Jump to content

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


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Correct, and they don't require one unless it is part of the commercial contract with the mooring provider.

 

I never needed a licence when we had a mooring nr Burton On Trent (Shobnal). I never required a licence when we were in Newark marina.

There are dozens of marinas / moorings where you do not pay for a licence unless you 'go out'.

More than 24? ie dozens ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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)

haha, I'll hold my hands up to that one, turns out my midnight beer maths is better than my midday about to have kids descend on my boat maths. 🤣   

Did think the number looked wrong, but stupidly didnt spot that it added back to £2m instead of £20m

 

Still, if CRT want to auction off towpath moorings the right to bridge hop at £666 the number of the beast there will be takers. Seems better than selling us the right to not have a mooring for more than twice as much as CRT is getting for actual moorers, anyway.

 

I think you were also an order of magnitude out with your separate suggestion CCers use facilities 20-30x more than the average though. Even my bad posts don't fill Elsans with that much disproportionate amount of shit, and some CCers have amazing eco friendly composting toilets!

 

 

10 hours ago, IanD said:

The issue is not just "pay per use", it's the hugely imbalanced costs between those with a home mooring -- typically about £3k-£4k year for mooring + license? -- and those who CC (or claim to) -- typically about £1k per year for license.

 

This is a very strong encouragement to liveaboard boaters-in-name-only (BINOs?) to claim they are CCers but ignore the rules and stay in one place, because it's 3x-4x more expensive to have a mooring.

 

One consequence of this is that CART lose a lot of revenue, the other is that the vast majority of boaters are p*ssed off by the CM p*ss-takers -- who are the only real winners here (along with "real Ccers", see below).

 

Adding a CC surcharge (e.g. +100%) would bring in more revenue for CART, reduce the BINO incentive to CM because a mooring is now only 1.5x-2x more expensive and has many benefits, and will reduce CM resentment among the majority of boaters -- so a lot of positive sides.

 

On the negative side, "real CCers" who actually go boating would also be penalised, though as CART say there is some justification for this (increased use of system).

 

Whether the positives of a CC surcharge outweigh the negatives is what this debate is all about, and different people have different opinions about this. However given that CCers are outnumbered by 5:1 I think it's crystal clear which way the consultation will go...

Flip side of this is I suspect most CCers actually CC. And of the ones that don't I suspect the ones with the actual purchasing power aren't avoiding paying for an £800 end of garden mooring, they're unable to find a suitable mooring in their preferred area at all because waiting lists and wild London prices

 

So the new charge wouldn't change their incentive to CM, but does possibly leave the cost-focused ones competing for cheap farm moorings up north with people that actually want to keep their leisure boat on a cheap farm mooring up north (tbf, CRT seem to be trying to close the 'ghost mooring' loophole, but if they haven't succeeded in clamping down on existing stricter rules ....). Meanwhile people who actually CC would pay more to the CRT than most people with home moorings, and the CRT still wouldn't have enough money because people voted to ensure the entire burden of cost increases fell on the seventh of waterways users that wasn't them...

 

 

8 hours ago, magnetman said:

Arrr there any canal related things which get royal patronage ?

 

It is almost like nobody cares about such a wonderful national asset. 

 

 

Ma

Maybe these over privileged parasites have never experienced the true joy of crawling along a ditch in box section metal tube with a diesel engine at one end of it. 

 

I suppose they probably know about yotting in the med. 

Crawling along in a box section metal tube sounds like the sort of thing only Prince Harry would like (he can pretend that the fishermen are Taliban). Probably best we don't invite him though, because if Meghan likes it as well we'll have the canals all filled in to universal public acclaim by 2024 ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Private marina moorers pay towards marina overheads. The connection fee is a marina overhead. It's a bill set up as part of the NAA. And that contract has nothing to do with the marina moorers' direct liability to make a payment to CRT. It's part of the marina's undertaking. 

 

But in this ridiculous argument that home moorers pay more to CRT, there would be a discrepancy between online mooring contributions and off line contributions. The online contribution is 100% to CRT, the offline would be 9% (hypothetically). That would set up another pay band calculation. Online moorers would be saying they pay more than the offline moorers. 

 

 

 

 

17 hours 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)

 

I've never struggled with the concept of pay by use. You'll note that there are moorers in a marina that never enter CRT water. They've been forced to pay for a licence, regardless. Years and years of no use.

 

But how can you say CCer use the facilities more? Some boaters use the facilities less. Some boaters use the facilities more. That's about all you could say, without differentiating between CCers and home moorers. 

 

No one pays by the go. If people want to introduce the idea that there is some arbitrary level of reasonable use, there will be the opposite to define. And no use would be a definition level. 

 

All of this banding is going to require more administration. Just imagine the headache at every funding review, to recalibrate all the nuances of use.

 

For an organisation that is already struggling to cope, I'd begin to have doubts, whether asking boaters was a wise decision, unless CRT was looking for a dog's dinner solution. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

 

 

19 ...

 

 

"The 'NAA' (National Access Agreement) which forms the contract between C&RT and the marina owner stipulates that any boats in the marina must be licenced - this is a commercial contract and nothing to do with any 'legal requirement' under the various waterways acts.

It is simply to help C&RT ensure a minimum of un-licenced boats 'sneak-out' cruise and return without buying a licence." Alan de Enfield.

 

 

On the subject of the "sneak-outs" - why do CRT need to extract the full licence payment, for the above excuse for an ethical stance, which would cover 365 days of sneaking out? Surely, a minimum and cheaper fee would be appropriate. Not that I think it's helps CRT's case, that they bypass licencing law - in order to check an offence that hasn't been committed, and only an imagined possibility that might occur, when CRT themselves have not remained within the law.  Hypocrisy.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul C said:

 

Sounds a bit "Freeman of the Land". Are you a Freeman of the Land?

 

You're confusing the authority that CRT have over the marina. The marina cannot act by proxy to apply the legal authority of CRT inside the marina. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The marina cannot act by proxy to apply the legal authority of CRT inside the marina. 

 

 

 

I think you're confusing it, not me. The marina CAN put a term into the mooring contract to require a CRT licence, just as they can put a term in to require BSS or insurance if they want to, but they themselves don't supply the BSS or insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we been here before perchance ?

 

I'm sure somewhere along the line the CRT have powers to control moorings which involve cutting a channel in the canal bank which they own.

 

NLS library of Scotland side by side maps. The best one for land parcels is OS 25 inch 1892-1914.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

I think you're confusing it, not me. The marina CAN put a term into the mooring contract to require a CRT licence, just as they can put a term in to require BSS or insurance if they want to, but they themselves don't supply the BSS or insurance.

 

You're confusing marina T&Cs with the law, that only functions out on the canal. As a marina's T&Cs have no bearing, outside of the marina. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You're confusing marina T&Cs with the law, that only functions out on the canal. As a marina's T&Cs have no bearing, outside of the marina. 

 

 

 

 

Are you a Freeman of the Land?

 

Marina T&Cs are covered by civil law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Have a good day.

 

 

 

Are you a Freeman of the Land though? You seem to have a poor understanding of the geographic jurisdiction of civil law; and that we can pick and choose which laws apply, according to as-yet undefined parameters in your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Are you a Freeman of the Land though? You seem to have a poor understanding of the geographic jurisdiction of civil law; and that we can pick and choose which laws apply, according to as-yet undefined parameters in your own mind.

 

Boaters have no contractual obligations to CRT, inside a marina. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

But are you.....a Freeman of the Land? Because you've not given a straight answer yet, and its very close to passing the "duck test".

 

I don't blame myself for your inability to appreciate the law of when and where a licence is a legal requirement, and where it is no more significant than a rule that says moorers cannot hang their washing out. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't blame myself for your inability to appreciate the law of when and where a licence is a legal requirement, and where it is no more significant than a rule that says moorers cannot hang their washing out. 

 

 

 

 

It is a closed question.......yes or no answer........"Are you a Freeman of the Land"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Boaters have no contractual obligations to CRT, inside a marina. 

 

 

Basically correct, but if the marina wishes to connect to the canal then crt require that the marina must agree to only allow boats with a crt licence to stay.   So if an unlicensed boat is in the marina crt can not take action against the boat/boater but the marina would be in breach of it’s agreement with crt, so crt can take action against the marina, for example by closing the marina access to the canal.

To avoid this situation the marina requires in it’s agreement with boaters that boats are licensed, if a boat is unlicensed then it’s the responsibility of the marina to enforce it’s agreement with the boater.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.