Licences

[MtB]

1 minute ago, adam1uk said:

CRT won’t be charging marinas more though, will they?  

 

Not everyone moors in marina. 

 

I have a CRT online mooring which is about £2.5k a year, direct into the CRT coffers and i'm vaguely expecting that to go up by inflation plus a bit too.

 

 

[Momac]

 

Note the date on the above is 1999.

[magnetman]

Good old Prescott. He was great. 

 

Didn't he deck someone who was annoying him on camera once? 

 

 

[Sea Dog]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Good old Prescott. He was great. 

 

Didn't he deck someone who was annoying him on camera once? 

 

 

To be fair, I think it was rather more than simply 'annoying him on camera' - some bloke threw a egg which hit him in the face. It was perhaps not self defence to the letter of the law, but maybe it was close enough for Government work. If such action always resulted in a smack in the gob, perhaps fewer eggs would be wasted in such a cavalier fashion? 

[Momac]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Good old Prescott. He was great. 

 

 

He is still alive

 

[magnetman]

Yes also notable that it was the other geyser who got him on the ground in the incident. 

 

Maybe too many roast dinners.

 

 

 

You gotta love the tone of the voice of the lady reporter.

She sounds like someone who should be in a comedy show. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Is there any evidence to suggest the only viable other party , if elected.,  would have plans for spending on the canals

As usual, you ignore the argument and set up an irrelevant Aunt Sally so you can claim to win a point that wasn't even under discussion. My point is simply that the UK has historically chosen low tax and spend over investment in infrastructure. It is likely to continue to do so, as all political parties are aware (even though the current lot, presumably due to mismanagement, are, I believe, at present running the highest tax take in history). That's down to what people apparently want, whinge though they do about potholes in roads. Parties of any flavour don't win power by upsetting the rabble.

And no one's going to want to spend money on canals. Except us.

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

My point is simply that the UK has historically chosen low tax and spend over investment in infrastructure.

 

The flaw in your assertion is the total tax take is all set to become the highest since the 1960s.

 

So what we actually have is a high tax, high benefits, low spend on infrastructure economy.

 

https://www.statista.com/chart/24330/uk-tax-burden-as-share-gdp-timeline/

 

[Momac]

52 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

And no one's going to want to spend money on canals. Except us.

The labour government (Prescott) did .

 

55 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

As usual, you ignore the argument and set up an irrelevant Aunt Sally

Not irrelevant at all

Labour are promising to invest in the UK so why might that not include the inland waterways?

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

The labour government (Prescott) did .

 

Not irrelevant at all

Labour are promising to invest in the UK so why might that not include the inland waterways?

Sounds political, in a non-political area of the forum.

[adam1uk]

14 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Not everyone moors in marina. 

 

I have a CRT online mooring which is about £2.5k a year, direct into the CRT coffers and i'm vaguely expecting that to go up by inflation plus a bit too.

 

 

I didn’t say they did.  I was responding to Arthur who said CRT would charge more for EOG and marina moorings, and pointing out that marinas with a NAA pay nine per cent of whatever they charge.  CRT can’t change that.

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, adam1uk said:

I didn’t say they did.  I was responding to Arthur who said CRT would charge more for EOG and marina moorings, and pointing out that marinas with a NAA pay nine per cent of whatever they charge.  CRT can’t change that.

 

So the 9% charge is fixed forever? 

 

 

[MtB]

34 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So the 9% charge is fixed forever? 

 

I think it is, although it depends on what the NAA contracts actually says. I've an idea @Alan de Enfield has seen a real life NAA contract.

 

Arthur has a farm mooring though IIRC, and CRT levy the EOG charge on it and that is subeject to significant variation as it is set at 50% of the price of nearby equivalent CRT moorings, and CRT mooring prices are climbing well above inflation. 

 

 

[Momac]

37 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

So the 9% charge is fixed forever? 

 

 

The percentage is fixed.

But it is a percentage of a sum that is not fixed.

[magnetman]

Yes I realise the sum of which it is a percentage is liable to change. 

 

I was just wondering if the NAA is actually fixed permanently or may be subject to variation at the end of a lease period. 

 

Obviously it would have to be long term for business reasons but maybe not in fact permanent. 

 

 

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I was just wondering if the NAA is actually fixed permanently or may be subject to variation at the end of a lease period. 

 

 

One would need to read an NAA contract to find out for sure. Even then, they may not all be the same.

 

I would not be in the slightest surprised if the 9% they are reputed to charge turns out to be variable, should CRT so desire. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The percentage is fixed.

 

 

Is it ?

 

 

From the contract I was given when looking to buy a marina it looks as if, if you increase the mooring fees C&RT can revise their NAA percentage (on an annual basis)

If the percentage was intended to be fixed at 9% for the contracted 150 years then C&RT would automatically get an increased income if the mooring rates increased - no need to have an "annual" review.

 

 

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.

 

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity. • Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Yes I realise the sum of which it is a percentage is liable to change. 

 

I was just wondering if the NAA is actually fixed permanently or may be subject to variation at the end of a lease period. 

 

Obviously it would have to be long term for business reasons but maybe not in fact permanent. 

 

 

From memory, lease period is 150 years.

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Is it ?

 

 

From the contract I was given when looking to buy a marina it looks as if, if you increase the mooring fees C&RT can revise their NAA percentage (on an annual basis)

If the percentage was intended to be fixed at 9% for the contracted 150 years then C&RT would automatically get an increased income if the mooring rates increased - no need to have an "annual" review.

 

 

• Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.

 

• The payment will be phased in as follows. 1st year no payment, 2nd year 50% capacity, 3rd year 100% capacity. • Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

That would impy that the 9% can be raised at any time. If it was just a fixed figure it would just automatically increase CRTs income when the marina raised its rents, so CRT must have the facility to take a larger slice. And it's reviewed annually, and I imagine most marinas  increase their rates each year with inflation, so the odds are they're going to be walloped too, and that will be passed on to their moorers - who will then be paying an increased rate which entitles CRT to bang it up another percentage point next year...

Plus, in normal contract law, the contractor can change the terms of the contract at any time. The contractee has few rights.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I think you will find that it is the mooring capacity and mooring rate which are reviewed each year not the 9% which is fixed for 150 years.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I think you will find that it is the mooring capacity and mooring rate which are reviewed each year not the 9% which is fixed for 150 years.

 

That is not what the contract I had (posted above) said.

It says it will be reviewed if the mooring "rate" changes - "rate" as in level of charges.

 

What do you consider 'mooring rate' to mean ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is not what the contract I had (posted above) said.

It says it will be reviewed if the mooring "rate" changes - "rate" as in level of charges.

 

What do you consider 'mooring rate' to mean ?

I think you are posting based on a summary of the contract rather than the contract itself -

 

Quote

 

4.3.3 Starting with the second anniversary of the Commencement Date the yearly 
sum (exclusive of Value Added Tax) payable under this Agreement from eacha nniversary of the Commencement Date until the next following anniversary 

of the Commencement Date shall be

4.3.3.1 9% of the Gross Mooring Capacity multiplied by the Published Annual 
Charge per metre of the Applicant for the calendar year for which the 
calculation is being made for mooring at the Moorings

4.3.3.2 The Applicant shall give written notice to CRT of the existing 
Published Annual Charge within 14 days of the Commencement 
Date and within 14 days of any variations to it occurring

4.3.3.3 If there are different annual mooring charge rates for different parts of 
the Moorings then for the purposes of the calculation under 
paragraph 4.3.3.1 above the sum for each part shall be calculated on 
the basis of the length and Published Annual Charge for that part and 
the total for all the parts then ascertained before the amount 
representing the percentage specified in paragraph 4.3.3.1 is 
calculated.

 

It seems to me that the 9% is fixed but the summary badly worded.

 

I can't see anywhere in the agreement where the 9% can be varied.

[magnetman]

If the CRT could vary the 9% willy nilly surely this would make the business unviable in the first place as too much risk. 

 

It must be fixed for a certain time. 150 yars sounds quite a lot. 

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Is it ?

Yes it would appear so.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

38 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

It seems to me that the 9% is fixed but the summary badly worded.

 

I can't see anywhere in the agreement where the 9% can be varied.

 

 

Working from the full contract, they also go on to say ....................

 

 

4.5 To pay or repay to CRT all existing and future rates, taxes, charges, duties, impositions, assessments and outgoings whatsoever for the time being payable by CRT or the Applicant in respect of or charged or imposed upon the Basin or for the rights granted in this Agreement.

 

Which would suggest to me that there could be changes in the future.