Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

For a forty foot boat, I now pay about £1900 a year for the privilege of being on the canal. I don't see why you shouldn't pay the equivalent rate - you moor up as often as I do, just in different places a bit more often.

I haven't noticed anyone suggesting my mooring fee of about £800 should be halved because I spend half the year cruising.

I pay £12,500 a year for a 30 foot boat but to be fair it does have a central London residential mooring. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have said before I won't be paying for a CRT license so it doesn't matter, however I did the consultation you haven't its definitely skewed to give the answer CRT wants. You are right they are going to increase widebeams and CCers a lot I would expect and sewer tubes will get hit as well to a lesser extent. As I said I have a mooring secured off CRT waters how many others will follow suit? If enough get scrapped and enough move it will have a negative outcome for CRT, meaning more will have to be charged next year.

I have had years of watching the waterways decline nothing is going to change that until managers start managing 

 

And why is that skewed? Really, give an actual reason not just saying "because it is"... 😉

 

CART have said that they have to increase license fees by above the rate of inflation, and are giving boaters the chance to say how they think this should be done -- flat rate, or differentiated.

 

What question(s) would *you* have asked to make this somehow less "skewed"?

 

BTW I agree with your assessment of the likely fee increases -- everyone will pay more, widebeams and CCers a *lot* more -- because it's exactly what I already posted... 🙂

 

And how do you think that "managers starting managing" is magically going to fix CARTs fundamental problem, which is not enough money to do the work needed?

Edited March 7, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

And why is that skewed? Really, give an actual reason not just saying "because it is"... 😉

 

CART have said that they have to increase license fees by above the rate of inflation, and are giving boaters the chance to say how they think this should be done -- flat rate, or differentiated.

 

What question(s) would *you* have asked to make this somehow less "skewed"?

When you do the consultation you like others will understand, all questions lead to the same place. But don't hold your breath to getting it same as Alan 

[IanD]

Just now, peterboat said:

When you do the consultation you like others will understand, all questions lead to the same place. But don't hold your breath to getting it same as Alan 

So please explain -- you've done it, exactly how is it "skewed"?

 

Unless by "the same place" you mean "an overall increase in license fees" -- which is not skewing or even in the consultation, because CART have said this is going to happen anyway, because it has to... 😞

[magnetman]

It is interesting to consider how many people actually will get off the canals. 

 

Having boated on the Thames regularly for over 30 yars I can confirm that yes it is packed with wide beam canal boats. Standing room only in some places. Even Lechlade, which was traditionally quite nice and chilled, is liable to be full of floating apartments with diesel engines running all evening spoiling the peace. 

 

Times change. 

 

I think for the cut a lot of people know that is too cheap and will happily pay more. 

 

The most intriguing thing is can the CRT cause a negative impact on second hand boat prices. 

 

There arrr too many boats. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by magnetman
Edit to remove accidental moderate sex references

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I think for the cut a lot of people know that is too cheap and will happily pay more. 

 

Actually, no I wouldn't. I don't hold myself responsible for an organisational screw up. A screw up that is not destined to get better. 

 

 

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Actually, no I wouldn't. I don't hold myself responsible for an organisational screw up. A screw up that is not destined to get better. 

 

 

 

That is up to you. You can go and do something else if canalling is too expensive. 

 

Stately homes are probably quite nice but I can't afford one so don't have one.

 

If price for something goes up and you can't afford it then you don't have it. 

 

This is the basis of a market economy. Do you think that canals should be excluded from this ? 

 

If so then why? 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

Peter's saying it's "skewed to get the answers CART wanted" because it includes questions about whether widebeams like his should be charged more (e.g. charging by boat area)... 😉

 

I haven't seen it yet either, but going by the FAQs the "skew" is an inbuilt assumption that the average license fee will go up -- which should come as no great surprise to anyone, and CART explain why this is necessary.

 

On top of that it's asking whether this should be done by increasing all fees by the same percentage, or changing the fee structure so some boaters -- with bigger/wider boats, or CCers who use the system more -- should pay a bigger increase. Many people think that's fair -- except for those who would pay more, who mostly don't.

 

However since wideboats are greatly outnumbered by narrowboats and CCers by those with a home mooring, it seems likely that there will be a big majority in favour of differential pricing, because most people would rather that other people paid more instead of them... 😉

 

(actually it's likely that everyone will pay more, but some will pay more than others -- Animal Farm, anyone?)

 

AFAIK it's all about fee increases, there's nothing about changing the CC rules even though this might make sense -- but then they're so widely flouted nowadays by CMers there's no point changing the rules without effective enforcement, which isn't happening.

 

I have seen nothing in the FAQs that could possibly be considered to be changing the rules (or is that just @LadyG scaremongering ?) the FAqs are simply stating that they need to change / increaase the costs of the boat licence and make more subdivisions / licence variables than in the past.

 

This has been in constant discussion for many years and even Nigel Moore (RIP) agreed that the existing legislation allows them to do that.

 

@LadyG suggestion was that C&RT were to unilaterally change the 'laws' (rules)  regarding CCing requirements.

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

 

My suggestion previously was that the 'standard licence was priced at (say) £5000 and then discounts for length, narrowness, age, zero-emission, etc etc could be deducted from that. So (for example) a 60 foot x 12 foot boat boat without a home mooring would pay the standard licence of £5000, and a 60ft x 7 foot would have a 50% "narrow" discount, with a further 50% discount if it has a home mooring, and a 25% discount for electric propulsion

(All figures for discussion and are only examples)

 

And yes - I was on C&RT waters and had a 14 foot beam boat. 

I believe that 'user should pay'

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Actually, no I wouldn't. I don't hold myself responsible for an organisational screw up. A screw up that is not destined to get better. 

 

 

I think I’ve mentioned before, price elasticity of demand. Clearly CRT can raise more money, but it would take skill to fully understand or forecast it to extract the maximum increase in money from licensing. By differentiating between different kinds of boater that max is lower though. Maybe narrowboats with home mooring WILL pay more, but in phase 2 of this overall master plan.

[magnetman]

I wonder if the CRT could be considered to be a monopoly in the provision of inland waterways based pleasure activities. 

 

Do pleasure activities come under monopoly law? 

 

They do own quite a big chunk of the UK network. 

 

Is pleasure a human right? One would hope so. 

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

. Maybe narrowboats with home mooring WILL pay more, but in phase 2 of this overall master plan.

 

 

The master plan is to raise the costs more and more then take the money and run leaving all the boats in muddy derelict ditches with a couple of inches of water and dead fishes. 

 

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it ! 

 

The CRT big boys are laughing all the way to the Leeds Building Society. 

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder if the CRT could be considered to be a monopoly in the provision of inland waterways based pleasure activities. 

 

Do pleasure activities come under monopoly law? 

 

They do own quite a big chunk of the UK network. 

 

Is pleasure a human right? One would hope so. 

They’re not, there’s other canals.

[Higgs]

11 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I think I’ve mentioned before, price elasticity of demand. Clearly CRT can raise more money, but it would take skill to fully understand or forecast it to extract the maximum increase in money from licensing. By differentiating between different kinds of boater that max is lower though. Maybe narrowboats with home mooring WILL pay more, but in phase 2 of this overall master plan.

 

This thread is based on the the cost of living. There are people that can absorb that cost, others can't. Should the price of everything be set at a rate that only a few can afford? You can see what happens when the goalposts are moved. Government intervention. Tax money - no one wins, but the market. 

 

Let's just put the price of diesel up 500% - would that be good for the market - of course it would. I'm not interested in paying to finance more market crap, for the sake of the market. If there's no plan to improve standards on the canal, paying more is throwing good after bad. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

Just now, Paul C said:

They’re not, there’s other canals.

They do have a very large majority though. 

 

Monopoly law is not about having just one provider it is about being careful that one provider does not become disproportionately large in the marketplace. 

 

 

[Paul C]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

This thread is based on the the cost of living. There are people that can absorb that cost, others can't. Should the price of everything be set at a rate that only a few can afford? You can see what happens when the goalposts are moved. Government intervention. Tax money - no one wins. 

 

Let's just put the price of diesel up 500% - would that be good for the market - of course it would. I'm not interested in paying to finance more market crap, for the sake of the market. If there's no plan to improve standards on the canal, paying more is throwing good after bad. 

 

 

But garages do set their price of diesel to earn a profit, if they set it too high then nobody would buy it at their garages. It’s a commercial thing.

 

And now the canals are effectively privatised too, because govt funding is shrinking. And there’s other canals and stuff, and the choice to not own/live on a boat.

[magnetman]

I do think that certain people believe canals should somehow be excluded from the forces which control a capitalist economy. 

 

It is interesting to consider why this might be. I lived on a narrow boat for 13 yars and do know that it can be hard work in terms of the psychological impact. I believe it could cause people to think that it is unreasonable to be paying much money for such an unsatisfactory living space. 

 

Putting the costs up could be incredibly liberating for people who are forced to move off the boat. It could end up being a real godsend. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by magnetman
Typos

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

But garages do set their price of diesel to earn a profit, if they set it too high then nobody would buy it at their garages. It’s a commercial thing.

 

And now the canals are effectively privatised too, because govt funding is shrinking. And there’s other canals and stuff, and the choice to not own/live on a boat.

 

Anything that was public and goes into private hands you can be sure will drain the public coffers. Only shareholders would make money and have no responsibilities. 

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Anything that was public and goes into private hands you can be sure will drain the public coffers. Only shareholders would make money and have no responsibilities. 

 

 

So you can plan for the future now, knowing that your costs are going up.

[Higgs]

11 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So you can plan for the future now, knowing that your costs are going up.

 

That's not how it happened. Sudden emergency causes fuel bills to spiral beyond expected (planned) inflation. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I do think that certain people believe canals should somehow be excluded from the forces which control a capitalist economy. 

 

The market place is a fk up. 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

4 hours ago, magnetman said:

They do have a very large majority though. 

 

C&RT have approximately 50% of navigable Inland Waterways (by distance), & they have approximately 33% of the number of boats registered on the Inland Waterways

 

There are some 28  21 Navigation Authorities.

 

Yes, they are a major-player but are a long way off being in a monopolistic situation

Edited March 7, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That's not how it happened. Sudden emergency causes fuel bills to spiral beyond expected (planned) inflation. 

 

 

 

The market place is a fk up. 

 

 

No I mean with possible future licence price increases.

 

Fuel going up….how much exactly, has yours gone up by?

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

No I mean with possible future licence price increases.

 

Fuel going up….how much exactly, has yours gone up by?

 

 

Fine. I've had my boat 20 years, the licence fee has doubled in 20 years. Tell me it will double in twenty years, or 10 - no problem. 

 

My fuel has gone up at a similar rate to everyone's. Coal, last year - £12.50. this year, as much as £23.00, for the same. Not normal, for a reason, I know. So, normal is something most people can cope with, abnormal isn't.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I haven't noticed anyone complaining of marina moorers, that never use the canal, paying a licence fee for others privilege, and a connection fee. And your mooring fee is a personal choice to have. 

 

 

But then it was your personal choice to moor in the marina, and you certainly complained enough! I'm sure I noticed that, once or twice over the years. You must have missed it.

It's a bit like people complaing that they've been "cancelled" while sounding off all over the media.

Seriously, your current personal choice is to utilise online mooring facilities available to you, provided by CRTs maintenance of the canal side, while not paying a penny towards them. Unfortunately,  I suspect CRT think you should, just as they think you should pay nightly at some places.

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

The market place is a fk up. 

 

No it isn't, it's working perfectly, generating enormous profits for a few while ripping off everyone else. That's how free markets work, and why sensible economies regulate them. You need to study history, and possibly economics.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But then it was your personal choice to moor in the marina, and you certainly complained enough! I'm sure I noticed that, once or twice over the years. You must have missed it.

It's a bit like people complaing that they've been "cancelled" while sounding off all over the media.

Seriously, your current personal choice is to utilise online mooring facilities available to you, provided by CRTs maintenance of the canal side, while not paying a penny towards them. Unfortunately,  I suspect CRT think you should, just as they think you should pay nightly at some places.

 

You understand the financial liability, when you take on a mooring. I understand the setup, when I'm no longer a moorer. I do not think your licence and paid-for mooring give you any right to challenge the arrangement, established after the need for a home mooring was abolished. 

 

You pay for the mooring you have. Considering the costs you're trying to apply to CC'ers, I think it would be fair that they apply to you, and everyone that uses the canal, if it is your wish to be fair. Your own mooring wouldn't count for anything, when you're out and about. 

 

Do you pay anything more than the licence fee? 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT have approximately 50% of navigable Inland Waterways (by distance), & they have approximately 33% of the number of boats registered on the Inland Waterways

 

There are some 28 Navigation Authorities.

 

Yes, they are a major-player but are a long way off being in a monopolistic situation

 

That is interesting.

 

Thank you. I didn't know that the boats registered to CRT were a minority of inland waterways. 

 

I suppose one could perhaps exclude tidal rivers in this and assume the need for satisfactory access for people with canal boats. And free towpath moorings. 

 

That would probably change the numbers. 

Edited March 7, 2023 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

That is interesting.

 

Thank you. I didn't know that the boats registered to CRT were a minority of inland waterways. 

 

I suppose one could perhaps exclude tidal rivers in this and assume the need for satisfactory access for people with canal boats. And free towpath moorings. 

 

That would probably change the numbers. 

 

 

The EA have almost as many boats registered as C&RT.

 

There are over 90,000 boats registered on the Inland Waterways (C&RT are somewhere around 30,000-33,000)