C&RT License Survey

[Alan de Enfield]

13 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

of course you did,

 

 

And when I applied for my ID number I was told there were 100s of non-licenced applicants.

 

The suggestion was that the consultation was open to previous licence holders, anyone buying/planning on putting a boat onto CRT waters or anyone with an interest in the Inland waterways.

 

As I may return to the Inland waterways one day I thought I'd have my say.

[Paul C]

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

As I may return to the Inland waterways one day

 

Please don't.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Barneyp said:

 

 ...My view is that CRT want to know how best to maximise income,and the survey will give them some idea of what people will deem to be acceptable.

 

Not according to the decision report which was clear that CRT had already decided how to maximise income -

Quote

The consultation with boat licence holders set out that - due to the financial pressures facing the Trust - we have planned in the long-term model for a contribution of CPI+3% annually in the current plan, up to 2036/37. 

 

According to the decision report, the reason for the survey was set out in its introduction -

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.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And when I applied for my ID number I was told there were 100s of non-licenced applicants.

 

The suggestion was that the consultation was open to previous licence holders, anyone buying/planning on putting a boat onto CRT waters or anyone with an interest in the Inland waterways.

 

As I may return to the Inland waterways one day I thought I'd have my say.

mmm..I might use a campsite one day, perhaps I should have strong views how they’re ran

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Please don't.

Unnecessary. But typical.

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And when I applied for my ID number I was told there were 100s of non-licenced applicants.

 

The suggestion was that the consultation was open to previous licence holders, anyone buying/planning on putting a boat onto CRT waters or anyone with an interest in the Inland waterways.

 

As I may return to the Inland waterways one day I thought I'd have my say.

You could possibly argue that the best people to decide the matter would be those without a boat on CRT water, as they would be objective and unbiased by their own economic situation.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The consultation made three proposals (options B, C and D). There a nothing intrinsically wrong in asking if people agree with proposals or not. The consultation also tried to find out why people made the choices they did.  

 

By simple majority, boaters rejected all three proposals.

 

Actually there were four proposals, and even more people rejected proposal A for a flat fee rise than any of the others, didn't they?

 

CART said before the survey that they wanted fo find out what the least unpopular ways to raise license fees were, in the knowledge that none would be popular because people don't want to pay more.

 

Now they've implemented the two least unpopular ones (CC and increased wideboat surcharge) and not the two most unpopular ones (area-based charging and a flat fee increase).

 

So what exactly are you complaining about?

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Actually there were four proposals, and even more people rejected proposal A for a flat fee rise than any of the others, didn't they?

 

CART said before the survey that they wanted fo find out what the least unpopular ways to raise license fees were, in the knowledge that none would be popular because people don't want to pay more.

 

Now they've implemented the two least unpopular ones (CC and increased wideboat surcharge) and not the two most unpopular ones (area-based charging and a flat fee increase).

 

So what exactly are you complaining about?

Three proposals not four. From the Sharman/Parry decision report (my bold) -
 

Quote

The Consultation presented a range of options for how licence fees could be increased. The options were presented as part of a pairwise choice, in which participants viewed three batches of options under consideration 

All three proposals were rejected by simple majority choice.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Three proposals not four. From the Sharman/Parry decision report (my bold) -
 

All three proposals were rejected by simple majority choice.

<sigh>

 

[Paul C]

4 options, 3 choices.

 

And.........with 4 options available, it should be obvious that any getting over 25% is the "winner".

Edited December 23, 2023 by Paul C

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

<sigh>

 

Right at the bottom of that it says "Q9 We'd like you to choose which of the 3 options shown below would be most acceptable ..."

So while there were four scenarios, were there only three choices? I can't remember and it seems a bit pointless going on about it. I don't expect CRT gave a toss about what boaters thought, they were trying to maximise income while hoping to get rid of the annoyance of continuous cruisers who are in fact anything but, or at least get them to pay their way a bit more. The half dozen genuine ones unfortunately get caught in the fallout. But, as has been said many times, that's what happens when too many people take the mick.

[magnetman]

Yes and also it isn't much at all considering thay by declaring cc one can bypass the need to pay local taxation in the form of council tax. 

 

 

 

If the CRT were doubling the price of the licence it would get close to council tax but they aren't so it doesn't. 

 

Charging for all moorings is the next move I reckon. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by magnetman

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Right at the bottom of that it says "Q9 We'd like you to choose which of the 3 options shown below would be most acceptable ..."

So while there were four scenarios, were there only three choices? I can't remember and it seems a bit pointless going on about it. I don't expect CRT gave a toss about what boaters thought, they were trying to maximise income while hoping to get rid of the annoyance of continuous cruisers who are in fact anything but, or at least get them to pay their way a bit more. The half dozen genuine ones unfortunately get caught in the fallout. But, as has been said many times, that's what happens when too many people take the mick.

It's explained in the snapshots how this was done -- boaters were offered three batches of three options (chosen from the four) to choose from, each of which included the status quo (option A) and two others (chosen from B/C/D), then the results were combined -- so the three sets would be ABC, ACD, and ABD.

 

It's a standard method of analysis when trying to find out what people prefer given more than two options, including the status quo, because it avoids forcing people to choose an option when they don't like *any* of the new choices, and also asking people to choose one of 4 options doesn't reflect what they actually prefer -- there are loads of textbooks on statistics and polls and data analysis explaining why this would have been done, I haven't read one since the late 1970s but I might still have one in a box in the attic...

 

As the results showed, 40% of all boaters preferred the CC surcharge, made up from 49% of HMers and 3% of CCers, hardly a surprising result. The next least unpopular result was an increased widebeam surcharge. The least popular choice of all was the status quo (flat increase for all boaters).

 

The CCer vote was pretty much a 3-way split between the status quo and each of the two methods of making wideboats pay more, again hardly surprising.

 

CART are doing what boaters said they wanted (or disliked the least), as far as I can see there's no evidence behind the claim that they'd made the decision in advance other than conspiracy theories -- for example I'm pretty sure CART would have favoured area-based pricing because it would have brought them in more money, but that was clearly a bit less popular than an increased widebeam surcharge so they chose that instead.

 

Arthur's right that "real CCers" (as opposed to CMers) may have got caught in the fallout caused by bad feeling towards the p*ss-takers, but the fact remains that CCers contribute less to CART income than HMers (via mooring levies) and the +25% CC surcharge largely corrects this -- so CCers crying out "it's not fair!" are kind of missing the point... 😉

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

9 hours ago, LadyG said:

The only comment I have is that the CRT should have done the consultation in house, 

It sounds much better when question to say "we employed a company to carry out an independent consultation"

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

It sounds much better when question to say "we employed a company to carry out an independent consultation"

You mean it stops aggrieved boaters claiming "CART fiddled the results!!!" or "CART just did what they'd already decided!!!" ?

 

Because this thread suggests it didn't work... 😉

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[Machpoint005]

43 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Yes and also it isn't much at all considering thay by declaring cc one can bypass the need to pay local taxation in the form of council tax. 

 

 

 

If the CRT were doubling the price of the licence it would get close to council tax but they aren't so it doesn't. 

 

Charging for all moorings is the next move I reckon. 

 

Thank you for being able to spell licence (noun) and, may I presume, license (verb).

 

 

 

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Not according to the decision report which was clear that CRT had already decided how to maximise income -

.........

I'm not sure what your basing that on, maximising income means increasing licence fees as much as they can without causing so many people to leave the canals that total income goes down, that was what they wanted to know.

The main point of the consultation was not: do you agree with an increase? It was: how big an increase can we get away with? 

[magnetman]

I am not American. 

7 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Thank you for being able to spell licence (noun) and, may I presume, license (verb).

 

 

 

It is rather like practice. 

[Barneyp]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

You mean it stops aggrieved boaters claiming "CART fiddled the results!!!" or "CART just did what they'd already decided!!!" ?

 

Because this thread suggests it didn't work... 😉

This thread is not a representative sample of boaters.

And do CRT want to be able to say we carried out a consultation to the boaters, or is it to satisfy there political masters. Or possibly just to make themselves feel better.

[magnetman]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

I'm not sure what your basing that on, maximising income means increasing licence fees as much as they can without causing so many people to leave the canals that total income goes down, that was what they wanted to know.

The main point of the consultation was not: do you agree with an increase? It was: how big an increase can we get away with? 

I'm quite intrigued by the theory that lots of people would 'leave the canals'. 

 

As we know there are many other waterways but if you take the Thames as an example the licence fee is far higher per mile of available waterway.

 

If you want to stay for an extended time you either need to find land which the owner is not interested in or aware of, pay for a mooring or be on good terms with the owner and perhaps perform a positive function for them.

 

Public land owned by local authorities is gradually closing via either byelaws or public space protection orders. Its an inevitable outcome. 

 

There is also winter and flooding to contend with on rivers which apart from being hazardous can cause issues getting fresh water or fuel supplies. 

 

The canal towpaths are so 'tame' and cheap compared with the alternatives I think the CRT could hit people quite a lot harder before there would be significant efflux of Boats from their waterways. 

 

I suspect someone has an eye on the influx not the efflux.

 

Of course it could be giving free drugs to kids thing. 

 

The old dope peddler. Like the old lamp lighter he is doing well by doing good. 

 

 

 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I'm not sure what your basing that on, maximising income means increasing licence fees as much as they can without causing so many people to leave the canals that total income goes down, that was what they wanted to know.

The main point of the consultation was not: do you agree with an increase? It was: how big an increase can we get away with? 

Difficult to see how that's the case, given that it didn't mention amounts anywhere...

 

The main point wasn't "do you agree with an increase?" either, since it's always been made clear the the license fee was going up.

 

The point was *how* should the increase -- however big -- be done and which boaters should pay more (or not), and the results were pretty clear.

 

CCers (and wideboat owners) may not be happy with the result, but it's what boaters said they wanted -- or as CART said both beforehand and in the results, what boaters disliked the least... 😉

Edited December 23, 2023 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

14 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm quite intrigued by the theory that lots of people would 'leave the canals'. 

 

As we know there are many other waterways but if you take the Thames as an example the licence fee is far higher per mile of available waterway.

 

 

 

And Duke's Cut looked pretty full when I drove by last week  

[Barneyp]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm quite intrigued by the theory that lots of people would 'leave the canals'. 

 

As we know there are many other waterways but if you take the Thames as an example the licence fee is far higher per mile of available waterway.

 

If you want to stay for an extended time you either need to find land which the owner is not interested in or aware of, pay for a mooring or be on good terms with the owner and perhaps perform a positive function for them.

 

Public land owned by local authorities is gradually closing via either byelaws or public space protection orders. Its an inevitable outcome. 

 

There is also winter and flooding to contend with on rivers which apart from being hazardous can cause issues getting fresh water or fuel supplies. 

 

The canal towpaths are so 'tame' and cheap compared with the alternatives I think the CRT could hit people quite a lot harder before there would be significant efflux of Boats from their waterways. 

 

I suspect someone has an eye on the influx not the efflux.

 

Of course it could be giving free drugs to kids thing. 

 

The old dope peddler. Like the old lamp lighter he is doing well by doing good. 

 

 

 

People "leave" the canals all the time, some take their existing boats on to non CRT waters, others sell their boat and buy a different boat for non CRT waters, and others give up on boat ownership altogether.

At the moment I think the number of boats on CRT waters is increasing, so for every body that leaves there is more than one person replacing them, if the cost of ownership increased to a high enough level, more people would decide having a boat wasn't for them, and there would not be enough new people to replace them.

I'm guessing it would take a massive increase in licence fees on their own to make this happen, as if the regular cost of ownership increase the value of second hand boats will go down, so new people will still be attracted.

[magnetman]

Yes but if the price of secondhand Boats came down you might find people who have disposable income but little capital could buy a Boat and enjoy it. 

 

Its not all about running costs its also about the cost of buying a decent Boat in the first place. 

 

I have detected a strange phenomenon over the yars which was that the price of second hand narrow Boats went up. This can't happen because it is a depreciating asset (hysteric boats excepted). 

 

Something going on with licence fees being too low I think. 

 

 

 

Too much demand ? 

Edited December 23, 2023 by magnetman

[___]

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

4 options, 3 choices.

 

And.........with 4 options available, it should be obvious that any getting over 25% is the "winner".

🤔

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I'm not sure what your basing that on, maximising income means increasing licence fees as much as they can without causing so many people to leave the canals that total income goes down, that was what they wanted to know.

The main point of the consultation was not: do you agree with an increase? It was: how big an increase can we get away with? 

As already stated, CRT had already made a decision in principal to increase licence fees by CPI+3% up until 2036/37. I guess that is what they thought they could get away with!

I agree that boaters were never asked if they agreed with option A (CPI+30%). It was a default position already adopted.

The consultation was about how to distribute these increases amongst  boaters. CRT was asking if boaters agreed to a small reduction in fee increases for the majority funded by large increases for one or two smaller groups. In the event a majority of boaters rejected each of the three proposals put to them.

CRT decided to plow ahead anyway, They have implemented the CPI+3% and surcharged two small groups. They have also abandoned "small reductions in inceases for the many  minority groups. I guess they thought with inflation decreasing more than expected the majority did not need the reduction ...

 

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Difficult to see how that's the case, given that it didn't mention am
ounts anywhere...

 

The main point wasn't "do you agree with an increase?" either, since it's always been made clear the the license fee was going up.

 

The point was *how* should the increase -- however big -- be done and which boaters should pay more (or not), and the results were pretty clear.

 

CCers (and wideboat owners) may not be happy with the result, but it's what boaters said they wanted -- or as CART said both beforehand and in the results, what boaters disliked the least... 😉

Yes the results were pretty clear (option A being status quo - CPI+3% for all)-
 

whilst implementing large increases for two

Quote

Percentage of all boaters choosing option B over option A - 40%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option C over option A - 20%
Percentage of all boaters choosing option D over option A  - 24%