C&RT License Survey

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, M_JG said:

Its a consolation not a poll or a vote. When we did them, and yes I have actually done the same, normally when closing something down like a local maternity unit we 'consulted' on the idea, the public didn't get to vote on it they were consulted as to alternatives or as to why it should be kept open and then the suggestions were considered and collated and the results of the consultation published.

 

An apt spooling errur

 

 

con·sola·tion

[ˌkɒnsəˈleɪʃ(ə)n]

 

NOUN

1. the comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment:

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

An apt spooling errur

 

 

con·sola·tion

[ˌkɒnsəˈleɪʃ(ə)n]

 

NOUN

1. the comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment:

 

Well spooted..

[Arthur Marshall]

49 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Where would you live?

I'm a leisure boater these days - been about twenty years since I lived on the old tub. I spend about three months a year on it, when there's any water.

Edited February 23, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

54 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

I agree C&RT are under no obligation

But the C&RT consultation questions are loaded in favour of the steps C&RT want to take . C&RT then hide behind the consultation results and claim to be doing what the consultees want.

Consultations are very dangerous things .

 

 

 

yes, I agree and it’s pretty much what I want to say but perhaps not expressing myself properly. 

but I can’t recognise the system as a vote in anyway. 
 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Goliath

[Jon57]

2 hours ago, JemShaun said:

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay

Absolutely a valid point, However those CCers that abide by the rules may be penalised because of the CMers.  If Crt did their job properly and policed it correctly, then maybe this wouldnt be the issue that it is now

Can’t use CRT and doing their job in the same sentence. It doesn’t workout right somehow.

[PD1964]

1 hour ago, JemShaun said:

Maybe at 3 times the price it may deter those who wear the rose tinted glasses 👓 

 Maybe you will find a big change when you come back onto the water, things have changed in the last few years with a lot more CMoorers, even on the once quiet Northern Canals, with places like Woodlesford, Lemonroyd, Whitley, Barmby Dunn often filled with the same boats for months. Then just moving on a few miles to the next services. A lot of these are new boaters, having bought their boats in the last couple of years, after watching Lockdown “living the dream” Vlogs, through Rose tinted  glasses.

 Yes maybe CaRT should be more active with overstaying/CMoorers, but maybe it will be easier to deter them with a big increase in license fee, unfortunately genuine rule abiding CCers are set to suffer if this happens.

  

[magnetman]

If the boat is used as a primary residence then you can claim for the licence on Universal Credit IF you can demonstrate need. If not then pay up. 

 

If you are not living on the boat but just using the cc option to circumvent the requirement for a mooring then ... pay up. 

 

Innit. 

 

 

 

 

Funding needed for the canals. Making users pay seems to be logical.

[JemShaun]

Yes I have already noticed the difference since I left the water. There used to be a famous boat on the Macclesfield that would go between Victoria pits and Marple every 2 weeks. The owner once said to me that I was a F'in idiot for paying a mooring fee. I've never been fond of CMer, however genuine CCers have my utmost respect 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jon57]

2 hours ago, Sweeny Todd said:

I completely agree. There are 8 boats where I moor on a C&RT mooring. There are at least 12 on the otherside of the canal the have well exceeded the 2 weeks allowed. One has been there around 9 months. Most don't have any identification i.e name or number. C&RT say they can't do anything. In the mean time my mooring and licence increases

And do you think they would pay any increase in the licence IF they don’t pay now ( no name no number)

This is why CRT have let all the genuine boaters and cc down in my view. Some may have genuine reasons for not moving (health, broken down etc) but CRT should be proactive in ensuring what they claim is true. 

[Bristolfashion]

1. Define canal bank mooring locations into bands by price. Off the top of my head, ranging from £1 to £5

2.  Add a "minimum mooring fee" to all CCs equivalent to 365 x lowest daily rate

3. Require CCs to report location daily via automated app*. Requested, justifiable overstays also can be requested via app - ice, stoppage, breakdown, medical etc.

4. Add excess mooring charge to following years licence.

5. Add any overstay charges to next years licence.

6. Any non-reported day or misreported day to be charged at the highest rate.

7. Any unpaid charges to be carried forward with boat on sale as a lien or condition prior to granting licence.

 

* Yep, I know about coverage - record must be up to date by year end.

[magnetman]

One could use a cyborg terminator and reprogram the "Sarah Connor" line to read "Non compliant cc er". Word would soon get around I think. Not many people would need to die before everyone stepped into line. 

 

Robocops for license evaders. You have 20 seconds to comply. 

 

Let the machines do the work. 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, JemShaun said:

So I feel the only fair way is to increase the licence fee for all. I don think it should just be CCers just because they choose not to be tied into a marina. They pay

Absolutely a valid point, However those CCers that abide by the rules may be penalised because of the CMers.  If Crt did their job properly and policed it correctly, then maybe this wouldnt be the issue that it is now

but CaRT are doing their job properly insofar as they decide where best t spend their (limited) money and choose not to expand licence enforcement any more than is really necessary. All regimes that seek to reduce avoidance have to (should) apply a cost benefit analysis.

[Rambling Boater]

I wonder how many people on this thread have actually completed the survey?  
 
It seems some here are still obsessed witb labels like CM'er, CC'er, 'dumpers' and 'liveaboards' . That plays right into C&RT's hands if they want us boaters to blame each other for their 'lack of funds' rather than point our fingers back at them for wasting money. Having said that, boaters do have some responsibility.  
 
Going back to labels , we all have a choice. Unfortunately there will always be those who take the p, but I would still maintain that the vast majority of boaters just want to get on with eachother and pay a reasonable amount of money for the privilege of boating.
 
If I remember correctly, around 90% of boaters have a home mooring. At any time those boaters could give that up and spend time exploring the system. While they do that they are effectively 'continuously cruising'. They are also effectively 'live aboards' whist they are on the boat.
 
Anyone who remembers the history will know that the law was changed many years ago due to lobbying by boaters who felt it unfair they had to pay for a mooring they don't use whilst exploring the system.
 
Of course whilst cruising , there will be times we have to leave the boat to see family or friends. Does that make us a 'dumper'? Actually, some pay for a temporary mooring for longer periods of being away from the boat.
 
As for the 'CM'er' label. It's easy to judge someone's circumstances just because their boat hasn't moved. However C&RT do have a system to help those who are having problems, so why not leave it to them to judge.
 
Going back to 'CC'ers' (i.e all of us when we are cruising), use it or lose it! I'm sure C&RT would love to save money by shutting down parts of the system.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

If only 10% of boaters claim to CC, I doubt whether even a huge increase in their fees will bring much extra income to CRT, though what it might well do is persuade the pseudo-CCers to get a mooring (should there be any available in their area). That's a bit like penalising two-bedroom households for having a spare room when there are no one bed flats available - pointless without providing the required facilities. If CRT did provide the moorings  it might make sense but is probably too much to hope for.

[Momac]

18 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 
If I remember correctly, around 90% of boaters have a home mooring. At any time those boaters could give that up and spend time exploring the system. While they do that they are effectively 'continuously cruising'. They are also effectively 'live aboards' whist they are on the boat.
 

On that basis a continuous cruiser effectively has a home mooring if the boat stays in a marina for a night or two per year ?

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

As for the 'CM'er' label. It's easy to judge someone's circumstances just because their boat hasn't moved. However C&RT do have a system to help those who are having problems, so why not leave it to them to judge.
 

 

That's been answered a hundred times over. Because they don't judge, they just ignore CMers nowadays and allow them to stay put for months on end.

 

My own pet theory is CRT have been doing this deliberately the last few years in order to stoke up resentment amongst those of us who shell out £3k a year for a mooring opposite the freeloaders mooring next to us for free. 

 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 
Anyone who remembers the history will know that the law was changed many years ago due to lobbying by boaters who felt it unfair they had to pay for a mooring they don't use whilst exploring the system.
 

 

This is a common misconception. There was no law compelling boaters to have a mooring.

 

British Waterways, in its bill that became 1995 British Waterways Act, tried to introduce it but failed to convince MP's of the need for all boats to have a mooring.

 

[Rambling Boater]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If only 10% of boaters claim to CC, I doubt whether even a huge increase in their fees will bring much extra income to CRT, though what it might well do is persuade the pseudo-CCers to get a mooring (should there be any available in their area). That's a bit like penalising two-bedroom households for having a spare room when there are no one bed flats available - pointless without providing the required facilities. If CRT did provide the moorings  it might make sense but is probably too much to hope for.

Good point Arthur. I'd estimate that the total licence income from 'CC'ers' is around £2.5 million. Even if they increased our fee by 50% it would only be a tiny increase in their total income in comparison with what income they get from investment, wayleave charges etc.

 

Wouldn't it be better to fry the bigger fish? Or is it more fun to watch the small fish squirm? Fish jokes anyone?

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If only 10% of boaters claim to CC, I doubt whether even a huge increase in their fees will bring much extra income to CRT, though what it might well do is persuade the pseudo-CCers to get a mooring (should there be any available in their area). That's a bit like penalising two-bedroom households for having a spare room when there are no one bed flats available - pointless without providing the required facilities. If CRT did provide the moorings  it might make sense but is probably too much to hope for.

 

C&RTs own surveys show there are about 5,000 boats within the "South" that do not have a registered home mooring (thats about 17% of the total registered boats) add in 'CCers on the rest of the system and I bet its over 20% of the total.

 

If those 6,000 boats each currently pay £1000 licence, then trebling the licence fee (to £3000) would generate a lot of additional money.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If those 6,000 boats each currently pay £1000 licence, then trebling the licence fee (to £3000) would generate a lot of additional money.

 

An extra £12m. Well worth doing!

 

 

[Mike Todd]

19 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

I wonder how many people on this thread have actually completed the survey?  
 
It seems some here are still obsessed witb labels like CM'er, CC'er, 'dumpers' and 'liveaboards' . That plays right into C&RT's hands if they want us boaters to blame each other for their 'lack of funds' rather than point our fingers back at them for wasting money. Having said that, boaters do have some responsibility.  
 
Going back to labels , we all have a choice. Unfortunately there will always be those who take the p, but I would still maintain that the vast majority of boaters just want to get on with eachother and pay a reasonable amount of money for the privilege of boating.
 
If I remember correctly, around 90% of boaters have a home mooring. At any time those boaters could give that up and spend time exploring the system. While they do that they are effectively 'continuously cruising'. They are also effectively 'live aboards' whist they are on the boat.
 
Anyone who remembers the history will know that the law was changed many years ago due to lobbying by boaters who felt it unfair they had to pay for a mooring they don't use whilst exploring the system.
 
Of course whilst cruising , there will be times we have to leave the boat to see family or friends. Does that make us a 'dumper'? Actually, some pay for a temporary mooring for longer periods of being away from the boat.
 
As for the 'CM'er' label. It's easy to judge someone's circumstances just because their boat hasn't moved. However C&RT do have a system to help those who are having problems, so why not leave it to them to judge.
 
Going back to 'CC'ers' (i.e all of us when we are cruising), use it or lose it! I'm sure C&RT would love to save money by shutting down parts of the system.

 

Whilst I largely agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, it is important also to recognise that 'leaving it to CaRT to judge' whether there are reasonable circumstances for a boat not moving (which is actually the law as it stands)  has complications when it comes to the point that CaRT decide that there are no such circumstances. Enforcement is complex, difficult and, inevitably, expensive. It is also traumatic for the boater (and sometimes those around them) even if they know that they are in the 'wrong'. Perhaps the hardest cases are those where CaRT decide that there is insufficient justification but also recognise the factors which led the boater into the situation and from which there is no easy way out.

 

It may come as an unwelcome surprise to those who want to reduce the CC population that a large proportion of them do support themselves by working, at least as much as others not on a boat, and are proud - yes, proud - that they can keep a job. Often those jobs are those that many others are not prepared to undertake. Of course, the canals, and CaRT in particular, are not a housing authority and are not responsible for finding someone a home, but please do recognise that resolving this problem is, for the individual, an expensive move that is beyond their means without risking falling into state dependency.

 

A problem which seems to me to be growing is that selling or renting out a boat is effectively unregulated and boaters can be conned into moving onto a boat which they discover only too late is not a safe place to be, even sinking. 

 

What would you do if, having put all of your savings, and even borrowings, into a boat that is supposed to be BSSC compliant, you then discover that it cannot pass a renewed examination and hence you cannot insure or licence it? Yes, each case is individual, but there are no simple and generic solutions (like in the days when you could expect a local housing authority to house homeless people) and people should be more careful when making such a decision, but it is too easy to be critical, not having faced that crisis in reality.

 

Perhaps one of the helpful things that cold be done is to prevent newspapers and other media (including social media) from promoting the idea that a boat is a cheap place to live. Those who make a decision to move on board only discover the hidden costs, and downsides, once it is too late to turn back. A canal boat IS NOT a cheap alternative to a more conventional home, even if you have see the state of many less expensive flats to rent on land. The unwelcome message for all of us is that a decent home is fast becoming out of reach for a significant part of the community and of course I am not implying that a boat on a canal can never be a decent home. For many it is but equally for many it is not.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

An extra £12m. Well worth doing!

 

 

 

In their last big consulation they proposed a CCer should pay 2.5 times a 'standard licence' so now that 'times are hard' I can easily envisage a 3x multiplier.

[Mike Todd]

20 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

This is a common misconception. There was no law compelling boaters to have a mooring.

 

British Waterways, in its bill that became 1995 British Waterways Act, tried to introduce it but failed to convince MP's of the need for all boats to have a mooring.

 

No, the simple fact that 'a boat not moving is a boat not earning' was an effective way of ensuring everyone moved! (Hence why there are often far too few places where it is possible to moor conveniently close to the bank.

[Rambling Boater]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

An extra £12m. Well worth doing!

 

 

 

As much as I expect you and Alan would like this, I doubt it will happen because you say so here.

 

I've only ever met one boater who had the balls to say to my face that he didn't like 'live aboards'. I may not have agreed with his view, but still respected his view.

[Mike Todd]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RTs own surveys show there are about 5,000 boats within the "South" that do not have a registered home mooring (thats about 17% of the total registered boats) add in 'CCers on the rest of the system and I bet its over 20% of the total.

 

If those 6,000 boats each currently pay £1000 licence, then trebling the licence fee (to £3000) would generate a lot of additional money.

That is the fallacy argument often used when discussing changes in charges. It assumes that the number of such boats does not change. For marginal changes that may well be nearly true but with order of magnitude changes it cannot be assumed. (In economic terms it implies a complete inelasticity of demand - ie every customer is unable to stop being one - rarely true)