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

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At present we are a long way away from that with :

 

Different charges by length

Different charges by beam

Different charges by age

Different charges by propulsion type

Different charges  by canal where the boat is to be used

Different charges for Rivers only

Different charges for commercial use

Different charges for rental boats

 

Have I forgotten any ?

 

But why *should* it be simple?

 

In pretty much all other walks of life where a organisation has to extract the most money from their customers -- taxation, rail road, flights, almost everything -- differential pricing is used either by usage or ability to pay or need or time/demand, because elasticity of demand means this brings in a lot more money than charging everyone the same regardless of circumstances ("one simple license to navigate the system"). It's basic economic theory (and practice) and applies to CART just like everyone else.

 

Since CARTs basic problem is lack of money, "one simple license" would be commercial suicide for them...

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Those are not all different licenses as you know

 

I am not suggesting that there should be a variety of  PBL simply that there is only one licence (as specified by Law) that has surcharges or discounts applied to it, to re-post the discussion on the subject with Nigel Moore

 

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

[ditchcrawler]

35 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

Ah yes, good point 14 metres from memory for new arrivals. You do see steel narrowboats on the Broads but they seem to be small Sea Otters or other shortish boats.

 

This one I caught at Potter Heigham

 

 

 

And this Sea Otter at Stalham

 

 

There is a fat one at Beccles right by the road bridge 

 

 

[Tacet]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

To be accurate, what I said was:

 

"In basic financial terms it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters while having the fewest number leave the canals or evade payments."

 

By which I meant that if too many leave or evade paying they'll get less money, not that as many as possible should stay (which would mean none leaving) -- maybe this wasn't clear, I tried to clarify it in follow-up posts.

 

The problem is that for this to happen (CART maximising their income) some boaters will end up paying considerably more than today, maybe *much* more in some cases -- because that's how elasticity works.

 

Understandably they're miffed about this and would much prefer a flat fee increase so they don't get clobbered -- but most other boaters would prefer the opposite, so they don't pay as much

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.  In theory (but not in practice!) a reduction in charges could see an increase in income if it resulted in more licenses being sold.

 

The problem with this discussion is that there is not widespread agreement on the principle or policies.

 

If CRT wishes to maximise income, it needs to find the sweet spot for each of a reasonable number of classes (widebeams, lengths CCers, hire boats etc) and impose the same.

 

But some will, quite reasonably say this is unfair and the charge should relate to resources consumed, or an approximation thereof, based on type of use, distance travelled or locks passed, size and other factors.

 

Yet others will say this is not the right type of fair and the ability to pay, or an approximation thereof, should be reflected by age or size of boat.  And others would make allowance for old boats, electric drive or unpowered craft, because they should be encouraged for other reasons.

 

It's not simple.  My guess is that CRT will not be able to fill the massive financial hole by tweaking the licence charges. Any real headway will be gobbled up by a reduction in grant.  It (we?) really need to keep the public sympathetic and trust it leads to an adequate level of government funding.  There are numerous pressures on public funding so it won't be easy.  But I doubt many would wish to see the canals closed, dry or even devoid of boats

Edited March 17, 2023 by Tacet

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I am not suggesting that there should be a variety of  PBL simply that there is only one licence (as specified by Law) that has surcharges or discounts applied to it, to re-post the discussion on the subject with Nigel Moore

 

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

Ok I’m lost now,

what we on about?

just to clear me muddled head;

we agree there’s one PBL?

we agree there are already surcharges/discounts?

and we agree CRT can add further surcharges/discounts and that the surcharges/discounts could be applied directly to CCers? 

and Ok maybe it may not over complicate things regards license applications and it could be another box to tick 

 

but 😃 I will still have to disagree a surcharge on CCers would be a good idea for reasons I’ve stated before,

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Goliath

[IanD]

31 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.  In theory (but not in practice!) a reduction in charges could see an increase in income if it resulted in more licenses being sold.

 

The problem with this discussion is that there is not widespread agreement on the principle or policies.

 

If CRT wishes to maximise income, it needs to find the sweet spot for each of a reasonable number of classes (widebeams, lengths CCers, hire boats etc) and impose the same.

 

But some will, quite reasonably say this is unfair and the charge should relate to resources consumed, or an approximation thereof, based on type of use, distance travelled or locks passed, size and other factors.

 

Yet others will say this is not the right type of fair and the ability to pay, or an approximation thereof, should be reflected by age or size of boat.  And others would make allowance for old boats, electric drive or unpowered craft, because they should be encouraged for other reasons.

 

It's not simple.  My guess is that CRT will not be able to fill the massive financial hole by tweaking the licence charges. Any real headway will be gobbled up by a reduction in grant.  It (we?) really need to keep the public sympathetic and trust it leads to an adequate level of government funding.  There are numerous pressures on public funding so it won't be easy.  But I doubt many would wish to see the canals closed, dry or even devoid of boats

 

Agree with all that, especially the last bit.

 

CART acknowledge that this will bring in more money from boaters but they also need to try and increase it from other sources -- but none of this changes the fact that boaters as a whole are going to have to pay more. The question is how to do this, but any system has to be simple enough to run and enforce that it doesn't eat up more money than it brings in, which is why any complicated system that needs a lot of boots on the ground or boat tracking (distance/locks) or detailed categorisation/checking for lies simply won't work.

 

CART need something which is no harder to administer than what they have now, ideally doesn't need any extra information -- or only what is easy to obtain and verify -- but brings in more money.

 

The information they already have for every boat is length and width (and in most cases age), and whether it has a mooring or whether the owner declared it for CCing (no home mooring). They already change by length and width so changing this to (for example) an area-based fee is trivial, and arguably simpler and fairer than the band-based system they have now -- and yes it will mean big increases for wideboats, which many non-wideboat-owners think is justified.

 

Charging extra for CCing is also simple because they already have the information -- and this is more contentious because of the "real CCers" vs. "CMers" conflict, as you say there are strong opinions and valid reasons on both sides of the argument.

 

CART know that whatever they do is going to get strong objections from the boaters who lose out, so they've done what many organisations do when faced with difficult decisions which is to "put it to the vote" (yes I know, it's not officially a vote, it's not binding yada yada yada -- but in reality that's what it is).

 

This way when challenged about their decision they can say "But we only did what you voted for", and hope that this will shut the losers up -- but even if the protests continue, they'll probably do it anyway because they have to do *something* and -- as CART said -- this is the least bad option for them, as well as boaters... 😉

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

31 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ok I’m lost now,

what we on about?

just to clear me muddled head;

we agree there’s one PBL? YES

we agree there are already surcharges/discounts? YES

and we agree CRT can add further surcharges/discounts and that the surcharges/discounts could be applied directly to CCers? YES

and Ok maybe it may not over complicate things regards license applications and it could be another box to tick YES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Goliath said:

but 😃 I will still have to disagree a surcharge on CCers would be a good idea for reasons I’ve stated before,

 

 

We will have to disagree there - it is an excellent way of making the "user pay" for the reason given by C&RT, me and other posters in this thread.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

We will have to disagree there - it is an excellent way of making the "user pay" for the reason given by C&RT, me and other posters in this thread.

Making the non-user pay, more likely - it looks like CRT are expecting most of the northen system to be shut by summer. Paying four or five grand a year for a summer holiday boat that you can't go on holiday on is possibly not going to look like good value for money.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

 

We will have to disagree there - it is an excellent way of making the "user pay" for the reason given by C&RT, me and other posters in this thread.

Two simple reasons why I disagree

 

1 is identifying CCers as the heaviest users. I’m not sure overall they are.

we know lots of CCers will travel at a much slower pace while those out for a holiday will make up for lost time and get plenty of miles and locks in, possibly many more over a few months than a CCer will in 12. During the ‘season’ ccers are really a minority on the water, usually keeping out the way 

2 perhaps on the grounds a boat license permits access to use the system, whether the opportunity is taken up by home moorers to use the system is neither here nor there, it’s paid for, go and and boat whenever. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Goliath

[Paul C]

14 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Two simple reasons why I disagree

 

1 is identifying CCers as the heaviest users. I’m not sure overall they are.

we know lots of CCers will travel at a much slower pace while those out for a holiday will make up for lost time and get plenty of miles and locks in, possibly many more over a few months than a CCer will in 12. During the ‘season’ ccers are really a minority on the water, usually keeping out the way 

 

Where do they fill up their water tanks, and dump their rubbish and toilet waste?

[magnetman]

It is interesting that the CRT have thus far not cottoned on to the fact they can charge money for these services.

 

Obvious problem being fly tipping and shit in the cut.

 

It could be an interesting experiment to deny canal users access to basic services such as these and see what happens. Lets say for the month of June.

 

This should have the effect of waking up a few councils.

[David Mack]

7 hours 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%. 

I am aware of at least one basin still owned by CRT but leased to a private operator who provides moorings and boatyard services. Not sure whether it is covered by the standard Network Access Agreement or whether it is covered in the terms of the lease, but all moored boats in the basin are required to be licenced, and CRT do send someone in periodically to check.

I suspect there are other off line moorings in a similar position around the system.

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Making the non-user pay, more likely - it looks like CRT are expecting most of the northen system to be shut by summer. Paying four or five grand a year for a summer holiday boat that you can't go on holiday on is possibly not going to look like good value for money.

 

 

Red herring.

 

No-one is forced to keep a boat. Most people in the UK get by perfectly well without one. 

 

If a boat owner feels there are too few waterways on which to use it they are free to sell up. In fact this is a "cart before the horse" argument. If half the waterways are closed this summer, this is because the money to maintain them is not there, partly (or wholly) because license fee has been too low for decades.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by MtB
Finesse the point.

[ditchcrawler]

57 minutes ago, magnetman said:

  Obvious problem being fly tipping and shit in the cut.

 

They have already closed loads of refuse disposal points

[Cheshire cat]

36 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

They have already closed loads of refuse disposal points

 

I saw a petition on one of the boating facebook groups regarding  a C&RT proposal to remove bins in London.

 

I didn't read the detail but wondered if C&RT are expecting the councils to step up and provide facilities for the CM ers 

[magnetman]

Exactly. Councils need waking up about the housing problem. I know they don't want to deal with it but at the end of the day it is local authorities who have the required powers to sort housing problems in their boroughs. It should not be up to the navigation authority to spend money on slum housing problems. This is an issue for local councils whether they like it or not.

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

There is a fat one at Beccles right by the road bridge 

 

 

There is I saw it last year, don't know how they got permission to have it on there?

[Guest]

Just now, peterboat said:

There is I saw it last year, don't know how they got permission to have it on there?

 

It might be a widebeam but was it longer than the permitted length?

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, peterboat said:

There is I saw it last year, don't know how they got permission to have it on there?

I think they must own/rent a permanent mooring 

 

[peterboat]

21 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

It might be a widebeam but was it longer than the permitted length?

Had to be 60 foot plus and possibly over 12 foot wide, I actually rang up the Broads authority to see if I could get my boat on the Broads after I saw it. Total failure  as it happens 

22 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Of course its not.

 

Widebeam owners paying 20% more for taking up 50% more space? How is that fair? 

 

 

Nobody uses that space Mike, once they move on it looks just the same as before. In locks because it displaces more water so less is wasted, both gates have to be opened, so no gate damage like is caused by narrowboats, in fact widebeams are a force for good so should pay less

[ditchcrawler]

32 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Had to be 60 foot plus and possibly over 12 foot wide, I actually rang up the Broads authority to see if I could get my boat on the Broads after I saw it. Total failure  as it happens 

Nobody uses that space Mike, once they move on it looks just the same as before. In locks because it displaces more water so less is wasted, both gates have to be opened, so no gate damage like is caused by narrowboats, in fact widebeams are a force for good so should pay less

There is an ex Concaform Hire Narrowboat at Loddon. I nearly bought a dyke off Oulton Broad when I was planning my boat

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I nearly bought a dyke off Oulton Broad

 

What were you planning to do with a Dyke that you couldn't do with a non-Dyke ?

[magnetman]

I think Oulton was probably asking too much for her.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Where do they fill up their water tanks, and dump their rubbish and toilet waste?

Same places as other boaters.

 

I wonder what the records for lock usage would reveal if the numbers were looked at on a month by month basis.

We’re shown annual reports of lock usage but I wonder how it spreads across the year.

I would expect to see usage go up significantly during the busier months when the boating season is in full flow.

Enough I would have thought to show a pattern to reveal that boaters leaving their marinas have as big an impact on the system if not more than Ccers. 

Add on top of that the restrictions placed on Ccers because of stoppages in the winter then I really can’t see how Ccers are seen to have a much bigger impact on the system. It’s most likely the reverse. 
 

 

[peterboat]

16 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Same places as other boaters.

 

I wonder what the records for lock usage would reveal if the numbers were looked at on a month by month basis.

We’re shown annual reports of lock usage but I wonder how it spreads across the year.

I would expect to see usage go up significantly during the busier months when the boating season is in full flow.

Enough I would have thought to show a pattern to reveal that boaters leaving their marinas have as big an impact on the system if not more than Ccers. 

Add on top of that the restrictions placed on Ccers because of stoppages in the winter then I really can’t see how Ccers are seen to have a much bigger impact on the system. It’s most likely the reverse. 
 

 

IanD once said most hire boaters do the most mileage on canals, so I wonder how much the companies will have to pay extra? Maybe all hirers should pay an extra 100 squids a week?