Licences

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

I have a couple of spare mooring spaces (that I don't want to fill), I wonder if there is a market for 'convenience' Home moorings I'd happily take less than the CC surcharge to have a boat register as using one of my moorings.... could be a nice little earner for a marina thats got spare capacity...

 

 

CRT already have a database of "approved" home moorings. You search it using the drop-down box when you update your home mooring declaration on your CRT account on line. CRT will already know the total length or number of moorings available on all approved sites as they will be billing the mooring owner for the EOG or NAA fee.

 

I'd suggest CRT will be focusing their enquiries on boaters at moorings where more length of boat is being claimed as a home mooring than EOG or NAA fees are being paid for at that site. 

 

And also on CRT lincence holders claiming a home mooring off CRT waters, on the Thames for example. 

[haggis]

We got this letter too as our licence is due on 1/4. Fairly straight forward we thought. If you haven't changed your mooring, no action needed (C&RT will have seen your boat at your declared mooring so they presumably don't need anything else unless your marina is not regularly checked and they MAY need you to provide proof of mooring in the future). If you are a new boater or have changed marinas, you need to provide proof (a copy of your contract presumably). Apparently when we get the bumff about renewing our licence it will tell us how to provide proof of our mooring if we need to. Presumably this will be able to be done on line by attaching a copy of your mooring contract to your account details. I dont see this putting much extra work on C&RT as it will presumably be done automatically. No proof of mooring = continuous cruiser licence

 

 

[jonathanA]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

 

CRT already have a database of "approved" home moorings. You search it using the drop-down box when you update your home mooring declaration on your CRT account on line. CRT will already know the total length or number of moorings available on all approved sites as they will be billing the mooring owner for the EOG or NAA fee.

 

I'd suggest CRT will be focusing their enquiries on boaters at moorings where more length of boat is being claimed as a home mooring than EOG or NAA fees are being paid for at that site. 

 

And also on CRT lincence holders claiming a home mooring off CRT waters, on the Thames for example. 

quite so, my point was allowing ccers to declare a home mooring to use up spare capacity would be undetectable and perfectly legal.  fees a mooring operator pays CRT are fixed regardless of the number of boats actually using (or registered) to use that operators facility.  

 

[MtB]

29 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

quite so, my point was allowing ccers to declare a home mooring to use up spare capacity would be undetectable and perfectly legal.  fees a mooring operator pays CRT are fixed regardless of the number of boats actually using (or registered) to use that operators facility.  

 

 

Yep I see no problem doing that. I should maybe have quoted another post rather than yours.

 

But is it worth the effort? The CCer surcharge costs buttons and you'll be trying to undercut it! 

[Momac]

40 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

quite so, my point was allowing ccers to declare a home mooring to use up spare capacity would be undetectable and perfectly legal.  fees a mooring operator pays CRT are fixed regardless of the number of boats actually using (or registered) to use that operators facility.  

 

Its called over selling.

The agreement would have to be on the basis as everyone else in that a mooring would be made available all year round.

The plan would fail from the mooring owners perspective if more boats turned  up compared to available spaces. But perhaps that could be managed by not selling excessive numbers of mooring agreements compared to available space.

 

The people who do use their moorings regularly and paying a higher rate might be upset if they discover what is occurring (as they surely would).

But good luck with your plan.

 

[jonathanA]

40 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yep I see no problem doing that. I should maybe have quoted another post rather than yours.

 

But is it worth the effort? The CCer surcharge costs buttons and you'll be trying to undercut it! 

to be fair I'd assumed the CC surcharge would make it worthwhile, but if its as you say, buttons,  it would not be worth the effort quite agree.  

 

12 minutes ago, Momac said:

Its called over selling.

The agreement would have to be on the basis as everyone else in that a mooring would be made available all year round.

The plan would fail from the mooring owners perspective if more boats turned  up compared to available spaces. But perhaps that could be managed by not selling excessive numbers of mooring agreements compared to available space.

 

The people who do use their moorings regularly and paying a higher rate might be upset if they discover what is occurring (as they surely would).

But good luck with your plan.

 

i do wish people would read previous posts properly before diving in.... no where did i suggest 'over selling' in fact I was very careful to use the words 'spare Capacity'  and the conversation with MTB even referred to CRT knowing how many spaces/total length was available at each location. 

 

just to be clear I was merely postulating it as something that could be done, but MTB has shown its probably not financially worthwhile. although if the surcharge become significant then it could be for some. 

 

finally its not my plan so I don't need your approval or good luck - but thanks anyway. 

Edited February 22 by jonathanA
re-order to make sense

[MtB]

14 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

i do wish people would read previous posts properly before diving in....

 

Seconded. Chuffs me off when people post without reading the conversation leading up. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

I'd suggest CRT will be focusing their enquiries on boaters at moorings where more length of boat is being claimed as a home mooring than EOG or NAA fees are being paid for at that site. 

 

Don't forget that marinas pay the NAA based on the total number of moorings they have available** - even if they only have 10% occupancy they still pay the same NAA, so it is quite possible that a marina could take (say) another 100 boats and pay no more NAA.

 

** This is why Pillings Lock marina ended up taking a pontoon completely out of the water, and having a 'revaluation' of their NAA based on their new capacity.

[Lady M]

Some marinas not all.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, jonathanA said:

quite so, my point was allowing ccers to declare a home mooring to use up spare capacity would be undetectable and perfectly legal.  fees a mooring operator pays CRT are fixed regardless of the number of boats actually using (or registered) to use that operators facility.  

 

I think the main problem would be when your other moorers found you were renting moorings for peanuts to boats who never used them and had no intention of doing so. I imagine CRT would regard it as fraud on the part of both boater and operator, assuming you run a marina where you're paying CRT the fees. It's just a variation on the "ghost mooring" concept, which I suspect will be fairly high on CRT's radar.

It always seemed to me that the financial savings (or profits) were minimal and the added permanent worry of being found out and heavily penalised just too much hassle.

 

It obviously wouldn't work at all for somewhere like my mooring where we pay CRT EOG fees.

[Lady M]

The other moorers might also ask why you deliberately leave some berths empty when filling them should result in lower mooring fees for all.  (This is different from having voids due to lack of customers.)

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, Lady M said:

Some marinas not all.

 

I didn't think it needed stating that marinas not subject to the NAA agreement would not be paying the NAA charges (9% of potential income based on the marina having 100% occupancy)

[jonathanA]

25 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think the main problem would be when your other moorers found you were renting moorings for peanuts to boats who never used them and had no intention of doing so. I imagine CRT would regard it as fraud on the part of both boater and operator, assuming you run a marina where you're paying CRT the fees. It's just a variation on the "ghost mooring" concept, which I suspect will be fairly high on CRT's radar.

It always seemed to me that the financial savings (or profits) were minimal and the added permanent worry of being found out and heavily penalised just too much hassle.

 

It obviously wouldn't work at all for somewhere like my mooring where we pay CRT EOG fees.

as opposed to having no income from the empty berths and therefore having to charge the existing bertholders more.... 

I guess the risk is that the CCer did actually turn up and then you would have a problem if they stayed for months on a peanut rate compared to the other berthholders.... and even if you had an agreement that they would never actually turenup (or could do for only so many nights) then i don't see how thats fraud, might not be in the spirit of what CRT are trying to do, but thats a different debate altogether. 

 

I struggling to see where the fraud is. It would be fraudulent if someone took money from say 100 CCers, when they only had berths (occupied or otherwise) for say 50.... 

 

I could see the CCer being more at risk that actually a 'real' person wants a berth (at full rate) so the operator 'turfs out' the CCer - perfectly within the rights of most if not all operators, even then The CCer is all right until their next renewal so still possibly a good deal for them.  Although back to the earlier point, this is all hypothetical and a waste of time whilst the CCer surcharge is small . 

 

 

[Lady M]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I didn't think it needed stating that marinas not subject to the NAA agreement would not be paying the NAA charges (9% of potential income based on the marina having 100% occupancy)

Not everyone understands that the NAA agreement only applies to more recently constructed marinas.  Your comment did not specify NAA payers.

[Arthur Marshall]

44 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

as opposed to having no income from the empty berths and therefore having to charge the existing bertholders more.... 

I guess the risk is that the CCer did actually turn up and then you would have a problem if they stayed for months on a peanut rate compared to the other berthholders.... and even if you had an agreement that they would never actually turenup (or could do for only so many nights) then i don't see how thats fraud, might not be in the spirit of what CRT are trying to do, but thats a different debate altogether. 

 

I struggling to see where the fraud is. It would be fraudulent if someone took money from say 100 CCers, when they only had berths (occupied or otherwise) for say 50.... 

 

I could see the CCer being more at risk that actually a 'real' person wants a berth (at full rate) so the operator 'turfs out' the CCer - perfectly within the rights of most if not all operators, even then The CCer is all right until their next renewal so still possibly a good deal for them.  Although back to the earlier point, this is all hypothetical and a waste of time whilst the CCer surcharge is small . 

 

 

Well, there's fraud by the boat owner, stating that he has a home mooring when he doesn't, especially if there's a signed* agreement that the mooring is never going to be used! He gains the financial advantages and also the relaxation of the 14 day rule, although not under the current t&cs, of course, as he wouldn't ever be returning to the mooring. That in itself, I suspect, would alert CRT to the fraud.

And the site owner making the agreement, because it's made to enable an illegitimate financial gain, is also committing fraud. Both sides' actions are inherently dishonest.

It's obviously a hypothetical discussion, because if anyone was seriously considering it, the last thing they'd do would be to state it on a site like this. There was a spate of discussions about ghost moorings a few years back and I think the general consensus was that they just don't exist.  I think the flaws in, and the risks of, such a scheme are obvious.

 

*you'd need a signed contract because relying on an unwritten agreement for something fraudulent wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't written on.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, jonathanA said:

. It would be fraudulent if someone took money from say 100 CCers, when they only had berths (occupied or otherwise) for say 50.... 

 Would that  be fraud ?

It  might carry a risk of not ending  well.

As you say its not worth the bother unless over selling which was the point I was trying to make.  I honestly didn't consider  you would have thought there was any sense in it unless selling the same deal to multiple people. 

 

Most marinas take visitors and use spaces that are empty because the bertholder  is out on a cruise. The visitor pays . So the marina gets paid twice from the same mooring . That's not fraud.

Gyms sell memberships to many more people than they can accommodate at one time . That's not fraud .

 

Edited February 22 by Momac

[Alan de Enfield]

32 minutes ago, Momac said:

Most marinas take visitors and use spaces that are empty because the bertholder  is out on a cruise. The visitor pays . So the marina gets paid twice from the same mooring . That's not fraud.

Gyms sell memberships to many more people than they can accommodate at one time . That's not fraud .

 

 

When designing a house wiring circuit the capacity is designed on a 'percentage' (it used to be 80%) of the total demand - it is NOT based on everything being switched on at the same time (and we still needed a 3-phase supply).

Edited February 22 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

. 

 

Most marinas take visitors and use spaces that are empty because the bertholder  is out on a cruise. The visitor pays . So the marina gets paid twice from the same mooring . That's not fraud.

Gyms sell memberships to many more people than they can accommodate at one time . That's not fraud .

 

Rather depends on your contract. It would be at my mooring as it's for my exclusive use.

What happens at a marina if the berth's been let to a visitor and the holder comes back?

I would imagine it's only fraud if it's sold and claimed under false pretences, which in the "ghost" cases it is. Simple as that. Luckily, unlikely ever to happen as simply not worth the hassle to any of the parties concerned, as we've seen. Bit like this discussion.

You could have included budget airlines who sell more seats than their planes have, too. That's not fraud either, though I've never been quite sure why, but the reasons are obvious.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 hour ago, Momac said:

Most marinas take visitors and use spaces that are empty because the bertholder  is out on a cruise. The visitor pays . So the marina gets paid twice from the same mooring . That's not fraud.

 

I’ve dumped my boat in a few marinas that work like this,

usually works along the lines of “…oh, yes, you can have this mooring for the week, they’re out for the next few months”,

it’s easier to find temp moorings in the summer than over the winter at places like that,

Fazeley and Alvechurch for instance,

some other big marinas seem to have pontoons for visitors, but I’d guess they’d let them full time if they were wanted,

Gt Haywood for instance, 

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

What happens at a marina if the berth's been let to a visitor and the holder comes back?

With the smaller mariners they know their customers/moorers pretty well and I guess through chit chat and conversation they know when someone’s off for awhile,

should they come back unexpected 🤷‍♀️maybe there’s a bit of shuffle about,

 

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

, 

With the smaller mariners they know their customers/moorers pretty well and I guess through chit chat and conversation they know when someone’s off for awhile,

should they come back unexpected 🤷‍♀️maybe there’s a bit of shuffle about,

 

I'm a bit surprised my site doesn't do it. He knows I'm away most of the summer and another couple of boats are away most of the year. Maybe in our case it's an insurance thing as we build and maintain our own landing stages, which we occasionally fall through.

[Momac]

38 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

What happens at a marina if the berth's been let to a visitor and the holder comes back?

 

The holder might have to moor in another space or the visitor is moved to another spot. 

 

I use the same mooring spot always but in theory I rent a mooring which could be anywhere in the marina.

In practice not an issue.We are not moved around.

I did receive a phone call once from the marina to see whether we were going to be away a while. But since we were returning the next day the marina put the visitor elsewhere.

[Paul C]

I don't understand why a moorings operator would leave usable berths unoccupied, even if they did rent them out at reduced cost. Surely it would make sense to rent them at the going rate?

[Tacet]

The maths simply doesn't work.  Next year the CC surcharge is 10% of the HM charge rising to 25% in a bit.  Taking a starting point of, say, £1000 pa this equates to £100 rising to £250.

 

Offering berths at under £250 for berths that might usually be, say, £2000 is not good business.  The existing customers might want to join the scheme.  Even if you offer moorings on some sort of dodgy nod-and-a-wink that they are not used means you have to let 10 in order to have around the same income as a bona-fide letting of one.

 

If someone has a significant number of vacant  berths consistently, they need either to cut the fees a bit or improve their facilities until they attract more customers.

[Momac]

21 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I don't understand why a moorings operator would leave usable berths unoccupied

Simple matter of supply and demand.

There are quite a few spare spaces where I keep my boat and have been for some time.

We go out of the marina and meet mostly  the same regular enthusiasts while the majority don't seem to move. The river is not nearly as busy as it used to be which can be nice but really its would be better if it was busy with boats.

 

Many economic factors at play here but I think  owning a boat as recreational activity may well decline as people simply cant afford the expense or they choose other activities which offer better value.

 

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

32 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I don't understand why a moorings operator would leave usable berths unoccupied, even if they did rent them out at reduced cost. Surely it would make sense to rent them at the going rate?

Ease of access? Marina owner keeping a couple open for his own use? Could be loads of reasons.