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

Do we know how much more?

 

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'

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Thomas C King]

5 minutes 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'

 

 

 

Well, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I was expecting it to be much higher. Perhaps they were proposing a low figure that is still insufficient, because they were expecting push-back. But pretty irrelevant what I want.

[IanD]

5 minutes 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'

 

 

 

That was also before the introduction of higher charges for widebeam boats -- which many would say are still not big enough, should maybe be proportional to width so another 2x for a 14' wide -- and was intended to be revenue-neutral.

 

If there's also a need to just plain raise more revenue, all these numbers are multiplied up -- to double revenue (still not enough to make boaters the #1 priority?) they all double.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Well, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I was expecting it to be much higher. Perhaps they were proposing a low figure that is still insufficient, because they were expecting push-back. But pretty irrelevant what I want.

 

2.5 x for continuous cruising - off their trollies. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Well, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. I was expecting it to be much higher. Perhaps they were proposing a low figure that is still insufficient, because they were expecting push-back. But pretty irrelevant what I want.

 

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

If there's also a need to just plain raise more revenue, all these numbers are multiplied up -- to double revenue (still not enough to make boaters the #1 priority?) they all double.

 

 

But that is stage 1, not necessarily the 'finish list'. 

Further increase could be phased in over (say) 3 years as they did with the wide beam surcharge (that no doubt the Baton Twirling brigade say they cannot legally do anyway !)

[Higgs]

I believe that people campaigned to make having home mooring unnecessary. It was adopted in law, wasn't it. 

 

 

[Momac]

On 10/04/2022 at 22:16, frangar said:

Sadly its idiots with attitudes like the OP has that leads to signs like this being needed in the first place...by and large 30 years and more ago those that lived on the cut followed the few rules that existed and everyone got along just fine....in the last few years the self entitled have arrived and think they should have everything without either paying for it or thinking of others. 

Some of the over stayers don't live aboard but they think they can abandon their boat for a week or more on a time  restricted mooring. The shame is they usually get away with it in the area local to me as C&RT dont have the resources to police every mooring. Overstaying does not  effect C&RT at all  but it is  really inconsiderate  to other boaters. 

 

 

 

[IanD]

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But that is stage 1, not necessarily the 'finish list'. 

Further increase could be phased in over (say) 3 years as they did with the wide beam surcharge (that no doubt the Baton Twirling brigade say they cannot legally do anyway !)

 

To soften the impact it would make sense for any changes -- bigger premium for wideboats, changing charges depending on usage as in the table, overall revenue increase -- to be phased in over several years.

 

If the overall take is to go up -- which I think it should do -- then differential charging is essential to avoid (for example) pricing pensioners on small/old/cheap boats off the canals, by extracting a lot more money from those most likely to be able to afford it (e.g. people on big/new/expensive boats).

18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Some of the over stayers don't live aboard but they think they can abandon their boat for a week or more on a time  restricted mooring. The shame is they usually get away with it in the area local to me as C&RT dont have the resources to police every mooring. Overstaying does not  effect C&RT at all  but it is  really inconsiderate  to other boaters.

 

 

Exactly, and it's happening in more and more places -- but is especially bad in a few, like London and the Western K&A which are in danger of effectively becoming "no-go" zones for visitors as a result.

 

Selfishness (or NBTA-style self-entitlement to ignore the rules) by boaters is at the heart of this problem 😞

 

CART not having resources to police every mooring won't be a problem if the nasty rapacious car parking companies get given the job, £25 will seem like a bargain... 😞 😞 😞

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

I believe that people campaigned to make having home mooring unnecessary. It was adopted in law, wasn't it. 

 

 

 

 

But the law did not say that those who use most of the resources should pay the same as those that only use them for a couple of weeks per year.

 

You suggest that all of the bins, toilets, showers, etc etc are covered in the licence fee, then you must accept that CCers use of these facilities costs C&RT way more per year than when 'weekenders' use them.

 

The philosohy is 'the user should pay' so you cannot have it both ways.

[Higgs]

How about pensioners on big expensive, new boats, or big people on small old boats? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But the law did not say that those who use most of the resources should pay the same as those that only use them for a couple of weeks per year.

 

What does it say about people who never use the resources and pay 9% above the going rate? 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Higgs

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You suggest that all of the bins, toilets, showers, etc etc are covered in the licence fee, then you must accept that CCers use of these facilities costs C&RT way more per year than when 'weekenders' use them.

 

They don't send around the refuse collection for one bag of rubbish. The Elsans are emptied until the collection vehicle is full, or until the Elsan is empty. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

What does it say about people who never use the resources and pay 9% above the going rate? 

 

And who are they ?

 

Would they be the marinas who pay C&RT 9% of their mooring fees ? to be allowed to be connected to C&RTs water ?

 

Moorers do not have to stay in a marina, and even when they do, there are choices of marinas, many of whom do not pay the NAA, and yet their mooring fees are (strangely) similar to those that do.

 

Why is that ?

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

How about pensioners on big expensive, new boats, or big people on small old boats?

 

What does it say about people who never use the resources and pay 9% above the going rate?

 

 

All you're doing is raising objections to anything put forward. How about you come up with some workable ideas to fix the problem instead?

 

The only usable options are some mixture (tweaked to get the best compromise) of 3 basic systems:

 

1. everyone pays the same flat rate

2. people pay according to usage (e.g. CCers pay more) and/or "load" on the system (e.g. wideboats pay more)

3. people pay according to their resources (e.g. rich people on expensive boats pay more, poor people on cheap boats pay less)

 

Over to you... 😉

 

P.S. This is the old perennial license fee debate again, not the subject of this thread which was mooring charges/fines... 😞

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And who are they ?

 

Would they be the marinas who pay C&RT 9% of their mooring fees ? to be allowed to be connected to C&RTs water ?

 

Moorers do not have to stay in a marina, and even when they do, there are choices of marinas, many of whom do not pay the NAA, and yet their mooring fees are (strangely) similar to those that do.

 

Why is that ?

 

Do you mean - why do people working from and living on their boats in the south choose to moor in the south? As opposed to having the choice of working in the south and mooring somewhere convenient for your argument, in the north? Beats me, could be common sense. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

All you're doing is raising objections to anything put forward. How about you come up with some workable ideas to fix the problem instead?

 

I pay a decent amount of licence fee - end of. 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Higgs

[IanD]

I'll just point out again that the legal position for CART charging for designated moorings/overstaying on them looks to be pretty much identical to car parks -- except the charges for these are *far* higher, and the fines/charges for overstaying are *massively* higher, and the companies make lots of profits out of "persecuting" motorists.

 

And if CART resort to using these companies to control their moorings -- because it's easy and costs them nothing, and will work -- the most likely result is a similar huge increase in both mooring fees and penalties, especially if you don't pay up immediately.

 

And of this happens, all the rule-following boaters will end up paying a lot more because of the rule-breaking overstayers... 😞

Edited April 14, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

All you're doing is raising objections to anything put forward. How about you come up with some workable ideas to fix the problem instead?

 

The only usable options are some mixture (tweaked to get the best compromise) of 3 basic systems:

 

1. everyone pays the same flat rate

2. people pay according to usage (e.g. CCers pay more) or "load" on the system (e.g. wideboats pay more)

3. people pay according to their resources (e.g. rich people on expensive boats pay more, poor people on cheap boats pay less)

 

Over to you... 😉

I think if you presented your ideal figures in a colourful pie chart or a graph it might make your points clearer. 
 

Here’s one, how do you see your vision for CRT in comparison ?

 

[Higgs]

 

That's broke, is it? 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Higgs

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's broke, is it? 

 

 

IanD wants to fix it
 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Goliath

[Higgs]

Just now, Goliath said:

IanD reckon wants to fix it

 

Change the management.

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I just thought it’d give him something to do. 
Keep him occupied for awhile. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I think if you presented your ideal figures in a colourful pie chart or a graph it might make your points clearer. 
 

Here’s one, how do you see your vision for CRT in comparison ?

 

 

I don't have a "vision" for CART, just some facts.

 

CART income isn't enough to properly maintain the canals, especially given the neglect over many years, and a big increase is needed to fix this (one estimate was £100M a year)

 

This is very unlikely to come from the government, especially this one. So they need to get more money from elsewhere.

 

One source (because it's "elastic") is license and facility (e.g. mooring) fees -- which many people thing are a bit of a bargain anyway compared to other lifestyles.

 

A big increase here would have to mean much more graduated license fees (some pay less, some pay a *lot* more) to avoid pricing people off the canals.

 

If mooring fees/penalties are to be increased/enforced (e.g. by parking companies) everyone will end up paying a lot more for them.

 

Do you disagree with any of this? 😉

 

 

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

IanD wants to fix it
 

 

Since the alternative is to stick my head in the sand and hope the problem goes away -- yes, I'd like CART to fix it 😉

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

I just thought it’d give him something to do. 
Keep him occupied for awhile. 

Troll 😉

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

I just thought it’d give him something to do. 
Keep him occupied for awhile. 

 

I bet the cost of a nail is put down as £5.00 a throw. 

 

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's broke, is it? 

 

 

Yes. That's why the canals are b*ggered, as you and many others keep complaining... 😉

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Troll 😉

I’m trying to distract myself from taking my water tank out. 
Not enjoying doing it. 
 

 

[Higgs]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

This is very unlikely to come from the government, especially this one. So they need to get more money from elsewhere.

 

£0.5 billion, off the rail franchise's indirect subsidy. Even £100 million. There are 1.8 billion passengers a year, they wouldn't notice it. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Yes. That's why the canals are b*ggered, as you and many others keep complaining... 😉

 

I'm not complaining. Isn't being buggered an aesthetic part of the canal system. 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Higgs