C&RT License Survey

[Barneyp]

11 hours ago, Goliath said:

In some cases it is done then?

I wasn’t imagining it being done over long distances.

 

but then I have no idea what long distances are regards pumping water from one source to another,

 

 

Realistically it can be done when the river and canal flow under/over each other, or alongside each other. 

The cost of pumping further is huge, plus the cost of whatever you are pumping it through (giant pipes?)  Plus buying the land or getting permission to build across under it etc.

In reality I suspect any canals that could be supplied with water from rivers already are.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

52 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 I was more thinking from boaters point of view and if the government kicked C&RT into touch and handed the whole thing to the EA - pros and cons?

 Governments aim is to remove the financial burden of CRT's waterways from the taxpayer. This can not be achieved by handing CRT waterways to EA.

 

At the moment, it would appear that they are looking at removing government controls which have led to CRT's classification as a public corporation.

 

 

 

[Lady M]

While that was the intention ten years ago, now CRT have encouraged so many more non-boaters to make use of the canal environment, surely the tax payer must retain some contribution?  Indeed perhaps pay a bit more?  They pay for other public parks through Council Tax.

[Alan de Enfield]

58 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

KPMG and all "auditors" are basically employed to massage any figures provided to rhem to give their employers the answers and report they want. In effect  a seller's survey. You wouldn't trust it as a buyer, you'd do your own. The concept that auditors are some kind of objective, disinterested organisation is a fantasy, useful to some. They're just consultants, and the bigger ones are just the most successful at faking the results.

If the figures were real, you wouldn't need them, any more than if you wanted your tax return to be accurate, you wouldn't need an accountant.

 

There is a big difference between auditing a companies financial accounts and looking if the have complied with regulations, and have filed the correct information. This is 'after the fact'.

 

The other function of auditing is the evaluation (audit) of business plans to establish that the business is viable, (before the fact) and (for example) which could be used by banks when assessing loan applications.

There are no 'accounts' available and all the 'auditors' can do is look at what BW accounts looked like in the past, assess what differences there will be when the 'new company' operate under the new funding schemes, and finally assess if the figures in the business plan stack-up.

KPMG can have no knowledge of the source or decision making process behind those figures and can only say "yes those figures mean that the company would be viable".

 

You are conflating two different aspects of accountants work.

[magnetman]

There could be some money from government for the CRT 

 

State support for low cost housing by using universal credit to pay for things like moorings and licences seems interesting. This can work hand in hand with large increases for things like 'continuous cruiser licences'. 

 

If the system needs money and the only people who need working infrastructure are boat owners then it is a bit of a no brainer to use them as a funding source. 

 

It is basically too cheap and has been for many many yars. 

 

 

[peterboat]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There could be some money from government for the CRT 

 

State support for low cost housing by using universal credit to pay for things like moorings and licences seems interesting. This can work hand in hand with large increases for things like 'continuous cruiser licences'. 

 

If the system needs money and the only people who need working infrastructure are boat owners then it is a bit of a no brainer to use them as a funding source. 

 

It is basically too cheap and has been for many many yars. 

 

 

Most of the boats on our moorings are plastic, if the costs went up to much they would be gone and the moorings with them 

[Momac]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

State support for low cost housing by using universal credit to pay for things like moorings and licences seems interesting. This can work hand in hand with large increases for things like 'continuous cruiser licences'. 

 

 

 

There is no connection between being a continuous cruiser and wealth / poverty.

 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

There is no connection between being a continuous cruiser and wealth / poverty.

 

 

If anything I'd have thought there is a negative correlation, CCers tending to have lower incomes than boaters with a home mooring -- and lower costs, which is why many of them do it.

 

The problem is that the increasing number of CMers have so abused the terms of the CC license that I believe CART feel they have to do something to "level up the playing field" on costs. Their stated justification for the CC surcharge is the extra use CCers make of the system and the cost of enforcing/checking CCers because this is a cost issue (easy to justify), where penalising CMes will undoubtedly be seen by some (e.g. the NBTA) as social cleansing -- regardless of whether it's justified.

 

All of which is bad news for the (perhaps less well-off) "real CCers" for who the license was introduced, but I'm afraid that they're just the collateral damage in the battle against abusive CMers... 😞

Edited February 27, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

28 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

There is no connection between being a continuous cruiser and wealth / poverty.

 

You are thinking about it in simplistic terms. I did not at any stage say there was a connection. 

You are reading something into what I wrote which was not there. 

 

I am merely pointing out that state benefits can pay for cc licences. I'm not getting into a discussion about relative wealth or poverty as that would be fruitless without firm statistics. 

 

 

There -will be- some people who are on boats who can claim benefits and I personally think that they should as the alternative could be being homeless. 

 

 

By making the continuous cruiser into an official "licence type" the CRT are helping to enable this. 

 

 

And in this way there is potential for the CRT to indirectly receive government funding. 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

It's not their job to decide whether these figures are reasonable and likely to happen in real life, just that the books balance. It's the job of the board of directors and management to generate the figures, and it should be the job of the shareholders to dispute them if they don't make sense -- but in reality this check rarely happens.

 

 

Especially when there are no shareholders to raise such disputes, as in the case of CRT. 

 

Or does CRT have a shareholder or two? 

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Especially when there are no shareholders to raise such disputes, as in the case of CRT. 

 

Or does CRT have a shareholder or two? 

 

No, but as I'm sure you are aware they have 2 'members' (unsurprisingly) called Member A & Member B

 

28. Classes of Member

28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:

 

28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.

 

28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

 

30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:

 

30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);

 

30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and

 

30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways 23 Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

 

30.5 The B Member may exercise the Trustee Replacement Power at any time once the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2. In addition the B Member may exercise either the A Member Replacement Power or the Transfer of Assets Power, but he or she shall not be permitted to exercise both the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power simultaneously (as the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power are intended to provide alternative options for the B Member to facilitate the ongoing application of the Protected Assets in furtherance of the objects for the public benefit).

 

30.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise of the Special Powers by the B Member shall not be subject to any rights or powers or require the consent of any of the A Members, but in determining whether the B member has become entitled to exercise the Special Powers or in exercising them, the B Member must act in the way that he or she reasonably and in good faith considers to best further the objects of the Trust for public benefit

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

I think you're misunderstanding what the job of auditors is...

 

They can't be expected to have a deep understanding of the business of everyone they audit -- for example if they audit CART's business plan which has an expected charity income of £10M a year from donors and the public and expenditure in new locks of £30M a year (just examples), they certify that the books add up using these figures.

 

It's not their job to decide whether these figures are reasonable and likely to happen in real life, just that the books balance. It's the job of the board of directors and management to generate the figures, and it should be the job of the shareholders to dispute them if they don't make sense -- but in reality this check rarely happens.

 

This is a weak process and it's why so many companies with pink elephant business plans crash and burn, because nobody robustly challenges what turn out to be over-optimistic assumptions, they just believe the people who are putting them forward.

 

This is what happened when CART was formed, and now the canals are suffering the consequences... 😞

Having worked for both the Inland Revenue and an accountant for over forty years, I don't think I do misunderstand! The big auditors get their work because they are happy to turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't look right. If all they had to do was check that two plus two equals four, there wouldn't be a lot of point in their job - the accounts might just as well have gone straight from CRT. An audit is supposed to ascertain that the twos and twos are actually there in the first place.

What an auditor does, of course, is massage the one point fives so they look like twos, and so what's really a three looks convincingly like a four. That's what they get paid for. And that's why Carrillon went bust, and CRT are heading that way  because you can fiddle the figures as much as you like so they look lovely and profitable, but unfortunately real stuff, made of real stuff like stone and wood, has to be produced in the end. It's the hedge fund and levarage philosophy - someone always makes a lot of money (and keeps it) but the business goes phut.

It is, of course,  also why Sainsbury's has no tomatoes.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No, but as I'm sure you are aware they have 2 'members' (unsurprisingly) called Member A & Member B

 

28. Classes of Member

28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:

 

28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.

 

28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

 

30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:

 

30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);

 

30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and

 

30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways 23 Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

 

30.5 The B Member may exercise the Trustee Replacement Power at any time once the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2. In addition the B Member may exercise either the A Member Replacement Power or the Transfer of Assets Power, but he or she shall not be permitted to exercise both the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power simultaneously (as the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power are intended to provide alternative options for the B Member to facilitate the ongoing application of the Protected Assets in furtherance of the objects for the public benefit).

 

30.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise of the Special Powers by the B Member shall not be subject to any rights or powers or require the consent of any of the A Members, but in determining whether the B member has become entitled to exercise the Special Powers or in exercising them, the B Member must act in the way that he or she reasonably and in good faith considers to best further the objects of the Trust for public benefit

The reason why CRT is categorised as a public non-financial corporation is because government is able to control it via the "B member".  

The members of a company limited by guarantee are the equivalent of shareholders.

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, Lady C said:

While that was the intention ten years ago, now CRT have encouraged so many more non-boaters to make use of the canal environment, surely the tax payer must retain some contribution?  Indeed perhaps pay a bit more?  They pay for other public parks through Council Tax.

The point of CRT was to remove the burden from the tax payer, even when BWB were in charge there were more non boaters using the canal environment than boaters.

CRT were supposed to get these people to donate or become "members" - a bit like the National Trust, this not happening on the scale needed is the problem.

 

CRT either need to change the government's mind or get the general public to give them money - I'm not sure which of those is the least difficult option!

[Lady M]

But it is not like the National Trust in that much of their property is enclosed so can be charged for at the door/gate.  Joe public doesn't pay extra to visit the local park, canal towpaths are similar.  There are a lot more non-boater visitors and activities these days.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

The point of CRT was to remove the burden from the tax payer, even when BWB were in charge there were more non boaters using the canal environment than boaters.

CRT were supposed to get these people to donate or become "members" - a bit like the National Trust, this not happening on the scale needed is the problem.

 

CRT either need to change the government's mind or get the general public to give them money - I'm not sure which of those is the least difficult option!

Or the general public needs to change the government -- probably easier than either option, and pretty likely to happen in late 2024... 😉

 

(doesn't fix CARTs problems for the next couple of years though...)

Edited February 27, 2023 by IanD

[Barneyp]

3 minutes ago, Lady C said:

But it is not like the National Trust in that much of their property is enclosed so can be charged for at the door/gate.  Joe public doesn't pay extra to visit the local park, canal towpaths are similar.  There are a lot more non-boater visitors and activities these days.

I agree, and I can't see how it wasn't obvious that it wouldn't work when CRT was being set up, but somehow CRT expected to be able "monetise" the canals without directly charging for use of or access to the towpaths.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Or the general public needs to change the government -- probably easier than either option, and pretty likely to happen in late 2024... 😉

 

(doesn't fix CARTs problems for the next couple of years though...)

 

I'd suggest that the Government of 'any colour' will have enough to worry about without wasting taking time for legislation / funding for the canal network

[Barneyp]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Or the general public needs to change the government -- probably easier than either option, and pretty likely to happen in late 2024... 😉

 

(doesn't fix CARTs problems for the next couple of years though...)

Do you really think a change of government will mean increased funding for the canals, whether via CRT or a new structure. I don't think it will be seen as a priority for the likely new government.

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I agree, and I can't see how it wasn't obvious that it wouldn't work when CRT was being set up, but somehow CRT expected to be able "monetise" the canals without directly charging for use of or access to the towpaths.

 

It was actually written into the transfer documents as being forbidden, so C&RT knew they could not get an income that way.

 

C&RT cannot, without the Governments approval :

(List of things -)

 

2.4.3 restricting pedestrian access to any part of the towpaths within the Infrastructure Property; for example by charging a fee for access, save that consent will not be needed for any temporary restrictions..............

Edited February 27, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Do you really think a change of government will mean increased funding for the canals, whether via CRT or a new structure. I don't think it will be seen as a priority for the likely new government.

The post was tongue-in-cheek -- I don't *think* it will, but since Labour is certainly more committed to spending longer-term money on national infrastructure (including public transport) then the current short-term austerity-minded government, they can hardly be *less* likely to provide more funding for the canals, can they?

 

(because you can't have a probability of less than zero...)

Edited February 27, 2023 by IanD

[Momac]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If anything I'd have thought there is a negative correlation, CCers tending to have lower incomes than boaters with a home mooring -- and lower costs, which is why many of them do it.

 

It may well be that people continuously cruise as a choice .

 

As an example it is evident that some folks like to cruise the entire canal system. So a permanent base is of no use .  That does not  make them poor or eligible for benefits. Indeed to genuinely continuously cruise and explore the system , although a very attractive idea , is not likely to be a cheap way to live.

 

The idea of staying on one spot a fortnight  then moving a few miles (or less) and staying another fortnight  isn't continuous cruising.

 

 

[magnetman]

20 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

 

The idea of staying on one spot a fortnight  then moving a few miles (or less) and staying another fortnight  isn't continuous cruising.

Do you know what the definition of continuous cruising is? 

 

 

if you look in the BW Act 1995 you can find this wording 

 

---------

 

the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

(ii) the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

-------

 

This is the law as laid down by parliament. This is what we have in reality. 

 

What you described actually IS continuous cruising. 

 

I think you could even find the "reasonable in the circumstances" part extending to people who have commitments such as work or children. 

 

 

[LadyG]

25 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

It may well be that people continuously cruise as a choice .

 

As an example it is evident that some folks like to cruise the entire canal system. So a permanent base is of no use .  That does not  make them poor or eligible for benefits. Indeed to genuinely continuously cruise and explore the system , although a very attractive idea , is not likely to be a cheap way to live.

 

The idea of staying on one spot a fortnight  then moving a few miles (or less) and staying another fortnight  isn't continuous cruising.

 

 

There is some truth in this post.

I like to cc, I hate being parked in a marina.

It's cheaper to cc, I can live without having to count every penny, which is what I call existence.

I have no interest in owning a house.

I was searching for a relaxed and affordable lifestyle, this seemed to be a reasonable option. Please don't move the goalposts before I fall off my perch

 

 

 

On 28/11/2022 at 13:37, Naughty Cal said:

We didn't think that boating on CRT waters was offering good value for money a couple of years ago. It most certainly isn't now with the price rises since.

 

We definitely "got out" at the right time.

I was a salty water sailor for forty five years, but never considered being a liveaboard, it's like comparing summer hill walking in the Lickey hills with signing up to the British Antarctic Survey.

Edited February 27, 2023 by LadyG

[Momac]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Do you know what the definition of continuous cruising is?