C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes - C&RT have 'previous'.

 

If they don't get what they want to hear, they it will not be applied.

 

In this case I expect there will be an 80% support for increasing widebeam by a lot more than NBs, and a 90% support for CCers to pay much more than a boat with a home mooring.

 

OMG, I agree with you!!!

 

(but 90% for a big CC increase might be a bit high, IIRC almost 20% of licenses are now CCers...)

 

So what on earth are we arguing about -- why wouldn't CART do exactly what was "voted" for, when it'll be exactly what they want to hear?

 

("voted" in quotes to stop the tedious "it's not a vote!" theme starting up again...)

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[George and Dragon]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I don't know how long you have been 'actively' on the canals and involved but it sounds like have had no involvement in the great number of consultations that have been held, but, I have yet to see C&RT actually implement anything 'voted on' (proposed) by boaters if it was not inline with the consultation background notes.

 

If you think otherwise, you are being very naive, and will be dissapointed.

 

I posted an example earlier (from a previous licence fee consultation) of the actions resulting from the consultation

 

On the question of replacing RPI with a composite index, opinion was widely varied. Some argued for retaining RPI because it is simple and well understood. Overall however none of the arguments changed our view that the index should reflect BW’s actual costs

 

 

 

To be fair, if they work out how much more they need to spend then they have to raise that amount. If RPI would have raised it I'm sure that would have been a straw they'd have gladly grasped. 

They are not going to find a way of raising the money they need that everyone thinks is fair. The consultation will allow them to see how big the pushback is likely to be and from which groups. 

 

 

 

[JemShaun]

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay the licence fees for the facilities and for being on the water. for those saying that CCers use it more is ridiculous. All boats ( unless out of water) are using the water, so we should all pay for it.  If people choose to be in a marina then it is your choice, as its the choice of CCers not to use a marina. Yes they (ccers) are not paying the marina fees, so does that mean they should be penalties imposed for that? That is like saying for those who pay to be in a marina, that once you venture from the mouth of the marina you then should pay the same as a CCer for the time you are out using the canal.......................................................................Yes its ridiculous isnt it.

Edited February 23, 2023 by JemShaun

[Arthur Marshall]

19 minutes ago, JemShaun said:

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay the licence fees for the facilities and for being on the water. for those saying that CCers use it more is ridiculous. All boats ( unless out of water) are using the water, so we should all pay for it.  If people choose to be in a marina then it is your choice, as its the choice of CCers not to use a marina. Yes they (ccers) are not paying the marina fees, so does that mean they should be penalties imposed for that? That is like saying for those who pay to be in a marina, that once you venture from the mouth of the marina you then should pay the same as a CCer for the time you are out using the canal.......................................................................Yes its ridiculous isnt it.

That's not the argument. Ignore marinas for now. There are a lot of CRT and private online moorings that people pay for. Question: what are they paying for? To moor against the side of the canal. What do CCers do? They moor against the side of the canal. Is the fact that they might use a different bit of it every couple of weeks relevant, and if so why? They are doing exactly what home moorers do, but for free.

The original logic was that home moorers paid to stay in the same place instead of having to move every 14 days, but now the vast majority of CCers don't move much - there are plenty on the two halves of my canal that have never been through a lock. So, really, thinks CRT, they should damn well be paying too, especially as they use the facilities more than the homebodies.

I'm not saying whether I agree or not. But it's a valid point of view.

[JemShaun]

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's not the argument. Ignore marinas for now. There are a lot of CRT and private online moorings that people pay for. Question: what are they paying for? To moor against the side of the canal. What do CCers do? They moor against the side of the canal. Is the fact that they might use a different bit of it every couple of weeks relevant, and if so why? They are doing exactly what home moorers do, but for free.

The original logic was that home moorers paid to stay in the same place instead of having to move every 14 days, but now the vast majority of CCers don't move much - there are plenty on the two halves of my canal that have never been through a lock. So, really, thinks CRT, they should damn well be paying too, especially as they use the facilities more than the homebodies.

I'm not saying whether I agree or not. But it's a valid point of view.

Absolutely a valid point, However those CCers that abide by the rules may be penalised because of the CMers.  If Crt did their job properly and policed it correctly, then maybe this wouldnt be the issue that it is now

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, JemShaun said:

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay

Absolutely a valid point, However those CCers that abide by the rules may be penalised because of the CMers.  If Crt did their job properly and policed it correctly, then maybe this wouldnt be the issue that it is now

 

But it *is* an issue, and  in some areas (don't know about the whole system) the number of rule-bending/breaking CMers seems to greatly exceed the number of rule-following CCers, and it's difficult/impossible for CART to distinguish between them and enforce the rules due to the sheer amount of checking needed and the number of boats flouting the rules -- they simply don't have enough people to do it, and the enforcement procedures grind so slowly as to be almost useless.

 

As Arthur says, the only realistic way for CART to extract a chunk more money from the p*ss-taking CMers is a CC surcharge. And as several people including me have said, the "real CCers" for who the rule was originally introduced many years ago will suffer as a consequence.

 

Which is not "fair" -- unless you bring use of locks etc into it, like CART have -- but the CMers have screwed it up for them... 😞

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

A CRT license not needing a mooring is an amazing bargain. Even at 3 times the current price it would still be incredibly good value given what you actually get. 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

A CRT license not needing a mooring is an amazing bargain. Even at 3 times the current price it would still be incredibly good value given what you actually get. 

Maybe (hence the old x2.5 CC proposal from CART), but if the cost trebled for everybody it would drive many less well-off boaters off the canals. Hence the proposals to charge some boaters more (e.g. area-related license fee, CC surcharge), so that others can pay less in comparison, while the overall fee goes up to meet the CART funding shortfall.

 

This could be taken further by scaling the fee with boat age, but some people seem to hate this idea -- either because it means they'd pay more, or possibly because I suggested it... 😉

Edited February 23, 2023 by IanD

[JemShaun]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

A CRT license not needing a mooring is an amazing bargain. Even at 3 times the current price it would still be incredibly good value given what you actually get. 

Maybe at 3 times the price it may deter those who wear the rose tinted glasses 👓 

[Alan de Enfield]

47 minutes ago, JemShaun said:

They pay the licence fees for the facilities and for being on the water

 

Exactly why CCers (Liveaboards) should pay more.

They produce rubbish all year around which needs removing and that has a cost to C&RT

They need the toilet emptying (either oump-out of cassette) there is a cost to C&RT of sewage disposal

They use the locks more than leisure boaters, more lock operations more wear & tear to the locks - all more cost to C&RT.

 

Thre should be a philosophy of 'user-pays' which has unfortunatley been absent in C&RTs planning. 

It was not previously (in BW days) a big problem as there was not the demand for cheap housing that the canals have now become.

[Sweeny Todd]

13 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But it *is* an issue, and  in some areas (don't know about the whole system) the number of rule-bending/breaking CMers seems to greatly exceed the number of rule-following CCers, and it's difficult/impossible for CART to enforce the rules and distinguish between them due to the sheer amount of checking needed and the number of boats flouting the rules.

 

As Arthur says, the only realistic way for CART to extract a chunk more money from the p*ss-taking CMers is a CC surcharge. And as several people including me have said, the "real CCers" will suffer as a consequence.

 

Which is not "fair" -- unless you bring use of locks etc into it, like CART have -- but the CMers have screwed it up for them... 😞

I completely agree. There are 8 boats where I moor on a C&RT mooring. There are at least 12 on the otherside of the canal the have well exceeded the 2 weeks allowed. One has been there around 9 months. Most don't have any identification i.e name or number. C&RT say they can't do anything. In the mean time my mooring and licence increases

Edited February 23, 2023 by Sweeny Todd

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Maybe, but if the cost trebled for everybody it would drive many less well-off boaters off the canals. Hence the proposals to charge some boaters more (e.g. area-related license fee, CC surcharge), so that others can pay less in comparison. This could be taken further by scaling the fee with boat age, but some people seem to hate this idea -- either because it means they'd pay more, or possibly because I suggested it... 😉

I don't understand the thing about people being priced off the water. 

 

Nobody needs a boat. Yes it is a nice thing but if a few hundred quid makes the difference between being able to afford it and not being able to afford it then maybe not have a boat? People living on boats because it is the only option available to them should perhaps consider approaching local authorities for benefits as they are obviously relying on the CRT to keep them housed. I have heard of Universal Credit paying for boat licences. Of course you would have to actually be living on the boat rather than just renting the house out and using the boat as accommodation. 

 

 

I don't believe that an increase in costs for people without moorings will price many people off the cut. A very small number perhaps. 

 

 

As someone mentioned a positive outcome of large increase in licence prices might help knock down second hand prices and allow people who have less upfront capital to buy boats. 

 

Its far too cheap. Obviously people will moan if prices go up but it has to be done really. 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by magnetman

[JemShaun]

1 minute ago, Sweeny Todd said:

I completely agree. There are 8 boats where I moor on a C&RT mooring. There are at least 12 on the otherside of the canal the have well exceeded to 2 weeks allowed. One has been there around 9 months. Most don't have any identification i.e name or number. C&RT say they can't do anything. In the mean time my mooring and licence increases

some boats are not licenced, others are left for months as you say, that wont stop your fees going up unfortunately. I know of a boat on the HNC which i pass everyday which has been there for 12 months, maybe CRT should look at removing and either selling or scrapping these boats

[Unicorn Stampede]

If there is an increased cost to boaters without a home mooring ,I could easily see (in fact I know of...) Marinas/Boatyards who would happily say boat X and Y now has a home mooring for a reduced amount of £.

 

Just means the Boatyards profit and CRT loses out. 

 

If someone's license cost would increase by say £200, and a marina offered them a 'fake' spot which they could be used to claim as a home mooring for £100, CRT have gained nothing...

 

My perception of how facilities get used is also a tad skewed by the fact we are currently only navigating the northern canals, but my experience has shown that CCers (in the true sense of the word) don't use CRT facilities as much/heavily as permanent moorers who aren't in marinas.

 

Certainly I've met far more CCers (anecdotal of course) that choose to actively recycle and so don't make use of CRT bin facilities because they don't offer said option and/or the bin contractors don't recycle when they say they do...

 

Long way to say that, it seems reasonable for boaters as a whole to pay more, and it not been aimed at a particular subset. Also means you're more likely to get those amounts by spreading, rather than focusing on a sub group.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

And the difference is...?

 

If CART count up the responses from boaters and choose the most popular options, it's a vote -- just like Brexit was... 😉

 

noun

noun: vote; plural noun: votes

a formal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands.

 

 

Its a consultation not a poll or a vote. When we did them, and yes I have actually done the same, normally when closing something down like a local maternity unit we 'consulted' on the idea, the public didn't get to vote on it they were consulted as to alternatives or as to why it should be kept open and then the suggestions were considered and collated and the results of the consultation published.

 

You are doing your usual trick of cocking up and now are trying to shoehorn in a definition of something else rather than say 'oh yes you are correct it isn't actually a poll or vote.

 

Something you rapidly criticise others for if you see them do it.

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by M_JG
Spooling error.

[Arthur Marshall]

15 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't understand the thing about people being priced off the water. 

 

Nobody needs a boat. Yes it is a nice thing but if a few hundred quid makes the difference between being able to afford it and not being able to afford it then maybe not have a boat? People living on boats because it is the only option available to them should perhaps consider approaching local authorities for benefits as they are obviously relying on the CRT to keep them housed. I have heard of Universal Credit paying for boat licences. Of course you would have to actually be living on the boat rather than just renting the house out and using the boat as accommodation. 

 

 

I don't believe that an increase in costs for people without moorings will price many people off the cut. A very small number perhaps. 

 

 

As someone mentioned a positive outcome of large increase in licence prices might help knock down second hand prices and allow people who have less upfront capital to buy boats. 

 

Its far too cheap. Obviously people will moan if prices go up but it has to be done really. 

 

 

 

A 3 times increase in my licence would see me off. I'm scraping by as it is. But nobody has the right to be there, although if CRT did enforce action against the stealth boats it might lead to less grumbling.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

or possibly because I suggested it... 😉

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

Your overinflated sense of importance is showing again,

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A 3 times increase in my licence would see me off. I'm scraping by as it is. But nobody has the right to be there, although if CRT did enforce action against the stealth boats it might lead to less grumbling.

Where would you live?

[LadyG]

23 minutes ago, Sweeny Todd said:

I completely agree. There are 8 boats where I moor on a C&RT mooring. There are at least 12 on the otherside of the canal the have well exceeded the 2 weeks allowed. One has been there around 9 months. Most don't have any identification i.e name or number. C&RT say they can't do anything. In the mean time my mooring and licence increases

Have you challenged the CRT about this, I think they can do something. I know the CRT knocked on my boat when my nameplate was not showing.

To be honest I think they should bring displaying the licence back, I've had people saying things like "loads of boats with no licence here", maybe he meant me!

I'm not even going to respond to some posts on here by folks who have no idea about other people's lifestyle choices, and the state of the country.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by LadyG

[Guest]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

 

 

 

("voted" in quotes to stop the tedious "it's not a vote!" theme starting up again...)

 

And again. Poll or vote is NOT a paraphrase for consolation.

 

It's is NOT a vote

 

You can say it as many times as you like but it won't make it so.

[Sweeny Todd]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

Have you challenged the CRT about this, I think they can do something. I know the CRT knocked on my boat when my nameplate was not showing.

To be honest I think they should bring displaying the licence back, I've had people saying things like "loads of boats with no licence here", maybe he meant me!

 

Yes. It has been mentioned by myself and other moorers here to both the licence checker and the moorings manager. Nothing has been done unfortunately. Who knows what happens behind the scenes though. 

 

Tbf...last time they tried to lift a boat here the whole town got locked down due to the piss taker threatening to blow the gas works up xD

 

[LadyG]

3 minutes ago, Sweeny Todd said:

Yes. It has been mentioned by myself and other moorers here to both the licence checker and the moorings manager. Nothing has been done unfortunately. Who knows what happens behind the scenes though. 

 

Tbf...last time they tried to lift a boat here the whole town got locked down due to the piss taker threatening to blow the gas works up xD

 

Sounds like criminal activity, he needs to be arrested. Gas works ? 1956?

You don't "mention it" you put in a formal complaint to the Licencing Officer with a copy to the Chairman.

Take photos, with dates, and then repeat.

Edited February 23, 2023 by LadyG

[magnetman]

Vibrant neighbourhood. 

[Sweeny Todd]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

Sounds like criminal activity, he needs to be arrested. Gas works ? 1956?

I think it's aviation fuel rather than gas but it was taken pretty seriously.

 

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Goliath said:

Yes, a fair point.

And I’m sure I took part in that consultation.

 

.. but it’s really not a vote, for if the results/opinions are not to CRTs liking they’re under no obligation to implement them

 

 

 

I agree C&RT are under no obligation

But the C&RT consultation questions are loaded in favour of the steps C&RT want to take . C&RT then hide behind the consultation results and claim to be doing what the consultees want.

Consultations are very dangerous things .