Licences

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Alway Swilby said:

We can't be unusual in our mooring habits. Around about the beginning of March we leave a marina and change our status on the licencing website to CC. We stop paying the marina for the mooring at this point. We then CC all summer and sometime at the beginning of November we move back into the same marina or a different one depending on availability and start paying for a mooring again. We then declare our new home mooring on the web site. Up until now these change of statuses have been FOC. As it happens our licence renews on 1st January. It seems that the six month rule will mean we pay for a CC licence which is fair enough.

BUT.... are we going to have to pay £30 for each change of status so £60 per year on top of the CC surcharge. If we don't update the status when we move back into a marina and leave it as CC what happens when we get spotted in the marina for 4 months? Will we get an overstay email?

C&RT must have consider  this so I suggest you email C&RT  and ask them.

I expect  C&RT  will say staying in a marina  over winter isn't overstaying   and if you pay the CC for 12 months fee that's good enough. 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Continuous Cruiser is a recognised term now. It is used on .gov websites. 

 

Initially it was a colloquialism but this is no longer the case. 

makes no difference,

you only have to read the last page to see how it causes confusion,

and earlier comments have used the term to deliberately confuse,

 

it’s only been a helpful term in respect that it reinforces a false notion of what boating without a home mooring means,

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

Do we all agree:

 

1. The market obeys price elasticity of demand;

2. Boat ownership is relatively inelastic;

3. There is a determinable, optimum (max income) price of licensing according to the above

4. The current increases are short of the figure in (3), possibly due to the associated negative publicity it would bring?

On point 3, there is an optimum price to maximising revenue, but I would question whether it is actually determinable from the information CRT currently hold. Raising the price (for CCers and widebeams) in stages over the next five years will give more data , which can be compared against the change in numbers of such craft, to estimate where the optimum price may lie. But even then that will only be an estimate as boat numbers will change due to other factors, the impact of which can also only be estimated.

In other words, part of CRT's thinking behind the increases may be a 'suck it and see' test to see how boat numbers respond to price increases.

2 hours ago, Alway Swilby said:

We can't be unusual in our mooring habits. Around about the beginning of March we leave a marina and change our status on the licencing website to CC. We stop paying the marina for the mooring at this point. We then CC all summer and sometime at the beginning of November we move back into the same marina or a different one depending on availability and start paying for a mooring again. We then declare our new home mooring on the web site. Up until now these change of statuses have been FOC. As it happens our licence renews on 1st January. It seems that the six month rule will mean we pay for a CC licence which is fair enough.

BUT.... are we going to have to pay £30 for each change of status so £60 per year on top of the CC surcharge. If we don't update the status when we move back into a marina and leave it as CC what happens when we get spotted in the marina for 4 months? Will we get an overstay email?

As far as I can see there is nothing to stop you being a declared CCer all year, and paying the higher CC licence fee, whilst also taking a winter mooring. Staying in a marina in a paid-for slot will not get you an overstay notice.

Whether this is the right option for you will depend on how the cost saving of an HM licence over the winter months compares with paying two admin fees to change your status each spring and autumn.

[Bee]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

Do we all agree:

 

1. The market obeys price elasticity of demand;

2. Boat ownership is relatively inelastic;

3. There is a determinable, optimum (max income) price of licensing according to the above

4. The current increases are short of the figure in (3), possibly due to the associated negative publicity it would bring?

I would also add a 5th point, that the whole structure is dependant on the political dogma of the government in power and a steadily reducing grant will cause a big and compounding increase in licence fees. It is not just economic theory that puts prices up. 

[TheBiscuits]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

Staying in a marina in a paid-for slot will not get you an overstay notice.

 

Paying for a mooring is a pretty good definition of "such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

5 hours ago, MtB said:

 

I too am deeply uncomfortable with all these unrealistically low licence fees. Unless CRT grasp the nettle and ramp them up properly to match what it costs to maintain the canals, we are at risk of losing them totally. 

 

A LOT, (one helluvalot) of money grabbing is needed to secure the future of the canal system.

 

 

 

 

If, as I understand it, the next budget is due to cut public expenditure in order to cut taxes, there is very little future for any if the UK's infrastructure. Most people drive on roads - looked at them recently? I don't expect canals will get as much attention as they do.

We almost lost the canals last century. I'd be surprised if they make the next one as more than the rubbish tips they were then, however much CRT revs the prices up.

[IanD]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

If, as I understand it, the next budget is due to cut public expenditure in order to cut taxes, there is very little future for any if the UK's infrastructure. Most people drive on roads - looked at them recently? I don't expect canals will get as much attention as they do.

We almost lost the canals last century. I'd be surprised if they make the next one as more than the rubbish tips they were then, however much CRT revs the prices up.

 

What the canals need is a government minister in charge who actually appreciates what they are and is willing to push for support to them. Unfortunately the odds of another Barbara Castle emerging nowadays seem small, but might be very slightly higher after the next GE... 😉

[Arthur Marshall]

39 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

What the canals need is a government minister in charge who actually appreciates what they are and is willing to push for support to them. Unfortunately the odds of another Barbara Castle emerging nowadays seem small, but might be very slightly higher after the next GE... 😉

Unlikely, I feel.

[IanD]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Unlikely, I feel.

That's why I said *very* slightly higher -- meaning, more than zero, which is what it is with the current lot... 😞

[magnetman]

And I was like 'the current lot might get back in before January 2025'. 

 

Don't change horse in mid stream. 

 

There will be financial inducements which may tempt wrong thinking types. 

 

 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

What the canals need is a government minister in charge who actually appreciates what they are and is willing to push for support to them. Unfortunately the odds of another Barbara Castle emerging nowadays seem small, but might be very slightly higher after the next GE... 😉

Our best chance was murdered unfortunately she lived in a boat on the Thames, god bless Jo Cox

[Momac]

Sounds like the end is in sight for the canals . Or at least for some canals.

 

Any ideas which canals cost C&RT the greatest to keep in navigable condition?

I am thinking it will take a significant closure or two to alert the public and the government to the possibility of what might be lost.

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, Alway Swilby said:

We can't be unusual in our mooring habits. Around about the beginning of March we leave a marina and change our status on the licencing website to CC. We stop paying the marina for the mooring at this point. We then CC all summer and sometime at the beginning of November we move back into the same marina or a different one depending on availability and start paying for a mooring again. We then declare our new home mooring on the web site. Up until now these change of statuses have been FOC. As it happens our licence renews on 1st January. It seems that the six month rule will mean we pay for a CC licence which is fair enough.

BUT.... are we going to have to pay £30 for each change of status so £60 per year on top of the CC surcharge. If we don't update the status when we move back into a marina and leave it as CC what happens when we get spotted in the marina for 4 months? Will we get an overstay email?

We used to do that (before we bought current boat and moved base) - and place reasonably accessible from Cornwall (where were once lived) could only be relied on with a 12 months mooring so we have not been able to do that for a while. I only picked up v recently that this mode is becoming much more difficult - alas! Still (head in sand) it is unlikely to affect us . . . 

6 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

 But you’ll be in a private Marina, so overstaying will not be CaRT’s responsibility, it will be the Marina’s, but as you say you will be paying for moorings. 
 What will happen to a boater that pays for a home mooring all year, but goes out cruising April-Oct, should he declare he’s CCing and pay a surcharge? 
 I think we’ll just have to wait and see how the system works(or maybe doesn’t) in the next couple of years. Obviously there will be various scenarios that will need tweaking/sorting.

I hope not - but in any case the surcharge is for 'boaters without a home mooring', not boaters cc'ing.

[Arthur Marshall]

7 hours ago, Momac said:

C&RT must have consider  this so I suggest you email C&RT  and ask them.

I expect  C&RT  will say staying in a marina  over winter isn't overstaying   and if you pay the CC for 12 months fee that's good enough. 

 

Didn't CRT specify a minimum length of time that a mooring contract had to be for before it qualified as a home mooring? So if the marina stay is less than that, then the CC licence is correct, as you say. It is no different in principle from taking a CRT winter mooring. CRT can't have it both ways. Probably.

 

[Momac]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Didn't CRT specify a minimum length of time that a mooring contract had to be for before it qualified as a home mooring? So if the marina stay is less than that, then the CC licence is correct, as you say. It is no different in principle from taking a CRT winter mooring. CRT can't have it both ways. Probably.

 

Its all madness

If you stay in a marina  and the mooring fee is paid then surely there is no problem. You are outside of any place where C&RT mooring restrictions apply. It cannot be regarded as overstaying.

Overstaying only applies when you moor at the side of the waterway.  Overstaying rules including signposted restrictions less than 14 days apply to all boats regardless of license type.

If you have paid for a CC license you can stay in a marina as long as you like

If you have paid for a genuine home mooring you can continuously cruise as long as you like.

 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Momac said:

Sounds like the end is in sight for the canals . Or at least for some canals.

 

Any ideas which canals cost C&RT the greatest to keep in navigable condition?

I am thinking it will take a significant closure or two to alert the public and the government to the possibility of what might be lost.

The problem for CART is that some of the most expensive to maintain and least used canals -- for example, the Rochdale and HNC -- are also the most difficult to close, because a lot of the money to restore them before they reopened about 25 years ago came from bodies who are likely to ask for a large sum back if they close... 😞

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Didn't CRT specify a minimum length of time that a mooring contract had to be for before it qualified as a home mooring?

 

 

It has been posted several tmes in this thread.

 

A 12 month mooring contract in place before the licence is issued.

Minimium of 6 months mooring to get a rebate on your CC surcharge.

1 minute ago, IanD said:

The problem for CART is that some of the most expensive to maintain and least used canals -- for example, the Rochdale and HNC -- are also the most difficult to close, because a lot of the money to restore them before they reopened about 25 years ago came from bodies who are likely to ask for a large sum back if they close... 😞

 

 

This is often said, but is there any paperwork / copy contracts / evidence in existence or is it just "how we think it was done"

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

It has been posted several tmes in this thread.

 

A 12 month mooring contract in place before the licence is issued.

Minimium of 6 months mooring to get a rebate on your CC surcharge.

 

 

This is often said, but is there any paperwork / copy contracts / evidence in existence or is it just "how we think it was done"

I don't expect any boaters have seen the contracts, but turn the question round -- if you were going to give millions of pounds to reopen a canal (which is what councils and the Millenium Fund did, amongst others) would you do it without some clause to guarantee that it stayed open, and if not get some money back?

 

I suspect nobody here knows what the exact terms of such funding were, IIRC 50 years was mentioned but that may well have been speculation...

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Didn't CRT specify a minimum length of time that a mooring contract had to be for before it qualified as a home mooring? So if the marina stay is less than that, then the CC licence is correct, as you say. It is no different in principle from taking a CRT winter mooring. CRT can't have it both ways. Probably.

 

The bit they published said evidence for the duration of the licence if you change moorings. Assuming you have a yearly mooring contract then it would need to be synchronised with your licence renewal to be for the duration of the licence

[Lady M]

Licence renewal may not be synchronised with insurance renewal either, so this should not be a concern.

[Arthur Marshall]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

The problem for CART is that some of the most expensive to maintain and least used canals -- for example, the Rochdale and HNC -- are also the most difficult to close, because a lot of the money to restore them before they reopened about 25 years ago came from bodies who are likely to ask for a large sum back if they close... 😞

I doubt it. Most lottery funded arty stuff - galleries, museums etc, closes after a few years because the lottery only funds initial capital, not running, costs. I don't think the lottery gets its money back and hands it back to the punters. Businesses hive bits off and dump them all the time without penalty - that's how hedge funds work.

The restoration bodies were, I presume, funded by donations and volunteers. Even if they still exist in some form, they wouldn't be due anything back - CRT would just say they've spent the equivalent in maintenance over the years. Or, of course, they could just hand the canal back to the restoration body and tell them to get on with it, like the steam railway buffs. Of course, CRT would charge them for the water...

[ditchcrawler]

10 hours ago, Lady M said:

Licence renewal may not be synchronised with insurance renewal either, so this should not be a concern.

I have just checked again and its only new boaters who have to show its for the duration of the licence, those moving moorings just have to show they have a new mooring 

so I was slightly off track with my comment 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I doubt it. Most lottery funded arty stuff - galleries, museums etc, closes after a few years because the lottery only funds initial capital, not running, costs. I don't think the lottery gets its money back and hands it back to the punters. Businesses hive bits off and dump them all the time without penalty - that's how hedge funds work.

The restoration bodies were, I presume, funded by donations and volunteers. Even if they still exist in some form, they wouldn't be due anything back - CRT would just say they've spent the equivalent in maintenance over the years. Or, of course, they could just hand the canal back to the restoration body and tell them to get on with it, like the steam railway buffs. Of course, CRT would charge them for the water...

 

AFAIK most of the restoration money came from the Millenium Fund and local councils, not donations and volunteers. When councils invest money in improvements to their patch -- like they did with the canals -- there are normally clauses to recover money if the thing they're funding goes tits-up and closes, they appear as preferential creditors. I'd be surprised if they did anything different with the Rochdale and HNC.

[Arthur Marshall]

41 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

AFAIK most of the restoration money came from the Millenium Fund and local councils, not donations and volunteers. When councils invest money in improvements to their patch -- like they did with the canals -- there are normally clauses to recover money if the thing they're funding goes tits-up and closes, they appear as preferential creditors. I'd be surprised if they did anything different with the Rochdale and HNC.

The restoration money would have gone to the infrastructure. Whether the canal is open to navigation or not isn't relevant - councils will be interested in the towpath, for cyclists and walkers, not boats. They might whinge if CRT just tipped a load of concrete into it, but as long as it's wet, looks pretty and doesn't smell too much, no one except us is going to give a toss if CRT chain up the locks and bin the key.

And bear in mind that with homeowners grumbling about boats overstaying, being smoky, dieselly and noisy, councils (that get no financial benefit from boats) aren't exactly on our side.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The restoration money would have gone to the infrastructure. Whether the canal is open to navigation or not isn't relevant - councils will be interested in the towpath, for cyclists and walkers, not boats. They might whinge if CRT just tipped a load of concrete into it, but as long as it's wet, looks pretty and doesn't smell too much, no one except us is going to give a toss if CRT chain up the locks and bin the key.

And bear in mind that with homeowners grumbling about boats overstaying, being smoky, dieselly and noisy, councils (that get no financial benefit from boats) aren't exactly on our side.

 

Of course the money went to the infrastructure, in order to re-open the canal and provide an improved amenity for local residents -- effectively the Millennium Fund did the same, though this may also have used industrial heritage preservation as a reason. If there was a clause in the funding contracts -- and there would have been contracts! -- to recover money if the canal subsequently closed again, you can bet that any cash-strapped council would be eager to get this back from CART to help with their financial problems caused by underfunding.

 

But unless anyone can get a look at the actual funding terms this is all just a difference of opinion -- I think it's likely such clauses were included, others say there's no proof or they couldn't be enforced today. We've been here before several times with no conclusion... 😉

Edited February 27 by IanD