Jump to content

Is the current infrastructure really any worse than the 70s 80s?


Featured Posts

18 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

Based on what the boat was worth in 1992 perhaps?

 

The suggestion to which I was replying to was that it should be based on insured value.

 

 

45 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Insured value would be a reasonable approach.  Most people won't deliberately over insure or under insure their boats.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

CRT have the details of your insurer and policy number, so it's a trivial extra data field on the database.

Having the extra field in the database is trivial. But getting the insurers to release (or confirm) the insured values may not be. GDPR considerations apart, why would they want to get involved in the extra hassle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

Having the extra field in the database is trivial. But getting the insurers to release (or confirm) the insured values may not be. GDPR considerations apart, why would they want to get involved in the extra hassle?

 

 

I was thinking that too. I can't think of ANY situation currently where insures reveal the insured values in their contracts to a third party, or a Quango like CRT.

 

The customer could declare their insured value I suppose, but then we are back to people gaming the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/04/2022 at 09:38, Alan de Enfield said:

The suggestion to which I was replying to was that it should be based on insured value.

Yeah, I got that Alan - I was poking fun at unbelievably wierd way they set house values to determine the similar banding system for council tax. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Slim said:

My proposal is that you surcharge those who don't pay Council Tax

 

At several Marinas / Marina Groups you must provide evidence that the boat is not your primary residence (a council tax bill in your name) before they will allocate you a leisure mooring - no CT bill (or other evidence) and you can only apply for a residential mooring and you pay all the necessary taxes etc.

 

Maybe C&RT can do similar - provide evidence that the boat is not your main residence and you pay X for the licence, if you cannot prove it you pay 3X or 5X or whatever the multiplier is.

 

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At several Marinas / Marina Groups you must provide evidence that the boat is not your primary residence (a council tax bill in your name) before they will allocate you a leisure mooring - no CT bill (or other evidence) and you can only apply for a residential mooring and you pay all the necessary taxes etc.

 

Maybe C&RT can do similar - provide evidence that the boat is not your main residence and you pay X for the licence, if you cannot prove it you pay 3X or 5X or whatever the multiplier is.

 

 

 

its not hard to be on someone else's council tax bill is it Alan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

its not hard to be on someone else's council tax bill is it Alan?

 

I have no idea, nobody else is on ours, and as far as I know we are not shown on any other council tax bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I have no idea, nobody else is on ours, and as far as I know we are not shown on any other council tax bill.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best way forward is to think of the kind of boats/boat owners you don't like and/or regard as most likely to "pinch" mooring spots you'd like to use once a year on your holibobs and generally be in the way or cause you to have to slow down, then dream up a way to price them orf the canals. That's got to help CRT maintain the canals. :thumbsup:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At several Marinas / Marina Groups you must provide evidence that the boat is not your primary residence (a council tax bill in your name) before they will allocate you a leisure mooring - no CT bill (or other evidence) and you can only apply for a residential mooring and you pay all the necessary taxes etc.

 

Maybe C&RT can do similar - provide evidence that the boat is not your main residence and you pay X for the licence, if you cannot prove it you pay 3X or 5X or whatever the multiplier is.

 

 

 

I currently live in my dad's old home from his parents, his name is on the council tax as a second home. Your proposal would see me having to leave the canal I love because my life doesn't satisfy a tickbox scenario. Certainly couldn't live on my little Shetland but why the heck should I have to pay more (even at 3x) for my licence than a 70' narrowboat because the owner of that also owns a property? Just playing devil's advocate but people who lodge, live with family etc etc don't fit the 'Show us a council tax bill' criteria.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Are you deliberately missing the point?

Exactly Richard, I was on my Sisters and brother in laws for ages cost nowt 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/04/2022 at 19:11, David Mack said:

Most of the time estate agents don't value properties. What they do is suggest to a vendor an asking price, which may (or may not) then be the asking price. Prospective purchasers then offer - at the asking price, or sometimes higher if they think that will secure them the purchase, or they may try a lower offer first. And there is then some haggling between vendor and purchaser, with the estate agent merely being the middle man, until both parties get a figure they can agree on. That is quite different from a boat valuer expressing his opinion of a boat's value and then expecting the boat owner to be bound by that opinion.

Community charge bands are not based on estate agents supposed valuations.

 

It plainly impractical to value 35000 boats every year as they are usually a decreasing asset. How would you cope in such a system with the present boom in boat values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Exactly Richard, I was on my Sisters and brother in laws for ages cost nowt 

Precisely. As long as you don't bump someone up from single occupancy to multiple on council tax (25% discount here for single), and as long as the number of people squares up with the size of the house (don't register 15 boaters to a one bedroom flat), one extra person on the roll costs no more.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Community charge bands are not based on estate agents supposed valuations.

 

It plainly impractical to value 35000 boats every year as they are usually a decreasing asset. How would you cope in such a system with the present boom in boat values?

 

Houses aren't reassessed every year, why would boats need to be? This is a means of getting license fees adjusted across all boats, if all values go up then the fees don't need to change. It's not beyond the wit of man to come up with a system that allows for this... 😉

 

Insured value could be a good way forward -- and yes, people (or their insurers) would have to disclose this value to CART. If you don't want to disclose it (with a copy of an official document to avoid fiddling), you don't get a license.

 

Yes any system can be gamed by dishonest people, but in this case if they deliberately understate the value of their boat to get a cheaper license they'd also find their insurance invalid, since this is fraud. If somebody doesn't care about this there's little that you can do to stop them, but most boaters wouldn't do this for obvious reasons -- and so long as the vast majority of boaters give an honest insurance value, the system would work.

 

It seems to me that -- as usual, and like happens with EVs or many other subjects -- people are putting forward spurious objections on the grounds that "it won't work for 100% of boaters", when it doesn't need to -- it just needs to work for most and be a lot fairer than the license fee today.

 

Don't forget this wouldn't be the only factor used to work out the license fee, it would be just one together with boat size, system usage and any other factors that make it "fairer" -- about which there would undoubtedly be endless arguments, especially from those who end up paying more. Also as usual, those who end up paying the same (or even less) won't make such a noise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Houses aren't reassessed every year, why would boats need to be? This is a means of getting license fees adjusted across all boats, if all values go up then the fees don't need to change. It's not beyond the wit of man to come up with a system that allows for this... 😉

 

Insured value could be a good way forward -- and yes, people (or their insurers) would have to disclose this value to CART. If you don't want to disclose it (with a copy of an official document to avoid fiddling), you don't get a license.

 

Yes any system can be gamed by dishonest people, but in this case if they deliberately understate the value of their boat to get a cheaper license they'd also find their insurance invalid, since this is fraud. If somebody doesn't care about this there's little that you can do to stop them, but most boaters wouldn't do this for obvious reasons -- and so long as the vast majority of boaters give an honest insurance value, the system would work.

 

It seems to me that -- as usual, and like happens with EVs or many other subjects -- people are putting forward spurious objections on the grounds that "it won't work for 100% of boaters", when it doesn't need to -- it just needs to work for most and be a lot fairer than the license fee today.

 

Don't forget this wouldn't be the only factor used to work out the license fee, it would be just one together with boat size, system usage and any other factors that make it "fairer" -- about which there would undoubtedly be endless arguments, especially from those who end up paying more. Also as usual, those who end up paying the same (or even less) won't make such a noise...

So I have a new boat valued at say £100.000 at day one.  I pay say £1000 for a licence.

 

Next year it worth a lot less due to depreciation as it is no longer new. I want to pay less so how do I get it revalued? Or do we let it ride for a few years like community charge to the next revaluation?

 

5 Years down the line it is worth say £60,000.  Now It has to be revalued, by whom, when, how? Is it fair? Right of appeal? 

Impractical system with 35000 owners demanding a revaluation and reduced licence every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

So I have a new boat valued at say £100.000 at day one.  I pay say £1000 for a licence.

 

Next year it worth a lot less due to depreciation as it is no longer new. I want to pay less so how do I get it revalued? Or do we let it ride for a few years like community charge to the next revaluation?

 

5 Years down the line it is worth say £60,000.  Now It has to be revalued, by whom, when, how? Is it fair? Right of appeal? 

Impractical system with 35000 owners demanding a revaluation and reduced licence every year.

 

Your insurance value drops every year if the boat value does, assuming you get it revalued. If you don't, it stays the same, as does your premium and license fee.

 

If you revalue it yourself and lie about that value, should you ever have to make a claim the insurance company will only pay out part -- or possibly none -- of the claim.

 

So insurance value is a pretty good way of deciding on boat value. It's not perfect, but then nothing is -- if we object to everything which isn't perfect, nothing ever changes... 😞

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, methinks... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Your insurance value drops every year if the boat value does, assuming you get it revalued. If you don't, it stays the same, as does your premium and license fee.

 

If you revalue it yourself and lie about that value, should you ever have to make a claim the insurance company will only pay out part -- or possibly none -- of the claim.

 

So insurance value is a pretty good way of deciding on boat value. It's not perfect, but then nothing is -- if we object to everything which isn't perfect, nothing ever changes... 😞

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, methinks... 😉

I think your idea is a black hole.   How is a boat owner going to value his boat for insurance? Most would down grade because they never claim. There are lots on 3rd party only, is that the same value as a fully comp boat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I think your idea is a black hole.   How is a boat owner going to value his boat for insurance? Most would down grade because they never claim. There are lots on 3rd party only, is that the same value as a fully comp boat?

Please read what I wrote.

 

There are always 2 ways of getting anything valued for insurance, one is some kind of professional certification, the other is self-certification. The first one is complex and expensive to administer (which has to be paid for), the second is cheap and easy but relies on the honesty of the owner -- and the fact that if they ever have to claim they'll be screwed if they grossly under-estimated the value (or over-estimated it deliberately before torching the house/boat/car...).

 

There probably isn't enough money involved to go down the first route, so self-certification is most likely. If people in old cheap boats with 3rd party only want to lie about this then there's little to stop them (though it wouldn't be that difficult for CART to spot boats with ridiculous valuations) -- but don't forget that any 3rd party claim would also be affected by what is essentially fraud. No different to any other types of insurance, none of which are completely fraud-proof. And you could always add a clause like license removal if the fraud comes to light, because this would count as not having paid the required license fee.

 

I'd like to think that the majority of boaters are reasonably honest and would see that this is a way to try and spread the cost of running the system more fairly across boaters, and who wouldn't take the risk of undervaluing their boat and possibly ending up accused of insurance fraud or having their license removed.

 

Just because some people bend/ignore/fiddle the rules doesn't mean the rules are wrong or a bad idea, just like speeding or CCing or mooring time restrictions... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I suggest that the value game is wrong as my experience of several  boaters with expensive boats is that take their boats so gently through locks that not an atom of algae is tickled let alone any possible wall rubbing or damage nor any infrastructure is harmed. 15 fenders on any mooring place are produced too. They surely should pay much less as their overall infrastructure footprint is less 😉 

 

 

 As Ian and MTB profess to be willing to pay more why don't CRT rephrase the licence fee request annually with box 1 the annual fee, box 2 what you would like to pay over this -say  1,000 2,000 or 5,000 extra. I dont think it could be gift aided, but perhaps that might be a goer if at all possible too to drum up additional resource. Even better CRT could produce a  plaque for boaters advising that this boater voluntarily pays more licence fee than asked for, blue no doubt with bronze silver or gold highlights. Surely that may help to give considerable funds on a voluntary basis.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Insured value could be a good way forward -- and yes, people (or their insurers) would have to disclose this value to CART. If you don't want to disclose it (with a copy of an official document to avoid fiddling), you don't get a license.

 

On 30/04/2022 at 09:44, David Mack said:

Having the extra field in the database is trivial. But getting the insurers to release (or confirm) the insured values may not be. GDPR considerations apart, why would they want to get involved in the extra hassle?

 

Pleasure boat licence T&C's: (my bold)

 

7.3. When You apply for a Licence You must provide the name of Your insurance company, the policy number and expiry date. We may ask for a copy of the certificate or policy schedule.
 
7.4. After the Boat is Licensed, We may request a copy of the insurance policy or schedule. We may check with Your insurer that the policy is valid. We may also give information We hold about Your Boat to Your insurance company.
 

 

 

Edited by TheBiscuits
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i understand that when you buy a boat and insure it, the value it is insured for is what you paid (This is I think how insurance of boats works). I have never heard of the insured value of a boat going down every year. I must be talking to the wrong insurance companies!  With our boat, until we paid to have it professionally revalued last year the insured value had stayed the same for about 10 years. I have no doubt there are insurance companies who do as IanD  suggests and drop the value every year and accept the owners valuation but I don't think that is the normal practice. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, haggis said:

i understand that when you buy a boat and insure it, the value it is insured for is what you paid (This is I think how insurance of boats works). I have never heard of the insured value of a boat going down every year. I must be talking to the wrong insurance companies!  With our boat, until we paid to have it professionally revalued last year the insured value had stayed the same for about 10 years. I have no doubt there are insurance companies who do as IanD  suggests and drop the value every year and accept the owners valuation but I don't think that is the normal practice. 

You may be in  for a nasty shock if you ever make a large claim, like a sinking or fire.

 

You can increase your insurance cover over the purchase price too. I do, to take account of what it would actually cost me to replace my boats in todays inflating market, the insurers Craft Insure accept this and charge a premium to suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I suggest that the value game is wrong as my experience of several  boaters with expensive boats is that take their boats so gently through locks that not an atom of algae is tickled let alone any possible wall rubbing or damage nor any infrastructure is harmed. 15 fenders on any mooring place are produced too. They surely should pay much less as their overall infrastructure footprint is less 😉 

 

 As Ian and MTB profess to be willing to pay more why don't CRT rephrase the licence fee request annually with box 1 the annual fee, box 2 what you would like to pay over this -say  1,000 2,000 or 5,000 extra. I dont think it could be gift aided, but perhaps that might be a goer if at all possible too to drum up additional resource. Even better CRT could produce a  plaque for boaters advising that this boater voluntarily pays more licence fee than asked for, blue no doubt with bronze silver or gold highlights. Surely that may help to give considerable funds on a voluntary basis.

 

 

I'm willing to pay more so long as all the other people in a similar position pay the same -- this is how pretty much all licence fees/taxation works (or is supposed to), it's called "fairness".

 

What you're talking about is effectively charity donations, which -- like many others -- I also do. Unfortunately you're also combining it with "look at me being super-philanthropic" bragging... 😞

3 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

You may be in  for a nasty shock if you ever make a large claim, like a sinking or fire.

 

You can increase your insurance cover over the purchase price too. I do, to take account of what it would actually cost me to replace my boats in todays inflating market, the insurers Craft Insure accept this and charge a premium to suit.

 

Which is why insurance valuing would work for most people. I think you've just shot your own argument down in flames... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm willing to pay more so long as all the other people in a similar position pay the same -- this is how pretty much all licence fees/taxation works (or is supposed to), it's called "fairness".

 

What you're talking about is effectively charity donations, which -- like many others -- I also do. Unfortunately you're also combining it with "look at me being super-philanthropic" bragging... 😞

 

Which is why insurance valuing would work for most people. I think you've just shot your own argument down in flames... 😉

I think charging on value, no matter how it was established would prove to be another salt tax for C&RT.

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.