Jump to content

Licences


haggis

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

CRTs systems simply aren't clever enough to process constantly changing information submitted by users and identify issues with what's been updated.

 

There's been a continual push towards online servicing, which will eventually bite them in the ass and force them to either update or swap to a more traditional contact centre system.

 

If someone wanted to dodge around fees currently, without alerting CRT, they could do so without a great amount of effort. Unfortunately as the increases continue to come, there will likely be a point where it's a greater consideration for those who are struggling. 

 

We will wait and see what the increase to our CCing life style is before we decide anything specifically - we chose the life style not because it was 'cheap' housing, but because it's what we wanted to do (as someone who lived 'cheap' for years prior to boating, living on the canal felt expensive personally...)

 

I'm disappointed, but not surprised by the choice. Me and my partner knew this was coming, especially when the survey first popped up. I do feel sorry for CCing widebeams, as they get double shafted (and I rarely feel sorry for widebeams!)

 

Seeing the continual cuts applied to the northern canals over the last few years, followed by this, will we see an end to CCers up north. Obviously not a concern right now, but I can see a future where places like the Rochdale become hire boat only territory (well, until Shire Cruisers gives up, then it's probably placing bets on when CRT close the Rochdale...)

 

At the moment, I guess we just wait and see what kind of insane justification is used for the % increase due.

 

 

What makes you think that they will even try to justify it? 

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has already been 'justified'. 

 

The CRT are in a bad place financially. Getting more money from boat owners who after all are the only group who need a canal to be more than 1ft deep with working locks is a sensible strategy. 

 

As mentioned some groups of boaters are paying more for less and some paying less for more. 

 

It makes sense and is entirely justified to try to level things out for financial reasons and as a way to reduce the chance of bias occurring over time which will inevitably lead to higher management costs for the CRT.

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I think we should remember that currently, most boats with a home mooring pay more to CRT than boats without a home mooring. And as a generalisation boats without a home mooring usually generate more CRT direct costs - more rubbish disposal, more elsan disposal, more tap water, than someone with a home mooring. Well, a home mooring in a marina anyway.

 

I am thinking of the 10% of mooring fees that most marinas have to pay to CRT. So I pay about 25% more to CRT - directly and indirectly - than someone without a home mooring. This seems an obvious anomaly.

Well I can tell you that this ccer doesn't generate any more of the direct costs you mention than a boater who takes his boat out one week a year.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't feel too sorry about someone with a hundred grand wide beam paying a bit more. I'm sure they can afford it..

 

For people who are on the breadline the state is there to help you and will do so it you need it. 

 

Apart from anything else the CRT should not be subsidising people who are renting the house out living on a boat.

This is not an appropriate allocation of limited funds. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

Of course the Gold Licence, which gives you Thames and CRT 24/7/365 is an elephant in this room as it may well end up being less costly than the upcoming cc er widebeam licence. 

 

Some work needed here to avoid evasive strategies. 

 

 

 

If the surcharges are significant then the Gold licence must either go up or be withdrawn. I would not be that surprised if the EA and the CRT got their heads together and decided to withdraw the Gold Licence quite soon..

 

 

 

Highly unlikely that it will be cheaper than a standard licence plus surcharges as they would be applied proportionately. Currently my Gold licence costs less than a Thames registration but much more than a standard CRT licence including the wb surcharge.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but from your user name I am assuming you have a reasonably large boat something like 65x13ft. 

 

If I remember right the Gold licence is cheaper for boats under 11ft. A lot of canal wide bean craft are under 11ft. 

 

I didn't realise for your size boat the Gold was cheaper than the Thames. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

"Non liveaboard CCer" who never uses the boat?

Arh! 
Doesn't move,
doesn't drink water,
stores all rubbish,
doesn't (use the) bathroom or bathroom (Note to Mods - avoided the S-word and P-word there)
😆😆😆
 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filter the water. 

Burn solid waste (I do this).

Dispose of recyclables in council facilities.

 

The plastic from food wrappers is a but nasty to burn but one can easily cut it into pieces and put small bags of it in public bins. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nicknorman said:

.

 

I am thinking of the 10% of mooring fees that most marinas have to pay to CRT. So I pay about 25% more to CRT - directly and indirectly - than someone without a home mooring. This seems an obvious anomaly.

As an online moorer with a non CRT mooring, my mooring fees are about 80% of my licence cost . So currently for a forty foot boat I'm paying about £800 more a year than a forty foot CCer for the privilege of mooring against the canal side, the only difference being I'm not on the towpath. You could happily argue that, as the towpath moorer inconveniences more people (walkers, other people looking to moor, fishermen) they should pay even more... quite glad CRT haven't thought of that... yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, magnetman said:

I reckon the CRT have spotted the increasing use of their canals as places for people to live. 

 

Obviously it is a Good Thing to have people living on boats but if it is too cheap it can cause bias problems. 

 

I think this will have been modelled and looked at and the increases, whatever they turn out to be, may be part of a strategy to manage the situation going forwards. There are new people on boats all the time and bearing in mind what living on a boat entails it could get dodgy it it got too popular. 

 

 

Indeed... CRT are taking the brunt of cost of housing crisis... how many people do we see on here saying this is what they are doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Filter the water. 

Burn solid waste (I do this).

Dispose of recyclables in council facilities.

 

The plastic from food wrappers is a but nasty to burn but one can easily cut it into pieces and put small bags of it in public bins. 

 

 

That's partly correct, I have a filter system for most needs except drinking water which I estimate will last at least three months ( new filter system that I installed about a month ago ). We spend half the year on the Thames and half the year on the Kennet. 

Burn solid waste but not plastic as I think that is a bad thing to do.

Everything else I take to recycling centres.

Compost toilet waste which is stored for three months on board initially.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

this is maybe one of the reasons for the added increases coming for 'cc'ers?

If the new young twenty something’s can’t see why their Non-Home mooring licence is going up, they must be walking around in “Rosie & Jim” cuckoo land.  

Edited by BoatinglifeupNorth
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

this is maybe one of the reasons for the added increases coming for 'cc'ers?

 

 

Almost certainly. 

 

The problem is that if people get into living on boats with no idea how different it is to living on land purely because it is so cheap you get serious consequences over time. 

 

We all know that it costs the CRT good money to deal with one single obstinate problematic boat owner in the Ward case on the K&A. This was a very very expensive process and the CRT won't get anything back. Not a penny because the boats are worth less than the cost ot transport and storage.

 

If the numbers of people pushing the system were to increase too dramatically it seems to me that dealing with what is a housing problem could bankrupt the navigation authority. 

 

This is seriously bad news for the canal network itself. People need to be paying in a reasonable amount of money as housing costs otherwise problems will occur. Big problems given that everyone is ageing. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Almost certainly. 

 

The problem is that if people get into living on boats with no idea how different it is to living on land purely because it is so cheap you get serious consequences over time. 

 

We all know that it costs the CRT good money to deal with one single obstinate problematic boat owner in the Ward case on the K&A. This was a very very expensive process and the CRT won't get anything back. Not a penny because the boats are worth less than the cost ot transport and storage.

 

If the numbers of people pushing the system were to increase too dramatically it seems to me that dealing with what is a housing problem could bankrupt the navigation authority. 

 

This is seriously bad news for the canal network itself. People need to be paying in a reasonable amount of money as housing costs otherwise problems will occur. Big problems given that everyone is ageing. 

 

 

 

 

There needs to be some way to differentiate those that live on boats as they cant afford on land, and those who live on boat, but actually go boating and use the system - charging differently?  why should the CRT take up the slack for poor housing on land?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

There needs to be some way to differentiate those that live on boats as they cant afford on land, and those who live on boat, but actually go boating and use the system - charging differently?  why should the CRT take up the slack for poor housing on land?

 

The fuel payment for cc licence holders might be an interesting tool. What the CRT could do is put the licence fee up by £600 for people who got paid the government grant...

 

They have evidently self identified as residential users of cc licences. 

In all other walks of life apart from living in a van or being homeless there is an ongoing cost of accomodation if you don't have capital to buy to start with. Mortgage, rent or benefit payments. Why should canals be different ? 

 

The cc licence is clearly too cheap and has been for a long time. 

 

Of course the Ward problem on the K&A was related to an unlicensed boat but realistically the CRT should have a zero tolerance policy for that. 3 months and the boat is gone. Either moved by the CRT or the owner. Bye bye. 

 

Wishful thinking I know ! 

 

There is a link on the CRT page which is called equality impact assessment (EIA). Reading it is quite interesting as it includes this 

 

"Our relevant charitable objects in relation to this policy are as follows:
To preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
i) For navigation;
ii) For walking on towpaths; and
iii) For recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare."

 

----

 

Nowhere is use of boats for housing mentioned in these charitable objects. 

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that the only valid way of interacting with people living on boats is for the CRT to get as much money as possible from them.

 

Without this advantage it is just a load of 'liveaboard gits'. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

There is a link on the CRT page which is called equality impact assessment (EIA). Reading it is quite interesting as it includes this 

 

"Our relevant charitable objects in relation to this policy are as follows:
To preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit:
i) For navigation;
ii) For walking on towpaths; and
iii) For recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare."

 

 

There are actually many more objectives that were agreed by C&RT on the handover from BW :

 

OBJECTS The objects of this Settlement (the “Objects”) are as contained in this Clause 2.

 

2.1 Subject to Clause 2.2 and 2.3, to hold in trust and retain in perpetuity for public benefit the Infrastructure Property for the following purposes:

 

2.1.1 to operate and manage the Infrastructure Property for public benefit, use and enjoyment including:

(a) for navigation;

(b) for walking on towpaths; and

(c) for recreation or other leisure-time pursuits of the public in the interest of their health and social welfare; 

 

2.1.2 to protect and conserve, for public benefit, sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with the Infrastructure Property;

 

2.1.3 to further, for public benefit, the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of the Infrastructure Property.

 

2.2 To use the income (which expression shall not include the proceeds of any Capital Disposal of the Infrastructure Property) for the purposes set out in Clause 2.1 and the following purposes:

 

2.2.1 to protect and conserve, for public benefit, sites, objects and buildings of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest on, in the vicinity of, or otherwise associated with Inland Waterways;

 

2.2.2 to further, for public benefit, the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment and landscape of Inland Waterways;

 

2.2.3 to promote, facilitate, undertake and assist in, for public benefit, the restoration and improvement of Inland Waterways;

 

2.2.4 to promote and facilitate, for public benefit, awareness, learning and education about Inland Waterways, their history, development, use, operation and cultural heritage, by all appropriate means including the provision of museums;

 

2.2.5 to promote sustainable development (as defined by Clause 13) in the vicinity of any Inland Waterway for the benefit of the public, in particular by: (a) the improvement of the conditions of life in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in such vicinity; and 6 (b) the promotion of sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration and the prudent use of natural resources; and

 

2.2.6 to further any purpose which is exclusively charitable under the law of England and Wales connected with Inland Waterways; provided that in each case where the Trust undertakes work in relation to property which it does not own or hold in trust, any private benefit to the owner of the property is merely incidental.

 

 

One could suggest that the provision of 'cheap housing' is a 'public benefit' and so falls within their remit.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/09/2023 at 12:32, Ewan123 said:

Is it? For a subject that will have a material effect on all boater's wallets, I would have expected a higher turnout than that. I would say that turnout suggests that quite a number of boaters were unaware of the survey/unable to respond for some reason.

As I understand iot, that is a pretty high response rate to a survey when 5% is more common!

23 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

For those who haven't got a land home to go back to when they can no longer afford to live on a boat, will tax payers be happy to fund somewhere for them to live? 

 

As usual this will mainly hit those on the bread line. The C&RT government subsidy (paid from our taxes) being removed, is a tiny fraction of what our government is spending on HS2 (which will benefit very few tax payers - us). The canals and rivers are enjoyed by most tax payers. I wonder whether C&RT have made this point to government?

 

In the email it references the cost of maintaining the facilities and infrastructure, however we've seen a gradual decay over previous years. Will the extra funds go towards replacing the utilities that have been lost and repairing the infrastructure? Hmm

 

Rant over.

 

 

The impact on low income cc's can easily be overstated, although it is complicated. In principle, such boaters should be eligible for UC, if they are low income as defined by UC, and so are actually those most able to afford the increase as it will be covered by UC (unless the Gov pull a fast one and fail to increase UC to match)

 

As with much of the current economic debate, it is the 'just about managing' - many of whom are pensioners - who will be most impacted. This is a group that politicians seem to take for granted at their peril. 

23 hours ago, BoatinglifeupNorth said:

I think the difficulty will be claiming off the council if a CCer, as you will be moving out of a specific Council area into other Council areas, so would you have to re-submit a claim every time? I don't know how the system works.

Also if CCers want to claim a residential status in order to claim benefit, finding officially recognised residential moorings is difficult. Not that many to cope with the number of CCers.

A bit of a contradiction - if you are a CCer - then by definition you do not have a home mooring, whether or not it is residential does not matter!

23 hours ago, davem399 said:

I don’t get it as I’m not the designated licence holder for our shared owners boat. 

But a shared owners boat is not a residential boat, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

The fuel payment for cc licence holders might be an interesting tool. What the CRT could do is put the licence fee up by £600 for people who got paid the government grant...

 

To late 

That was for fuel. In any case probably spent one way or another before the license fee increase in April 2024.

 

 

On the matter of the date of license price increases

If the increases are substantial it might be worth starting a new license from 1st  March 2024  in order to get current rates .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I don't have one but that's a bit unfair -- for a few boaters like @peterboat with the space to compost the waste properly (e.g. on the bank) and then use it (e.g. on a garden) they're an excellent solution.

 

But not for most boaters on the canals who (expensively!) installed them on the assumption they could bag'n'bin the waste, now CART have banned this...

I don't think it was CaRT that banned it but the waste collectors. AFAIK, it is not an illegal practice as defined by hazardous waste disposal, unless it is not actually composted material.

20 hours ago, frangar said:

I personally would suggest charging all those welded to a towpath inside the M25 £2-£3K per year and say they don’t have to move.  This would still be cheap living for them and would be a sizeable increase in CRT coffers. No doubt NBTA would squeal but they would have the moorings they wanted. Would sort out who wanted to live afloat and those that were just freeloading. 

CaRT have to charge a towpath mooring at a rate based on the competition. Can you find an existing mooring in that area for less than £3K?

20 hours ago, magnetman said:

16:14 in this video is interesting. The CRT man is pointing out to the interviewer that the CRT is not a public body and therefore does not have to behave reasonably with regards to management of people living on their waterways.

 

 

Quite eye opening I think. 

 

Maybe they are going to hit hard. 

 

 

 

 

Not entirely accurate: the email regarding the licence increases includes a link to the  equality assessment of the proposals. It makes clear that CaRT is not a Public Body, as defined in legislation, other than in regard to navigation matters, but it has published this assessment voluntarily. The conclusion is that the proposals do not impact, within reasonable considerations, in a way that adversely affects boaters with protected characteristics. Elsewhere it also shows that boaters on very low incomes are less impacted than those on very modest incomes. )But income is not a protected characteristic, anyway)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, magnetman said:

Similar to the 5 yar BS ticket thing. 

I guess you mean, for example,  ................

My BSS expires in May 2024

I could license the boat from 1st May 2024 for a year and not require a new BSS exam until 1st May 2025?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.