Jump to content

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


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If there are only 5,500 continuous cruisers, as I've seen quoted somewhere, doubling their costs is going to be a drop in the wet stuff. Won't make much difference to CRTs income.

 

 

But it will make licensing fairer though, and fairness is something people left of centre seem to consider desirable.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

So, they would be liable for towpath levy.

 

 

 

If someone is not paying a penny to the navigation authority for the purpose of mooring a boat then yes. Otherwise it would make sense to look after good customers. 

I actually think tolls are the way ahead based on the number of hours a boat occupies a certain part of a waterway. 

 

Impossible to implement but would sort it. 

If towpaths were not maintained and were always too shallow to moor without causing an obstruction then you could argue for free moorings but if it is maintained and there is dredging and piling then this must be paid for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnetman said:

 

If someone is not paying a penny to the navigation authority for the purpose of mooring a boat then yes. Otherwise it would make sense to look after good customers. 

 

No. To use the towpath, everybody is included that uses it. If you have to moor on the towpath, the cost should apply to all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Higgs said:

 

No. To use the towpath, everybody is included that uses it. If you have to moor on the towpath, the cost should apply to all.

 

 

Obviously you think that but if it is a business which relies on customers then there is a strong argument for looking after those who are providing more income to the business even if it is to the detriment of customers who are choosing to pay less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Obviously you think that but if it is a business which relies on customers then there is a strong argument for looking after those who are providing more income to the business even if it is to the detriment of customers who are choosing to pay less. 

 

I don't choose to pay less. I'm paying the going rate. What is being suggested is moving the goalposts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRT get a slice of the home mooring fee, be it via the NAA, End-of-garden element; or by being the provider via BMWL or their own online moorings. You could say that home moorers have already paid for 365 days of mooring, so while they're out they get a notional credit on their own mooring to pay a notional amount for the towpath. Otherwise they would be being charged twice for one thing - and that wouldn't be fair, would it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't have a place to leave the boat you are actually choosing to pay less. In return you have a disadvantage which is that you arrr not allowed to leave the boat anywhere for more than 14 days unless reasonable in the circumstances. Maybe reasonable in the circumstances could include fuel poverty. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

CRT get a slice of the home mooring fee, be it via the NAA, End-of-garden element; or by being the provider via BMWL or their own online moorings. You could say that home moorers have already paid for 365 days of mooring, so while they're out they get a notional credit on their own mooring to pay a notional amount for the towpath. Otherwise they would be being charged twice for one thing - and that wouldn't be fair, would it?

Fairness doesn't come into it if someone else is paying more. It is only when one has pay more oneself that it becomes unfair. 

 

I was always taught that nothing is fair anyway and believe this to be true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

CRT get a slice of the home mooring fee, be it via the NAA, End-of-garden element; or by being the provider via BMWL or their own online moorings. You could say that home moorers have already paid for 365 days of mooring, so while they're out they get a notional credit on their own mooring to pay a notional amount for the towpath. Otherwise they would be being charged twice for one thing - and that wouldn't be fair, would it?

 

Home moorers have paid for an exclusive mooring. That isn't paying the supposed towpath tally. When people stand up to CRT, for making marina moorers pay for a licence that has no legal status on private property, when some moorers never leave that private property, you're not going to find me receptive to this plan. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If you don't have a place to leave the boat you are actually choosing to pay less. In return you have a disadvantage which is that you arrr not allowed to leave the boat anywhere for more than 14 days unless reasonable in the circumstances. Maybe reasonable in the circumstances could include fuel poverty. 

 

 

You're actually using the present rules, as they have been created.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

If that's addressed to me - you know my terms.

 

 

Which is fair enough. Everyone is selfish, they are happy for changes so long as its positive for them. When it comes to something which is negative for them but has a greater good, it clearly starts to fade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Does Poole Harbour count as ''inland  waterways''?

It does have a number of rivers you can sail, It's rather like the Broads, a mix of sail and motorboats. Many never go out to sea pass the chain ferry. The shore line around the harbour is over a 100 miles, it's said to be quicker to walk to London than it is to walk round the shoreline.    

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

No. To use the towpath, everybody is included that uses it. If you have to moor on the towpath, the cost should apply to all.

 

 

A home moorer already pays to moor on the towpath, as I have pointed out. That payment may be integrated into his home mooring fee, or, as in my case, as an additional payment. It's no good repeating endlessly that facts don't exist, when they do. The only people who don't pay CRT to moor are CCers.

The initial justification for the mooring fee was that it gave us the right to remain in one place for more than 14 days. I suspect that is the view that has changed at CRT. The morality of changing that as a basis for policy is moot, but as most people on here don't think fairness is relevant (nor do I, in fact) I can't see there's much to argue about. You can't have a market and mutter about morality.

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

Home moorers have paid for an exclusive mooring. That isn't paying the supposed towpath tally. When people stand up to CRT, for making marina moorers pay for a licence that has no legal status on private property, when some moorers never leave that private property, you're not going to find me receptive to this plan. 

 

 

A final desperate attempt to make you face a simple fact. I pay the bloke who owns the place I moor for my exclusive mooring. He does not work for CRT. CRT don't even maintain the canal bank.

I also pay CRT £800 to be allowed to moor on their canal at a place that suits me but has nothing to do with CRT. You (quite rightly, currently) pay nothing for the same privilege.

 

It's always been that way because nobody at BW or CRT saw any reason to change it. Then they found they could charge for long term towpath moorings. Then they found they could charge everyone for short term moorings (Llangollen). Then they found they could charge for short term mooring anywhere on the system (winter moorings), and CCers happily paid to moor. Now you're going to have to pay to moor anywhere, any time of year, but it isn't practical to charge by the day,  so it'll be going on your licence. It's just a progression.

And, once again, home moorers already pay this because we pay one person for an exclusive mooring, and CRT for the right to moor. Sometimes both are CRT, and sometimes not.

Whether the change is "right" or "wrong", "fair" or not has no relevance. The terms are meaningless, like your arguments about marinas. The person selling you a service makes the rules, your choice is to accept them or go elsewhere - that's how a business works, monopolies more so. As far as I'm aware, the only political position that argues against this is anarchism, and I don't see you as being of that particular bent.

My personal view, for what it's worth (which is nothing,  same as yours) is that it'll be counterproductive, open to fiddles, cost more to collect and police and just add more inefficiency and bureaucracy to an already creaking system without adding much to the coffers. But that's how things are these days. Can't say it bothers me much.

I'll get me coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

It does have a number of rivers you can sail, It's rather like the Broads, a mix of sail and motorboats. Many never go out to sea pass the chain ferry. The shore line around the harbour is over a 100 miles, it's said to be quicker to walk to London than it is to walk round the shoreline.    

When  I lived at West Moors we used to love that bit of coast, often regret leaving there. Dont miss the horrendous traffic in the holiday season at all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

When  I lived at West Moors we used to love that bit of coast, often regret leaving there. Dont miss the horrendous traffic in the holiday season at all 

One long queue of traffic from the Baker's Arms roundabout back to Wareham round the bypass, half way to Corfe Castle on a Sunday afternoon in the summer. Often quicker to sail down the River Frome to the harbour pass the old Marine Base at Hamworthy and round to Poole Yacht Club, 10 minuites walk over the lifting bridge and your in Poole old town. The sailing dinghy, only way to get around in good weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A home moorer already pays to moor on the towpath, as I have pointed out. That payment may be integrated into his home mooring fee, or, as in my case, as an additional payment. It's no good repeating endlessly that facts don't exist, when they do. The only people who don't pay CRT to moor are CCers.

The initial justification for the mooring fee was that it gave us the right to remain in one place for more than 14 days. I suspect that is the view that has changed at CRT. The morality of changing that as a basis for policy is moot, but as most people on here don't think fairness is relevant (nor do I, in fact) I can't see there's much to argue about. You can't have a market and mutter about morality.

A final desperate attempt to make you face a simple fact. I pay the bloke who owns the place I moor for my exclusive mooring. He does not work for CRT. CRT don't even maintain the canal bank.

I also pay CRT £800 to be allowed to moor on their canal at a place that suits me but has nothing to do with CRT. You (quite rightly, currently) pay nothing for the same privilege.

 

Home moorers pay to have a home mooring. Your choice. Any home moorer is subject to the same rules as everyone, out on the cut. So, any new rule for the towpath will apply to people that use the towpath. You pay CRT £800 for them to relax the 14-day rule, and any other mooring limits, for one specific place. When your out on the cut, there's no difference between you and any CC'er. 

 

And when I chose to moor, it was on private property, but I never begrudged people without a home mooring. My beef is with CRT and the marinas, but mostly CRT. And I paid more in one year than you do in several. I didn't begrudge you your cheap field mooring. That is obviously how you wanted to save your money. Your cheap field mooring is adding less to the coffers than a marina mooring, with the additional cost of an access fee. You're coming in a bit low, on the payments. You'd pay nothing, if it was offered. You have a petty begrudging nature and, I bet, a tight wallet.

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Paul C said:

Which is fair enough. Everyone is selfish, they are happy for changes so long as its positive for them. When it comes to something which is negative for them but has a greater good, it clearly starts to fade. 

 

Don't make me laugh. No one's bothered about forcing payment from people that never enter the canal waters. Forcing them to buy a legally useless licence. That would be in the £millions. Spineless to be moral there.

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, peterboat said:

Do the  consultation Ian then you will understand. Dave the marina owner did his and came to the same conclusion as all of us down here. Its skewed to give the results they want, he has had a marina with BW and CRT for possibly longer than you have been on this earth and knows how they do business.

I'm going to when I get it. But you're the one who keeps saying it's "skewed" and you've done it, so I'll ask you again -- what exactly is "skewed" about it?

 

Or if you don't know, tell me why Dave the marina owner thinks it's "skewed".

 

Please don't say "it's skewed because all options lead to boaters paying more" because that's a given fact, as CART have stated. The consultation is about how this increase should be distributed, who should pay how much.

 

And don't claim it's skewed because one of the options is widebeam owners paying more, because if one of the other options is everyone paying the same increase this is *not* being skewed -- at least, not according to any dictionary definition of the term I've ever seen... 😉

Edited by IanD
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

One long queue of traffic from the Baker's Arms roundabout back to Wareham round the bypass, half way to Corfe Castle on a Sunday afternoon in the summer. Often quicker to sail down the River Frome to the harbour pass the old Marine Base at Hamworthy and round to Poole Yacht Club, 10 minuites walk over the lifting bridge and your in Poole old town. The sailing dinghy, only way to get around in good weather.

 

Lived and worked in Southampton until retirement but sometimes a sub contract job would come up on Swanage. All that traffic on single carriageway roads was a right pain. Don't miss it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

 

 

 

Don't make me laugh. No one's bothered about forcing payment from people that never enter the canal waters. Forcing them to buy a legally useless licence. That would be in the £millions. Spineless to be moral there.

 

 

You’ve lost me again, I think you’re talking about another completely different thing.

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.