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

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

Exactly. This is what I'm getting at. 

 

Is there any specific reason then why people declaring home mooring should not have to pay to moor on the towpath at any time? 

 

I wouldn't bring in the rule of charging to use the system, other than by means of a non-discriminatory boat licence. Home moorers and CC alike. But if it is argued that CC'ers should pay a premium, I couldn't leave out home moorers doing the same. 

 

 

[magnetman]

I can see your point. Its just that the navigation authority is in effect a business with the aim being to generate profit. They may take the view that anyone contributing to their coffers by ways other than licence payments would be a better customer and worth looking after. 

 

I realise this would be tricky to achieve but it does make sense to level the field if everyone basically wants the same thing but those who use it more pay less. 

Maybe a CC declaration licence can be seen as a bulk purchase of moorings. That could work. Discounts for quantity purchased in advance.

[Higgs]

Just now, magnetman said:

I can see your point. Its just that the navigation authority is in effect a business with the aim being to generate profit. They may take the view that anyone contributing to their coffers by ways other than licence payments would be a better customer and worth looking after. 

 

I realise this would be tricky to achieve but it does make sense to level the field if everyone basically wants the same thing but those who use it more pay less. 

 

There's no clear good morality in loading the costs on one group, which will also be paying towards the benefit of some that feel they deserve to be shown some deference because they choose to pay for a permanent mooring somewhere. 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

I don't remember what the cost breakdown is in terms of where the money is needed but I think infrastructure and keeping water levels might be quite important.

I think the toll system, which is how it was originally organised, is probably best. You pay a fee according to the amount of time you spend on a certain part of waterway. It is easy to find this out as canal boats are notoriously difficult to hide. 

 

"loading" the costs would thereby happen according to how much someone uses the waterway. 

 

If people were tucked away in marinas they could avoid paying by not using the boat although a modest fee to be afloat would make sense. Separate section of marina for people who prefer the boat was aground.

 

Anyone on the section already with a mooring would be free to use that section as an established payer but would need to pay extra if they went to another section. 

 

Braunston toll house is apparently at risk so this system is dead and buried but it did make an awful lot of sense .

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I think the toll system, which is how it was originally organised, is probably best. You pay a fee according to the amount of time you spend on a certain part of waterway. It is easy to find this out as canal boats are notoriously difficult to hide. 

 

Swings and roundabouts. There are many hundreds of boats in marinas that never venture out onto the cut. And imagine if they did all come out. The wear and tear on the system would be multiplied. These people are nearly all paying for no use of the system. And those moorers have no choice. If a toll system was introduced, these moorers would have a good case to end their payment of a boat licence. I think they already do have a good case, but...

 

 

[magnetman]

Everyone just stopping paying is always an option but I am not all that sure about it. It seems that keeping the water there and making things work needs money. 

 

Irritating but quite possibly true. 

[David Mack]

47 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems to be a demonstration that the CRT can charge people for use of towpath moorings. 

CRT and BW have charged for towpath moorings (long term) for as long as I can remember - at least as far back as the 70s. Indeed in those days there were far fewer offline basins and marinas and many boats' normal mooring was against the towpath, with a mooring fee paid to BW on top of the licence fee. 

Many of the moorings now sold through CRT's Waterside Moorings are on the towpath.

[magnetman]

Pay As You Go is a common approach these days. Modern technology can help here. 

 

I don't see why people moored in marinas should be paying to use the canal apart from a basic maintenance fee to ensure the boat is floating. A toll system would help them prioritise what the actually want to do. In fact it would help a lot of people get their priorities straight. 

[Tam & Di]

From the 80s onwards the number of boats being tied on the towpath was becoming problematic, and the 1995 Act brought in the requirement for all pleasure craft to have a home mooring, and the restriction that craft could tie on the towpaths for 14 days or less as determined locally. The Lords' Committee rejected the mooring Clause in the form it first appeared as some Petitioners could show that their members cruised more or less continuously around the system.

 

This was only one small part of the Bill, and in order that it was not totally lost the BW Solicitor Jeremy Duffey introduced the concept that owners who were engaged in long-term cruising 'in good faith' were exempt from the home mooring requirement. Unfortunately 'good faith' was not defined in any way, and as we said to him at the time this has allowed people to duck and dive and wriggle to find ways to circumvent the mooring requirement.

 

There are already different charges determined by length and for longer or shorter periods of use, and also for trade use, and I can't see any legal reason why they should not also differentiate between those with a home mooring and those without. In their position I'd probably increase the cruising fee and give a discount to owners with a home mooring, as it would be easier for people to accept if set out that way.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Everyone just stopping paying is always an option but I am not all that sure about it. It seems that keeping the water there and making things work needs money. 

 

Irritating but quite possibly true. 

 

No one has suggested not paying. But where there are a lot of moorers paying for a system they never use, have no choice, it is not sensible to create two classes of boater. One will invariably hate the other, for arguing to load their use of the system. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tam & Di said:

I can't see any legal reason why they should not also differentiate between those with a home mooring and those without. In their position I'd probably increase the cruising fee and give a discount to owners with a home mooring, as it would be easier for people to accept if set out that way.

 

They don't differentiate between people that need a licence and those that don't. There's nothing like having your bread buttered on both sides. They also don't practice giving discounts to home moorers. In a marina, they'll be paying 9% of the mooring fee, on top of the licence fee. 

 

 

[IanD]

Tolls have been suggested many times, the problem is that manual checking is realistically impossible, and automated checking means boat locations being tracked which many people object to...

[Bod]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I know, and 9% of mooring, on top of licence fee. Paid it for years. But no home moorer pays to moor on the towpath in any different way to any licence payer. 

 

 

 

 

I thought that  Long term Towpath moorings had to be paid for over and above the licence fee.

But I agree that visitor moorings are free to use for all.

 

Bod

[Higgs]

Just now, Bod said:

I thought that  Long term Towpath moorings had to be paid for over and above the licence fee.

But I agree that visitor moorings are free to use for all.

 

Bod

 

Long-term/ permanent moorings are extra, everywhere. The extra is for the place, the exclusivity, and the use.

 

 

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Tolls have been suggested many times, the problem is that manual checking is realistically impossible, and automated checking means boat locations being tracked which many people object to...

Boat locations are already tracked but not very effectively. 

 

Do people really object to the data collectors ? Apart from the one who was violently murdered somewhere near Aylesbury I mean. 

 

 

Story for anyone who missed it https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/19950611.serial-killer-killed-ex-cop-grand-union-canal-aylesbury-caged/

 

CRT boat checker. 

[Bod]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Long-term/ permanent moorings are extra, everywhere. The extra is for the place, the exclusivity, and the use.

 

 

This is my point, Home Moorer's have extra expenses which at least part of which has to go to the Trust, expenses that CC's don't pay.

 

Bod

[Higgs]

17 minutes ago, Bod said:

This is my point, Home Moorer's have extra expenses which at least part of which has to go to the Trust, expenses that CC's don't pay.

 

Bod

 

Not really. Home moorers take on the expense, as a personal choice. The home moorer still needs a licence. There's no dispensation for having a home mooring. They are not let off having to purchase a licence. I had a home mooring for donkey's years. It cost me more, because I chose to have it that way - and no CC'er forced it upon me. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Higgs

[Arthur Marshall]

36 minutes ago, Bod said:

I thought that  Long term Towpath moorings had to be paid for over and above the licence fee.

But I agree that visitor moorings are free to use for all.

 

Bod

Except they aren't always any more. Visitor moorings at Llangollen and one or two other places are charged for. Winter moorings are basically visitor moorings with a charge applied. It is now accepted by boaters that CRT can charge for any mooring,  anywhere, for any period of time they choose, whether the boater does or does not have a home mooring.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether we like it ir not, or whether it fits someone's individualistic definition of "fair", or even "legal", it's just a fact of life. A business makes the rules, and its customers have two options. Three, if someone wants to waste their money going to court.

45 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Long-term/ permanent moorings are extra, everywhere. The extra is for the place, the exclusivity, and the use.

 

 

Exactly the same as a short term overnight mooring at Llangollen. And, by extension, anywhere on the system.

[IanD]

51 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Boat locations are already tracked but not very effectively. 

 

Do people really object to the data collectors ? Apart from the one who was violently murdered somewhere near Aylesbury I mean. 

 

Story for anyone who missed it https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/19950611.serial-killer-killed-ex-cop-grand-union-canal-aylesbury-caged/

 

CRT boat checker. 

 

People don't object to the data collectors -- who can't even keep track of boats breaking the CC rules, so the chances of them recording far more boat movements accurately for tolls are zero.

 

The only solution that would work for tolls would be automated boat tracking, meaning that a CART computer can tell where your boat is at all times and where it moves and charge you accordingly, meaning a GPS tracker on every boat remotely readable by CART. Apart from the cost, the chances of many boaters agreeing to such a Big Brother intrusion is also zero.

[magnetman]

42 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

People don't object to the data collectors -- who can't even keep track of boats breaking the CC rules, so the chances of them recording far more boat movements accurately for tolls are zero.

 

The only solution that would work for tolls would be automated boat tracking, meaning that a CART computer can tell where your boat is at all times and where it moves and charge you accordingly, meaning a GPS tracker on every boat remotely readable by CART. Apart from the cost, the chances of many boaters agreeing to such a Big Brother intrusion is also zero.

No. All you would need is strategically located toll houses. If you pass one of these then you go into the next zone. If you don't pass one then you are still in the same zone. 

 

It would not be necessary to identify the exact location of boats at all times. 

 

I'm talking about a system which is broken up into individual regions. 

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

No. All you would need is strategically located toll houses. If you pass one of these then you go into the next zone. If you don't pass one then you are still in the same zone. 

 

It would not be necessary to identify the exact location of boats at all times. 

 

I'm talking about a system which is broken up into individual regions. 

And who would man these toll houses? And how close together would they have to be? And who collates the data and collects the tolls? And how much does all this cost?

 

It worked in the good old days when the canals were in intensive commercial use and toll collectors were dirt cheap.

 

Completely impractical today.

[magnetman]

I don't think it is completely impractical. The point is that a lot of boats these days don't move a lot. If they are not moving and have not passed a toll house then it is incredibly easy to work out where they are. 

 

It would require splitting the network into about 26 different "zones" or possibly more but the finances would be good so I think it could be achieved. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, Tam & Di said:

There are already different charges determined by length and for longer or shorter periods of use, and also for trade use, and I can't see any legal reason why they should not also differentiate between those with a home mooring and those without. In their position I'd probably increase the cruising fee and give a discount to owners with a home mooring, as it would be easier for people to accept if set out that way

 

That was exactly the conclusion that Nigel Moore came to during our disccussions. My proposal was to make the 'standard licence' (say) £3000 and then offer dicounts for having a 'home mooring' , 'electric boat', 'vintage boat', 'Rivers only' etc etc 

 

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.

 

 

[magnetman]

Nigel will like this in his pipe and slippers and a dram in another world. 

 

He was a gentleman. RIP. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Except they aren't always any more. Visitor moorings at Llangollen and one or two other places are charged for. Winter moorings are basically visitor moorings with a charge applied. It is now accepted by boaters that CRT can charge for any mooring,  anywhere, for any period of time they choose, whether the boater does or does not have a home mooring.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether we like it ir not, or whether it fits someone's individualistic definition of "fair", or even "legal", it's just a fact of life. A business makes the rules, and its customers have two options. Three, if someone wants to waste their money going to court.

 

 

The laws actually alow C&RT to charge seperately for any service above the use of the navigation.

 

So, legally they can charge for Potable water, waste bins, toilet emptying, any improved mooring (Armoco, rings, bollards) etc etc.

[magnetman]

It is odd on the face of it that they choose not to.