Licences

[magnetman]

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.

 

It does make sense for the CRT to hit hard if only to slow down the major influx. It will become an extremely expensive problem over time as people get older and things like mobility start to go. Loading up canals with people who for one reason or another can't or don't want to access state support for their housing needs is an unwise move. 

 

It needs to be made significantly more expensive to prevent future problems. 

 

The CRT is certainly not a housing charity. Their remit is to look after the canals and surrounding land areas such as towpaths for the good of everyone. Canals are an amenity not a housing estate. 

 

 

[MtB]

13 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 

 

 

 

Where do CRT say "next five years", please? 

 

 

 

 

 

[PCSB]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

 

Where do CRT say "next five years", please? 

 

 

 

 

 

It was/is in the email they sent advising of the changes extract below:

 

"Boat licence fees will need to rise above the baseline inflation rate for each of the next five years."

Edited September 27 by PCSB
speeling

[matty40s]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

 

Where do CRT say "next five years", please? 

 

 

 

 

 

It was quite clearly stated in the original press release, and applies to all licence holders

[MtB]

18 minutes ago, Brian jarrett said:

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 !

 

And isn't THAT just another problem! We actually have three types of boaters nowadays:

 

1) Home moorers

2) Genuine CCers who travel about the system because they like cruising

3) Fake CCers who abuse the system by moving half a mile once a fortnight, the minimum CRT say is required to comply with the law

4) CMers who don't even try to comply with the law. 

 

Now lemme guess which category you fall into....

 

 

Oh and a fifth category just for me, "Boaters who can't count".  

 

 

[Tracy D'arth]

Will we here anything further from Brian Jarrett?  😂

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

And isn't THAT just another problem! We actually have three types of boaters nowadays:

 

1) Home moorers

2) Genuine CCers who travel about the system because they like cruising

3) Fake CCers who abuse the system by moving half a mile once a fortnight, the minimum CRT say is required to comply with the law

4) CMers who don't even try to comply with the law. 

 

Now lemme guess which category you fall into....

 

 

That’s 4, 😂

[Tracy D'arth]

2 minutes ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

That’s 4, 😂

Its the drink!

[Mike Todd]

23 hours ago, HenryFreeman said:

 

For the same reason that electric car owners don't pay emissions duty, or road tax - if you want to go back to the nomenclature of 1937. They're giving boaters an incentive to save a bit of money to encourage boaters, who can afford it, to go electric.

 

As someone has already said, the number of electric boaters is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of boat owners. Do they use the same facilities as the rest of us? Sure they do. Is the 25% discount for the few hundred (maybe? if that?) electric boats going to bankrupt the CaRT? Probably not.

As and when the number become significant and a major hit to CaRT income, then - like the online discount - it will be dropped, much for the same reasons. There is no point in maintaining a 'nudge' factor when nearly everyone has been nudged effectively.

21 hours ago, magnetman said:

November. 

They may do it on the 5th. 

 

A Mr G.Forx from the NBTA will be loitering in the cellar of The CRT Grange with gunpowder. 

Awaiting the latest inflation figures, was in the statement IIRC.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

4 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Will we here anything further from Brian Jarrett?  😂

Hope not as he can’t even be bothered to see if his subject matter is already being discussed on here. Probably a new Continuous Moorer that has watched too much Youtube and thinks it’s a cheap way of living being on the Canal.

Edited September 27 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, PCSB said:

It was/is in the email they sent advising of the changes extract below:

 

"Boat licence fees will need to rise above the baseline inflation rate for each of the next five years."

 

 

I think the question was asked of the OP to see if an AI can respond to a reasonable question.

[HenryFreeman]

17 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

As and when the number become significant and a major hit to CaRT income, then - like the online discount - it will be dropped, much for the same reasons. There is no point in maintaining a 'nudge' factor when nearly everyone has been nudged effectively.

 

Which is unlikely to be in your or my lifetime. There's a lot of diesel powered boats out there that aren't going anywhere any time soon. And they're still being made and will continue to still be made at least until 2035.

[PCSB]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

I think the question was asked of the OP to see if an AI can respond to a reasonable question.

I don't think it is an AI bot Alan, Generally AI generated text is gramatically correct and usually generic, this isn't and quite specific. I guess the AI's could have already eveolved though ... 

[Mike Todd]

Because it seems widely to be ignored, I'll say it again:

 

The complaint based on the impact on low income (and/or disabled) boaters is spurious as the CaRT Impact Analysis demonstrates. Low income boaters are generally entitled to UC or other benefits and for such recipients the licence fee can be claimed from the state. They are not the ones most disadvantage - more likely to be the 'just about managing'.

 

You might even think that this is a good ploy by CaRT to increase the Govt contributions to offset in a marginal way the substantial reductions in grant!

[Tonka]

6 minutes ago, HenryFreeman said:

 

Which is unlikely to be in your or my lifetime. There's a lot of diesel powered boats out there that aren't going anywhere any time soon. And they're still being made and will continue to still be made at least until 2035.

has that now been extended with the car extension announced this week ?

[HenryFreeman]

Just now, Tonka said:

has that now been extended with the car extension announced this week ?

 

Not sure to be honest, it's just an assumption on my part.

[1st ade]

47 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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

I would but the thread has grown in 47 minutes - merge (and some editing) coming up!

[magnetman]

18 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

You might even think that this is a good ploy by CaRT to increase the Govt contributions to offset in a marginal way the substantial reductions in grant!

 

I've been saying this all along. IF you can prove eligibility then Universal Credit will pay for your housing costs (cc licence definitely and probably insurance and BSS as well if it is a residential craft). 

 

OK so some people may have trouble applying for these things. There is help available via councils. You can use the job centre as your address for the UC. 

 

What Universal Credit won't do is pay for a boat you just happen to want to have in addition to your home and play with from time to time. That is something known as a 'luxury' which you either can or can't afford. 

 

If the costs of owning such a luxury rise to the point you can no longer afford it then you sell it and do other things. 

 

Its basic economics. 

 

On the other hand if you can not prove eligibility for UC then you pay for your own housing costs. Not complex. 

 

 

 

 

This is why from a technical point of view it would be sensible for the CRT to significantly increase the cost of licences for boats the owner of which have adopted the allowed no home mooring solution as a way to circumvent mooring fees. 

 

The CRT need the money. They need to operate under normal business practices rather than subsidising people. 

 

The state is there to subsidise you NOT the navigation authority. 

 

 

Edited September 27 by magnetman

[MtB]

I wonder if CRT could get away with making the licence fee £10k a year for anyone claiming Housing Benefit, given the government pays it! 

 

 

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

I wonder if CRT could get away with making the licence fee £10k a year for anyone claiming Housing Benefit, given the government pays it! 

 

 

It would be interesting filing a change of circumstances on your UC account where your housing costs suddenly went up by a factor of ten. 

 

I think that might ring alarm bells but if you then get a signed letter from the CRT to confirm the new cost of cc licence then in theory the UC should pay it. 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, MtB said:

I wonder if CRT could get away with making the licence fee £10k a year for anyone claiming Housing Benefit, given the government pays it! 

 

 

 

As I discussed with Nigel Moore (rip)

 

Background legal position :

 

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

 

 

How to increase licence fees for any particular 'group'.

 

Nigel Moore 6/1/18

 

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

Just as an example of my thinking :

 

A base licence becomes £5000

 

All 'discounts' are 'progressive' and applied in a linear fashion.

 

A Narrowboat gets 50% reduction, and if it has a home mooring gets a 50% reduction off the already reduced fee, so a typical NB with a mooring would pay (5000 x 50%) x 50% = £1,250

 

A WB with a home mooring gets 50% reduction so would pay £2,500

 

A CCing NB would get 50% reduction so would pay £2,500

 

A CCing WB would pay £5000

 

A 'Rivers only registration would be 60% of what ever category the boat came into.

A Rivers only registration for a NB with a home mooring would be £1250 x 60% = £750

 

etc etc.

 

It all seems simple to me.

 

[Rambling Boater]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You might even think that this is a good ploy by CaRT to increase the Govt contributions to offset in a marginal way the substantial reductions in grant!

You might be losing sight of the fact that licence fees only make up a small contribution to C&RT's budget in the first place.

 

As I keep saying, those who enjoy the canals and rivers (walking, fishing, cycling etc) SHOULD be contributing through taxes. The problem has come about because the government have chosen to stop our taxes being directed to the upkeep of the rivers and canals. They seem to be happy to spend our taxes on HS2 which very few of us will enjoy!

 

 A few people here seem to be taking delight  at the prospect of CC'ers having to pay a lot more for their licence in the future but don't seem to recognise the value of 'genuine' CC'ers 'keeping the canals alive' to coin a phrase from C&RT.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

A few people here seem to be taking delight  at the prospect of CC'ers having to pay a lot more for their licence in the future but don't seem to recognise the value of 'genuine' CC'ers 'keeping the canals alive' to coin a phrase from C&RT.

 

 

What you don't seem to realise is that CCers are not paying their way for the increased use of the facilities, and are effectively being subsidised by "weekend boaters" licence fees.

It should always have been a policy of "user pays".

 

CCers have had the benefit of cheap living costs and its is now time they paid their way.

[magnetman]

There are a lot of parallels with the squatting situation. 

 

There was a time when cool people squatted old buildings and looked after them. A positive outcome. Then a load if attitude-ridden vermin turned up, took the piss and played loud music and wrecked the place. Result ? Residential squatting got banned. 

 

Same thing on the cut. Some cool people cruising around on their boats having a good time get hijacked by attitude-ridden vermin who play loud music and wreck the place. 

 

 

There is no way of telling the difference between the groups so the broad brush will have to be applied. 

 

The NBTA are responsible to an extent but I assume most people have worked out they are actually just a militant wing of the CRT looking to make things harder for people. 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

You might be losing sight of the fact that licence fees only make up a small contribution to C&RT's budget in the first place.

 

 

I would not call £25 million (10% of their income) a small contribution, boating (licences and moorings) in totallity generates an income of  £44.5 million.