The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Related tangent: if that £20m the CRT gets for NAA agreements comes with strings attached to restrict CRT's ability to sell competing moorings in the area (potentially residential ones for £2k+, which I'm sure would be an excellent revenue source in some parts of the country with more demand for moorings than moorings) which I think it does, they've seriously underpriced it at £10m revenue for tens of thousands of boats...

It did, but it doesn't any more.

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But as they pay towards the cost of the towpath via both taxes and council tax, they are a customer.

 

No, because they didn't actively buy the service. 

 

Yes they passively contribute towards it, but they have no choice. This doesn't make them a customer of CRT any more than I am a customer of say the RAF, which I also passively fund with no choice in the matter, in the same way as all taxpayers partially fund CRT.

 

And of course, not everyone pays Council Tax, or income tax even, as any fule kno. 

 

 

[Athy]

44 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 granular accounting

A term with which I'm not familiar. It sounds as if it's the work done by Lord Sugar's accountants.

What is it?

(I realise that I'm inviting a retort of "Google it!" but that would negate the point of CWDF as a place for discussion and the exchange of information).

[enigmatic]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Non marina moorers do, in fact, get moved up to the top rate paid by their better off neighbours. My mooring fee to CRT is twice what I pay for my personal mooring, which appears to be at the going rate for my canal (at least, its what I've paid at 2 separate moorings).

You and your online neighbours don't get asked to pay the same amount as an entire marina with 6x the berths though! (I hope, anyway)

 

 

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It did, but it doesn't any more.

This is good. We hear lots of talk about there not being enough moorings and advice to people to get a mooring before a boat especially if they expect to base themself near a certain city, so if CRT can sell more residential moorings in popular areas it's way of raising money that should actually make people happy!

[Paul C]

10 minutes ago, Athy said:

A term with which I'm not familiar. It sounds as if it's the work done by Lord Sugar's accountants.

What is it?

(I realise that I'm inviting a retort of "Google it!" but that would negate the point of CWDF as a place for discussion and the exchange of information).

 

Granular is an adjective and accounting is a verb.

 

It means, their costs are recorded and collected by them being charged on each and every item; its cost and its rate of consumption.

 

For example, in the olden days you could have a water supply (into a house) with no water meter. They just guessed on how much water you might use, based on, errrr coincidentally, area. Then they installed water meters, to try and save on excessive water use by domestic users. More granular (I know water is a liquid, not a powdery solid (okay, unless its snow)) 'counting' of the resource consumed.

[magnetman]

Perhaps the CRT need to put up the NAA percentage and increase take from EOG moorings. 

If they only get an average of £66 per moorer something is very wrong. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lady C said:

It is not much fun walking alongside a derelict canal.  Also I think that many towpath walkers enjoy seeing boats, especially moving boats.

 

Actually a walk along the likes of the non navigable abandoned sections of the Pocklington can be very interesting (If you like that sort of thing!)

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

if CRT can sell more residential moorings in popular areas

 

Its not going to happen. There is a long history of well developed "planning law" which means they can't just change the use of the land (that the canal sits on) in the UK. That is a feature of this country, which sets it apart from many other countries, and is thought to be overall responsible for a lot of the character and attraction of the UK to tourists.

 

You can wish for it, hypothesise it, but I'd not hold your breath for it happening in your lifetime.

[magnetman]

The CRT have been happy to raise my mooring to stratospheric cost levels to follow the market so the question is do they do this elsewhere? If there is a shortage of moorings in certain area and demand then they are too cheap by definition. If marinas are making excessive profits they need hitting harder by the CRT. 

 

 

[Paul C]

In theory a renegotiation of the NAA might be possible (Higgs don't wet yourself) but in practice, its easier to change the PBL cost and upset some boaters directly than indirectly.

[Athy]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Granular is an adjective and accounting is a verb.

 

 

Er, no. Close, though.

 

So it means that you pay for what you use, as in electricity, rather than pay a sum  based on the average of lots of consumers, as (in our case) water.

[magnetman]

I was thinking of as well as rather than instead of. 

[MtB]

25 minutes ago, Athy said:

A term with which I'm not familiar. It sounds as if it's the work done by Lord Sugar's accountants.

What is it?

(I realise that I'm inviting a retort of "Google it!" but that would negate the point of CWDF as a place for discussion and the exchange of information).

 

 

Do you really not know what 'granular' means? 

 

Or is it the term "accounting" with which you are unfamiliar?

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

23 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Perhaps the CRT need to put up the NAA percentage and increase take from EOG moorings. 

If they only get an average of £66 per moorer something is very wrong. 

They get £800 from me for a 40 foot boat for a mooring they neither own, manage or maintain. They do own the water and the clay underneath. I suspect the £66 isn't correct.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[kris88]

I have to admit I haven’t read the whole thread, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned. But why not have the license fee set by a means test? I mean all of those people with properties on land, or money in the bank, or those who retired with good pensions can afford to pay more surely? 
I think the “unforeseen,” consequence of this particular strategy of crts is that the only people left on the cut will be those that are wealthy and those that are eligible for benefits. This will be a really sad day and I would suggest will result in an increase of “shanty boats,”and not a reduction as some people would like to see. 

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

The CRT have been happy to raise my mooring to stratospheric cost levels to follow the market so the question is do they do this elsewhere? If there is a shortage of moorings in certain area and demand then they are too cheap by definition. If marinas are making excessive profits they need hitting harder by the CRT. 

 

 

You don’t have to live in central London. That’s your choice, but you are now expecting tax payers to subsidise your life choices?

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, kris88 said:

I have to admit I haven’t read the whole thread, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned. But why not have the license fee set by a means test?

 

Cos Means Testing costs a fortune - ask any LA Housing Benefits manager.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Midnight

[magnetman]

One can claim licence costs on Universal Credit if one is eligible. This includes using the 14 day rule and declaring no home mooring. It can be done. You do have to genuinely be eligible for it though. 

 

The result of doing this is that the canals receive some state funding by a slightly circuitous route. 

 

 

[Paul C]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

But why not have the license fee set by a means test?

 

Is any other licence fee means tested? And isn't it already anyway, in a crude way, in that those on benefits can have it paid for them as part of (the element of UC which is...) housing benefit?

Edited March 18, 2023 by Paul C

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, kris88 said:

I have to admit I haven’t read the whole thread, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned. But why not have the license fee set by a means test? I mean all of those people with properties on land, or money in the bank, or those who retired with good pensions can afford to pay more surely? 
I think the “unforeseen,” consequence of this particular strategy of crts is that the only people left on the cut will be those that are wealthy and those that are eligible for benefits. This will be a really sad day and I would suggest will result in an increase of “shanty boats,”and not a reduction as some people would like to see. 

You don’t have to live in central London. That’s your choice, but you are now expecting tax payers to subsidise your life choices?

 

It is a good point about the potential for more slums rather than a reduction.

 

I don't think you are right though that adding 2 grand a year would mean rich people and benefit claimants. 2 grand isn't a lot if it is referring to housing costs. Even in much cheaper areas people pay a lot more than 3 grand a year to rent a pokey little flat. 

I think a lot of people living on boats probably are not eligible for benefits and quite likely could pay more. They may not want to but it isn't always about what one would want. 

[kris88]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

It is a good point about the potential for more slums rather than a reduction.

 

I don't think you are right though that adding 2 grand a year would mean rich people and benefit claimants. 2 grand isn't a lot if it is referring to housing costs. Even in much cheaper areas people pay a lot more than 3 grand a year to rent a pokey little flat. 

Do you think crt will stop at two grand when this becomes established?  I know personally that given the direction of travel, there will become a point where it will make economic sense for me to stop working and paying taxes. To clam benefits and get my licence fee paid. I can’t be the only one in a similar situation. 

[magnetman]

I am entirely in favour of a real and genuine universal income system where the state pays everyone a single payment which can cover basic living costs. The system can handle it. 

Automation makes this more feasible as jobs get taken out over time.

 

It is a sensible way for society to proceed. 

 

Don't feel guilt about claiming benefits. There is nothing to feel guilty about. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

Quite happy to pay the CRT an extra £66, especially if I get a mooring with it! Fair's fair, innit.

 

No, not fair.

 

CM / CCers pay nothing and use the facilities 20, 30  more ??? times more than a HMer.

so to be 'fair' the CM / CCer should be paying £1500 / £2000 more than a HMer to be on the waterways.

 

You seem to be struggling with the concept of "pay by use" (user pays)

[kris88]

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

I am entirely in favour of a real and genuine universal income system where the state pays everyone a single payment which can cover basic living costs. The system can handle it. 

Automation makes this more feasible as jobs get taken out over time.

 

It is a sensible way for society to proceed. 

 

Don't feel guilt about claiming benefits. There is nothing to feel guilty about. 

 

 

 

I agree with what you say about a universal income and a lot of economists think it’s going to have to go that way. 
I also don’t feel guilty about taking benefits I’d just rather not, as it seems a bit like being a drug addict. 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, enigmatic said:

HMs, by your calculations, contribute £66 per boat more than CCers to CRT coffers for their moorings, which I must admit is a lot less than I thought it would be (and strongly suggests that they're not making nearly as much as they should from NAA agreements). Quite happy to pay the CRT an extra £66, especially if I get a mooring with it! Fair's fair, innit.

 

 

I think your maths are a little at fault.

 

£20,000,000 paid by 30,000 boats = £666 Each (not £66)

 

Are you still offering to pay it ? (Remember that is not the cost of a mooring, it is the contribution that C&RT get from Mooring providers under the NAA in addition to C&RTs own moorings)

Edited March 18, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No, not fair.

 

CM / CCers pay nothing and use the facilities 20, 30  more ??? times more than a HMer.

so to be 'fair' the CM / CCer should be paying £1500 / £2000 more than a HMer to be on the waterways.

 

You seem to be struggling with the concept of "pay by use" (user pays)

So in turn a home moorer should not pay a license if they don’t use it?

(Don’t  use the system that is)

Edited March 18, 2023 by Goliath