Licences

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

27 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

If they are a cc er they do have to satisfy the board. It is in the '95 BW Act. 

 

If they are not a cc er at that time then the licence cost will be different under the proposals for tiered licence costs depending on boat type and declared usage. 

 Obviously if they pay for a 3 month official CaRT winter mooring they get dispensation so they have not got to move and satisfy the board, all will be highlighted on their CaRT database.

 We’ll have to wait till next year to see if there are any stipulations as to who can have a temp winter mooring, they might offer them to CCers without a home mooring first, then if they’re not take by a certain date open them to boats with a home mooring.

We’ll all have to wait to see what happens when CaRT announce the licence structure and what it involves for different Moorers.

Edited September 19, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[nicknorman]

3 minutes ago, Goliath said:

added trouble/issue is CRT are doing away with such amenities that I now have to drop in to marinas to use theirs. 
 

yes the removal of services is a concern. However there are still quite a lot around our way and one should bear in mind that in some cases, CRT pay marinas to provide the service eg when Peel’s Wharf was abandoned, CRT made an agreement with Fazeley Mill Marina to provide elsan, water and rubbish to boaters FOC. From Peel’s wharf and apart from FMM there is still Fradley and Bradley Green, both within a days cruise. Atherstone top and Gt Haywood a couple of days. And up B&F whilst it is a bit more limited, there is the pound below D&D, then Cuckoo Wharf, then Cambrian Basin. So that doesn’t seem too bad to me. Compared to our excursions onto EA waters this year (Nene and Gt Ouse) where rubbish and elsan were extremely limited.

[Momac]

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

I'm still processing the idea that a cc er who takes a winter mooring is not a cc er. 

 

They are a cc er. 

 

In terms of licence banding but they have satisfied the bored in reasonable circumstances. 

I believe the idea is the home mooring is  available all year round.

Otherwise the boat is a continuous cruiser.

 

However lets say someone claims to have a home mooring when they do not?

Do C&RT have the resources to investigate whether every boat has a genuine home mooring ?

 

 

[David Mack]

My understanding is that at present if you give up your home mooring to CC, or as a CCer take a new home mooring, you are supposed to notify CRT so they can update their records with your correct status. But since the licence fee is the same either way, and both types of boater are supposed to move every 14 days (albeit one under the terms of the 95 Act, the other under the Ts and Cs) in practice it doesn't really matter if CRT aren't notified. But with different licence rates applying, there could be a lot of boaters changing their status part way through the licence period, and either getting a partial refund or having to pay some extra for the rest of the licence period. That is going to cause quite a lot of extra admin work for CRT's licensing staff, as well as incentivising boaters who initially have a home mooring, but then go CCing to 'forget' to tell CRT about their change of status.

Will licencing staff now have to cross check those claiming the lower home mooring fee against mooring providers' records, to confirm they really do have a home mooring?

Edited September 19, 2023 by David Mack

[Lady M]

This and other issues were why, after some consideration, I decided not to support the proposal to charge CCers more.  Hopefully CRT have taken account of the likely additional admin costs.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

yes the removal of services is a concern. However there are still quite a lot around our way and one should bear in mind that in some cases, CRT pay marinas to provide the service eg when Peel’s Wharf was abandoned, CRT made an agreement with Fazeley Mill Marina to provide elsan, water and rubbish to boaters FOC. From Peel’s wharf and apart from FMM there is still Fradley and Bradley Green, both within a days cruise. Atherstone top and Gt Haywood a couple of days. And up B&F whilst it is a bit more limited, there is the pound below D&D, then Cuckoo Wharf, then Cambrian Basin. So that doesn’t seem too bad to me. Compared to our excursions onto EA waters this year (Nene and Gt Ouse) where rubbish and elsan were extremely limited.

yes,

it was Peel’s Wharf in particular I was thinking about. 
And I do understand a deal was done with Fazeley Marina to allow boaters to use and have access to facilities. 
 

not sure what my point was really, 
other than the increase in license fees whilst access to services are in decline. 
 

 

[nicknorman]

7 minutes ago, Goliath said:

not sure what my point was really, 
other than the increase in license fees whilst access to services are in decline. 

 

it is annoying. But unfortunately IMO CRT have historically not spent their government money wisely. And the government have noticed. And so they have reduced the payments as punishment. And we suffer and have to make up the shortfall in order to minimise the decline in services and navigation infrastructure.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

it is annoying. But unfortunately IMO CRT have historically not spent their government money wisely. And the government have noticed. And so they have reduced the payments as punishment. And we suffer and have to make up the shortfall in order to minimise the decline in services and navigation infrastructure.

How do you think CRT could have spent (not enough) money more wisely?

 

Please don't say fewer blue signs and lower executive pay, those have been beaten to death many times...

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

How do you think CRT could have spent (not enough) money more wisely?

 

Please don't say fewer blue signs and lower executive pay, those have been beaten to death many times...

Fewer blue signs and lower executive pay. Surely if it’s been beaten to death many times that means it’s likely to be correct?

 

But actually the main thing is the dissolution of the primary asset - the skilled people and the plant. And the switch to near sole reliance on contractors. A model that had been discredited at least 10 years previously. The better model being the retention of the majority of skill and plant, with the use of contractors limited to massaging the peaks and troughs of demand.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Fewer blue signs and lower executive pay. Surely if it’s been beaten to death many times that means it’s likely to be correct?

 

But actually the main thing is the dissolution of the primary asset - the skilled people and the plant. And the switch to near sole reliance on contractors. A model that had been discredited at least 10 years previously. The better model being the retention of the majority of skill and plant, with the use of contractors limited to massaging the peaks and troughs of demand.

They've been beaten to death many times because they're not the real reason for CARTs financial problems, they're scapegoats -- it allows people to blame CART instead of the government.

 

Outsourcing and lack of skilled personnel -- absolutely, it's the same problem as in so many other infrastructure areas (rail, buses, water...), thinking that privatisation and "the markets" will magically solve everything... 😞

Edited September 19, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, David Mack said:

My understanding is that at present if you give up your home mooring to CC, or as a CCer take a new home mooring, you are supposed to notify CRT so they can update their records with your correct status. But since the licence fee is the same either way, and both types of boater are supposed to move every 14 days (albeit one under the terms of the 95 Act, the other under the Ts and Cs) in practice it doesn't really matter if CRT aren't notified. But with different licence rates applying, there could be a lot of boaters changing their status part way through the licence period, and either getting a partial refund or having to pay some extra for the rest of the licence period. That is going to cause quite a lot of extra admin work for CRT's licensing staff, as well as incentivising boaters who initially have a home mooring, but then go CCing to 'forget' to tell CRT about their change of status.

Will licencing staff now have to cross check those claiming the lower home mooring fee against mooring providers' records, to confirm they really do have a home mooring?

I'm not sure there would be any financial advantage for a CC to suddenly declare a home mooring . You forget there is also a fee CRT charge for mooring, in addition to any charge made by the mooring owner (though this may be included in his rent rate). I suspect this fee will be the equivalent of the cc surcharge, so any advantage disappears immediately.

Someone above mentioned this was about 10% of their licence cost - for an online nonCRT moorer like myself it's about 80% of the licence cost.

I think this is an attempt by CRT to equalise the amounts paid to CRT by both types of boater, as well as trying to limit the CC status to those who live on board and so can legitimately claim to be functioning cruisers rather than serial parkers.

[carp-addict]

So it looks like CCs and widebeams are taking a hit (shock horror) 

People who own a widebeam and cruise looks like they will take a double whammy so to speak.

Edited September 20, 2023 by carp-addict

[Unicorn Stampede]

CRTs systems simply aren't clever enough to process constantly changing information submitted by users and identify issues with what's been updated.

 

There's been a continual push towards online servicing, which will eventually bite them in the ass and force them to either update or swap to a more traditional contact centre system.

 

If someone wanted to dodge around fees currently, without alerting CRT, they could do so without a great amount of effort. Unfortunately as the increases continue to come, there will likely be a point where it's a greater consideration for those who are struggling. 

 

We will wait and see what the increase to our CCing life style is before we decide anything specifically - we chose the life style not because it was 'cheap' housing, but because it's what we wanted to do (as someone who lived 'cheap' for years prior to boating, living on the canal felt expensive personally...)

 

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the choice. Me and my partner knew this was coming, especially when the survey first popped up. I do feel sorry for CCing widebeams, as they get double shafted (and I rarely feel sorry for widebeams!)

 

Seeing the continual cuts applied to the northern canals over the last few years, followed by this, will we see an end to CCers up north. Obviously not a concern right now, but I can see a future where places like the Rochdale become hire boat only territory (well, until Shire Cruisers gives up, then it's probably placing bets on when CRT close the Rochdale...)

 

At the moment, I guess we just wait and see what kind of insane justification is used for the % increase due.

 

 

[Midnight]

Some interesting points around the complications of the home mooring v continuous cruiser license. Although we have a home mooring we will spend seven months away cruising this year. Not a dissimilar situation to a ccer who takes a winter mooring. Seems pretty much a recipe for disaster for a C&RT who can't even get the stoppage notices right.

[Rob-M]

14 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Some interesting points around the complications of the home mooring v continuous cruiser license. Although we have a home mooring we will spend seven months away cruising this year. Not a dissimilar situation to a ccer who takes a winter mooring. Seems pretty much a recipe for disaster for a C&RT who can't even get the stoppage notices right.

But when you are away cruising I presume you continue to pay for your home mooring all year and therefore still have a home mooring putting you in the boater with home mooring category not boater without home mooring (cc'er) category.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Rob-M

[magnetman]

It seems quite easy to sort out on the website. There could be the box the same as the insurance ie Provider and contract number. You put these in if you have a mooring and it would be subject to random checks. 

 

I would exclude people who have moorings which do not provide any income to the CRT and class them as having no mooring.

 

It could be better to have a 'No CRT based home mooring' licence rather than a cc licence otherwise the admin goes up. 

 

There could easily be basic codes for every CRT or CRT-contributing mooring site. It probably exists already. 

 

 

[Midnight]

10 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But when you are away cruising I presume you continue to pay for your home mooring all year and therefore still have a home mooring putting you in the boater with home mooring category not boater without home mooring (cc'er) category.

 Yes I do but that doesn't mean C&RT will see it that way. As mooring officer for our boat club I have in the past spend time communicating with C&RT about club moorings. As well as identifying the 'ghost moorers' there's been times when members with a mooring have been omitted and incorrectly listed by C&RT as CCers because they have been on long term cruises. I may be wrong but it seems related to sightings. All well and good if they send a list to me each year but  I have had no lists sent for a couple of years.

[magnetman]

Of course the Gold Licence, which gives you Thames and CRT 24/7/365 is an elephant in this room as it may well end up being less costly than the upcoming cc er widebeam licence. 

 

Some work needed here to avoid evasive strategies. 

 

 

 

If the surcharges are significant then the Gold licence must either go up or be withdrawn. I would not be that surprised if the EA and the CRT got their heads together and decided to withdraw the Gold Licence quite soon..

 

 

 

[DaveP]

34 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Some interesting points around the complications of the home mooring v continuous cruiser license. Although we have a home mooring we will spend seven months away cruising this year. Not a dissimilar situation to a ccer who takes a winter mooring. Seems pretty much a recipe for disaster for a C&RT who can't even get the stoppage notices right.

Indeed, we're planning on spending 15 months off the mooring (which happens to be a CRT one), going down to London and back.  Keeping mooring as it's cheap, and we might need to hurry back for parent care duty.  Might even pick up a little win if people start moving off moorings in town - T&C's allow us to use empty CRT moorings on a temporary basis...  Looking forward to potential befuddlements.

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, DaveP said:

 Might even pick up a little win if people start moving off moorings in town - T&C's allow us to use empty CRT moorings on a temporary basis...  Looking forward to potential befuddlements.

 

where does it say that ?

Most of the CRT moorings actually in London are residential sites. I don't think you would be able to stay on an empty residential mooring unless you have the permission of the contract holder because it is their residence even if the boat is temporarily absent.

 

May apply to online towpath long term moorings. 

 

Intrigued now !

 

[dmr]

5 minutes ago, DaveP said:

Indeed, we're planning on spending 15 months off the mooring (which happens to be a CRT one), going down to London and back.  Keeping mooring as it's cheap, and we might need to hurry back for parent care duty.  Might even pick up a little win if people start moving off moorings in town - T&C's allow us to use empty CRT moorings on a temporary basis...  Looking forward to potential befuddlements.

 

Many Waterside moorings now have a big sign saying you will be fined by a car parking company if you dare to stop without a permit....or does a mooring permit for a home mooring extend to other moorings?

[DaveP]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

where does it say that ?

Most of the CRT moorings actually in London are residential sites. I don't think you would be able to stay on an empty residential mooring unless you have the permission of the contract holder because it is their residence even if the boat is temporarily absent.

 

May apply to online towpath long term moorings. 

 

Intrigued now !

 

In my T&C document from 2021 -

 

"4.10 When cruising away from the Mooring Site you may temporarily use any vacant mooring 
spaces available at any other mooring site managed by us with our prior written consent. You must 
remove your Boat from any such temporary mooring it occupies when we ask you to do so."

 

There is also a requirement to notify CRT (para 4.9) if you intend to be off your mooring for more than 28 days.

 

Given there is no mention of additional fees, my reading would be that this term is included in the fees charged under the mooring contract.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

"...with our prior written consent."

 

OK. 

 

I wonder if they will give this consent without notifying the resident of the mooring. Interesting potential for problems there. 

 

 

It seems odd that one could pay a low rate for an out in the sticks CRT mooring then use vacant CRT moorings in city areas with no extra payment.

 

I feel it is not that simple. 

 

[Steilsteven]

20 hours ago, IanD said:

The percentage of CCers and home moorers in the survey is also similar to the number of each type of boater, so reasonably representative.

 

I don't think there are any surprises in the result, which compares four different license fee structures -- same as today, CC surcharge, area-based pricing, bigger width surcharge. Those who would pay more under each of the three changed schemes are understandably against each of them and favour the status quo. A CC surcharge is the most popular option, since three-quarters of boaters/responses have home moorings. A bigger charge for widebeams (either of the last two schemes) is also strongly favoured, because most of the responses are from narrowboaters.

 

Which explains the CART decision that fees will go up, there will be a CC surcharge, and widebeams will be charged more -- all as predicted. Now we just have to wait for the actual numbers in November... 😞

Which goes to prove what I always say, these "consultations" are really simple polls with inevitable results.

 

Keith

[DaveP]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

"...with our prior written consent."

 

OK. 

 

I wonder if they will give this consent without notifying the resident of the mooring. Interesting potential for problems there. 

 

 

It seems odd that one could pay a low rate for an out in the sticks CRT mooring then use vacant CRT moorings in city areas with no extra payment.

 

I feel it is not that simple. 

 

Absolutely! But there's no harm in trying.  And it's going to be even more fun involving different mooring managers, asking wich moorings are vacant (not just up for rent).  The clause is poorly drafted as it implies the permission is issued on a general basis, not (as would be sensible) on a mooring by mooring instance. I'd have used 'space' rather than 'spaces'...