Not looking good for us

[IanD]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I suggest you read it rather than guess what it says and condemn it.

I will -- can you provide a link?

 

OK, just seen it above...

Edited February 17, 2023 by IanD
Seen link

[IanD]

8 hours ago, MartynG said:

Precisely as in the last consultation where the majority of inland waterways boat owners, who are  narrowboat owners ,said it would be good if  boats wider than a narrowboat should pay greater license fees  because it had less financial impact on the majority a narrowboaters.

 

Another C&RT consultation , as we have seen, is on the way and is likely to have a similarly prejudiced result.

.

I don't see how you can claim it's prejudice if a majority of boaters are in favour of area-based pricing, it's a simple reflection of their views -- like in any democratic election or referendum, the minority are subject to the will of the majority.

 

I expect there will be a majority in favour of this, and it'll be much bigger than 52:48...

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

I don't see how you can claim it's prejudice if a majority of boaters are in favour ...............

It prejudiced when the majority group (amy group)  dictates what the minority group should do .

I have little doubt the majority of C&RT licence holders are narrowboat owners who have a home mooring .

 

[peterboat]

9 hours ago, MartynG said:

Precisely as in the last consultation where the majority of inland waterways boat owners, who are  narrowboat owners ,said it would be good if  boats wider than a narrowboat should pay greater license fees  because it had less financial impact on the majority a narrowboaters.

 

Another C&RT consultation , as we have seen, is on the way and is likely to have a similarly prejudiced result.

.

I applied to attend a meeting they asked for my license number, then told me it was full! Carolyn ask after me and was given a place she has a narrowboat! CRT has a way of fixing things to get the results they want

[Paul C]

33 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It prejudiced when the majority group (amy group)  dictates what the minority group should do .

I have little doubt the majority of C&RT licence holders are narrowboat owners who have a home mooring .

 

 

But isn’t that pretty much how democracy works? What’s the better way to make decisions?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

One reason it is "not looking good for us"

From Facebook
 

Quote

 

With licence fees already rising at 3% above inflation and a divisive consultation announced which will see fees rise even more, perhaps it is time to put the spotlight on CRT's financial performance.

 

CRT's latest press release compares its financial years 2013/14 and 2021/22 in terms of investment income saying that it has risen from £41.9m to £51.4m which is higher growth than the market average.
 

Unfortunately, they have excluded Joint Ventures from the lower figure but included it in the higher one. The actual figures are £50.6m vs £51.4m.

 

Worse still the above are gross figures. When the expenditure on raising this income is taken off the contribution made to CRT's charitable objects (including maintaining its waterways) is as follows -

2013/14 - £39.5m

2021/22 - £33.7m

 

(It is perhaps worth mentioning that, in 2012, CRT's 2021/22 projected combined contribution for "Joint Ventures" and "Investment" was £45.1m some £11.4m higher than actually achieved.)

 

Would it be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for CRT ten years of financial mismanagement?

 

 

 

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

But isn’t that pretty much how democracy works? What’s the better way to make decisions?

Not in this country.

The people should never be allowed to vote on important matters.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

One reason it is "not looking good for us"

From Facebook
 

 

 

 

 

Masters of misinformation, have they not yet learned that they will be found out and 'no one likes a fraudster'

 

They do have plenty of 'previous' which may be one reason that the DEFRA grant keeps being put back, and put back ........................

[Allan(nb Albert)]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Masters of misinformation, have they not yet learned that they will be found out and 'no one likes a fraudster'

 

They do have plenty of 'previous' which may be one reason that the DEFRA grant keeps being put back, and put back ........................

We should remember that "Investment" and "Joint Ventures" are just two of CRT's six main revenue streams. Only two of those six are achieving a contribution higher than projected projected ten years ago. One is "Utilities". I will leave you to guess which one. (clue it begins with "B").

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

 

But isn’t that pretty much how democracy works? What’s the better way to make decisions?

 

It is -- and the problem with people being asked questions like this is that some of those people will inevitably not like the answer... 😞

 

Lots of posters keep complaining that CART "doesn't listen to boaters" or "does things that boaters wouldn't agree with" -- well this consultation is CART openly saying "We need to increase the license fees" (which they have no choice about) and asking boaters "How do you think we should do this?", so you're finally getting what you asked for... 😉

 

Given that narrowboaters outnumber wideboaters several times over (4:1? 5:1? Anyone got a number?) I think it's a slam-dunk that there will be a huge majority in favour of area-based pricing. That's unfortunate for wideboat owners but it's how voting works. Everyone has known for years that wideboats are a lot cheaper per square foot of living space than narrowboats to both buy and license and that's why their numbers have expanded -- why wouldn't they? -- but there was never any guarantee that the license fee advantage would remain, especially not if all boaters were asked whether it should or not.

 

There's likely to be a similar view on a "CC surcharge", because most boaters are not CCers, and many of them with home moorings resent the misuse of the CC license (OK, no home mooring if you insist) by people who want to stay in one place without paying for a mooring like they do. Regardless of CARTs "CCers use more of the network so cost us more" comment, this is likely to be the overriding reason for voting for a CC surcharge -- and it *will* have a bad effect on all the "real CCers" who do actually roam round the system and are the boaters for who the exception was intended when it was introduced many years ago, but in recent years the license has been so widely abused by CMers that "real CCers" will sadly be collateral damage... 😞

 

Whether changes like this are "fair" or "prejudiced" isn't the point; if they're what a large majority (not 52:48...) of stakeholders vote for, it's difficult to argue that they shouldn't happen simply because some are disadvantaged by them. This is what happens whenever there's *any* change in anything like taxes, there are always winners and losers, but hopefully more winners... 😉

Edited February 17, 2023 by IanD

[IanD]

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I suggest you read it rather than guess what it says and condemn it.

So I've read the report; it concludes that differential pricing by BW (now CART) is acceptable, that charging longer boats more is justifiable, and says nothing about boat width or the CC license. The main subject of the report is the difference between private and commercial boat pricing, and it also concludes that this is acceptable if done fairly and transparently.

[Higgs]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Nobody but you is claiming that it is necessary under statute law. It is only necessary to meet the terms of the mooring agreement.

There's no pretence involved.

 

No. I actually said - it isn't necessary in law. The licence has one purpose, it is a permit to use the canal. It is not a permit to sit in a marina. The marinas know who will be in the firing line, should they not abide by part of the NAA contract. Moorers are helpless to stop an arrangement CRT and the marina have come to, but it costs the moorers, for the marina's benefit. The moorer receives no benefit from the licence, if they do not intend to leave the confines of a marina. The moorer already pays a mooring fee, and a access fee. 

 

Do you typically allow institutions to extract money from you, when it is not necessary? I'm someone that's paid up for years. I'm not a charity. 

 

 

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The moorer already pays a mooring fee, and an access fee. 

 

 

 

That is not strictly correct. The moorer doesn't pay a separate access fee they pay a mooring fee. Those mooring fees plus all other sources of income available to the marina operator provide the total revenue out if which the marina operators pays the NAA fee to CRT.

[Higgs]

24 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

That is not strictly correct. The moorer doesn't pay a separate access fee they pay a mooring fee. Those mooring fees plus all other sources of income available to the marina operator provide the total revenue out if which the marina operators pays the NAA fee to CRT.

 

The access fee is incorporated into the mooring fee. The access fee would only be paid by the marina, part or whole, if the marina was empty of boats or partially filled. 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 The licence has one purpose, it is a permit to use the canal.
 

 

Actually it has another purpose- it greatly broadens the choice of marinas (because a lot require a licence).

 

12 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

It is not a permit to sit in a marina.

 

 

It is fro those which require it, along with other contractual requirements.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

One reason it is "not looking good for us"

From Facebook
 

 

 

"Would it be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for CRT ten years of financial mismanagement?"

 

Debatable -- where's the actual evidence that they could have done much better in difficult circumstances, as opposed to Facebook rhetoric?

 

It *would* be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for many years of government underfunding, rapidly rising costs, and an ever-worsening maintenance backlog... 😞

Edited February 17, 2023 by IanD

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Actually it has another purpose- it greatly broadens the choice of marinas (because a lot require a licence).

 

It is fro those which require it, along with other contractual requirements.

 

I can never remember thinking - great, I don't require a licence in this marina, I have a choice of finding another marina, where I also do not need a licence but will have to pay for one anyway. 

 

 

[Orwellian]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The access fee in incorporated into the mooring fee. The access fee would only be paid by the marina, part or whole, if the marina was empty of boats or partially filled. 

 

 

So by your argument my local Tesco store doesn't pay it's business rates until it has no customers. You do talk nonsense.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So by your argument my local Tesco store doesn't pay it's business rates until it has no customers. You do talk nonsense.

 

No, I've never been in a Tesco's marina. And by the way, I'm not disputing the access fee. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Higgs

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I can never remember thinking - great, I don't require a licence in this marina, I have a choice of finding another marina, where I also do not need a licence but will have to pay for one anyway. 

 

 

But you do need a licence in the second marina. 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

But you do need a licence in the second marina. 

 

I would need a licence, if I used the canal to get to a second marina. I'm not doing it that way, in this exercise, I'm being craned out and in. 

 

 

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

The access fee would only be paid by the marina, part or whole, if the marina was empty of boats or partially filled. 

I understand the marina pays the access fee per berth regardless of whether the berth has a paying tenant .

The tenant (boater) does not pay the access fee. The tenant does not pay the marina staff , the business rates or  any other business  expenses.

The marinas that pay access fees are not more expensive as they can only get the going rate . They  simply make less profit from moorings because  they have to pay the access fee. 

 

[Ronaldo47]

It is possible for the courts to strike out unreasonable terms of contracts. But you would have to prove a term was unreasonable and it would almost certainly cost an individual  more in legal fees than simply paying the licence fee.  

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The tenant (boater) does not pay the access fee. The tenant does not pay the marina staff , the business rates or  any other business  expenses.

 

 

Indirectly they are - the mooring fees may be the marinas only income so ALL of the business costs MUST come from the mooring fees, but, it is up to the management how they aportion those costs against income.

 

When you pay for your 'pay & display' parking ticket you are paying for a proportion of the road sweeper, the white line painter, the man who empties the money out of the machine, the person in the office who orders the rolls of tickets, the person who makes up the wages, etc etc etc. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

"Would it be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for CRT ten years of financial mismanagement?"

 

Debatable -- where's the actual evidence as opposed to Facebook rhetoric?

 

It *would* be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for many years of government underfunding, rapidly rising costs, and an ever-worsening maintenance backlog... 😞

Unfortunately, your response shows a lack of comprehension.

The deal between Defra and CRT was not just about government giving £800m over five years. It was also about transferring most of BW's funding streams and removing some of the restrictions placed on BW (e.g. ability to make loans). The expectation was that CRT would develop these funding streams and the new "charitable giving" funding stream such that future government support was not needed in the longer term.

A report by KPMG found that projections against ex-BW and new income streams taken together with grant were reasonable but cautioned that the condition of the waterways might deteriorate slightly.

As the contribution from "Investment" and "Joint Ventures" is so low against the projection in 2021/22 (and previous years) and can not be explained, I would suggest financial mismanagement. It is certainly not due to raging inflation because that started after year end.

It is worth noting that the deal was stated to be "tough but fair" by CRT's chair who signed it. It was claimed to give "certainty of funding".

It is difficult to accuse the government of underfunding because it was agreed that grant together with other income streams was sufficient


 

 

59 minutes ago, IanD said:

"Would it be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for CRT ten years of financial mismanagement?"

 

Debatable -- where's the actual evidence as opposed to Facebook rhetoric?

 

It *would* be fair to say that boaters are now having to pay for many years of government underfunding, rapidly rising costs, and an ever-worsening maintenance backlog... 😞