C&RT License Survey

[wandering snail]

37 minutes ago, Goliath said:

There is no CC license 

One question in the consultation refers to a continuous cruiser (CC) licence, are there different licences for CC boaters or those with a home mooring?

Technically there is one licence, and boaters either declare that they have a home mooring or that they will continuously cruise. People often refer to a CC licence, but this simply means they have a licence and continuously cruise.

Technically??? 'People often refer'....do they or is it only CRT who do? This looks disingenuous and will feed the division they are trying to promote within boaters who really should be pulling together on this or CRT will push and push to see how much they can get away with in the increased costs to boaters, not only by licence increases. That's just the start.

Edited February 16, 2023 by wandering snail

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, wandering snail said:

Technically??? 'People often refer'....do they or is it only CRT who do? This looks disingenuous and will feed the division they are trying to promote within boaters who really should be pulling together on this or CRT will push and push to see how much they can get away with in the increased costs to boaters, not only by licence increases. That's just the start.

I am pretty sure there a fair bit of resentment already from some home moorers who see so-called continuous cruisers occupying a spot on the towpath for months on end, or moving a dozen times a year in a ten mile stretch. Not, I hasten to add, from me because tbh I couldn't care less - I choose to have the security of my mooring and the freedom from hassle it brings. I don't really mind what anyone else does, but I can understand those who do, especially if they're paying a lot more than me.

The bottom line is that CRT need more money, and will have to show they are trying to get a fair rate from boaters before they can beg more off an unwilling government. If the latter can say CRT are just allowing huge numbers of boats to freeload on the system CRT haven't a hope. Of course, non-freeloaders suffer too, but sadly that's always the way.

[matty40s]

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I am pretty sure there a fair bit of resentment already from some home moorers who see so-called continuous cruisers occupying a spot on the towpath for months on end, or moving a dozen times a year in a ten mile stretch. 

Several of the long term moorings have been vacated in this area as the long term moorers were sick and tired of paying when the boats opposite dont, and never get moved on any more.

 

As for the Waterside Moorings operation( supposed to make money for CRT), its website is useless.  Vacant moorings dont appear on the header map, and quite a few vacant moorings are not currently being offered for some reason.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

I thought of hirers purely from the perspective that if a decision was made to double (for example) the cost of a business license for a hire boat it would inevitably be passed on to the hirer. Not much in the grand scheme of things but hirers are minor stakeholders in the discussion.

If you measure the "worth" of stakeholders by things like how much they've travelled on the canals over how many years, or how much time and money they've spent on the canals, or how knowledgeable about the past or interested in the future of the canals they are, I'd argue that some hirers have an equal or even better claim to be stakeholders than some who own boats -- especially those who spend most or all of their time polishing their boats in a marina and going nowhere, who have no interest in the canals other than as a cheap place to live.

 

Owning a boat is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for being a stakeholder, unless you're John Cleese and think that owning a boat automatically makes you an upper class boater.

 

P.S. I bet some people don't agree... 😉

Edited February 16, 2023 by IanD

[Smiles]

14 hours ago, IanD said:

If you measure the "worth" of stakeholders by things like how much they've travelled on the canals over how many years, or how much time and money they've spent on the canals, or how knowledgeable about the past or interested in the future of the canals they are, I'd argue that some hirers have an equal or even better claim to be stakeholders than some who own boats -- especially those who spend most or all of their time polishing their boats in a marina and going nowhere, who have no interest in the canals other than as a cheap place to live.

 

Owning a boat is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for being a stakeholder, unless you're John Cleese and think that owning a boat automatically makes you an upper class boater.

 

P.S. I bet some people don't agree... 😉

What's yer bet?

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, Smiles said:

What's yer bet?

Let's not go there... 😉

[Smiles]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Let's not go there... 😉

I don't agree 😂

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Smiles said:

I don't agree 😂

Neither does Peter... 😉

[Smiles]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Neither does Peter... 😉

 who agrees or disagrees?

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Smiles said:

 who agrees or disagrees?

who doesn't like a bet... 🙂

[MtB]

On 16/02/2023 at 14:34, Steilsteven said:

20% is trivial in your book is it, funny how those who aren't faced with having to pay it are so fond of it.

 

 

 

 

Yes 20% extra is worse than trivial for boat probably at least twice the displacement of mine yet costing much the same to licence. 

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes 20% extra is worse than trivial for boat probably at least twice the displacement of mine yet costing much the same to licence. 

 

I doubt that anyone thinks a 20% (or bigger) increase in the license fee is trivial or painless, but CART are in a financial hole and an increase like this is almost certainly going to happen one way or another.

 

The question is how to make it, and the issues are already covered in the CART notification and FAQ, for example raise all licenses by a flat rate, or change the way the cost is shared out e.g. charging by boat area or a CC surcharge.

 

No amount of complaining about it is going to make this problem go away; the best that boaters can do is give feedback to CART about what they would prefer (or hate the least), and hopefully CART will take notice of this.

 

Some people think they won't, but this makes no sense for CART -- the least bad option for them is to listen to what boaters think is the least bad solution. Not the best, there's no good solution here... 😞

 

(except for the government to cough up a big chunk of cash, which simply isn't going to happen -- at least, not with the current government...)

Edited February 17, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

I doubt that anyone thinks a 20% (or bigger) increase in the license fee is trivial or painless, but CART are in a financial hole and an increase like this is almost certainly going to happen one way or another.

 

 

I think you may have misunderstood. The 20% I refer to is the +20% Steilsteven's widebeam riveted iron Dutchman pays over a 6ft 10in narrow boat. Grossly unfair.

 

I think it should be made proportional to either deck area or displacement BEFORE any increase to help fund CRT's black hole is considered, purely on the basis of fairness. 

 

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think you may have misunderstood. The 20% I refer to is the +20% Steilsteven's widebeam riveted iron Dutchman pays over a 6ft 10in narrow boat. Grossly unfair.

 

I think it should be made proportional to either deck area or displacement BEFORE any increase to help fund CRT's black hole is considered, purely on the basis of fairness. 

 

 

 

I agree (but widebeam owners don't, for obvious reasons), and this is precisely one of the ideas that CART are asking about in the consultation.

 

I predict it will be very popular with the majority of (narrow) boaters, who for equally obvious reasons would rather that (a minority of) wideboats paid a lot more instead of them.

 

I also predict it will be extremely unpopular with (the minority of) wideboat owners, who have been luxuriating in their roomy and lower-cost-per-square-foot boats for many years.

 

It will be interesting to see which view prevails, though obviously there's only one democratic answer... 😉

 

(which is certainly not the one that Peter wants to hear, hence his la la la fingers-in-the-ears posts)

Edited February 17, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

I predict it will be very popular with the majority of (narrow) boaters, who for equally obvious reasons would rather that (a minority of) wideboats paid a lot more instead of them.

 

I also predict it will be extremely unpopular with (the minority of) wideboat owners, who have been luxuriating in their roomy and lower-cost-per-square-foot boats for many years.

 

It will be interesting to see which view prevails, though obviously there's only one democratic answer... 😉

 

 

I suspect it was "very popular" in the previous boater survey too, but IIRC the detailed responses to the survey were never published. (Happy to be corrected on this, if anyone has a link please.) CRT simply announced a timid little widebeam surcharge of 5% to be introduced in 2 or 3 years, rising to 20% over two more years. 

 

So do we have any guarantee CRT will publish the detailed results of this survey? I fear they will keep it secret and just announce whatever plans they have already drawn up and claim the survey supports them. I also fear the 'charge by deck area' idea will be dismissed for the same opaque reason as last time.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by MtB
Delete the tautology

[cuthound]

On 16/02/2023 at 12:40, MtB said:

 

I haven't received mine yet!

 

Anyone here had theirs? what are the questions? 

 

 

I haven't had mine either.

 

If it hasn't turned up by Mondy I will give CRT and ring and sk thdm to send me one ASAP.

[alias]

On 16/02/2023 at 18:08, Goliath said:

I did think about hirers, but failed to find a good reason for them to be included. 
I’m up for a change of mind though if you can suggest why they should be included. 

 

I doubt if any hirers other than those who do so regularly would even notice the consultation.

 

For regular hirers, the hire company's licencing costs will affect what they need to charge in order to keep their business viable. Just an observation, but regular hirers seem to have an interest in the outcome.

[MtB]

37 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

I haven't had mine either.

 

If it hasn't turned up by Mondy I will give CRT and ring and sk thdm to send me one ASAP.

 

Having two licences (plus a CRT mooring), you'd think they might have sent me at least one survey form! 

 

[PeterF]

Previous consultation emails have gone out over a few days so I wouldn't worry about being ignored quite yet, I have not had mine yet.

[Chewbacka]

Not had mine either, so had a look on their web site and it says to phone if “have not received an invitation to take part in the consultation by Friday 24 February”  so I guess no point calling just yet.

[Graham and Jo]

I've received the email asking me to do the survey. Strangely my system labelled it as a promotion. Aren't promotions usually about lowering prices? 

 

Cheers Graham 

[Rob-M]

51 minutes ago, Graham and Jo said:

I've received the email asking me to do the survey. Strangely my system labelled it as a promotion. Aren't promotions usually about lowering prices? 

 

Cheers Graham 

Perhaps it's going to be a two for one promotion, pay for two licenses and get one.

[Barneyp]

Just received my invite and completed the questionnaire.

I think that it is more about preparing people for above inflation rises across the board, and larger increases for continuous cruisers and widebeams (whether they're calculated by area or a widebeam surcharge), than consulting on how exactly the extra money should be raised.

Most boaters I meet on the cut or in the marina are not on this or any other forum or facebook group, and may well not be as aware of CRT's chronic underfunding as people on here are, I'm guessing that the "consultation" is a way for CRT to make them aware.

The video at the start and the explanation of the finances are what CRT want people to focus on, and labelling it as a consultation is how CRT get people to engage with it.

[Barneyp]

On 17/02/2023 at 18:46, alias said:

 

I doubt if any hirers other than those who do so regularly would even notice the consultation.

 

For regular hirers, the hire company's licencing costs will affect what they need to charge in order to keep their business viable. Just an observation, but regular hirers seem to have an interest in the outcome.

Hirers are valuable to CRT because they massively increase the number of people who care about the canals, and who can or will to some extent influence the governments decisions on future grant funding, hirers are also a source of future license fee payers (AKA boat owners). 

 

The hirers and the hire companies have an interest in license fees, and the hire companies are included in the consultation. I think CRT need to be aware of the need to ensure that the hire companies can continue to operate as they are vital to the future of the canals, they probably need a separate consultation with different questions: hire boats have a permanent mooring and probably cruise far more over the course of a year than most "continuous cruisers".

[Graham and Jo]

It is interesting and I think everyone will bias their answers towards protecting the group of boaters with which they identify. 

 

Wide versus narrow, permanent mooring or continuous cruise. 

 

At least 4 possible camps.

 

Cheers Graham