Not looking good for us

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

😉

 

How do you evade a license fee set by things you can't easily fiddle, like the length/width/age of your boat?

 

Except for pure license fee evasion, which would be less of a problem if boats still had to display their license number. It works for cars...

By having no name and number, same as plenty do now. And legally, boats do have to display their number, but so what?!

14 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

All ready do with our mobile phones I believe.

Not mine,  I'm pleased to say.

[Rob-M]

4 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Which pub at the bottom of Delph?  There's a good one above it ....

You can walk to The Vine from the top or the bottom lock.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

You can walk to The Vine from the top or the bottom lock.

there’s one mid way too,

Black Horse. 
 

 

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

The age would only need to be discovered once. After that it would sit alongside the index number on record. If it's going to cost to implement charge a registration supplement. Easily done if the will exists.

On my account on C&RT the date of construction is show so it must have been declared by the original owner 

I don't think the date of construction looks like an optional item. It was probably asked for BSS purposes.

So all boats which have been licensed will already have a declared date of construction

I can't see why anyone would have declared a false date .

 

 

 

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

On my account on C&RT the date of construction is show so it must have been declared by the original owner 

I don't think the date of construction looks like an optional item. It was probably asked for BSS purposes.

So all boats which have been licensed will already have a declared date of construction

I can't see why anyone would have declared a false date .

 

 

 

It isn't related to the BS. Anyway the BS has only been around since 1995 so there will be plenty of boats before that for which an accurate date can not be established. 

[Momac]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It isn't related to the BS. Anyway the BS has only been around since 1995 so there will be plenty of boats before that for which an accurate date can not be established. 

Why the concern about accuracy ?

 

 

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Why the concern about accuracy ?

 

 

I'm not sure. I suppose an estimate of which decade the boat was built would do. 

[Momac]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm not sure. I suppose an estimate of which decade the boat was built would do. 

Do all boats that have been licensed not already have a declared build year ?

My boat certainly does.

 

From my C&RT record

Edited February 21, 2023 by MartynG

[magnetman]

Just now, MartynG said:

Do all boats that have been licensed not already have a declared build year ?

My boat certainly does.

I don't think so. If you don't know or miss that bit of the form out they still process the license. 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

Do all boats that have been licensed not already have a declared build year ?

My boat certainly does.

Not mine. Never been asked as far as I know, if I was I probably guessed at mid sixties. 3rd party insurance isn't interested either.

[Cheshire cat]

The option of charging according to age or even boat value isn't part of the survey. It focuses purely on chargng extra for extra beam or whether CCers should pay extra. 

 

 

[Momac]

That would be because C&RT didn't ask boaters for ideas .

Is there nothing in the survey that allows any comment to be made 

 

.

[Midnight]

20 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That would be because C&RT didn't ask boaters for ideas .

Is there nothing in the survey that allows any comment to be made 

 

.

There is a question at the end asking for ideas on how boaters could work with C&RT to improve things. Apart from disband C&RT there's not much I could contribute 😆

Edited February 22, 2023 by Midnight
forgot to add the smiley

[LadyG]

40 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That would be because C&RT didn't ask boaters for ideas .

Is there nothing in the survey that allows any comment to be made 

 

.

Yes there are two open boxes, but not very encouraging of off the wall or out of the box ideas, after all they have staff who do that sort of thing, paying them ridiculous salaries, so why bother asking people who might have alternative, or even worse, contrary  ideas.

From this "consultation" I extrapo!ate two trends.

1) make "cc" pay more (of course they will have to identify these boats accurately. This could be costly to administer / impossible to police).

2) micromanage widebeam boats licences. Who is going to measure these beasts built pre Certification? Are they going to start measuring boats, that won't be cheap. As far as I am aware most boat descriptions will use dimensions provided by boaters.

Edited February 22, 2023 by LadyG

[Momac]

45 minutes ago, LadyG said:

they have staff who do that sort of thing, paying them ridiculous salaries

As a matter of interest I looked a few months ago at C&RT jobs advertised together with salaries  for my profession and thought the salaries were well below the salaries  I would expect to see for the levels of responsibility described.

Maybe you meant the salaries paid are ridiculously low although I expect not.

 

I would also expect most C&RT staff are not boat owners so perhaps it would be wise for C&RT  to ask boaters for ideas .

 

I do think C&RT are taking the path of least resistance and  illustrating gross prejudice against minority groups like Widebeams and Continuous Cruisers instead of targeting additional charges at  the majority of boats on the canals which are narrowboats . 

 

.

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

There is a question at the end asking for ideas on how boaters could work with C&RT to improve things. Apart from disband C&RT there's not much I could contribute 😆

I run out of space.🤨

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Yes there are two open boxes, but not very encouraging of off the wall or out of the box ideas, after all they have staff who do that sort of thing, paying them ridiculous salaries, so why bother asking people who might have alternative, or even worse, contrary  ideas.

From this "consultation" I extrapo!ate two trends.

1) make "cc" pay more (of course they will have to identify these boats accurately. This could be costly to administer / impossible to police).

2) micromanage widebeam boats licences. Who is going to measure these beasts built pre Certification? Are they going to start measuring boats, that won't be cheap. As far as I am aware most boat descriptions will use dimensions provided by boaters.

Easy enough to identify registered CCers. I don't expect they'll bother with the unregistered ones any more than they do now, as short of  welding their doors shut, setting them on fire or towing away anything not showing a number I can't see what they can do about them. Otherwise they'll rely on info they've already got.

What was interesting was that there was no suggestion in the survey that they might be thinking of expanding available moorings, so it may be that they are going to wallop the licence fee up to include an EOG element and then scrap that for the home moorers. No,  that might actually make sense, so it almost certainly won't happen.

[Jon57]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

As a matter of interest I looked a few months ago at C&RT jobs advertised together with salaries  for my profession and thought the salaries were well below the salaries  I would expect to see for the levels of responsibility described.

Maybe you meant the salaries paid are ridiculously low although I expect not.

 

I would also expect most C&RT staff are not boat owners so perhaps it would be wise for C&RT  to ask boaters for ideas .

 

I do think C&RT are taking the path of least resistance and  illustrating gross prejudice against minority groups like Widebeams and Continuous Cruisers instead of targeting additional charges at  the majority of boats on the canals which are narrowboats . 

 

.

Yes the salary may be less than the going rate. But for half the work.

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

There is a question at the end asking for ideas on how boaters could work with C&RT to improve things. Apart from disband C&RT there's not much I could contribute 😆

And replace them with what?

 

Any replacement for CART would have exactly the same huge problem -- to much to do, and not enough money to do it with.

 

No amount of getting rid of blue signs and magically being "more efficient" will fix that... 😞

19 hours ago, Rob-M said:

You can walk to The Vine from the top or the bottom lock.

Like I said, a few hundred yards walk from the bottom lock. And it's downhill on the way back, after much delicious Bathams has been consumed... 🙂

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

there are two open boxes, but not very encouraging of off the wall or out of the box ideas, after all they have staff who do that sort of thing, paying them ridiculous salaries, so why bother asking people who might have alternative, or even worse, contrary  ideas.

From this "consultation" I extrapo!ate two trends.

1) make "cc" pay more (of course they will have to identify these boats accurately. This could be costly to administer / impossible to police).

2) micromanage widebeam boats licences. Who is going to measure these beasts built pre Certification? Are they going to start measuring boats, that won't be cheap. As far as I am aware most boat descriptions will use dimensions provided by boaters.

They already know the size of boats as they are charging us already. 

[LadyG]

34 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Easy enough to identify registered CCers. I don't expect they'll bother with the unregistered ones any more than they do now, as short of  welding their doors shut, setting them on fire or towing away anything not showing a number I can't see what they can do about them. Otherwise they'll rely on info they've already got.

What was interesting was that there was no suggestion in the survey that they might be thinking of expanding available moorings, so it may be that they are going to wallop the licence fee up to include an EOG element and then scrap that for the home moorers. No,  that might actually make sense, so it almost certainly won't happen.

Para 1 they've got me wrong at the moment, and I won't be updating their records.

Para 2 the only reason I can think of for not adding moorings, (and I think they should add more electric bollards), is the expense and with respect to electric bollards, the initial installation cost has to be borne by the electric boats if they are driving this), but that again means eliminating discounts.

PS I don't know if anyone picked up on discounts for disabled boater widebeams, I think it's unworkable, complex, and the best that can be offered is more disabled access points, imho it's up to boat owner to adapt the boat and bear the cost, if there is any.

Edited February 22, 2023 by LadyG

[Jon57]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

Is it, they've got me wrong at the moment, and I won't be updating their records.

Their spy’s are everywhere.😜

[peterboat]

26 minutes ago, MartynG said:

As a matter of interest I looked a few months ago at C&RT jobs advertised together with salaries  for my profession and thought the salaries were well below the salaries  I would expect to see for the levels of responsibility described.

Maybe you meant the salaries paid are ridiculously low although I expect not.

 

I would also expect most C&RT staff are not boat owners so perhaps it would be wise for C&RT  to ask boaters for ideas .

 

I do think C&RT are taking the path of least resistance and  illustrating gross prejudice against minority groups like Widebeams and Continuous Cruisers instead of targeting additional charges at  the majority of boats on the canals which are narrowboats . 

 

.

That's what the survey showed to me, they kept o  going over the same references to CC and widebeams all the way through. I was surprised at the removal of 10%, 25% and 10 for historical boats electric boats and boats in landlocked waterways in that order. But no surprises for what the end results are going to be, as they know the answers already 

[Arthur Marshall]

I'm now,  it appears, paying CRT £750 for the privilege of mooring on a bit of canal edge (not a CRT mooring). CRTs view is going to be that CCers don't pay anything for that privilege and that they probably should, and the logical way to sort that is to scrap my £750 bill (thus getting rid of the bureaucracy, which significantly has never been computerised) and add that to my licence cost, all collected online. Makes no difference to me, but would add that amount to all those  registered as no home mooring. It's what they should have done in the first place, all those years ago.

It also means that they've got a  bigger baseline for future percentage licence increases.

[LadyG]

16 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

Their spy’s are everywhere.😜

Really, I've not seen one for about six months, maybe my habit of asking them to put me through the lock means they are getting a bit wary of approaching me, lol.

14 minutes ago, peterboat said:

That's what the survey showed to me, they kept o  going over the same references to CC and widebeams all the way through. I was surprised at the removal of 10%, 25% and 10 for historical boats electric boats and boats in landlocked waterways in that order. But no surprises for what the end results are going to be, as they know the answers already 

Agree, I don't have enough info on most of those points, but those involved will vote as expected. I did say I don't think electric boats should have a discount, it defies logic, In the next ten years it is unlikely the cmers who may be polluting urban areas will be replaced with electric boats, even if they had a fifty percent discount. The people who we understand are living aboard because they can't afford rental or other housing are not going to buy electric boats.

It's a farce.

Edited February 22, 2023 by LadyG