Licences

[magnetman]

Thats true I have not seen a flat as small as my boat (7 square metres living space) but suppose it must exist. 

 

I don't think charging by boat value is likely although it obviously would be a good way to do it. 

 

 

[Peacepipe]

Perhaps if crt,THINK,that would be a good start, 

People who don't think shouldn't speak, 

[Rambling Boater]

6 minutes ago, Peacepipe said:

Perhaps if crt,THINK,that would be a good start, 

People who don't think shouldn't speak, 

I do think that rather than do on line surveys it would be better for C&RT management to go out and chat to different types of boaters.

 

The problem with being at a desk.all day long is that it's very difficult to gauge how people really feel in the real world.

[magnetman]

Does it make any difference how people feel in the real world? 

 

If the CRT are intent on getting more money then people paying boat licences seems a pretty obvious way to do it. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Farndon's tariff  is on length also as are Hull, Grimsby and Wells Next the Sea.

]

As visitors I think you may be correct, but, having had a berth in Hull I can assure you that they have two bands for beam - from memory it is >12 feet and <12 feet.

We are 23 feet beam and certainly had to pay a surcharge for taking up 2x 12 foot beam berths.

 

Kings (we were there for many years) certainly had 2 bands which from memory were NB and then 'anything else', and if the beam meant you took up 2x spaces then you paid for 2 moorings.

We were lucky, being 14 foot beam, that we secured a place on the hammerhead

[Rambling Boater]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Does it make any difference how people feel in the real world?

 

 

Surely it should do. Perhaps that's where everything has gone wrong? 😞

[bigcol]

Ive just had this emailed to us

through a m8t

 

carnt be true is it ??

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, bigcol said:

carnt be true is it ??

 

Yes.

Already posted on a previous page.
 

NABO have been sent it as a pre-release to the public notification.

[Momac]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

We are 23 feet beam and certainly had to pay a surcharge for taking up 2x 12 foot beam berths.

Which is exceptional

 

[magnetman]

Also has two hulls so makes sense to pay two mooring fees. 

[Peacepipe]

Hahaha,don't like locks,I'm a regular up the wigan flight and a regular visitor up the rochdale,

But your missing the point,

The point is my licence is going up to reflect the greater use of the utilities I receive,over folk with a mooring 

Unity is strength. 

[magnetman]

7 minutes ago, Peacepipe said:

 

The point is my licence is going up to reflect the greater use of the utilities I receive,over folk with a mooring 

Unity is strength. 

the interesting thing is that it actually isn't if the boat on the mooring is wider than a nb but less than 3.24m beam. 

 

These people, who probably on average use the utilities far less than a continuous cruising narrow boat, are having slightly higher rises applied to their licence costs

 

(according to the leaked table from NABO). 

 

 

[bigcol]

So narrowboats no increase with mooring

wide-beams with home mooring 26% increase 31% without 

 

another load of money for CRT to waste as per normal

 

75% increase in 2028!!!!

[IanD]

37 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

I do think that rather than do on line surveys it would be better for C&RT management to go out and chat to different types of boaters.

 

The problem with being at a desk.all day long is that it's very difficult to gauge how people really feel in the real world.

So you think it's better for CART to go out and talk to a handful of boaters than contact all 35000 of them and get responses from about 9000 of them IIRC? How does that work? What type of license-related questions do you think they'd ask that weren't in the questionnaire?

 

I'm sure from what they've said (and the results) CART are perfectly well aware what boaters think, they did say that what they were doing was bound to be unpopular but they were trying to find the least bad solution... 😞

Edited October 5, 2023 by IanD

[robtheplod]

26 minutes ago, bigcol said:

Ive just had this emailed to us

through a m8t

 

carnt be true is it ??

 

 

do these increases go past 2028?  

[magnetman]

I can see the interaction. 

 

Boater having a nice day going through a lock. 

 

CRT enquirer: Good morning madam/sir, would you like to be paying more to do this? 

 

Boater: Errr, No thanks. 

 

CRT enquirer: Ah, OK. 

 

 

Next !

[Ewan123]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Why not? If you live in a house, you pay for the utilities in addition to the house cost. If you live on a boat, maybe CRTthink the same should apply.

And if you don't like going through locks, the answer's fairly obvious...

I think it's a shame CRT aren't explicitly saying that the increase directly related to access to utilities (or are they? Maybe deliberately non-committal?). I think it would be better for us if they did - there would be a much stronger case for complaint when facilities are broken down/removed, rather than the "Facilities are an extra service provided, you don't actually have a right to expect them" response they currently give (which to be fair, is accurate).

Edited October 5, 2023 by Ewan123

[bigcol]

I imagine Mr Parry, is pondering over brochures for his next company car, holiday, and new home.

so out of touch.

 

it’s going to cause a lot of hardship for all boaters especialy wide-beams

what evidence are they going provide re the amount of extra revenue there going to get next year, and of course how it’s spent, wasted.

pay increases all round then fellas!

and new bonus rates to be discussed.

 

col

 

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Ewan123 said:

 "Facilities are an extra service provided, you don't actually have a right to expect them" response they currently give (which to be fair, is accurate).

This is accurate and worth remembering.

 

I have a hunch that bins are a minor consideration. It seems to me as someone who doesn't go boating on canals and won't be doing so that the priority must be keeping canals actually operational rather than worrying about bins, elsan/self pump/compost points and showers. 

 

If the canals are in a bad way that is where the money should be spent NOT on domestic services for people who choose to live on boats with no local authority tax or services. 

 

Priority in times of need. 

 

 

 

Living on a boat on towpath is a choice and there is no obligation on the -navigation authority- to be concerned about your domestic arrangements. 

 

People who are in trouble should be looked after by social services and moved to land accomodation for their own welfare otherwise a major problem turns up and for some bizarre reason the navigation authority end up having to pay for it. 

 

The Ward case on the K&A must be a warning here. It took a heck of a lot of money to get rid of him and this will never be returned to the navigation authority. It is a dead loss. 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

This is accurate and worth remembering.

 

I have a hunch that bins are a minor consideration. It seems to me as someone who doesn't go boating on canals and won't be doing so that the priority must be keeping canals actually operational rather than worrying about bins, elsan/self pump/compost points and showers. 

 

If the canals are in a bad way that is where the money should be spent NOT on domestic services for people who choose to live on boats with no local authority tax or services. 

 

Priority in times of need. 

 

 

 

Living on a boat on towpath is a choice and there is no obligation on the -navigation authority- to be concerned about your domestic arrangements. 

 

People who are in trouble should be looked after by social services and moved to land accomodation for their own welfare otherwise a major problem turns up and for some bizarre reason the navigation authority end up having to pay for it. 

 

The Ward case on the K&A must be a warning here. It took a heck of a lot of money to get rid of him and this will never be returned to the navigation authority. It is a dead loss. 

 

 

 

There was mass grumbling on FB when CRT announced they were scrapping laundry facilities in their, er, facilities, and probably showers too, on the grounds almost everyone now has them on board. Removal of bins could be a problem though I suppose it might not be CRT's choice if people keep dumping human waste in them.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Press release is now finally published on CRT website -

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/document/i7RFJ_LPOJk1zRgntCjkhw/sSmeil1DjcrRM7Zh5JxEfg4bc94D5kwusmlldRlc1eU/aHR0cHM6Ly9jcnRwcm9kY21zdWtzMDEuYmxvYi5jb3JlLndpbmRvd3MubmV0L2RvY3VtZW50Lw/018aff49-e223-7244-a470-7d904267b717.pdf

[Rambling Boater]

33 minutes ago, IanD said:

So you think it's better for CART to go out and talk to a handful of boaters than contact all 35000 of them and get responses from about 9000 of them IIRC? How does that work? What type of license-related questions do you think they'd ask that weren't in the questionnaire?

 

I'm sure from what they've said (and the results) CART are perfectly well aware what boaters think, they did say that what they were doing was bound to be unpopular but they were trying to find the least bad solution... 😞

Yes,  maybe both questionnaires AND talk to boaters face to face then?

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Yes,  maybe both questionnaires AND talk to boaters face to face then?

Why, so they get hammered by abuse about blue signs and executive bonuses from people who can't do sums or don't understand how CART is financed and works?

 

I believe they've "talked to boaters to face them" in the past, and were then accused that those views -- from those that shout loudest, usually, like the NBTA -- were not representative of "the majority of boaters".

 

So this time they asked *all* 35000 boaters via the questionnaire, and about a quarter actually responded -- a pretty good response rate for things like local elections -- and CART looked at the responses to see what "least bad" options were favoured to increase license fees -- their words, not mine.

 

What do you think would have been changed or improved by talking to an unrepresentative sample of boaters face-to-face, except more complaints afterwards about "CART don't listen to most boaters"?

Edited October 5, 2023 by IanD

[Rambling Boater]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why, so they get hammered by abuse about blue signs and executive bonuses from people who can't do sums or don't understand how CART is financed and works?

 

I believe they've "talked to boaters to face them" in the past, and were then accused that those views -- from those that shout loudest, usually, like the NBTA -- were not representative of "the majority of boaters".

 

So this time they asked *all* 35000 boaters via the questionnaire, and about a quarter actually responded -- a pretty good response rate for things like local elections -- and CART looked at the responses to see what "least bad" options were favoured to increase license fees -- their words, not mine.

 

What do you think would have been changed or improved by talking to an unrepresentative sample of boaters face-to-face, except more complaints afterwards about "CART don't listen to most boaters"?

 

If they wanted to genuinely understand what our issues are, they'd go out and chat to random boaters.

 

Not just send out a proforma loaded to get the answer which suits their agenda (which I think was always to hammer CC'ers in this case).

 

As I said, the extra l money they hope to raise from CC'ers  is a tiny amount compared with their total income. C&RT should be asking the government why they don't take it out of the HS2 pot seeing as millions of tax payers benefit from the inland waterways.

 

Anyway I don't think 25% is a good return, but it seems that people are less and less trusting of organisations these days. I wonder how many will vote at the next election?

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

If they wanted to genuinely understand what our issues are, they'd go out and chat to random boaters.

 

Not just send out a proforma loaded to get the answer which suits their agenda (which I think was always to hammer CC'ers in this case).

 

As I said, the extra l money they hope to raise from CC'ers  is a tiny amount compared with their total income. C&RT should be asking the government why they don't take it out of the HS2 pot seeing as millions of tax payers benefit from the inland waterways.

 

Anyway I don't think 25% is a good return, but it seems that people are less and less trusting of organisations these days. I wonder how many will vote at the next election?

 

I'm pretty sure they understand what boaters biggest issues are -- stoppages due to poor maintenance, broken locks and paddles galore, lack of dredging/bank clearance, and similar others. It's blindingly obvious and they've acknowledged many times that they're not doing well enough.

 

But the simple reason is that they haven't got enough money to even keep up with this, never mind make a hole in the massive maintenance backlog which is the main reason *why* there are so many stoppages and failures, they're spending far too much time and money firefighting these emergencies rather than having a solid repair/maintenance program to stop them happening in the first place.

 

The static/reducing (in real terms) government grant is the fundamental reason behind this, and since there's little CART can do to change this with this government (except protest ineffectually) they have to try and raise more money from other sources -- and one of these is boaters.

 

Saying "oh, it's a tiny amount, they should get it from elsewhere" -- apart from being not true -- is the same argument that people keep trotting out about why they (or the UK) shouldn't bother trying to reduce emissions to combat climate change when [insert other country of choice] is emitting far more, when the truth is that *everyone* needs to do this... 😞

Edited October 5, 2023 by IanD