C&RT License Survey

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Quote

 

At the risk of repeating what was already said, CRT said that they were trying to find the least unpopular way to increase license fees, the CC surcharge came first in this particular race and a flat percentage increase on all boaters came last, with a bigger surcharge for wideboats in between.

 

So however you view it, the mandate to CRT to surcharge was stronger than the mandate to up all fees equally -- even though nothing had an overall majority, for the simple reason that people generally don't want to pay more.

 

What do *you* think CRT should have done -- not put the fees up at all (not an option, because CRT need more money), or put them all up equally (the least popular option)?

 

CRT's board decided to that it needed to increase licence fees by CPI +3% possibly up to 2036/37. Its decision report supports your view of making these increases more palatable -
 

Quote

The introduction to the consultation indicated that the implementation of any of these options would help to mitigate the headline increase in licence fees. For example, to achieve a CPI+3% average rise in fees overall, a higher increase for continuous cruisers or wider-beam boats would mean a lower tariff increase for narrowboat-width boats with a home mooring, which are in the majority

However, the decision report I quote makes it quite clear that the majority of boaters preferred option A – Status quo, all licence fees to rise together at the same rate.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Allan(nb Albert)

[phillarrow]

7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

 

However, the decision report I quote makes it quite clear that the majority of boaters preferred option A – Status quo, all licence fees to rise together at the same rate.

 

Does it? Doesn't the FOI release suggest that only 16% preferred option A?

 

If it's a comparative choice and 84% voted for one of the other options than the status quo, doesn't that indicate that only 16% have 'opted' for the status quo?

[IanD]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT's board decided to that it needed to increase licence fees by CPI +3% possibly up to 2036/37. Its decision report supports your view of making these increases more palatable -
 

However, the decision report I quote makes it quite clear that the majority of boaters preferred option A – Status quo, all licence fees to rise together at the same rate.

If you read the actual report on the CART website which showed lots of data, you'd see that 16% preferred option 1 (flat increases) which means 84% didn't, compared to 40% who preferred option 2 (CC surcharge) which means 60% didn't. That's 5:1 against option 1 vs. 3:2 against option 2.

 

How on earth you can interpret this as boaters being in favour of a flat increase escapes me...

[Bristolfashion]

12 hours ago, magnetman said:

Indeed. Feet? That seems a little on the small side we usually measure our Boats in yards.

 

The French based yacht is 39 yards at the waterline. I agree the salt water is a terrible nuisance but needs must if one wants to recuprate in the med rather than at the country estate.

 

I feel it is wise to have a number of different options in this regard.

 

Steel Boats are generally alright if maintained well.

I'm not entirely sure that you own a yacht if you think they are measured in yards! Even whoppers are measured in feet - it's often included in the name - Sadler 29, Fisher 34, Oceania 60 etc.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

10 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Can you provide a current link to a HMRC page for that?  It was the case some years ago, but isn't currently as far as I'm aware.

 

There was a massive clampdown on fake "self employment" schemes a few years ago.

 

It caused no end of panic at many firms!

 

It is an 'employment law' page. The website was produced in  Feb 2022. The bottom of the page states "copyright 2023" so I would have thought that it is current advice.

 

And, on asking HMRC :

 

Employment status: Self-employed and contractor - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Employment rights

Employment law does not cover self-employed people in most cases because they are their own boss.

If a person is self-employed, they have:

• protection of their health and safety
• protection of their rights against discrimination (in some cases)
• the rights and responsibilities set out by the terms of the contract they have with their client

 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

don’t forget at the end of the lock up CRT denied employing any fundraisers when laying them off,

 

[___]

It’s unlikely CRT are allowed to directly engage individuals on a self-employed basis. It’s probably done through an agency.

 

The change in law referred to above was in principle to remove the ability to employ agency staff as de facto employees while denying them the rights afforded to employees, such as annual leave, sick pay and pension contributions.

 

If tendered as specific short term work it possibly has no bearing on CRTs chugging efforts.

[Paul C]

38 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

It’s unlikely CRT are allowed to directly engage individuals on a self-employed basis. It’s probably done through an agency.

 

The change in law referred to above was in principle to remove the ability to employ agency staff as de facto employees while denying them the rights afforded to employees, such as annual leave, sick pay and pension contributions.

 

If tendered as specific short term work it possibly has no bearing on CRTs chugging efforts.

 

I believe this is correct - there have recently been a number of test cases where "self employed" people have contested whether they are truly self employed, or are de-facto employees, but the company wanted them to be self-employed precisely so they can weasel out of the rights employment brings (holiday pay, etc). There's a bunch of tests which were done to decide one way or another, and a lot of big firms tweaked and tweaked their contracts of engagement to ensure they stayed the right side of the line.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Bristolfashion said:

 Even whoppers are measured in feet

If not feet it will be metres. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

There's a bunch of tests which were done to decide one way or another, and a lot of big firms tweaked and tweaked their contracts of engagement to ensure they stayed the right side of the line.

 

From the Gov. website

 

Someone is probably self-employed if they’re self-employed for tax purposes and most of the following are true:

• they put in bids or give quotes to get work
• they’re not under direct supervision when working
• they submit invoices for the work they’ve done
• they’re responsible for paying their own National Insurance and tax
• they do not get holiday or sick pay when they’re not working
• they operate under a contract (sometimes known as a ‘contract for services’ or ‘consultancy agreement’) that uses terms like ‘self-employed’, ‘consultant’ or an ‘independent contractor’

Edited December 22, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

If not feet it will be metres. 

This is England. Metrication has not fully taken over. 

 

Or has it ? 

 

 

My trains still travel in MPH. 

[Momac]

21 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This is England. Metrication has not fully taken over. 

 I didn't say metrication  had fully taken over.

 

You referred to your yacht in France where metres would be used and certainly not yards.

Can't say I have heard of yards used in terms of a boat measurement. But often seen the use of metres especially for boats made in European countries.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

It’s unlikely CRT are allowed to directly engage individuals on a self-employed basis. It’s probably done through an agency.

 

The change in law referred to above was in principle to remove the ability to employ agency staff as de facto employees while denying them the rights afforded to employees, such as annual leave, sick pay and pension contributions.

 

If tendered as specific short term work it possibly has no bearing on CRTs chugging efforts.

yes it was (still is I presume) through an agency,

ultimately it was quite confusing,

and another CRT cock up,

its a story to bore you with next time we meet,

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

7 hours ago, IanD said:

If you read the actual report on the CART website which showed lots of data, you'd see that 16% preferred option 1 (flat increases) which means 84% didn't, compared to 40% who preferred option 2 (CC surcharge) which means 60% didn't. That's 5:1 against option 1 vs. 3:2 against option 2.

 

How on earth you can interpret this as boaters being in favour of a flat increase escapes me...

I think you mean 14% not 16% preferred option 1.
However, I am referring to a decision report where Parry and Julie Sharman (COO) summarised the outcome of the consultation of the for board of trustees. It said -
 

Quote

2.4 
The options in the pair-wise choice can be simplified as: 
Option A – Status quo, all licence fees to rise together at the same rate 
Option B – Higher increase for CC licences than for those with a home mooring 
Option C – Move to Area Based Charging (Boat length x Boat width) 
Option D –  Retain current length-based cI thharges and increase surcharges for wide beam craft from the 
current (‘medium’ width +10%:  full wide-beam +20%) 
2.5 
The Consultation yielded the respondents’ preferences for each option compared to the status quo (A) 
as follows: 
Percentage of all boaters choosing option B over option A  - 40% 
Percentage of all boaters choosing option C over option A  - 20% produced a decision report 
Percentage of all boaters choosing option D over option A  - 24% 

 

60% of boaters did not support the proposal to surcharge CCer's preferring to maintain the status quo. 
80% of boaters did not support one  of the two options to surcharge fat boats preferring to maintain the status quo.
76% of boaters did not support the other fat boat option again preferring to maintain the status quo.

It is really that simple. The majority of boaters do not agree with surcharging!

Turning to the DJS Research Report. This is a summary report for public consumption. A "full report" was provided to the board appended to the Parry/Sharman Decision Report.

CRT's chair, David Orr, has decided that the "full report" should be withheld under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act claiming that its release would "prejudice to the conduct of public affairs".

 

7 hours ago, phillarrow said:

 

Does it? Doesn't the FOI release suggest that only 16% preferred option A?

 

If it's a comparative choice and 84% voted for one of the other options than the status quo, doesn't that indicate that only 16% have 'opted' for the status quo?

No - according to the Parry/Sharman report boaters were asked to to express preferences - A vs B, A vs C and A vs D. The figures are 60%, 80% and 76% in favour of option A.

However, some of the report is redacted under Section 36 so it is possible that Sharman/Parry told the board how the figures could be presented in a different way.

(I assume you are referring to page 11 of the summary report. If so the option A figure is 14% not 16%.)



 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you mean 14% not 16% preferred option 1.
However, I am referring to a decision report where Parry and Julie Sharman (COO) summarised the outcome of the consultation of the for board of trustees. It said -
 

60% of boaters did not support the proposal to surcharge CCer's preferring to maintain the status quo. 
80% of boaters did not support one  of the two options to surcharge fat boats preferring to maintain the status quo.
76% of boaters did not support the other fat boat option again preferring to maintain the status quo.

It is really that simple. The majority of boaters do not agree with surcharging!

Turning to the DJS Research Report. This is a summary report for public consumption. A "full report" was provided to the board appended to the Parry/Sharman Decision Report.

CRT's chair, David Orr, has decided that the "full report" should be withheld under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act claiming that its release would "prejudice to the conduct of public affairs".

 

No - according to the Parry/Sharman report boaters were asked to to express preferences - A vs B, A vs C and A vs D. The figures are 60%, 80% and 76% in favour of option A.

However, some of the report is redacted under Section 36 so it is possible that Sharman/Parry told the board how the figures could be presented in a different way.

(I assume you are referring to page 11 of the summary report. If so the option A figure is 14% not 16%.)
 

 

And regardless of how many boaters didn't like the offered surcharging options, even more didn't like a flat fee rise which you seem to favour.

 

You keep ignoring this, but it's still true.

 

The reason is undoubtedly that CCers and wideboat owners are heavily outnumbered so HMers amd narrowboat owners think they should pay more, and this was made clear in the report.

 

But the majority winning is how votes and elections should work in a democracy, isn't it?

[phillarrow]

59 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you mean 14% not 16% preferred option 1.
However, I am referring to a decision report where Parry and Julie Sharman (COO) summarised the outcome of the consultation of the for board of trustees. It said -
 

60% of boaters did not support the proposal to surcharge CCer's preferring to maintain the status quo. 
80% of boaters did not support one  of the two options to surcharge fat boats preferring to maintain the status quo.
76% of boaters did not support the other fat boat option again preferring to maintain the status quo.

It is really that simple. The majority of boaters do not agree with surcharging!

Turning to the DJS Research Report. This is a summary report for public consumption. A "full report" was provided to the board appended to the Parry/Sharman Decision Report.

CRT's chair, David Orr, has decided that the "full report" should be withheld under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act claiming that its release would "prejudice to the conduct of public affairs".

 

No - according to the Parry/Sharman report boaters were asked to to express preferences - A vs B, A vs C and A vs D. The figures are 60%, 80% and 76% in favour of option A.

However, some of the report is redacted under Section 36 so it is possible that Sharman/Parry told the board how the figures could be presented in a different way.

(I assume you are referring to page 11 of the summary report. If so the option A figure is 14% not 16%.)



 

 

I see what you're getting at now but all comparative questionnaires are so fundamentally flawed that they tell you nothing. The only way to get an actual consensus is getting people to either choose one option (first past the post) or use a weighted preference voting system. 

 

Getting people to choose one of two options, when four different options are available, is just silly in all honesty. It's clearly designed to produce a pre-determined result. The only reasonable way to canvas opinion is to give people all the choices that have been deemed available and then see which one of those is the preferred one by more people than the others, which is what they did.

 

And no, I wasn't quoting 16% from the report, it was based on your own quoted figures subtracted from 100. I didn't realise that 2% have no preferences at all. 

[Barneyp]

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

From the Gov. website

 

Someone is probably self-employed if they’re self-employed for tax purposes and most of the following are true:

• they put in bids or give quotes to get work
• they’re not under direct supervision when working
• they submit invoices for the work they’ve done
• they’re responsible for paying their own National Insurance and tax
• they do not get holiday or sick pay when they’re not working
• they operate under a contract (sometimes known as a ‘contract for services’ or ‘consultancy agreement’) that uses terms like ‘self-employed’, ‘consultant’ or an ‘independent "

I think the key phrase here is "self employed for tax purposes". Someone can be self employed for tax purposes but not for employment law purposes, in which case they are classified as a "worker" and get some of the protections of an employee.

And when using genuine self employed contractors CRT still has an obligation to check that they have appropriate health and safety procedures in place.

 

[magnetman]

It never cross

It never crossed my mind that the CRT consultation was some sort of voting exercise. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It never cross

It never crossed my mind that the CRT consultation was some sort of voting exercise. 

 

that’d be bonkers,

but most folk are 🤪

 

consultations just give an insight, a forewarning, as to what’s been decided,

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

15 minutes ago, phillarrow said:

 

I see what you're getting at now but all comparative questionnaires are so fundamentally flawed that they tell you nothing. The only way to get an actual consensus is getting people to either choose one option (first past the post) or use a weighted preference voting system. 

 

Getting people to choose one of two options, when four different options are available, is just silly in all honesty. It's clearly designed to produce a pre-determined result. The only reasonable way to canvas opinion is to give people all the choices that have been deemed available and then see which one of those is the preferred one by more people than the others, which is what they did.

 

And no, I wasn't quoting 16% from the report, it was based on your own quoted figures subtracted from 100. I didn't realise that 2% have no preferences at all. 

I understand your point but there are, in fact, no less than six combinations of options.

 

Whilst it would be possible to chose Option B along with either C or D, there is a choice to be made between Options C and D which are alternative versions of achieving a higher fee from fat boats. Hence the full range of option combinations is: 
Option A (the status quo option)

    Option B only 
 Option C only 
 Option D only 
 Options B and C 
 Options B and D 

 

It may be a case of choice overload.

 

 

[phillarrow]

3 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I understand your point but there are, in fact, no less than six combinations of options.

 

Whilst it would be possible to chose Option B along with either C or D, there is a choice to be made between Options C and D which are alternative versions of achieving a higher fee from fat boats. Hence the full range of option combinations is: 
Option A (the status quo option)

    Option B only 
 Option C only 
 Option D only 
 Options B and C 
 Options B and D 

 

It may be a case of choice overload.

 

 

 

Oh, I see what you're doing with the figures now! I thought you were writing something different from the CRT consultation. Sorry mate but that's just daft!

 

You can't take each option in isolation and say that this proves most boaters wanted A! 

By your own rationale, only 14% wanted A because 84% wanted something else and 2% didn't know how to fill the form in! 

46 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I understand your point but there are, in fact, no less than six combinations of options.

 

Whilst it would be possible to chose Option B along with either C or D, there is a choice to be made between Options C and D which are alternative versions of achieving a higher fee from fat boats. Hence the full range of option combinations is: 
Option A (the status quo option)

    Option B only 
 Option C only 
 Option D only 
 Options B and C 
 Options B and D 

 

It may be a case of choice overload.

 

 

Hang on a minute! Are you saying that the entire survey was done by comparison against A? Literally, the only choices participants had was to say which of two options they preferred, where one is always A? 

Did people not get the chance to simply say which of the four choices they thought was best? 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, phillarrow said:

Did people not get the chance to simply say which of the four choices they thought was best? 

 

 

Did you not complete the consultation - it was open to all licence holders and any non-licence holders who requested to be included.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Did you not complete the consultation - it was open to all licence holders and any non-licence holders who requested to be included.

 

which perhaps adds another level of nonsense,

how many non inland water way boaters filled in the form,

 

did you?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

did you?

 

 

I did.

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

 

And regardless of how many boaters didn't like the offered surcharging options, even more didn't like a flat fee rise which you seem to favour.

 

You keep ignoring this, but it's still true.

 

The reason is undoubtedly that CCers and wideboat owners are heavily outnumbered so HMers amd narrowboat owners think they should pay more, and this was made clear in the report.

 

But the majority winning is how votes and elections should work in a democracy, isn't it?

As I said all along it was a setup to give the answers they wanted! Also if it didn't they would fiddle it to give the right answer