Baton Twirlers Stage Protest (again)

[Paul C]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I have to say - so what. That's the agreement moorers entered into. 9% access fee. It goes with the territory. 

 

I've been a lone voice on here railing against the dodgy dealings, as I see it, in private marinas. And no one gives a flying F. So, I'm not going to be sticking up for anyone, now they don't like a charge. 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

 

There is a caveat.

 

 

.

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

8 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I have to say - so what. That's the agreement moorers entered into. 9% access fee. It goes with the territory. 

 

I've been a lone voice on here railing against the dodgy dealings, as I see it, in private marinas. And no one gives a flying F. So, I'm not going to be sticking up for anyone, now they don't like a charge. 

 

 

I don't dislike the charge I am just pointing out that boats with moorings pay more to CRT that the licence fee and more than what CCs will be paying with the surcharge and don't say its so I have the convenience of somewhere to leave may car or boat, that is what the marina owner gets paid for.

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I don't dislike the charge I am just pointing out that boats with moorings pay more to CRT that the licence fee and more than what CCs will be paying with the surcharge and don't say its so I have the convenience of somewhere to leave may car or boat, that is what the marina owner gets paid for.

 

But your extra payment is for a purpose that has nothing to do with your licence. It's so the marina can pay its dues to CRT. It's an overhead for the marina, but you are in line to be charged.

 

 

Edited April 5 by Higgs

[Paul C]

I don't think the money is ringfenced - in other words, while moorers are charged more, so are other marina users - the café customers, people who stop for diesel/pump out, workshop, etc etc. Its a business cost that the marina knows it needs to pay, so they ensure their income covers it so they can stay in business.

 

Its also because there is a big hole in the banking in between the marina and the canal, that boats can freely (excuse the pun) pass through. If CRT relied upon honesty of boaters who only occasionally nipped out to use the canal to have a licence, while those who never did, didn't need one, CRTs income would be less - partly because of dishonesty (it would be world's easiest licence evasion, if cruising was limited), and partly because the vast majority would go for 6 month or 3 month licences to only cover their 'season'.

 

Its an agreement you don't need to be involved in because the NAA is between the marina operator and CRT.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

I don't think the money is ringfenced

 

It is for one use. Paying the access fee. The other 91% is mooring fee for all else.

 

 

Edited April 5 by Higgs

[Paul C]

But its not ringfenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringfencing

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its an agreement you don't need to be involved in because the NAA is between the marina operator and CRT.

 

No moorer is involved, but the marina is. And the moorer pays whatever the mooring charges are, and they include 9% access fee.

 

 

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

But its not ringfenced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringfencing

 

But I've told you it is. I understand the term.

 

 

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

 

But I've told you it is. I understand the term.

 

 

 

I don't think you do understand the term. And you telling me it is, doesn't mean it is. It just means you perceive it as such.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

I don't think you do understand the term. And you telling me it is, doesn't mean it is. It just means you perceive it as such.

 

It's a charge laid out in the NAA. Calculated on full occupancy..., in the end.

 

 

Edited April 5 by Higgs

[Paul C]

Its not ringfenced but it doesn't really matter, we can all see that its an indirect charge that moorers pay, and we all (because of the multiple threads on the topic) know the detail of the NAA.

[Higgs]

8 minutes ago, Paul C said:

Its not ringfenced but it doesn't really matter, we can all see that its an indirect charge that moorers pay, and we all (because of the multiple threads on the topic) know the detail of the NAA.

 

9% is ring-fenced, to be paid to CRT. Not to buy sweets for the gardener, or paper for the printer, or for refuse, or toilets, or maintenance... 

 

And if a marina is half-full, the proportion of the mooring fee remains the same for the moorers, but the set charge (for full occupancy) remains the full charge to the marina. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5 by Higgs

[Paul C]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

9% is ring-fenced, to be paid to CRT. Not to buy sweets for the gardener, or paper for the printer, or for refuse, or toilets, or maintenance... 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you understand the term.

[Higgs]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I don't think you understand the term.

 

This is how I see it. The payment is for one thing, and one thing only. 

 

 

Edited April 5 by Higgs

[agg221]

On 03/04/2024 at 12:26, IanD said:

I did suggest the way to fix this -- which is also more redistributive -- is to also make the license fee a function of boat age, so those with shiny new expensive boats pay more and those with old cheap boats pay less.

 

I like this idea. So, with a 174 year old boat, how much per year is CRT going to pay me...?!?

 

Alec

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, agg221 said:

 

I like this idea. So, with a 174 year old boat, how much per year is CRT going to pay me...?!?

 

Alec

 

I think the idea was that your licence fee becomes your boat age with a zero on the end (before the decimal point) but there was also a proposal to make it 'add two-zeros'.

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I know it's pointless trying to educate you, but when I started boating there were no BW mooring fees, there were boats that cruised continuously and there were boats with home moorings for which they paid no fees to BW. And no home mooring requirement.

It's been pointless debating with you since you were whinging about licences in marinas. I shan't respond again.

PS ghost moorings were a myth.

We had our first boat in 1968 and paid a fee to BW to moor just above Bishops Meadow Lock where Jack Monk lived at the time and wd received a disc with a large M on it.

[Midnight]

Whilst I think the baton twirlers campaign is going nowhere I do think the surcharge system is flawed and probably will be dropped before too long.  One scenario that has me puzzled is: Boater A is a continuous cruiser so pays the surcharge. Then when winter comes takes an end of garden mooring in a farmer's field for 5 months. Not a home moorer so must be a CCer. He pays the farmer £X a month to tie up to the bank and should pay C&RT EoG charge to float on the water, but hang on he's aleady paid the CCer surcharge. C&RT can't have it both ways so what's the outcome if it went to court?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’m sure the CRT are saying you must have a mooring for at least 6 months before you can call yourself a home moorer. 

 

How it all stands up in court???🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

 

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

the surcharge system is flawed and probably will be dropped before too long.

CRT often back down over stuff, I don’t reckon this is one of them. They’ve used the figures from the consultation to back their scheme/plan and claim they have full support from the majority of boaters.  
 

[Higgs]

I think some of the home moorers are acting like entitled princesses. They seem to have this notional idea that their licence fees are worth something extra. They maybe are making some other payment to CRT, connected to another contract, but this only pays for the entitlement for which the specific contract applies. Their licence fee entitlement is a bog standard right to float a boat and navigate on CRT managed water. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I think, if my figures and estimate is correct the surcharge when it reaches 25% will most likely out way what most home moorers believe  they pay to CRT through their mooring contracts. 
 

Not that I’m persuaded the home moorer’s extra payments to CRT are a good foundation for arguing the surcharge. 
 

as we know a home

mooring is a choice to pay for an additional service. 
 

but…round and round we’ll go on that one,

 

 

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I think, if my figures and estimate is correct the surcharge when it reaches 25% will most likely out way what most home moorers believe  they pay to CRT through their mooring contracts. 

 

Which is already a fallacy. What this surcharge has done is introduced a usage charge, above and beyond the right to float your boat.

 

 

 

Edited April 6 by Higgs

[MtB]

14 hours ago, Higgs said:

No moorer is involved, but the marina is. And the moorer pays whatever the mooring charges are, and they include 9% access fee.

 

Ah yes, the NAA. That needs reviewing too. 9% is ridiculously cheap and needs putting up.

 

It costs CRT an absolute FORTUNE to provide the canal, without which the marinas would have no boats and no business. 

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

Whilst I think the baton twirlers campaign is going nowhere I do think the surcharge system is flawed and probably will be dropped before too long.  One scenario that has me puzzled is: Boater A is a continuous cruiser so pays the surcharge. Then when winter comes takes an end of garden mooring in a farmer's field for 5 months. Not a home moorer so must be a CCer. He pays the farmer £X a month to tie up to the bank and should pay C&RT EoG charge to float on the water, but hang on he's aleady paid the CCer surcharge. C&RT can't have it both ways so what's the outcome if it went to court?

Here's another case. I have a friend who (genuinely) cruises virtually all year, but has retained his EOG farm mooring for when he needs medical treatment. So as long as he's not there for more than a couple of weeks at a time, which he isn't,  although he has a contract for a permanent home mooring, my assumption is that he can declare as CC, saving himself about a grand, as it's no business of CRTs what the farmer does with the mooring, which, obviously, is usually vacant.

Its a sort of reversal of the ghost mooring theory... the advantage now goes the other way.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Ah yes, the NAA. That needs reviewing too. 9% is ridiculously cheap and needs putting up.

 

It costs CRT an absolute FORTUNE to provide the canal, without which the marinas would have no boats and no business. 

 

Well, we can have this argument, if you want. Private marinas are private land, and CRT have no entitlement to require a licence.