C&RT License Survey

[Colin Brendan]

4 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

No, you have missed the point.

While the total price for mooring in a private (non CRT owned) marina or on line mooring is set by market pressures, the vast majority of these will include an amount of money that is paid to CRT (in addition to the licence fee). So the amount of money generated for CRT by a boat with a home mooring is higher than that of a CC'er. 

No one is being altruistic or philanthropic, they are just paying what they are required to. 

 

Yes and ccers have similarly been paying what they are required to. They do not have home moorings so they do not pay for that. They do have a license, so they do pay for that. The same license as everyone else that allows the same access and use of the canal as everyone else

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

When can you call your house a 'home'? After a year? 2 years? 5 years? I've lived in my boat for 10 years. It's the longest I have ever lived in a single structure. I'd find it really hard to find anything that is more a 'home'! So either it is my 'home' or crt are targeting the 'homeless' with a surcharge for being 'homeless'. You decide😂

They arnt a housing authority! they pretend to be a navigation authority 🤣 which clearly they are failing at badly ☹

[magnetman]

Forget canal use and access to services. 

 

This is all about moorings.

 

Thats the point. Say your licence allows you to moor for 365 days and costs £1000. That is just under £3 a day. 

 

Someone who has a mooring which is £3650 and uses the boat for 200 days out of 365 is paying £5 per day for the towpath mooring and £10 per day for the home mooring. 

 

So the cc er is paying £3 a day and the hm er is paying £15 per day. 

 

To moor the boat. 

 

This is where its at. Being able to cruise around the system is a red herring because some people don't want to. 

 

Its all about the moorings. This is where the CRT need to take money. For moorings. All moorings everywhere on their property. 

 

 

 

 

They may take the view that someone already paying a mooring fee would get reduced rates at visitor moorings. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by magnetman

[Colin Brendan]

51 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Oh dear resorting to sarcasm already! There is no shortage of home moorings in general, though if you are London based I can see why you might think it. Speaking for myself I don’t have a mooring out of any philanthropic tendency. I have a home mooring because we live a long way away from our boat.

 

But regardless of why people have a home mooring, the FACTS are that most people with home moorings pay additional money to CRT. Either because the moorings are owned and managed by CRT or because the marina is forced to pay 10% of the mooring fees to CRT - a sort of “marina tax”. We are in the latter category and so pay roughly an additional £300 annually to CRT via our mooring fees. This is more than the CCing supplement and so even with the supplement, we are still paying CRT more to use the system less, including using less water, sewage and rubbish facilities, compared to a live aboard CCer. And yet you still moan about how unfair it is for you!

 

Just to sum up, CRT receives more money from me than from you so I don’t think you should feel too hard done by.

This marina or mooring 'tax' is a tax on your marina or mooring. You pay it because you have a marina or mooring not because you cruise along the canal. 

 

I don't pay it because I don't have a home mooring. Similarly if I didn't fly I wouldn't expect to pay air tax - because I don't fly! 

 

I do however pay cruising 'tax' (license), and I pay it at the same rate as everyone else. There is no limit on how much we all use our license. There is no evidence that I cost crt any more that hmers who often also do not have taps etc and use crt facilities.

 

I have a compost  toilet and do not use an elsan (private collection service before anyone grabs hold of that one), I use water but as mentioned so Di many hmers. I often end up taking my rubbish to work with me due to lack of bins so please don't charge me for that! What am I being charged extra in my license for?

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

 

I don't pay it because I don't have a home mooring. Similarly if I didn't fly I wouldn't expect to pay air tax - because I don't fly! 

 

Where do you moor your boat each night ? Is it portable ? Trailer ? 

[MtB]

23 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

If you Google Canal and Rivers Trust license survey, or possibly recent consultations, I'm sure it will pop up. It's the survey they used to justify the surcharge by really fiddling the results.

 

The survey shows 60% are against it. Everyone has come out against it. NABO ate against it. IWA are against it. NBTA are against it. AWA are against it. K AND A boaters are against it. In fact it's hard to find a boating org that like it

 

 

Yes I thought you would swerve posting a link.

 

 

[magnetman]

 

The home mooring term is irrelevant and a red herring. The point is that unless your boat is portable or on a trailer or perhaps has gas balloons it is going to be moored somewhere. So you in fact DO have a mooring. 

Its just that due to having no services it is five times cheaper than fixed mooring would be and you can save the £10 a day for other things. 

[agg221]

Just now, magnetman said:

 

The home mooring term is irrelevant and a red herring. The point is that unless your boat is portable or on a trailer or perhaps has gas balloons it is going to be moored somewhere. So you in fact DO have a mooring. 

That is probably the simplest way of looking at the situation, and I tend to agree with you on this point.

 

There are many other ways that could be used - use of services, use of infrastructure, ability to pay etc associated with different patterns of use around residential vs. leisure, number of occupants etc but these would all require a lot more data about individual boats than CRT has the ability or inclination to collect, or would simply form different agglomerated averages with a different set of winners and losers.

 

In the end, the approach CRT has taken bypasses all of these issues. You moor on CRT waters, you pay a surcharge to CRT for doing so. We could debate how that surcharge should be calculated (length, width, is it really CRT waters if it belongs to a marina etc) but the principle appears to be pretty clear.

 

Alec

 

 

[Colin Brendan]

8 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Forget canal use and access to services. 

 

This is all about moorings.

 

Thats the point. Say your licence allows you to moor for 365 days and costs £1000. That is just under £3 a day. 

 

Someone who has a mooring which is £3650 and uses the boat for 200 days out of 365 is paying £5 per day for the towpath mooring and £10 per day for the home mooring. 

 

So the cc er is paying £3 a day and the hm er is paying £15 per day. 

 

To moor the boat. 

 

This is where its at. Being able to cruise around the system is a red herring because some people don't want to. 

 

Its all about the moorings. This is where the CRT need to take money. For moorings. All moorings everywhere on their property. 

 

 

 

 

They may take the view that someone already paying a mooring fee would get reduced rates at visitor moorings. 

 

 

Not really a red herring though... you pay for a mooring because you want that choice - and you do now have that choice! (Well done!) The reason why that choice to moor in one place and call it your own is so expensive is because it is so desirable! 

 

Some people don't want what you have. Some people can't afford what you have. In both instances people shouldn't be charged extra just because of it.

 

If crt want philanthropy make it philanthropy. An additional payment option when people pay their license if they can afford it. Other orgs do this. It works. People who can afford it and think its worth while will. I would if I thought CRT weren't set on eroding my way of life - but there's the catch you see... they and BW have a long history of persecuting ccers - difficult to convince people to be philanthropic when you are trying to get rid of them...

[magnetman]

Also the CRT are actually in charge of the place. If people don't like this then they can do other things. 

 

If an increase to your housing costs of a few hundred pounds annually is causing problems thats a pretty obvious indicator that the main driver for being on the boat is because it is so cheap. 

 

People who can't afford their housing costs can apply for state funds. This includes cc ing boat licences because the term 'continuous cruiser' is recognised by .gov services.

[Colin Brendan]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Yes I thought you would swerve posting a link.

 

 

Think again batman 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/x1UqKBGCWaVdDXeTeh-bFg/dhZ8yzogvUfdFuPf6WKjKJryfQS0JSa3HzUMZdrSYv4/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018aac5f-0e03-73bd-b848-b6b78234139e.pdf

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

Not really a red herring though... you pay for a mooring because you want that choice - and you do now have that choice! (Well done!) The reason why that choice to moor in one place and call it your own is so expensive is because it is so desirable! 

 

Some people don't want what you have. Some people can't afford what you have. In both instances people shouldn't be charged extra just because of it.

 

 

OK by your argument if I have a boat on a mooring which never moves I don't want to use any of the services or locks so why do I pay a licence fee for the boat for something I don't want? 

 

In fact if my boat is over 7ft2 wide I will have a larger surcharge for my -licence- than a cc ing narrow boat is going to have. 

 

They might use 1000 locks and empty a suitcase of used food 100 times and fill up several bins. I do none of that. Yet I still pay more licence fee. 

 

How does that work in your 'I don't want what you've got' story line?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

If crt want philanthropy make it philanthropy. An additional payment option when people pay their license if they can afford it. Other orgs do this. It works. People who can afford it and think its worth while will. I would if I thought CRT weren't set on eroding my way of life - but there's the catch you see... they and BW have a long history of persecuting ccers - difficult to convince people to be philanthropic when you are trying to get rid of them...

 

Rather than getting your panties in a knot, and moaning about C&RT, if you really cannot afford the licence, the mooring or Insurance, apply to the Government who will give you the money to pay for it.

[magnetman]

 

Everyone has to moor somewhere. 

 

Some want to move some don't but they arrr all mooring somewhere. 

Tolls are the answer. With regional pricing. You pay for the time your boat spends in a particular zone. 

 

I don't want what you've got so why should I pay ? 

I don't mind paying a small amount to keep water in the canal but why should I subsidise an entire canal network and associated services which I will never use or want to use ? 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

58 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

This assertion seems counter-intuitive. Could you kindly bung up a link to the results please, so we can do as you request and have a proper look at the survey results? 

 

Many thanks.

I think you might have a long wait as CRT's chair, David Orr, has decided that release of this type of information is "Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs" under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act -

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_regarding_intoductio

(Orr is a suitably qualified person under S36 FOI.)

[Colin Brendan]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

OK by your argument if I have a boat on a mooring which never moves I don't want to use any of the services or locks so why do I pay a licence fee for the boat for something I don't want? 

 

In fact if my boat is over 7ft2 wide I will have a larger surcharge for my -licence- than a cc ing narrow boat is going to have. 

 

They might use 1000 locks and empty a suitcase of used food 100 times and fill up several bins. I do none of that. Yet I still pay more licence fee. 

 

How does that work in your 'I don't want what you've got' story line?

This is something you should take up with CRT. I believe there are some moorings that do not pay the license fee as well. If moorings are so tumultuous maybe you should uproot yourself and move to one of these.

 

As things stand, you at least have the option to stay where you are and the option to move around if you like as you can obviously afford it. 

 

Whereas there are many ccers that do not have this option because they cannot afford it. So forgive me if my attention is on their plight rather than yours.

 

Bear in mind that the ccer surcharge as it stands, although sligght, is no doubt the thin end of the wedge.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 I would if I thought CRT weren't set on eroding my way of life - but there's the catch you see... they and BW have a long history of persecuting ccers - difficult to convince people to be philanthropic when you are trying to get rid of them...

You are falling into the classic trap. The CRT are not 'having a go' at you. This is a victim mentality. The aim of the Trust is to manage waterways. Part of this is dealing with boats. 

 

That is their function. 

 

They are not like a teacher in school who dislikes a particular pupil and victimises them. They are just a navigation authority. 

 

 

[agg221]

21 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

This marina or mooring 'tax' is a tax on your marina or mooring. You pay it because you have a marina or mooring not because you cruise along the canal. 

 

I don't pay it because I don't have a home mooring. Similarly if I didn't fly I wouldn't expect to pay air tax - because I don't fly! 

 

I do however pay cruising 'tax' (license), and I pay it at the same rate as everyone else. There is no limit on how much we all use our license. There is no evidence that I cost crt any more that hmers who often also do not have taps etc and use crt facilities.

 

I have a compost  toilet and do not use an elsan (private collection service before anyone grabs hold of that one), I use water but as mentioned so Di many hmers. I often end up taking my rubbish to work with me due to lack of bins so please don't charge me for that! What am I being charged extra in my license for?

A deliberately provocative response this on my part, but the intent is to provoke thought around alternative perspectives, rather than provoke an argument.

 

21 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

There is no evidence that I cost crt any more that hmers who often also do not have taps etc and use crt facilities.

But there is good evidence that if you live aboard you will use more facilities than a leisure user. Should your fees be increased more than theirs to allow for this?

21 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

I often end up taking my rubbish to work with me due to lack of bins so please don't charge me for that! What am I being charged extra in my license for?

Often or always? If you sometimes use the rubbish points then you need them to be there, and you need to collection to be regular to avoid the collection site becoming a health hazard. That means collection is based on frequency rather than volume, so the cost remains the same. What about the leisure user with a home mooring that does not have a rubbish point though? They will have no choice but to take their rubbish home with them so they definitely shouldn't pay for the rubbish service - perhaps that component should be removed from their licence and added to yours?

 

21 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

Don't forget some hmers don't half rack up the miles and lock over the summer! And where would the canal system be without ccers gently using it all year round? I imagine crt would have a hell of a job dredging silted up locks and dried out and cracked lock gates come summer if ccers werent using them all year round. Like a lot of systems this one benefits from regular use. Infact maybe crt should be paying ccers for the good work they do😂

 

Your choice of language appears to indicate that you draw a distinction between the 'good' ccers and the 'bad' home moorers. Let me illustrate by reversal of your wording:

 

'Don't forget some ccers don't half rack up the miles all year round! And where would the canal system be without hmers gently using it in summer?'

 

This is at best an over-simplification and at worst a divisive, 'them and us' view. Take some examples. How do you classify fuel boats within your definition? What about year-round leisure users? What about towpath dwellers who claim to continuously cruise but actively do as little cruising as possible? What about the squats that get created on the K&A towpath?

 

In the end though, it has to be accepted that this is a discussion forum and that is all, so we can discuss as much as we like but CRT makes the decisions regarding categorising users and then how much it can charge within each category.

 

FWIW, I think the widebeam charging debate is a far more interesting one, but doesn't seem to be creating much opinion.

 

Alec

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Very true, but I don't understand why CRT felt the need to ask the punters at all. They are in charge, why not just decide what needs to be done and do it? In France they have a saying that broadly translates as "When draining a swamp, you don't consult the frogs". Its rather similar in ways to how we in the UK suspect turkeys are unlikely to vote for Xmas.

 

Of course boaters will vote for lower costs for themselves and more for others so why ask them. The EA don't ask.  No reams of 'consultations' from them before they make decisions that needs to be made on licence fees.

 

 

Consultation, its normally a requirement of some organisations. Just because you consult doesn't mean you have to do what the results of the consultation throws up.

[magnetman]

6 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

As things stand, you at least have the option to stay where you are and the option to move around if you like  easier you can obviously afford it. 

 

Whereas there are many ccers that do not have this option because they cannot afford it. So forgive me if my attention is on their plight rather than yours.

No, I can't afford it. My mooring is paid for by the DwP. 

 

If you can't afford your licence then apply for Universal Credit and they will pay for it under the housing costs element of the award. This is a protected element of UC and will not be sanctioned. Once you get it thats it. 

 

I think a lot of people probably won't find themselves eligible. 

 

 

Arguing impecuniosity won't work here because if you have recourse to state funds they will pay. 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by magnetman

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Arguing impecuniosity won't work here because if you have recourse to state funds they will pay. 

 

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Consultation, its normally a requirement of some organisations. Just because you consult doesn't mean you have to do what the results of the consultation throws up.

 

So that's two more legs kicked out from under Colin's three legged stool! 

[magnetman]

To be fair he may not have known about claiming for cc licences. The point is it is incredibly likely people actually can afford a few pounds a week extra its just they don't want to pay it. Understandable. 

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

To be fair he may not have known about claiming for cc licences. The point is it is incredibly likely people actually can afford a few pounds a week extra its just they don't want to pay it. Understandable. 

His main beef appears to be that CRT paid no real attention to the survey results, which is an odd grumble, as everyone knows that no company ever does , but decides what they are going to do, then consults for the sake of appearances.

The point that everyone moors somewhere, but only some have historically paid for it, has been made often enough and will never be accepted by those who think it should be forever free. So has the point as to why the CC concession was made in the first place, and is now being seriously abused.

The argument that nobody should pay to moor on the towpath, CCers or home moorer, was lost when charges were made at Llangollen. The surcharge is just a simpler way of spreading the cost to CCers rather than employing loads of bailiffs to walk the towpath. Home moorers just get their mooring fees hiked to include a relevant figure.

It's all a bit pointless, ranting about it. CRT need money, are in charge. The lifestyle of boaters, CCers or moorers, isn't their concern, nor should it be. There are poor people struggling to keep a roof over their heads everywhere, they aren't CRT's responsibility.

[Colin Brendan]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

No, I can't afford it. My mooring is paid for by the DwP. 

 

If you can't afford your licence then apply for Universal Credit and they will pay for it under the housing costs element of the award. This is a protected element of UC and will not be sanctioned. Once you get it thats it. 

 

I think a lot of people probably won't find themselves eligible. 

 

 

Arguing impecuniosity won't work here because if you have recourse to state funds they will pay. 

 

 

Yet I know many boater who struggle to get support from the dwp. I think the current government has clearly illustrated a desire to reduce this bill, so far many this is not as easy as you say - especially if you can't find a mooring anyway (without moving to a cemetery different part of the country which is a bit of an ask). Also, its just passin the issue on to another part of society that understands the situation less.

 

In fact in a sense you are the exception that proves the rule. When casting about for where to find additional funds why would you target the demographic that includes the most financially disadvantaged without public support, and with out any concrete justification for these additional charges. 

 

The Elephant in the room is that rather than working with the communities it already has CRT are introducing a lever to price out the community it doesn't want to replace it with a more affluent community. They are curating who they want on a public asset that they inherited which falls well outside the remit of the organisational objectives that were established for them.

 

As already proven by The quick turn over of ccers - there is no slack in the ccer livelihood - you would simply be choosing to remove a community, including many who are a step away from homelessness.

 

One beauty of the canal is that it is a place where 200k barges sit alongside 5k tuperware. There are so many places in society dictated by other forces and silo'd by wealth that it makes the canal quite unique in that. When there are so many other ways of funding the canal, and when this ccer surcharge would make such a small difference in the Grand scheme of things at the expense of removing a key diversity within the community. When the surcharge is contended by 60% in the survey and by every boat org around the country - why wouldn't you concentrate on other options.

 

CRT are not a corporate entity- they are custodians

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, agg221 said:

FWIW, I think the widebeam charging debate is a far more interesting one, but doesn't seem to be creating much opinion.

 

Maybe because widebeamers are not trying to 'game the system' and realise that their additional contribution to C&RT is needed and justifiable.

I have been paying a wide-beam surcharge in a C&RT Marina (BWML) for about 10 years before the idea came (2017 consultation if IRC)  to increase the widebeam licence fee., and of course I had little choice but to pay it - it was simply pay-up or get off the water.

 

I chose the boat I wanted and therefore had to pay what it cost to keep it.

 

As it happened I did leave C&RTs water 3 years ago but due to being unable to cruise when and where I wanted due to

a) the 'bottom being to near to the top', and

b ) lack of maintenance of the infrastructure.

 

No big 'woe is me', I just cancelled my licence and mooring and departed for 'better', more friendly, boating waters.