C&RT License Survey

[magnetman]

39 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

..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.

I think this is a very important point.

I've lived on boats for 29 yars and hope for another 29. I like it. 

 

People seem to think it must be wonderful but if asked I always day "I like it but it is not suitable for everyone". 

 

Anyone thinking of doing this with no alternative needs to be very sure or it can be a nightmare. 

 

It really does not suit everyone. 

Narrow boats and canals are especially interesting because you go one way or the other on a ditch in a long thin tube. freedom !! 

 

I did this for 12 yars which is enough. Having a boat as a toy probably quite wise to be fair. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by magnetman

[IanD]

44 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

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)

It's true that the demand is to some extent elastic, but beat in mind that the *total* cost of living on a boat -- with a home mooring or not --- is much higher (about £5k a year?) than the license fee (about £1k), and even a big increase in the fee is a much smaller increase in the total cost of living.

 

It's also very common with any change like this that people say "I'll give up if this happens" -- for example, leave the country if taxes on the rich go up -- but then don't because they want to live here -- and I'm sure there's a lot of that happening with license fees. There's also the question of where else they could go that's as cheap even after su h a rise...

 

No doubt some people will.give up and leave, bit this is unlikely to be anywhere close to the increased income -- if the fee doubled for CCers that would probably put their total annual boating cost up by about 20%, and maybe 10% would leave -- which means a 90% revenue increase for CART.

 

Of course if they overdo this more people will leave, and I suspect 2x the standard fee is about as far as they could go without this happening.

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's true that the demand is to some extent elastic, but beat in mind that the *total* cost of living on a boat -- with a home mooring or not --- is much higher (about £5k a year?) than the license fee (about £1k), and even a big increase in the fee is a much smaller increase in the total cost of living.

 

It's also very common with any change like this that people say "I'll give up if this happens" -- for example, leave the country if taxes on the rich go up -- but then don't because they want to live here -- and I'm sure there's a lot of that happening with license fees. There's also the question of where else they could go that's as cheap even after su h a rise...

 

No doubt some people will.give up and leave, bit this is unlikely to be anywhere close to the increased income -- if the fee doubled for CCers that would probably put their total annual boating cost up by about 20%, and maybe 10% would leave -- which means a 90% revenue increase for CART.

 

Of course if they overdo this more people will leave, and I suspect 2x the standard fee is about as far as they could go without this happening.

I have thought long and hard on what I expect the increases to be, so here is my best guess 

Widebeams up to 10 foot 50%

Widebeams 10 foot plus 100%

CCs 200%

The rest 10% above inflation 

The moorings in Sheffield have increased at Jonnys 43% and CV an equally large amount. So if this is a trend nobody will escape big rises.

These sort or rises will make boats a very expensive hobby 

Edited February 25, 2023 by peterboat

[magnetman]

Even if 10 percent of boat owners "leave" their boats will probably be bought by someone else and licensed. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

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)

 

Yes I accept that argument, but lets assume that 25% leave the waterways and find the necessary money (much more needed) to move into bricks & mortar.

I'd suggest that many liveaboards who are not in Marinas are there because of financial constraints and they would be better paying (say) £200 a month more for their licence than trying to find an extra £1000 a month to rent a property / flat.

 

Currently 6000 boats at £1000 = £6,000,000 income to C&RT

 

Now we increase it by 3x and lose 25% of boaters : total income now  £3000 x 4500 boaters = £13,500,000 - £6,000,000 a gain of £7,500,000.

The other 'hidden benefits' are that there will be a reduction (of 25%) of CCers using drinking water, pumping out / elsan emptying, waste disposal, lock operations (back-pumping), administration, licence enforcement (CMers)  etc etc etc.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Lady M]

Yes but surely at least some of the boats will be sold on?

[GUMPY]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

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 ?

No

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have thought long and hard on what I expect the increases to be, so here is my best guess 

Widebeams up to 10 foot 50%

Widebeams 10 foot plus 100%

CCs 200%

The rest 10% above inflation 

The moorings in Sheffield have increased at Jonnys 43% and CV an equally large amount. So if this is a trend nobody will escape big rises.

These sort or rises will make boats a very expensive hobby 

 

I think CART are more likely to go to area-based fees (length x width), this removes all the anomalies where a small change in size gives a big jump in fee. If they keep the fees the same for narroboats this will mean the cost for a 14' wideboat goes up from +25% (surcharge now) to +100%, which is a 60% increase (x1.6).

 

I also think that adding a CC surcharge of more than 100% (x2) would be difficult, let's see what CART decide to do.

 

Inflation+10% as a baseline is a reasonable prediction -- on top of the above surcharges, this would give the following rises from where we are now:

 

Narrowboats with home mooring : x1.2 (+20%)

14' wideboats with home mooring : x1.9 (+90%)

CC narrowboats : x2.4 (+140%)

CC 14' wideboats : x3.8 (+280%)

 

It'll be interesting to see what actually happens... 😉

[Barneyp]

2 hours 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.

 

I use the term "CCer", but I'm not obsessed with it, and I don't think of it as a negative term or an insult. And I certainly don't blame CCers for problems for the condition of the canals.

 

And much as I don't think other boaters are to blame for the lack of maintenance and investment in the canals, I don't think CRT can be blamed for the long term underfunding of the canals. Yes we can debate individual policies and decisions, but ultimately they don't have enough money so they need to raise more.

 

Increasing the license fees is an obvious way to get more money, and looking at the way those fees are calculated makes sense.

 

The principal of taking account of the boats use has also been established with business licences, why shouldn't boats that use the system more pay more (eg hire boats).

I know there will be winners and losers from any change, and no system will be perfect.

 

You say we should "use it or lose it" we should also realise the system needs financial support, and engage with CRT in trying to make that happen.

 

 

[magnetman]

Over the last few yars the burden has been placed on those who use the waterways least. CRT have been whacking up the price of residential moorings like nobody's business. 

 

One does not mind too much but it seems a little ironic. 

 

Maybe one is viewed as a cash cow. 

I think someone at the CRT is afraid of driving away customers by raising licence fees. 

[Alan de Enfield]

The previous proposals and considerations :

 

 

3. Proposals

3.1. Proof of identity and a reliable contact address should be required for all customers. Credit references required for direct debit mandates. Applicants must be over 18. 

 

3.2. We should differentiate between licences for individuals and licences for businesses. Administrative systems, terms and conditions and standard communications should reflect this.

(a) The licence should be simply understood as giving the right to float on our waterways. As far as practical, we should avoid overloading it with detailed regulations relating to commercial trading activities which would be more efficiently dealt with through a trading agreement with the boat operator.

(b) There are potentially many different aspects to a trading operation, with implications for the management of specific sites. A trading agreement or operator’s licence would provide a much better vehicle for setting out conditions such as whether the trader can use the towpath, access for loading and unloading, touting for business, noise control, health and safety requirements etc.

(c) A new set of template trading agreements should be prepared to cover floating business operations, as is already the case for hire boat operators. Agreements will be negotiated locally following national guidelines. This will enable us to simplify the licence system to concentrate on the key factors outlined in section 3. We will need template agreements for the following types of business: • • • • • Trip and restaurant boats . These depend on a specific location/stretch of waterway for their business. They make less intensive use of the navigation than hire boats, and the majority of end-customer value arises from the on-board service. business barges and ‘shop’ boats Time share and shared ownership enterprises (customer care standards being achieved by some operators are a cause of concern, and this should be addressed through the trading agreement) Charities operating trip boats or holiday boats for deserving groups or other charitable purposes Commercial carriers, which all require some form of loading and unloading permissions. The system will cover freight operations on commercial waterways currently outside the scope of the existing licensing scheme

 

3.3. Houseboat certificates should only be issued to genuinely static vessels. The issue of residency is much more relevant to moorings management and should not be an issue for licensing.

 

3.4. The main drivers for licence price variations should be:

(a) size of boat: but we should drastically reduce the number of length categories and introduce a ‘beam’ factor. There is little rationale for the large number of differentials we have at present. The main reasons for retaining some elements of pricing according to size are:

• the practical difficulties of implementing a change involving complete removal of this factor - there would be unacceptably large numbers of losers and winners.

• likelihood of sharing locks a marketing case for an attractive entry-level rate to encourage new boaters The ultimate target could comprise as few as three categories, but this would need to be phased in over say, five years. For example

• • • market entry’ boats, typically under 7m – to encourage new customers medium sized family boat, up to 12m – another popular entry level category boats over 12m which are typically the choice of people with high commitment to boating. Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m.

(b) Duration of licence: we recommend a relative reduction in the price for short term access combined with a restriction on the number of such licences that an owner could purchase during a year. The purpose of this is to increase visiting craft and new market entrants.

(c) intensity of use: extensive use indicated by continuous cruising/occupancy, commercial hiring, multi-user arrangements etc. should pay a premium

(d) extent of geographic access: craft using only isolated stretches such as Monmouth & Brecon, Bridgwater & Taunton and Lowlands waterways should pay less than those with full access. Consider increasing the number of geographic zones, possibly implemented via card readers at zone boundaries. This could be refined to allow for additional charges for access to particularly intensively used areas, and lower costs for less popular zones. It would involve some users paying more and some less.

(e) Policy objectives such as encouraging new entrants to boating, use of electric power, encouraging hire operators to adopt ETC quality standards, encouraging use of less popular areas. We could also consider verifiable user concessions – dependent on introducing proof of identity requirement. For example, we might consider a lower rate for loyal senior customers – 10+ years or more licensed continuously with no payment defaults and over 60 years old.

(f) The fee structure should be simplified to define a single baseline fee for the most popular size/type of craft. In the following trial example, the baseline is a privately owned pleasure craft over 12 m long with a registered permanent mooring, licensed for 12 months. Note all these figures are hypothetical. If basic principles are agreed, we will construct simulation model with aim of calculating rates that will protect total revenue and reflect policy objectives. Nor is the list definitive – additional criteria may be added as work proceeds on the scheme.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

22 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I have thought long and hard on what I expect the increases to be, so here is my best guess 

Widebeams up to 10 foot 50%

Widebeams 10 foot plus 100%

CCs 200%

The rest 10% above inflation 

The moorings in Sheffield have increased at Jonnys 43% and CV an equally large amount. So if this is a trend nobody will escape big rises.

These sort or rises will make boats a very expensive hobby 

and you see them as incremental rises over say .... 5 years? 

 

While I agree there’s going to be some drastic rises, I do wonder if CRT have the nerve to make the big hikes you’re suggesting.

I think it’s clear licenses will increase by above inflation rates over the coming years but with an extra 10% too, I can’t see it.

 

I really don’t know, but maybe a fifth of what you suggest would be my prediction? Don’t know, really have t a clue, haven’t done the maths on it.

Just reckon CRT will increase fees by as much as they think they can to get that average boat license up as much as they can with out crippling the system.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The previous proposals and considerations :

 

Which/when were they?

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

and you see them as incremental rises over say .... 5 years? 

 

While I agree there’s going to be some drastic rises, I do wonder if CRT have the nerve to make the big hikes you’re suggesting.

I think it’s clear licenses will increase by above inflation rates over the coming years but with an extra 10% too, I can’t see it.

 

I really don’t know, but maybe a fifth of what you suggest would be my prediction? Don’t know, really have t a clue, haven’t done the maths on it.

Just reckon CRT will increase fees by as much as they think they can to get that average boat license up as much as they can with out crippling the system.

 

 

 

Which/when were they?

 

 

BW 2002.

 

Their proposed increases were :

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[peterboat]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I think CART are more likely to go to area-based fees (length x width), this removes all the anomalies where a small change in size gives a big jump in fee. If they keep the fees the same for narroboats this will mean the cost for a 14' wideboat goes up from +25% (surcharge now) to +100%, which is a 60% increase (x1.6).

 

I also think that adding a CC surcharge of more than 100% (x2) would be difficult, let's see what CART decide to do.

 

Inflation+10% as a baseline is a reasonable prediction -- on top of the above surcharges, this would give the following rises from where we are now:

 

Narrowboats with home mooring : x1.2 (+20%)

14' wideboats with home mooring : x1.9 (+90%)

CC narrowboats : x2.4 (+140%)

CC 14' wideboats : x3.8 (+280%)

 

It'll be interesting to see what actually happens... 😉

10 foot plus is 20% ian

[Rambling Boater]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

BW 2002.

 

Their proposed increases were :

 

 

 

 

 

So your logic is based on what a different organisation debated over 20 years ago?

 

Times have moved on since then.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Rambling Boater said:

 

So your logic is based on what a different organisation debated over 20 years ago?

 

Times have moved on since then.

 

One can only agree - BW being a Government 'department' had 'virtually unlimited funds' whilst C&RT have higher expenditure than income and if they were a business would be declared bankrupt.

 

They need more money than BW ever did.

 

Wake up and smell the Coffee !

[peterboat]

22 minutes ago, Goliath said:

and you see them as incremental rises over say .... 5 years? 

 

While I agree there’s going to be some drastic rises, I do wonder if CRT have the nerve to make the big hikes you’re suggesting.

I think it’s clear licenses will increase by above inflation rates over the coming years but with an extra 10% too, I can’t see it.

 

I really don’t know, but maybe a fifth of what you suggest would be my prediction? Don’t know, really have t a clue, haven’t done the maths on it.

Just reckon CRT will increase fees by as much as they think they can to get that average boat license up as much as they can with out crippling the system.

 

 

 

Which/when were they?

Same as last time which was over 5 years 

[magnetman]

I feel that if the cc option does become officially recognised as a way of life and can be subjected to things like "cost of living payments" people will happily pay more for it. If they need state help they can get it. 

 

People who can't see this can go away and be replaced by those who are more enlightened as to the clear benefits for those who actually do want to live on boats. 

 

More money to the navigation authority AND more security for the person living on the boat. What is not to like?

 

To me it makes a lot of sense. 

 

To others perhaps not. 

 

If you are a parasite clear off. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

10 foot plus is 20% ian

Should have looked it up. Many people -- the majority in the consultation, I predict -- think 20% is definitely much too small... 😉

 

(but I expect as a minority widebeam owner you disagree...)

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Should have looked it up. Many people -- the majority in the consultation, I predict -- think 20% is definitely much too small... 😉

 

(but I expect as a minority widebeam owner you disagree...)

Doesn't matter to me, I have a mooring on non CRT waterways and will be moving there this summer. I would probably have moved regardless but this consultation has galvanised me to move 

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

One can only agree - BW being a Government 'department' had 'virtually unlimited funds' whilst C&RT have higher expenditure than income and if they were a business would be declared bankrupt.

 

They need more money than BW ever did.

 

 

The funds you speak of are the ones which used to come from the tax payer. You know, all those members of the non boating public who also enjoyed, and still enjoy what the waterways offer.

 

In my opinion, the tax payer should still partially fund maintenance of the system. Particularly as C&RT have placed the wishes of the general public over boaters in recent years.

 

In a way the public are contributing via the 'charity' revenue initiatives, but shouldn't our national heritage still be partially supported through taxation? (rather than pick on fat boats and those without a home mooring)

 

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

The funds you speak of are the ones which used to come from the tax payer. You know, all those members of the non boating public who also enjoyed, and still enjoy what the waterways offer.

 

In my opinion, the tax payer should still partially fund maintenance of the system. Particularly as C&RT have placed the wishes of the general public over boaters in recent years.

 

In a way the public are contributing via the 'charity' revenue initiatives, but shouldn't our national heritage still be partially supported through taxation? (rather than pick on fat boats and those without a home mooring)

 

Two separate issues here...

 

Yes the government should pay a bigger grant as part of maintaining the national infrastructure and heritage, but they don't seem inclined to do this, and want to reduce it in real terms. Maybe Labour will.if they win the next GE but that's two years away.

 

As far as "picking on" fat boats and people without a home mooring, this is almost certainly what the majority of boaters want because they're fed up of people gaming the system -- don't blame CART, blame the recent rash of thoughtless wideboaters mooring (and sometimes even travelling) where they're not suited, and the massive increase in CMers bending or ignoring the CC rules purely to get a much cheaper place to live than those who pay for a mooring.

 

Yes this is being divisive, because the selfish tw*ts behaving like this have screwed it up for the boaters (incuding widebeam and CCers) who don't... 😞

Edited February 25, 2023 by IanD

[JemShaun]

We shall be back on the water as liveaboards within the next 4 month ( Mrs retires April)  We will be CCers as this is what we have chosen to do. I have done the permanent mooring side of canal life when I last lived on the Macc.  

 

I would gladly pay more for a CC licence if that was what we had to do ( I may not entirely agree with it) However there seems to be some sort of divide going on within the boating world at the moment, and maybe this divide will play into the hands of the CRT? 

We don't really care how big a boat you have or how often its on the cut, we care about us and the way we choose to live. Until we know for sure what outcome of said survey is, we shall continue with our plans 

[Midnight]

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

Even if 10 percent of boat owners "leave" their boats will probably be bought by someone else and licensed. 

The majority of boats have a home mooring and the license fee increase will be 10% or so - many, I believe, will just grumble but swallow it and consider it's still good value (except of course those of us from Yorkshire 😆). This is the group where numbers may reduce in response to a higher fee, but as mentioned these boats will be resold, some to CCers.

 

Of the 20% of boats without a home mooring generally the owners live aboard so won't really have much option (other than to become unlicensed  and risk enforcement). Some may opt for a mooring most won't. I suspect C&RT see this group as a cash cow rather than trying to use the price hike to encourage CMers to take a mooring. 

 

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

The majority of boats have a home mooring and the license fee increase will be 10% or so - many, I believe, will just grumble but swallow it and consider it's still good value (except of course those of us from Yorkshire 😆). This is the group where numbers may reduce in response to a higher fee, but as mentioned these boats will be resold, some to CCers.

 

Of the 20% of boats without a home mooring generally the owners live aboard so won't really have much option (other than to become unlicensed  and risk enforcement). Some may opt for a mooring most won't. I suspect C&RT see this group as a cash cow rather than trying to use the price hike to encourage CMers to take a mooring. 

 

I think a lot of people living on boats on "continuous cruiser licences" will welcome the extra costs as it helps to legitimise their lifestyle and enable them to claim state support for various things. Seems like good insurance. Better than being marginalised and eventually outlawed. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by magnetman
Typo and added the usual