C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suspect it's worthless anyway. A self-selected number of people will reply, a lot won't bother any more than they ever take their boats out and play with them, and if you expect CRT to take any notice of what boaters say, you haven't been paying attention for the last ten years!

 

Why wouldn't they take notice of it? It will let them charge higher license fees -- probably especially to certain classes of boaters -- while saying "Don't blame us, it's what *you* voted for". All positive and no negative for CART...

 

Boaters saying "We want better maintenance (and fewer blue signs)" for the last 10 years is different, because that's asking for something CART can't deliver without more money. Which is what this consultation is all about, isn't it?

Edited February 22, 2023 by IanD

[Jon57]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

Why wouldn't they take notice of it? It will let them charge higher license fees -- probably especially to certain classes of boaters -- while saying "Don't blame us, it's what *you* voted for". All positive and no negative for CART...

Let’s have a vote. That will sort it.🥴🥴

[Bristolfashion]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Why wouldn't they take notice of it? It will let them charge higher license fees -- probably especially to certain classes of boaters -- while saying "Don't blame us, it's what *you* voted for". All positive and no negative for CART...

 

Boaters saying "We want better maintenance (and fewer blue signs)" for the last 10 years is different, because that's asking for something CART can't deliver without more money. Which is what this consultation is all about, isn't it?

At the risk of poking the fire, what's the problem with blue signs? 

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

At the risk of poking the fire, what's the problem with blue signs? 

Lots of boaters think they're stupid, pointless, and a huge waste of money. But they're not the target audience... 😉

Edited February 22, 2023 by IanD

[Chris Lowe]

All 3 threads on this subject have been merged to here, just in case anyone gets confused looking for the other threads.

[LadyG]

15 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

At the risk of poking the fire, what's the problem with blue signs? 

Waste of money, a lot of money, a project delivered in a flurry of obfuscation, and no costs made available. It was to fulfill the Govt demand for "raising awareness", traditional B&W signage being deemed too bland. Of course some of the signs turned out to be inconsistent, and some were incorrect, some were just in the wrong place, but overall, just too many, from a boater's point of view.

Some of the vans were rebranded, also staff and also volunteers, not a cheap exercise.

 

[nicknorman]

Just completed the survey. Quite easy really, anyone who has a different type of boat to me, or uses their boat differently, should pay much, much more. People like me should get a reduction.

[Barneyp]

49 minutes ago, IanD said:

I agree, and it's really not fair that "real CCers" should suffer because of the behaviour of "CMers". But as Arthur said, it's a consequence of the widespread rule-bending/breaking encouraged by the likes of the NBTA, which has been allowed to get out of control instead of CART biting the bullet and actually enforcing their own rules.

 

It ought to be possible to find a way to control/penalise the CMers while not hitting "real CCers" -- for example, charging the "CC supplement" to everybody without a home mooring but then waiving it for boaters who could prove they'd exceeded a travelling threshold *much* higher than the current one, so CMers would have no chance of spuriously claiming the waiver.

 

Whether CART have the nous and the will to do this remains to be seen... 😞

But surely "real CCers" are the ones who should be paying the most, they are the ones who get the most use out of the canals and related infrastructure, and cause the most wear and tear.

Followed by active leisure boaters with a permanent mooring that cruise a lot.

With CM'ers being the ones who should get a reduction as their lack of movement means minimum wear and tear on expensive lock gates and other infrastructure. 🤔🙃🙃😉

 

The above is partly injest and I think CRT should clamp down on CMers but charging them extra will just encourage them as they will believe they have paid for the privilege of ignoring the rules.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

But surely "real CCers" are the ones who should be paying the most, they are the ones who get the most use out of the canals and related infrastructure, and cause the most wear and tear.

Followed by active leisure boaters with a permanent mooring that cruise a lot.

With CM'ers being the ones who should get a reduction as their lack of movement means minimum wear and tear on expensive lock gates and other infrastructure. 🤔🙃🙃😉

 

The above is partly injest and I think CRT should clamp down on CMers but charging them extra will just encourage them as they will believe they have paid for the privilege of ignoring the rules.

 

Or charging them extra will push some of them off the canals and moorings they're blocking, or encourage them to get a home mooring because it doesn't cost much more than the CC surcharge.

 

As you obviously realize, the problem with charging by usage -- locks, distance, whatever -- is that it actively encourages people to mooring-hog and treat the canals purely as a cheap place to live, and discourages people who use the canals for navigation -- the name being a clue... 😉

 

OTOH giving "real CCers" a discount for using the system encourages people to do this, which as you say puts more wear on things like locks.

 

As usual there's no simple solution to a complex problem, whatever CART do will have plus and minus points. What they need to do is decide what the biggest problems are that need fixing (apart from lack of money) and how to do this in a way that gets approval from as many boaters as possible, given that it'll be a case of choosing the least bad option... 😞

[Barneyp]

2 hours ago, Jon57 said:

If that’s true it makes the consultation worthless.😡

The consultation is about license fees for the next 10 years, logically should it include everyone who will need to buy a licence in that period.

So, 

People who have a license but intend to sell their boat or remove it from CRT water before the license expires should not be included.

People who are currently intending to have a boat on CRT waters in the next 10 years should be included, regardless of whether they have one now.

 

Obviously working out who is in the second group is not easy, which is why they have sent it to all license holders. But anybody with a deposit paid on a new boat, or a build in progress, or a boat they are fitting out or renovating themselves should be included as they are just as likely to be licensing a boat in the next ten years as a current license holder.

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

But surely "real CCers" are the ones who should be paying the most, they are the ones who get the most use out of the canals and related infrastructure, and cause the most wear and tear.

 

In principle yes, but I think a lot of boaters CC because they have not got much money, so such increases could cause them difficulties.

NN's summation is accurate. I have just filled the questionnaire in, and my answers were roughly along the lines of that.

 

It did occur to me that the whole caboodle could have been whittled down to a single question, wih multiple choice answers:

 

Q: Do you want to pay higher licence fees?

 

A1: Oh yes, it will benefit all canal users.

A2: I don't give a monkey's.

A3: No I ******* well don't.

 

The regional distrinution of the answers would make interesting reading.

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

In principle yes, but I think a lot of boaters CC because they have not got much money, so such increases could cause them difficulties.

NN's summation is accurate. I have just filled the questionnaire in, and my answers were roughly along the lines of that.

 

It did occur to me that the whole caboodle could have been whittled down to a single question, wih multiple choice answers:

 

Q: Do you want to pay higher licence fees?

 

A1: Oh yes, it will benefit all canal users.

A2: I don't give a monkey's.

A3: No I ******* well don't.

 

The regional distrinution of the answers would make interesting reading.

Not if they are on benefits. It won’t matter jot as the state will pick up the bill. An increase in licensing for some that aren’t on benefits just might make them eligible possibly.

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

.......

The regional distrinution of the answers would make interesting reading.

Given that every invite to the consultation is individual and designed to prevent any body responding more than once. I imagine it should be possible for CRT (or the research company) to break down the results in a number of different ways while still protecting people's anonymity.

Eg they could look break it down into CCers and those with moorings, or by region (although they won't know the region for CCers), or by wide or narrow beam, or by length of boat etc

 

Whether they will, and whether that info will be part of the published results is another matter.

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Athy said:

In principle yes, but I think a lot of boaters CC because they have not got much money, so such increases could cause them difficulties.

NN's summation is accurate. I have just filled the questionnaire in, and my answers were roughly along the lines of that.

 

It did occur to me that the whole caboodle could have been whittled down to a single question, wih multiple choice answers:

 

Q: Do you want to pay higher licence fees?

 

A1: Oh yes, it will benefit all canal users.

A2: I don't give a monkey's.

A3: No I ******* well don't.

 

The regional distrinution of the answers would make interesting reading.

 

But that doesn't help CART decide what to do, because almost everyone will choose A3... 😉

 

I assume the survey offers a set of options or alternatives (e.g. flat-rate or weighted increases, bigger widebeam surcharge of not, area-rating or current system, CC surcharge or not...) so that CART can tot up the total votes for each and see which are popular and which are not, and then use this to decide what to do (and use the votes as justification).

 

If this means that widebeams get charged more (because most boats are narrowbeams) and CCers get charged more (because most boats have home moorings) then it's difficult to argue against CART saying "but this is what boaters voted for".

 

You could sat that this is why a referendum (which is what this effectively is...) is often a bad idea, it can be better to have decisions made by people who understand all the issues in depth rather than possibly-biased or ill-informed (or selfish) voters -- who think they know best until confronted with the consequences of a vote they made... 😞

Edited February 22, 2023 by IanD

[Jon57]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

But that doesn't help CART decide what to do, because almost everyone will choose A3... 😉

 

I assume the survey offers a set of options or alternatives (e.g. flat-rate or weighted increases, bigger widebeam surcharge of not, area-rating or current system, CC surcharge or not...) so that CART can tot up the total votes for each and see which are popular and which are not, and then use this to decide what to do (and use the votes as justification).

 

If this means that widebeams get charged more (because most boats are narrowbeams) and CCers get charged more (because most boats have home moorings) then it's difficult to argue against CART saying "but this is what boaters voted for".

 

You could sat that this is why a referendum (which is what this effectively is...) is often a bad idea, it can be better to have decisions made by people who understand all the issues in depth rather than possibly-biased or ill-informed voters -- who think they know best until confronted with the consequences of a vote they made... 😞

That’s why it’s a done deal already. This consultation will be construed to fit CRT agenda. Remember it’s how you want the information to get your point across. Just look at Brexit. 🤨  

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

That’s why it’s a done deal already. This consultation will be construed to fit CRT agenda. Remember it’s how you want the information to get your point across. Just look at Brexit. 🤨  

Perhaps it would be better to wait until CART publish the results instead of raising conspiracy theories or guessing -- then we'll find out how much some boaters dislike other boaters, in case we didn't know already...

[Athy]

Ian, I did get the feeling that CART are edging towards a "fatties pay more" (quite right) and "trundlies pay more" (not so sure) policy.

Jon, do unemployed CCers get their licence fee included in their dole money?

And finaly...I have attempted to correct the typo in the title, but it won't play. A time lock must have been activated.

[Jon57]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Perhaps it would be better to wait until CART publish the results instead of raising conspiracy theories or guessing -- then we'll find out how much some boaters dislike other boaters, in case we didn't know already...

Perhaps you should wait till you get the consultation.🤨

1 minute ago, Athy said:

Ian, I did get the feeling that CART are edging towards a "fatties pay more" (quite right) and "trundlies pay more" (not so sure) policy.

Jon, do unemployed CCers get their licence fee included in their dole money?

And finaly...I have attempted to correct the typo in the title, but it won't play. A time lock must have been activated.

All l know some boaters on benefits get the licence paid for and moorings in some cases.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

Ian, I did get the feeling that CART are edging towards a "fatties pay more" (quite right) and "trundlies pay more" (not so sure) policy.

Jon, do unemployed CCers get their licence fee included in their dole money?

And finaly...I have attempted to correct the typo in the title, but it won't play. A time lock must have been activated.

 

The first line should be no surprise to anybody, given the FAQs for the consultation -- and the obvious reasons for at least the first point, the second one is much more contentious as noted above.

3 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

Perhaps you should wait till you get the consultation.🤨

Perhaps you should take your anti-CART tin hat off? 😉

[Jon57]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The first line should be no surprise to anybody, given the FAQs for the consultation -- and the obvious reasons for at least the first point, the second one is much more contentious as noted above.

Perhaps you should take your anti-CART tin hat off? 😉

Al least my hat fits. They will have a job making one for you. Shortage or steel.🤪

[Barneyp]

30 minutes ago, Athy said:

....

Jon, do unemployed CCers get their licence fee included in their dole money?

.....

 

30 minutes ago, Jon57 said:

....

All l know some boaters on benefits get the licence paid for and moorings in some cases.

Being "on benefits" is an incredibly broad statement, that includes several million people - tens of millions when you count pensions and child benefit.

 

Some people on low incomes (which will include people who are employed/self employed as well as those not working) are entitled to housing benefit either as a stand alone payment or as part of universal credit.

The housing benefit is normally based on the rent of a land based home, but it is possible to claim it for mooring costs and license fees.

 

The amount of housing benefit you can claim is capped at being in the lower 30% of rents for the size of home you are entitled to in the local area, and is further reduced if your income is above a certain amount. (This is a simplified explanation)

So if license fees increase it could be possible that when combined with mooring fees they go beyond what housing benefit will cover.

 

Also I'm not sure that CCers can claim housing benefit as it is assessed by the local authority, so you could end up making a new claim every few weeks unless you CM.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

Being "on benefits" is an incredibly broad statement, that includes several million people - tens of millions when you count pensions and child benefit.

 

Some people on low incomes (which will include people who are employed/self employed as well as those not working) are entitled to housing benefit either as a stand alone payment or as part of universal credit.

The housing benefit is normally based on the rent of a land based home, but it is possible to claim it for mooring costs and license fees.

 

The amount of housing benefit you can claim is capped at being in the lower 30% of rents for the size of home you are entitled to in the local area, and is further reduced if your income is above a certain amount. (This is a simplified explanation)

So if license fees increase it could be possible that when combined with mooring fees they go beyond what housing benefit will cover.

 

Also I'm not sure that CCers can claim housing benefit as it is assessed by the local authority, so you could end up making a new claim every few weeks unless you CM.

 

Wouldn't that mean that CCers(CMers) claiming housing benefit (are there any?) would provide CART with direct proof that they're not following the CC rules, because they have to stay pretty much in one place to claim it?

[Barneyp]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Wouldn't that mean that CCers(CMers) claiming housing benefit (are there any?) would provide CART with direct proof that they're not following the CC rules, because they have to stay pretty much in one place to claim it?

I don't think CRT would know that housing benefit was being claimed, the benefit is paid to the claimant not directly to the landlord or in this case CRT. 

And you could prove it had to be paid without CRT knowing.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

I don't think CRT would know that housing benefit was being claimed, the benefit is paid to the claimant not directly to the landlord or in this case CRT. 

And you could prove it had to be paid without CRT knowing.

I don't think that CART would know automatically, but I'd have thought that if somebody claims benefit for a license fee they have to prove that they're paying it and that they live in the council's area, and to prevent fraud the council would check this with CART? If they do, CART know that the boater is "resident" in one council area, which is almost certainly incompatible with meeting the CC rules.

 

But this might be worrying about nothing anyway -- how do CCers with no home mooring or fixed address prove to the council that they're resident in their area and should have their license fee (and benefits) paid by that council? Cash-strapped councils are quite averse to paying out money unless they absolutely have to...

Edited February 22, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

The only person I knew who claimed housing benefit to pay his mooring fees lived in a marina, and he said he couldn't claim anything once he'd moved out of it. Universal credit has changed everything now and I'm not sure anyone knows what the rules are, including those administering it.

I also don't think that the survey will show which boaters hate which other boaters. As far as possible I suspect we have all tried to answer as well as is possible being fair to all. It's a huge myth that leisure boaters detest CCers and vice versa, the system needs both. The questions are, of course, skewed to get the answers CRT wants.