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

[Lady M]

Surely the point is that CRT receive more income from the vast majority of boaters with a home mooring while also, in the majority of cases, using fewer facilities.

[Higgs]

Just now, Lady C said:

Surely the point is that CRT receive more income from the vast majority of boaters with a home mooring while also, in the majority of cases, using fewer facilities.

 

Not so. Most of the moorings are not online. Online mooring has been reduced. Marina mooring fees only partially go to CRT, and that is a specific access fee. 

 

 

[Lady M]

Of course, some marinas and mooring basins are leased directly from CRT so boaters who moor there indirectly contribute a lot more than 9%.  Even those on the access fee arrangement still pay more indirectly to CRT than CCers.  

[matty40s]

Just now, Lady C said:

Of course, some marinas and mooring basins are leased directly from CRT so boaters who moor there indirectly contribute a lot more than 9%.  Even those on the access fee arrangement still pay more indirectly to CRT than CCers.  

BWML (BW/CRT marinas) was sold off in 2013?. It was bought in a management buyout by the directors who knew what a money spinner it was, and could be.

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Lady C said:

Of course, some marinas and mooring basins are leased directly from CRT so boaters who moor there indirectly contribute a lot more than 9%.  Even those on the access fee arrangement still pay more indirectly to CRT than CCers.  

 

Marinas can be private. Private marinas keep the mooring fee, bar the 9%, which is part of another business arrangement. 

 

If anyone uses the canal, they are equally accessing the services and towpath. Nothing says a home moorer is entitled to an indirect discount.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

37 minutes ago, matty40s said:

BWML (BW/CRT marinas) was sold off in 2013?. It was bought in a management buyout by the directors who knew what a money spinner it was, and could be.

I think CRT retain ownership of the land and Aquavista are just operating the businesses. I don't know for sure but suspect and would hope that the CRT do get an income from the former BWML marinas. 

 

Could be wrong on this it would need checking. 

The "management buyout" was much more recent than 2013. 

 

 

Full name is Aquavista Watersides and is BWML with a new name. 

 

Company incorporated 13 October 2003

Former names:

BRITISH WATERWAYS MARINAS LIMITED

13 Oct 2003 - 27 Jul 2020

 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04930453

Edited March 17, 2023 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I think CRT retain ownership of the land and Aquavista are just operating the businesses. I don't know for sure but suspect and would hope that the CRT do get an income from the former BWML marinas. 

 

Could be wrong on this it would need checking. 

 

No1 Son looked into buyng the BWML marinas and got the prospectus from the Agents. The majority of the marinas were for outright freehold sale, but theu wanted to retain the freehold on (from memory) Marinas in London, (Limehouse and Poplar) Hull and Bath.

 

Basically the 'most profitable ones' that also had the highest land value should the time come to sell the freehold.

 

I have no knowledge of what the final sale conditions ended up being.

[magnetman]

That makes sense. The CRT do own a lot of the docks around Canary wharf. The land value must be enormous if and when the time comes to get the water out and build on the land. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That makes sense. The CRT do own a lot of the docks around Canary wharf. The land value must be enormous if and when the time comes to get the water out and build on the land. 

maybe the time has come to flog ‘em off then?

raise enough money to sort out the Northern Canals

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Goliath said:

maybe the time has come to flog ‘em off then?

raise enough money to sort out the Northern all the Canals

 

FTFY 🙂

[magnetman]

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

maybe the time has come to flog ‘em off then?

raise enough money to sort out the Northern Canals

 

First of all they have to build a load of flats with a "water view" then sell them for shed loads of money then is the time to drain the docks and build more flats.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

BS. 

 

You're trying to introduce the notion that your mooring fee gives added value to your licence fee, giving you an access and use of the canal that a CC licence somehow doesn't. 

 

And from CRT's point of view, it would be more profitable not to set a precedence, but to go for the whole 35,000.

 

 

I accept that you are deliberately being obtuse. However,  for positively the last time as you aren't in the slightest bit interested in anything outside your own head, I'm not trying to introduce anything. I'm trying, unlike you (ever) to see things from someone else's point of view, in this case CRT's.

Finally (I mean it this time!) my mooring fee does give me access and use of the canal that my licence doesn't. It lets me moor on it. My licence doesn't. Yours does. My opinion is that CRT thinks there should be an equalisation. The sensible thing would be to scrap the mooring fee element completely and load it on to licences. It has always been my opinion that they should have done that in the first place. If they had, we wouldn't be where we are and you could have whinged endlessly about something else for the last ten years.

At least you've got something new to complain about now.

You have to get happiness where you can, these days.

 

PS as I can't remember anything positive, factual or useful you've posted in the last ten years, you're going back on my extremely short ignore list, so don't bother replying.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

 

If lumpy water marinas allow it (which sounds unlikely ............

Lumpy water boats generally have a sea toilet or discharge to sea via a holding tank (with a deck pump out option).

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Lumpy water boats generally have a sea toilet or discharge to sea via a holding tank (with a deck pump out option).

Let's keep pointless poo discussions where they belong, shall we?

 

(i.e. not pollute yet *another* thread with them...)

[matty40s]

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

PS as I can't remember anything positive, factual or useful you've posted in the last ten years, you're going back on my extremely short ignore list, so don't bother replying.

Point of order sir, Higgs does regularly contribute to the paints, painting and how to do it properly threads.

[IanD]

39 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I accept that you are deliberately being obtuse. However,  for positively the last time as you aren't in the slightest bit interested in anything outside your own head, I'm not trying to introduce anything. I'm trying, unlike you (ever) to see things from someone else's point of view, in this case CRT's.

Finally (I mean it this time!) my mooring fee does give me access and use of the canal that my licence doesn't. It lets me moor on it. My licence doesn't. Yours does. My opinion is that CRT thinks there should be an equalisation. The sensible thing would be to scrap the mooring fee element completely and load it on to licences. It has always been my opinion that they should have done that in the first place. If they had, we wouldn't be where we are and you could have whinged endlessly about something else for the last ten years.

At least you've got something new to complain about now.

You have to get happiness where you can, these days.

 

PS as I can't remember anything positive, factual or useful you've posted in the last ten years, you're going back on my extremely short ignore list, so don't bother replying.

 

And Higgs (and Peter) keep on suggesting that it's either charge all 35000 boats the same increase or make wideboats and CCers pay all of it so they'll all leave, in spite of endless posts to the contrary explaining how a flat increase which raised the same amount of revenue as a graduated one would p*ss off *far* more boaters -- as well as almost certainly not being what the survey results will show boaters want. Or hate the least, as even CART wryly acknowledged, because *nobody* likes paying more for something than they used to... 😉

 

They're basically ignoring the fact that they're in a minority which many boaters -- probably a big majority, but let's see the results -- think should pay more, because it's not fair!!!

 

Isn't it funny how after they won a vote with a small majority (52:48) -- which the majority of the UK population (70%?) now think was wrong -- they still think 6 years later that the "losers" should shut up and stop moaning because "the people have spoken" -- but now they're faced with being on the losing side, "the boaters have spoken" is somehow not an argument they want to hear about, even with a far bigger majority? 😉

 

I would ask Peter to put up or shut up -- a bet on the result, with the loser donating to charity -- but I expect he'd ignore that again because he knows he's just blustering and will be proved wrong... 😉

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

And Higgs (and Peter) keep on suggesting that it's either charge all 35000 boats the same increase or make wideboats and CCers pay all of it so they'll all leave, in spite of endless posts to the contrary explaining how a flat increase which raised the same amount of revenue as a graduated one would p*ss off *far* more boaters -- as well as almost certainly not being what the survey results will show boaters want. Or hate the least, as even CART wryly acknowledged, because *nobody* likes paying more for something than they used to... 😉

 

They're basically ignoring the fact that they're in a minority which many boaters -- probably a big majority, but let's see the results -- think should pay more, because it's not fair!!!

 

Isn't it funny how after they won a vote with a small majority (52:48) -- which the majority of the UK population (70%?) now think was wrong -- they still think 6 years later that the "losers" should shut up and stop moaning because "the people have spoken" -- but now they're faced with being on the losing side, "the boaters have spoken" is somehow not an argument they want to hear about, even with a far bigger majority? 😉

 

I would ask Peter to put up or shut up -- a bet on the result, with the loser donating to charity -- but I expect he'd ignore that again because he knows he's just blustering and will be proved wrong... 😉

Ian it doesnt matter to me I keep on telling you I wont be on CRT waters, next week I am going to look at my new mooring, I wont be moving until my paid for mooring finishes, my licence is until January but paid for monthly so that finishes when I move and my new moorings are cheaper than my current ones because they dont have to pay CRT. In my 20 years of being on a boat is its certain they have already decided what they are going to do, they are waiting for the Defra grant to be announced and then all boaters will have a rise some will be large some will be extortionate! At the end on this mooring its possible top lose 75% of the boats to scrap w3ith out any problems, its easily possible that after the performance they will have lost income not gained it. However it wont matter to me, I will feel sorry for those forced off the cut by the mismanagement of the waterways and the ones that think that CRT play fair will have a reality check

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Ian it doesnt matter to me I keep on telling you I wont be on CRT waters, next week I am going to look at my new mooring, I wont be moving until my paid for mooring finishes, my licence is until January but paid for monthly so that finishes when I move and my new moorings are cheaper than my current ones because they dont have to pay CRT. In my 20 years of being on a boat is its certain they have already decided what they are going to do, they are waiting for the Defra grant to be announced and then all boaters will have a rise some will be large some will be extortionate! At the end on this mooring its possible top lose 75% of the boats to scrap w3ith out any problems, its easily possible that after the performance they will have lost income not gained it. However it wont matter to me, I will feel sorry for those forced off the cut by the mismanagement of the waterways and the ones that think that CRT play fair will have a reality check

 

So if you don't care because you're not going to be paying it, why do you keep pushing the flat fee increase idea, especially when your reasoning behind it -- reducing the number of p*ssed off boaters who might leave the canals -- simply doesn't add up?

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Ahoy Peter,

don’t put up or shut up

you’re views are as valid as anyone elses 👍

Don’t be bullied out ✊

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ahoy Peter,

don’t put up or shut up

you’re views are as valid as anyone elses 👍

Don’t be bullied out ✊

 

 

Or don't keep spouting the same BS when the facts don't bear it out... 😉

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ahoy Peter,

don’t put up or shut up

you’re views are as valid as anyone elses 👍

Don’t be bullied out ✊

 

 

 

 

I am sorted mate, I wanted to move my boat to the Broads years ago but its to big so I have found another waterway which suits me, a change is as good as a rest they say?

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, matty40s said:

I think you are referring to the Roving Winter Permit which was mooted in 2013? and challenged legally by the NBTA

Indeed - I remembered it later!

 

Sad as it was a much more beneficial scheme all round.

[IanD]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

Indeed - I remembered it later!

 

Sad as it was a much more beneficial scheme all round.

 

The NBTA don't seem to be in favour of things which benefit boaters as a whole, only their particular favoured type of boater... 😞

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Paul C said:

NBTA threaten/promise all sorts of stuff. Did they actually mount a legal challenge, and if so, what form did it take and what was the outcome?

I think you are confusing 'legal action' with 'going to court'

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I did have that happen once. You call the marina, you say you're on your way, they vacate your mooring for your return. 

 

Nevertheless, these moorings fees go to the marina. The extra cost on the mooring is an access fee, and that is a specific payment, for a specific reason. 

 

 

. . .  and is payable whether or not the mooring is occupied, so allowing someone else to use 'your' mooring does not add to the payments to CaRT. In any event, it is significant in planning terms that you do not have 'your' mooring and that the marina can require you to move at little notice.

[LadyG]

If the CRT double my Licence fee, I'll leave ,  or sell up. Not sure I want to go to the Broads, as I imagine it's high embankments in the middle of nowhere.