Licences

[Momac]

I have observed fewer boats moving locally to me this year and conversations  with full time lock keepers confirms its been quiet year. 

I think economic pressures outside of boating have been significant and this has resulted in fewer boat movements as people cut back on expense.

 

So will increased costs like license fees , fuel and insurance put people off boating? Certainly people will consider whether there are other ways to spend leisure time that are  a lot more affordable and don't have the cost of doing nothing that comes with boat ownership.

 

Significant further rises in license fees are certain to be a factor in people moving to other activities.

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Not how maths works. 15% numerical cost increase when inflation is 5% is 9.5% increase per year in real terms, which is 57.6% over 5 years if you want to be exact... 😉

You work it out however you wish

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

My mooring fee is 17 times the licence fee. 

 

I'm not typical but yes living in London can be costly ! 

 

I wonder if in reality it is time the CRT considered some kind of regional tiered licensing system. They have the data about where boats are via the tracking spotters so it should not be that difficult to work out a system based on demand and costs. 

 

 

Out if interest, is that the mooring fee paid to CRT separately from the rental of the mooring? CRT usually sets the fee (for those not on crt moorings) as half their local mooring rental, which I can understand would be astronomical in London.

It's still a. ripoff (in my opinion) where I am as their "half rate" fee is twice the actual going rate for noncrt moorings.

[PhilR]

13 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Out if interest, is that the mooring fee paid to CRT separately from the rental of the mooring? CRT usually sets the fee (for those not on crt moorings) as half their local mooring rental, which I can understand would be astronomical in London.

It's still a. ripoff (in my opinion) where I am as their "half rate" fee is twice the actual going rate for noncrt moorings.

Some of the above posts give weight to the reason why CaRT want to increase the basic *cruising* licence fee for continuous cruisers and bridge hoppers. I wonder what the premium will be? 

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, PhilR said:

. I wonder what the premium will be? 

So does everyone,

Unfortunately the proposal will target many who can least afford it.

But this is with support from the majority who will not see the same level of price increase .

 

[Paul C]

25 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Out if interest, is that the mooring fee paid to CRT separately from the rental of the mooring? CRT usually sets the fee (for those not on crt moorings) as half their local mooring rental, which I can understand would be astronomical in London.

It's still a. ripoff (in my opinion) where I am as their "half rate" fee is twice the actual going rate for noncrt moorings.

 

The "EOG" fee attached to online moorings has always been a charge they charge "because they can". Similarly, it turns out they can add a surcharge to CCers. I see no reason (but see next para) the CC surcharge won't eventually be cost equivalent to the price of a mooring (including the EOG element) - because they can.

 

Of course, the above assumes all CCers will remain on the canal and there be no loss of boaters from the cost increase - which on a large scale, can't be true since some will inevitably leave due to cost considerations. But, when looking more closely at this, there is something of an inelasticity in simply selling up, changing your lifestyle and finding alternate accommodation (if the CCers boat was their accommodation). So, the price to set for maximising revenue would be A LITTLE BIT LOWER than the original licence + typical mooring cost.

 

The same economic phenomenon - of price inelasticity of demand - would apply more generally to all licence cost increases, this is a more difficult one to guess at.

 

We certainly won't/can't see a mass exodus from the canals and a crash in mooring costs from their being surplus marina spaces etc.

30 minutes ago, MartynG said:

So does everyone,

Unfortunately the proposal will target many who can least afford it.

But this is with support from the majority who will not see the same level of price increase .

 

Surely (on average) CCers can MOST afford it, since they don't have the cost of a mooring (and council tax, TV licence, etc, if they live aboard).

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

So does everyone,

Unfortunately the proposal will target many who can least afford it.

But this is with support from the majority who will not see the same level of price increase .

 

 Do you mean those who buy a boat they can't afford, can't afford to run, can't afford to moor, haven't got the time to cruise and lie about their intentions?

Would you sympathise with me buying a million pound house by misrepresenting my income, then can't afford the mortgage and it getting reposessed? And then blame it on the majority who buy according to their circumstances?

I think CRT have finally lost patience with those who deliberately cheat the system. The fact that it's clobbering the dozen or so who don't is unfortunately what happens. Everyone got away with it by staying quiet and under the radar - then along came Dunkley and the NBTA... the first got ignored as a lone daft voice, but as soon as an organisation started, CRT had to act sooner or later.

And maybe us moorers would have more sympathy if the CCers hadn't had such a good old laugh at us back when the charges came in. What goes round comes round.

[Midnight]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 Do you mean those who buy a boat they can't afford, can't afford to run, can't afford to moor, haven't got the time to cruise and lie about their intentions?

Would you sympathise with me buying a million pound house by misrepresenting my income, then can't afford the mortgage and it getting reposessed? And then blame it on the majority who buy according to their circumstances?

I think CRT have finally lost patience with those who deliberately cheat the system. The fact that it's clobbering the dozen or so who don't is unfortunately what happens. Everyone got away with it by staying quiet and under the radar - then along came Dunkley and the NBTA... the first got ignored as a lone daft voice, but as soon as an organisation started, CRT had to act sooner or later.

And maybe us moorers would have more sympathy if the CCers hadn't had such a good old laugh at us back when the charges came in. What goes round comes round.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for genuine CCers. I wonder if the NBTA would support a suggestion that C&RT separate CCers from CMers and apply the surcharge only to those who flout the rules. It would be possible using sightings records and would encourage CMers to increase their range or take a paid mooring. 

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I have a lot of sympathy for genuine CCers.

 

All ten of them?!!

 

 

[Momac]

59 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 Do you mean those who buy a boat they can't afford, can't afford to run, can't afford to moor, haven't got the time to cruise and lie about their intentions?

No

I mean those who do abide by the regulations and who may not be able to continue if significant extra charges are applied.

Due to the air pollution caused perhaps boats with a wood burner  should pay a supplement on the license fee ?

[magnetman]

5 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Out if interest, is that the mooring fee paid to CRT separately from the rental of the mooring? 

The mooring site is a central London CRT owned residential scheme. Nobody else except the CRT get any money from the mooring fees. Council tax is applied on top of the mooring fee as the berth has an individual allocated street address in the same way one would get with a flat in a block. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 grand a yar may seem a lot but its cheaper than renting a flat and who would want to live in a flat ??

[JungleJames]

16 hours ago, peterboat said:

Facebook by any chance? Any real study shows them to break even quickly and save many tons of CO2.

The batteries are recyclable first instance is repurposed second full recycling. ICE however is dirty from the moment its built nothing it burns is clean unlike electric from wind, solar or hydro. 

Ignoring some known facts regards lithium batteries, but ok.

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has an opinion either way.

 

I see the world as having numerous options (including battery, petrol and diesel). 

I'm just not ignoring what is said about batteries.

[Tonka]

10 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 Do you mean those who buy a boat they can't afford, can't afford to run, can't afford to moor, haven't got the time to cruise and lie about their intentions?

Would you sympathise with me buying a million pound house by misrepresenting my income, then can't afford the mortgage and it getting reposessed? And then blame it on the majority who buy according to their circumstances?

I think CRT have finally lost patience with those who deliberately cheat the system. The fact that it's clobbering the dozen or so who don't is unfortunately what happens. Everyone got away with it by staying quiet and under the radar - then along came Dunkley and the NBTA... the first got ignored as a lone daft voice, but as soon as an organisation started, CRT had to act sooner or later.

And maybe us moorers would have more sympathy if the CCers hadn't had such a good old laugh at us back when the charges came in. What goes round comes round.

All the times I have bought a house, I have never been asked to prove we have the money

[JungleJames]

16 hours ago, peterboat said:

All those expensive materials and you think they go to landfill?

Aa for repairing batteries it happens all the time.e why wouldn't it? They are easier to remove than most modern engines and it's a sealed box with battery modules. 

Final comment, but this has come out to be false. Batteries are not easy to renew.

They should be, but they aren't.

The insurance companies are saying right now it's too expensive.

 

ICE vehicles are easier and cheaper to fix. Battery vehicles it us often a write off.

 

But don't blame me for it. Have a go at the manufacturers. I know they should be easily renewed. But reality right now is different.

 

Wow. What a fun discussion. Interesting all the same.

 

[peterboat]

8 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Ignoring some known facts regards lithium batteries, but ok.

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who has an opinion either way.

 

I see the world as having numerous options (including battery, petrol and diesel). 

I'm just not ignoring what is said about batteries.

What facts? I have them have researched them, si what are these facts?

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

8 hours ago, magnetman said:

12 grand a yar may seem a lot but its cheaper than renting a flat and who would want to live in a flat ??

 Most of the Continuous Moorers who are saying their Continuous Cruisers in London and most of the young twenty somethings young kids that call themselves boaters, but who are in fact floaters looking for somewhere cheap to live. If you were to offer these people a cheap flat, they would be off the boat in a flash.

Edited September 27, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[peterboat]

3 minutes ago, JungleJames said:

Final comment, but this has come out to be false. Batteries are not easy to renew.

They should be, but they aren't.

The insurance companies are saying right now it's too expensive.

 

ICE vehicles are easier and cheaper to fix. Battery vehicles it us often a write off.

 

But don't blame me for it. Have a go at the manufacturers. I know they should be easily renewed. But reality right now is different.

 

Wow. What a fun discussion. Interesting all the same.

 

Right insurance companies write off cars all the time! That doesn't mean its scrapped it means its given a category and most of the time is sold and put back one the road. Batteries are easy to fix companies and dealers do it in this country. I run 3 EVs, I also owned and still have an interest in a garage  so I really do understand cars mostly top end ones as we specialised in Jaguar's, Rolls Royce's, Aston Martins and American vehicles. Cars are to valuable an asset to just scrap for minor damage which is why Copart exists to sell these vehicles on at good price 

[Tonka]

2 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 Most of the Continuous Moorers who are saying their Continuous Cruisers in London.

Just just want to sponge off everyone one else and not pay a penny. They don't care about canal history or even where it goes as long as they live for free

[Arthur Marshall]

21 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Just just want to sponge off everyone one else and not pay a penny. They don't care about canal history or even where it goes as long as they live for free

If they've got a licence, and shift about a bit within the current rules, they aren't spongers and I haven't noticed licences being free, either. I don't see why it should be compulsory to know canal history, either - it's interesting, but not particularly relevant to living on a boat these days.

Most just want somewhere to live that they can afford, probably near enough to get to their jobs. They'll still need that if they get priced off the canals. Perhaps they aren't entirely the ones to blame for the current situation?

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If they've got a licence, and shift about a bit within the current rules, they aren't spongers and I haven't noticed licences being free, either. I don't see why it should be compulsory to know canal history, either - it's interesting, but not particularly relevant to living on a boat these days.

Most just want somewhere to live that they can afford, probably near enough to get to their jobs. They'll still need that if they get priced off the canals. Perhaps they aren't entirely the ones to blame for the current situation?

But they are probably the ones to blame for solid fuel fires going to be banned because of the smoke

[Brian jarrett]

The changes proposed by CRT to the licensing structure where “continual cruisers” will not only pay an above inflation increase for the next 5 years on the “standard” license fee but also an annual surcharge are just one more attack on continuous cruisers ! This proposed increase and the surcharge are being justified on the flawed basis that we, the continuous cruisers, use more of the system and facilities than boats with a mooring !

According to CRT’s figures there are 5,000 continual cruisers against a total licensed boating community of 33,000. 

Most boats that come out of their moorings each year tend to cover far greater distances over the year and at higher speeds than a plodding itinerant boater !

At this time of austerity and in the middle of a nationwide cost of living crisis for CRT to propose these options directed at a minority group of possibly some of the poorest of our society, certainly a group living on low incomes, must call into question their management’s moral compass and it’s so called 'charitable' status !

[Alan de Enfield]

Here we go again - mods can you combine / merge with t'other thread

 

Another artificial lack of inteligence.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Tracy D'arth]

5 minutes ago, Brian jarrett said:

The changes proposed by CRT to the licensing structure where “continual cruisers” will not only pay an above inflation increase for the next 5 years on the “standard” license fee but also an annual surcharge are just one more attack on continuous cruisers ! This proposed increase and the surcharge are being justified on the flawed basis that we, the continuous cruisers, use more of the system and facilities than boats with a mooring !

According to CRT’s figures there are 5,000 continual cruisers against a total licensed boating community of 33,000. 

Most boats that come out of their moorings each year tend to cover far greater distances over the year and at higher speeds than a plodding itinerant boater !

At this time of austerity and in the middle of a nationwide cost of living crisis for CRT to propose these options directed at a minority group of possibly some of the poorest of our society, certainly a group living on low incomes, must call into question their management’s moral compass and it’s so called 'charitable' status !

If they cannot afford to live as parasites on the waterways, continuously mooring, not moving, having no license etc. then they should not be on the canals.

Nor should their lifestyle be subsidised by other boaters who do obey the rules.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Brian jarrett said:

The changes proposed by CRT to the licensing structure where “continual cruisers” will not only pay an above inflation increase for the next 5 years on the “standard” license fee but also an annual surcharge are just one more attack on continuous cruisers !

 

 

Yep, its about time they started paying their fair share into the (very empty) CRT coffers.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

My proposal would be a repeat of the IWA request some years ago to increase the 'CC licence' to 2.5x the cost of licence for a boat with a mooring.

[TheBiscuits]

12 minutes ago, Brian jarrett said:

This proposed increase and the surcharge are being justified on the flawed basis that we, the continuous cruisers, use more of the system and facilities than boats with a mooring !

 

You seem confused.  The licence fee above-inflation rises apply to all classes of licence not just CCers.

 

If you don't want to pay the CC surcharge, get a mooring.  Simples!

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

My proposal would be a repeat of the IWA request some years ago to increase the 'CC licence' to 2.5x the cost of licence for a boat with a mooring.

 

Thank goodness you've left then

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by TheBiscuits
spellink