C&RT License Survey

[agg221]

5 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.

 

The good old RACI matrix.

 

Alec

[Mike Todd]

19 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's another one who hasn't read the thread , or read it selectively. Of course there are costs when you CC, especially for the ones who actually do. Mind you, those are the ones who vacate the towpath regularly, anyway - I gather not the ones Colin is referring to.

Why should livelihoods become unviable for CCers? It's a lifestyle choice, to go cruising on a permanent basis and needs funding just as much as any other. It will always be a cheaper way to play on a boat than paying for a mooring , and you get the benefit of cruising all year round, which most of us moorers would love to do.

Of course, if you don't want to cruise, but just shuffle about a bit, bending the rules as far as you can and depending on an outmoded law put in place to benefit genuine cruisers, you could be in trouble, but that's what happens if too many people extract the urine.

.

 

It would be interesting gto know what the average stay in one accommodation is for the people who try out being a canal liveaboard. I suspect that many come and go as that is a facet of their lifestyle anyway (and, in case someone reacts otherwise, that is not a criticism of anyone, but a warning to be very careful with so-called statistics)

[magnetman]

4 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

 

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.

 

 

So do you think that it is appropriate for a navigation authority to be subsidising very low cost housing in unsatisfactory conditions ? 

 

This seems to go badly over time. Everyone is ageing. This could get very expensive for the navigation authority to deal with. 

 

I think you might be wrong about all the cc ers being on the breadline. This seems improbable given how many rather expensive boats there are about.

 

Obviously some will be. 

 

[Colin Brendan]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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.

The widebeamer debate isn't contested as much because it so broadly crosses so many demographics, where as the ccer is quite obviously targeting in more financially disadvantaged.

 

Tbh I think the wide beam surcharge is a massive issue for many who live in 5k tuperware that is only just 'wide' - many of whom are a step away from homelessness. I hope these people will be able to access the DWP mentioned above - and how sad that an opportunity for them to find their feet in other ways is being stripped away for such a spurious reason

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Colin Brendan said:

- 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). .
.

 

CRT are not a corporate entity- they are custodians

That rather holes your argument below the waterline. It's a boat . You are (theoretically) a continuous cruiser, not a permanent moorer. So why is it a bit of an ask to expect you to be in different parts of the country? You simply can't claim to be on a cruise and stay in one place, much as you'd like to. Because so many have abused the system, that's why you're getting clobbered.

 

And no, CRT aren't "custodians". They're a business, trying to stay afloat and fulfil their remit, a minor part of which is maintaining a navigation (not that you seem to want to navigate much, or see any reason why you should).

[Colin Brendan]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

So do you think that it is appropriate for a navigation authority to be subsidising very low cost housing in unsatisfactory conditions ? 

 

This seems to go badly over time. Everyone is ageing. This could get very expensive for the navigation authority to deal with. 

 

I think you might be wrong about all the cc ers being on the breadline. This seems improbable given how many rather expensive boats there are about.

 

Obviously some will be. 

 

The key thing is that crt are not creating the housing - so I think I many ways this os a great thing. It allows opportunity for people who would otherwise have none

[magnetman]

You are making a basic assumption that a cc er is by definition financially disadvantaged. 

 

I know cc ers who rent their houses out and live cheaply on a boat. Are they financially disadvantaged? I don't think so. I even met someone living on a boat who was renting out two houses. Poor buggers. 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours 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.

The marina is not forced to pay fees to CaRT, any more than they are forced to pay for the electricity, business rates, etc etc.  It is simply part of the contract that the marina agreed to up front (NB the NAA was not imposed retrospectively on those who already had more favourable long term conditions) It is not a tax as it is part of a contract - to be valid it must satisfy the 'person on the Clapham Omnibus' test of appearing to be a reasonable payment in relation to the benefits or services received.

[Colin Brendan]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That rather holes your argument below the waterline. It's a boat . You are (theoretically) a continuous cruiser, not a permanent moorer. So why is it a bit of an ask to expect you to be in different parts of the country? You simply can't claim to be on a cruise and stay in one place, much as you'd like to. Because so many have abused the system, that's why you're getting clobbered.

 

And no, CRT aren't "custodians". They're a business, trying to stay afloat and fulfil their remit, a minor part of which is maintaining a navigation (not that you seem to want to navigate much, or see any reason why you should).

Here I am talking about the affordability of home moorings via dwp - so yes that would involve moving to a different part of the country 

 

(And - no - most ccers don't cruise the entire of the UK, and they do keep to specific areas, but they do none-the-less cruise. If they weren't able to cc around a certain area it would be impossible to cc with a family or job which would be sad indeed)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

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

If you want to be fair, you should distinguish between failing because of incompetent and failing because of inadequate income (for whatever reason) To me it is largely the latter as it appears to me that the the 'team' are doing a pretty good job at using their income, some of which is mandated, as best they can, yet still having to cope with falling below any historical standard.

[magnetman]

Quite a few yars ago BW sent out literature to all boaters. I remember it in the late 90s. There were several things such as having children in school or needing access to work and the last few words were "This defines what continuous cruising is not". 

 

There were loads of warnings about what would and would not satisfy the board. In fact this is the reason I took a mooring. We had children and due to my having been on boats for so long and understanding the situation it would not be viable to cc and have kids. 

 

Of course things have since been watered down but there was a time when BW did tell people this won't work properly. 

 

 

 

The problem is because everything has all got a bit exciting and people getting a bit political, claiming rights and being generally noisy it all comes up on radars. 

 

 

 

[Barneyp]

1 hour 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...

Can you give evidence of the "long history of persecuting CCers"

None of the CCers i know feel persecuted, I know CRT and previously BW take action against people who claim to be CCers but don't meet the requirements but that is a different thing 

[magnetman]

Persecution of entitled idiots with an attitude problem seems quite sensible. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There were several things such as having children in school or needing access to work and the last few words were "This defines what continuous cruising is not". 

 

If I recall, it was something to the effect "that if you need to be in a specific area because of having school age children, or because of work, then you are unlikely to be able to satisfy the board that you can meet the requirements of a boat without a home mooring"

 

But of course more recently C&RT have bowed down to pressure for an MP representing a CMer 'squatter' and agreed that boaters with school age children do not need to comply with the guidance during term time, but are expected to travel extensively during school holidays - this obviously, means that boaters who are tied to a location for work, but have children are being disciminated against.

 

Poor dears !

[Colin Brendan]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

How have they fiddled the survey results?

Are you saying they made up the answers, because that seems unlikely.

 

Or are you actually saying you don't like the decisions they announced after the survey was completed, which is a completely different thing and involves no fiddling, because the survey was a consultation and in no way binding.

I'm saying what they haven't stated is that despite the inherent bias within the survey demographic 60% of people still voted for options that did not include a ccer surcharge. Have a look at the results. This is backed up by NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters - all of whom have publicly opposed the ccer surcharge.

 

It's an unpopular policy which for an org managing an asset on behalf of the populous is a strange thing to ignore.

 

(Just to add fiddling stats is not surprising - its CRTs modus operandi!)

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan

[magnetman]

We might see a huge wave of baby boaters because being pregnant is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. 

Just now, Colin Brendan said:

I'm saying what they haven't stated is that despite the inherent bias within the survey demographic 60% of people still voted for options that did not include a ccer surcharge. 

Sounds a bit like government ! 

 

About 60% of voters voted for something which did not involve a Tory government. 

In the last election it was 56.4% of voters not voting Tory. 

[Barneyp]

9 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

........

 If they weren't able to cc around a certain area it would be impossible to cc with a family or job which would be sad indeed.

Surely it's self explanatory in the term Continuous Cruise that you are supposed to move around a lot, maybe not the whole network, but not just one small area. Yes that makes having a job with a regular fixed place of work and/or getting children to school hard, so people have to make the choice and deal with the situation,not expect CRT to solve their problems and provide them with a subsidised place to live. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

CRT is required by law to consult on PBC changes (what CRT call "river only licence"). However, the organisation that they are required to consult with no longer exists and its sucessor was killed off when CRT was formed in 2012.

As far as I am aware, no legal requirement exists to consult on PBL changes.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[magnetman]

Its nuts that people paying £20 a week rent (cc licence) are whining about having to pay £25 or £30 a week. This really is incredibly cheap for what you get. A mooring for your boat 24/7/365 for less than £5 a day and you can moor where you like. 

 

Such bargains do not exist in the real world. 

[Barneyp]

7 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

......

(Just to add fiddling stats is not surprising - its CRTs modus operandi!)

Again you are making an accusation of fraud against CRT without providing evidence.

They have made a decision you don't like, and you are entitled to say that, but that's not fiddling the stats.

None of the options got more than 50%, so the survey did not give a conclusive answer. 

[magnetman]

And no council tax, free unmetered water supply, nice locks to play with, free sewage and rubbish disposal, thousand miles of canal scenery to look at. And they moan !! 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

Surely it's self explanatory in the term Continuous Cruise that you are supposed to move around a lot, maybe not the whole network, but not just one small area. Yes that makes having a job with a regular fixed place of work and/or getting children to school hard, so people have to make the choice and deal with the situation,not expect CRT to solve their problems and provide them with a subsidised place to live. 

The law doesn’t require any form of long distance cruise. The term “continuous cruiser” is one invented by BW and perpetuated by CRT.

 

A boat without a home mooring has to move regularly and in a manner that doesn’t belie that the boater is literally trying to stay in the same place i.e shuffling. It is possible to do this and keep a job - particularly post-Covid where working from home is more prevalent. It isn’t necessarily easy though.

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Its nuts that people paying £20 a week rent (cc licence) are whining about having to pay £25 or £30 a week. This really is incredibly cheap for what you get. A mooring for your boat 24/7/365 for less than £5 a day and you can moor where you like. 

 

Such bargains do not exist in the real world. 

 

I’d say the number of people arguing for the change is greater than those opposed to it.
 

Noting some of the inconsistencies in the arguments of both CRT and forum members is not the same thing as objecting to the change.

[Colin Brendan]

19 minutes ago, magnetman said:

We might see a huge wave of baby boaters because being pregnant is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. 

Sounds a bit like government ! 

 

About 60% of voters voted for something which did not involve a Tory government. 

Yes... I'm not sure we should get into the pros and cons of PR here

 

6 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

Again you are making an accusation of fraud against CRT without providing evidence.

They have made a decision you don't like, and you are entitled to say that, but that's not fiddling the stats.

None of the options got more than 50%, so the survey did not give a conclusive answer. 

So as I've said above: 

 

At best that survey shows 60% voting against the ccer surcharge (despite its obvious personal advantage it would give them) because they found it unfair. Which is quite heartwarming!

 

At worst the survey is so useless it is void - in which case why do CRT cite it as justification for the ccer surcharge in their opening statement about this?

 

 

Edited December 16, 2023 by Colin Brendan

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

A boat without a home mooring has to move regularly and in a manner that doesn’t belie that the boater is literally trying to stay in the same place i.e shuffling. It is possible to do this and keep a job - particularly post-Covid where working from home is more prevalent. It isn’t necessarily easy though.

 

This is why C&RT say that working in a 'fixed location' MAY mean that you are unable to satisfy the board'

Indeed it is possible and some / many manage to do it, it helps is there is a plethera of canals in an area (such as Birmingham).

 

The problems come when those who never had any intention of navigating 'bona fide', fraudulently signed the licence contract and said they would.

And they now complain when they are told to do what they signed up to in the first place.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

15 minutes ago, Colin Brendan said:

I'm saying what they haven't stated is that despite the inherent bias within the survey demographic 60% of people still voted for options that did not include a ccer surcharge. Have a look at the results. This is backed up by NABO, IWA, NBTA, AWA, K and A boaters - all of whom have publicly opposed the ccer surcharge.

 

It's an unpopular policy which for an org managing an asset on behalf of the populous is a strange thing to ignore.

 

(Just to add fiddling stats is not surprising - its CRTs modus operandi!)

 

 

From my earlier post -

Quote

 

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.)

 

Some will no doubt think that CRT are trying to prevent release of this information because it will show that the figures have been fiddled ...