Roving boaters

[IanD]

38 minutes ago, Ianws said:

As @Arthur Marshall has mentioned a few times he pays more to CRT for his farmers field end of garden mooring than to the farmer. . I'm in a similar position. For our 30ft boat we pay quite a bit more to CRT than £270. 

I deliberately picked the HM case which paid the least to CART to avoid accusations of cherry-picking. As you point out, the average additional contribution of HMs to CART is considerably more than this.

 

Which makes a mere 25% CC surcharge look like a bargain... 😉

[Captain Pegg]

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

 

Presumably what @Arthur Marshall means is that the combination of his licence fee and 9% contribution to CRT from his mooring fee is more than the remaining 91% of his annual mooring fee?

 

So what? He's got a cheap mooring. Good for him.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[Ianws]

 I tagged Arthur so please don't attribute anything I said to him.  @Arthur Marshall

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

From CCers what they get is the license fee, typically about £1000 or so. From HMers in private marinas or moorings they get this plus a fraction (9%?) of the mooring fees; if we assume an average of £3000 per year (is this reasonable?) this gets CART another £270 a year. Of course the HMers are also getting all the wonderful marina/mooring advantages too, but surely it doesn't seem unreasonable that both CCers and HMers should contribute the same amount to CART, since they can (if they choose to use the canals) receive the same benefits? 

 

 

It's a fallacy that marina moorers pay 9% to CRT.  Firstly, as a matter of cash flow it is the holder of the network access agreement.

 

More fundamentally, mooring rates are set by supply and demand; they would be the same regardless of the operators' costs.  The expense is, ultimately a burden on the original land value.  It's basic land economics.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

As I said (or at least tried to infer) it isn’t about the actual volume of use; it’s about the payment for having access to those facilities.

 

 

what gets my goat, is the same old mantra that the CCer is forever the bad,

the crap comments and derogatory terms aren’t needed

 

my comments about the noddy boaters bashing up the system is equally banal and deliberately meant to be,

 

we All pay a license to access the navigation system,

whether one chooses to use the system or is up to them,

so in return I don’t understand why one should pay to use the system and then pay an additional surcharge for using it (the system)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

what gets my goat, is the same old mantra that the CCer is forever the bad,

the crap comments and derogatory terms aren’t needed

 

my comments about the noddy boaters bashing up the system is equally banal and deliberately meant to be,

 

we All pay a license to access the navigation system,

whether one chooses to use the system or no is up to them,

so in return I don’t understand why one should pay to use the system and then pay an additional surcharge for using it (the system)

 

 

Absolutely agree with that. There's folk showing their true colours here. It starts with the use of the terms "CC'er" and "CM'er".

[GUMPY]

24 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I'm not sure what the issue is here.

 

Presumably what @Arthur Marshall means is that the combination of his licence fee and 9% contribution to CRT from his mooring fee is more than the remaining 91% of his annual mooring fee?

 

So what? He's got a cheap mooring. Good for him.

 

 

He pays an EOG/FF mooring fee set at 50% of carts local online mooring rate on top of what he pays to the Farmer.

So its not as cheap as you think.

The 9% only applies to Marinas not on line moorings

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Absolutely agree with that. There's folk showing their true colours here. It starts with the use of the terms "CC'er" and "CM'er".

it’s always been that way,

 

I wish more folk who are out there reading the forum and never say owt would have the courage to speak up a bit. 
 

Always the same voices here, including mine. 
 

New views is what we need,

otherwise we go around in circles. 
 

 

4 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

He pays an EOG/FF mooring fee set at 50% of carts local online mooring rate on top of what he pays to the Farmer.

So its not as cheap as you think.

 Yeah but 50% of fk all is fk all. 
 

I had an end of mooring for £80 a month. 40 or to CRT and 40 to landlord. 
 

[Alan de Enfield]

53 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

A change to the licensing regime will attract regulatory scrutiny and CRT will need a fairly straightforward explanation for their proposals.

 

Do you honestly believe this, or is it just a wish ?

 

Legislation allows C&RT to charge whatever fees they like and can subdivide the market in which ever way they wish - there is only one proviso (written into the law) that the River registration must be priced at 60% of an equivalent canal & river licence.

 

I have numerous discussions with Nigel Moore and it was discussed in several threads an multiple posts cumulating in Nigel posting ...............

 

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.

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

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.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Ianws said:

As @Arthur Marshall has mentioned a few times he pays more to CRT for his farmers field end of garden mooring than to the farmer. . I'm in a similar position. For our 30ft boat we pay quite a bit more to CRT than £270. 

I pay about £800 a year directly to CRT, or even CART, to moor on a field with the same facilities (ie, none) as the liveaboard CCer who has moored permanently a little way down from me for the last year. Mind you, he's a lot nearer the water point. (And no, he's not sick, disabled, broken down or out of work). He used to be on our mooring but where he is now is cheaper by about a thousand quid a year. He is also, if it matters, a nice bloke.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you honestly believe this, or is it just a wish ?

 

Legislation allows C&RT to charge whatever fees they like and can subdivide the market in which ever way they wish - there is only one proviso (written into the law) that the River registration must be priced at 60% of an equivalent canal & river licence.

 

I have numerous discussions with Nigel Moore and it was discussed in several threads an multiple posts cumulating in Nigel posting ...............

 

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.

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

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.

I will never know what your angle is amongst all this. 
 

I feel because you’ve left the Inland Waterways for what ever personal reasons, you expect us all to have a miserable outlook for it’s future. 

Jog on

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Absolutely agree with that. There's folk showing their true colours here. It starts with the use of the terms "CC'er" and "CM'er".

Sorry, but what other term apart from CCer (and CMer and HMer) would you use to save typing?

 

(without apostrophe's, obviously... 😉

 

Like -- I suspect -- many others, I have absolutely no objection to or dislike of genuine CCers -- meaning, those who cruise round the canals without a home mooring -- who follow the rules and use the canals in the way the original "Continuous Cruising" exemption from having to pay for a useless home mooring was intended for. I think they are genuinely a positive force for keeping the canals usable for something like their historical purpose, and deserve credit for this.

 

There are two problems with this nowadays though. The first is boaters who claim to be CCers but actually have no intention of cruising, they want to stay as much as possible in one place to live there while taking advantage of the exemption -- and many of them seem to also abuse mooring time limits, sometimes for months or years.

 

The term "Continuous Moorers" has become widely used for them, admittedly partly as a term of abuse -- but this isn't surprising because they annoy both HMers and CCers by abusing the system and bending/ignoring the rules to get what is basically cheap housing. The NBTA seems to have supporting such boaters as its main purpose, which is why it attracts so much scorn on CWDF.

 

The second problem has now been thrown up by CART trying to find ways of getting more money out of boaters to fill their funding gap, and it then becomes obvious that CCers are paying less to CART overall than HMers. Even if we ignore the argument from CART that CCers use the system more so should pay more, it doesn't seem fair that they should contribute less to CART than HMers -- and the 25% surcharge is probably the minimum that would make up this gap, it could be even bigger.

 

Nothing to do with "true colours" here, which implies people trying to hide their real motivation -- just a recognition that the current licensing system is not fair as far as boater contributions to CART is concerned, and that CART need more money, and that boaters will have to pay more as a result... 😞

Edited November 24, 2023 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you honestly believe this, or is it just a wish ?

 

Legislation allows C&RT to charge whatever fees they like and can subdivide the market in which ever way they wish - there is only one proviso (written into the law) that the River registration must be priced at 60% of an equivalent canal & river licence.

 

I have numerous discussions with Nigel Moore and it was discussed in several threads an multiple posts cumulating in Nigel posting ...............

 

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.

 

 

New Charging Bands For Boat Licence

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.

 

I don't just believe, I'd be genuinely staggered if CRT don't have to justify the change to anyone. That's based on 30 years orf working for a Quango that has some strong parallels with CRT and regulatory controlled funding being a specialist area of my work. I still do consultancy work on that very subject today.

 

I note that Nigel's conclusion was based upon his own interpretation of some 40 and 50 year old laws and some internal dialogue. As well read, erudite and though provoking as he was he surely didn't know everything about CRT's politics. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

24 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 Yeah but 50% of fk all is fk all. 
 

I had an end of mooring for £80 a month. 40 or to CRT and 40 to landlord. 
 

You won't find many CRT moorings for under a grand a year these days. I suppose if you have a rowing boat...

[David Mack]

54 minutes ago, Tacet said:

It's a fallacy that marina moorers pay 9% to CRT.  Firstly, as a matter of cash flow it is the holder of the network access agreement.

 

More fundamentally, mooring rates are set by supply and demand; they would be the same regardless of the operators' costs.  The expense is, ultimately a burden on the original land value.  It's basic land economics.

Yes it's a shorthand for the fact that for marinas covered by the Network Access Agreement part of the marina's mooring income is passed through to CRT (by the marina operator).

Under the Network Access Agreement, marina owners pay to CRT a sum which represents 9% of the mooring income which would arise if the marina was fully occupied (to the agreed capacity) with moorers paying the local going rate for moorings. So if a marina has significant vacancies their income is down, but the CRT fee is unchanged and therefore represents more than 9% of the total mooring income. On the other hand, if the marina is full and able to charge at above the assumed local mooring rate, then the CRT fee will be less than 9% of the total mooring income.

Edited November 24, 2023 by David Mack

[Captain Pegg]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

Sorry, but what other term apart from CCer (and CMer and HMer) would you use to save typing?

 

(without apostrophe's, obviously... 😉

 

 

Use the correct terminology. The only categories are "boater with a home mooring" and "boater without a home mooring".

 

Terribly sorry about my use of apostrophes (comically I first typed that with an apostrophe). I know that sort of thing annoys your overly ordered brain.

 

Maybe i did on purpose 😉

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Sorry, but what other term apart from CCer (and CMer and HMer) would you use to save typing?

 

(without apostrophe's, obviously... 😉

 

Like -- I suspect -- many others, I have absolutely no objection to or dislike of genuine CCers -- meaning, those who cruise round the canals without a home mooring -- who follow the rules and use the canals in the way the original "Continuous Cruising" exemption from having to pay for a useless home mooring was intended for. I think they are genuinely a positive force for keeping the canals usable for something like their historical purpose, and deserve credit for this.

 

There are two problems with this nowadays though. The first is boaters who claim to be CCers but actually have no intention of cruising, they want to stay as much as possible in one place to live there while taking advantage of the exemption -- and many of them seem to also abuse mooring time limits, sometimes for months or years.

 

The term "Continuous Moorers" has become widely used for them, admittedly partly as a term of abuse -- but this isn't surprising because they annoy both HMers and CCers by abusing the system and bending/ignoring the rules to get what is basically cheap housing. The NBTA seems to have supporting such boaters as its main purpose, which is why it attracts so much scorn on CWDF.

 

The second problem has now been thrown up by CART trying to find ways of getting more money out of boaters to fill their funding gap, and it then becomes obvious that CCers are paying less to CART overall than HMers. Even if we ignore the argument from CART that CCers use the system more so should pay more, it doesn't seem fair that they should contribute less to CART than HMers -- and the 25% surcharge is probably the minimum that would make up this gap, it could be even bigger.

 

Nothing to do with "true colours" here, which implies people trying to hide their real motivation -- just a recognition that the current licensing system is not fair as far as boater contributions to CART is concerned, and that CART need more money, and that boaters will have to pay more as a result... 😞

again and again it’s fantasy !

 

it’s like watching GB news

 

 

 

[magnetman]

There should be discounts for particularly ostentatious boating behaviour and a dress code. 

 

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Yes it's a shorthand for the fact that part of the marina's mooring income is passed through to CRT (by the marina operator).

Under the Network Access Agreement, marina owners pay to CRT a sum which represents 9% or the mooring income which would arise if the marina was fully occupied (to the agreed capacity) with moorers paying the local going rate for moorings. So if a marina has significant vacancies their income is down, but the CRT fee is unchanged and therefore represents more than 9% of the total mooring income. On the other hand, if the marina is full and able to charge at above the assured local mooring rate, then te CRT fee will be less than 9% of the total mooring income.

I'm pretty sure that if you took all this into account together with EOG and CART-owned moorings -- or others where CART get a bigger income than I calculated -- the end result would be that the gap between CC and HM contributions to the CART budget was considerably more than 25%... 😉

Edited November 24, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

7 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I note that Nigel's conclusion was based upon his own interpretation of some 40 and 50 year old laws and some internal dialogue. As well read, erudite and though provoking as he was he surely didn't know everything about CRT's politics. 

The key legislation on home moorings and 'continues cruising' dates back almost 30 years to 1995 and has not been amended since. The only relevant legislation since is that associated with the transfer of BW's assets and functions in England and Wales to CRT (and that is over a decade ago), and I don't think that touched on the issues you raised. In other words, nothing has really changed since the position the late Nigel Moore wrote about.

[magnetman]

I'd be willing to bet that I pay more to the CRT for the privilege of having a boat on that there water than anyone else on here. 

 

Lets just say its a lot more than ten grand a yar. Anyone paying more than £13k ? 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by magnetman
typi

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You won't find many CRT moorings for under a grand a year these days. I suppose if you have a rowing boat...

well it were 5 year ago,

in one of the most remote(ish) and beautiful parts of the country,

no facilities, 

had to reverse 3 locks and a mile or more for water,

but hey ho,

but they exist 

[Captain Pegg]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The key legislation on home moorings and 'continues cruising' dates back almost 30 years to 1995 and has not been amended since. The only relevant legislation since is that associated with the transfer of BW's assets and functions in England and Wales to CRT (and that is over a decade ago), and I don't think that touched on the issues you raised. In other words, nothing has really changed since the position the late Nigel Moore wrote about.

 

That may be so but it doesn't dictate the totality of the relationship between CRT and it's paymasters.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Use the correct terminology. The only categories are "boater with a home mooring" and "boater without a home mooring".

 

Terribly sorry about my use of apostrophes (comically I first typed that with an apostrophe). I know that sort of thing annoys your overly ordered brain.

 

Maybe i did on purpose 😉

If you want to type out an extra 20 characters every single time either is referenced then go ahead, it's a free world... 😉

 

As for the apostophe's, maybe you should realise when gentle fun is being poked at you... 🙂

Edited November 24, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'd be willing to bet that I pay more to the CRT for the privilege of having a boat on there water than anyone else on here. 

 

Lets just say its a lot more than ten grand a yar. Anyone paying more than £13k ? 

 

 

 

 

Yeah,

but you’ve already said the States paying yours,

 

which means I am,

and Im happy to do so,

Hats off to you sir