More C&RT Dishonesty?

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Junior fishing courses on EA waters, two tone van livery, lock poetry, sponsored Facebook adverts ........(add your own here) and I promised not to mention blue signs again so I won't.

.... all would fix a paddle or two and prevent a stoppage. 

...and would in reality make negligible difference -- unless the government decided to remove (for example) £10M from the grant because CART were no longer appealing to millions of non-boaters, in which case removing them would have a huge negative effect on the canals... 😞

[Rob-M]

Dealing with ridiculous FOI requests must waste loads of money that could possibly fix a paddle or two.

[MtB]

50 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Dealing with ridiculous FOI requests must waste loads of money that could possibly fix a paddle or two.

 

 

Charging faux CCers for overnight towpath mooring every night could fix a helluvalot more...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

Dealing with ridiculous FOI requests must waste loads of money that could possibly fix a paddle or two.

 

But without them C&RT would have no accountability.

The 'accountability' that they allegedly have to the Council doesn't work.

They have been 'called to account' on several occassions where the known facts differ from what C&RT publish and it is only the publication of the FOIs that force them to 'correct' their press releases / publications.

 

If you are happy to have C&RT publishing falsehoods, massaging the financial accounts, 'adjusting' the results of the KPIs such that DEFRA do an investigation etc etc. Then you are complicit.

[Midnight]

5 hours ago, IanD said:

...and would in reality make negligible difference -- unless the government decided to remove (for example) £10M from the grant because CART were no longer appealing to millions of non-boaters, in which case removing them would have a huge negative effect on the canals... 😞

I never claimed it would save £millions but it would prevent a few stoppages. Why would the government remove £10m from the grant? Therese Coffey said CRT's role is to maintain the waterways - never mentioned non essentials.

Edited April 16 by Midnight

[Alan de Enfield]

The actual transfer documents give C&RT a few more 'responsibilities'

 

 

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.

[IanD]

7 hours ago, Midnight said:

I never claimed it would save £millions but it would prevent a few stoppages. Why would the government remove £10m from the grant? Therese Coffey said CRT's role is to maintain the waterways - never mentioned non essentials.

Because as has been said many times, the government sees the canals as a linear park for millions of people to use for outdoor activities, and to keep the government happy CART have to do all those things to make the canals more appealing to non-boaters -- it's all in the KPIs imposed on CART, and if CART don't meet them by prioritising 35000 boaters instead the likely result would be a cut in the grant. Why do you think none of the KPIs are related to navigation?

[Ian Mac]

The other thing that C&RT have to undertake are the 47? statuary obligations which they inherited from when they were a government body. I am not aware of any other charity which has such legal obligations. Anybody know of any?

Would be interesting to know just what the 47 obligations are, I suspect someone on here will have the list.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why do you think none of the KPIs are related to navigation?

Not true. CRT has KPI's it sets itself (which sometimes change when it fails to meet them). It also has KPI's agreed with Defra, failure to meet which might result in grant reduction or other penalties. These KPI's are known as publication data and some relate to navigation.

One of the reasons that CRT failed to convince government that it needed more grant is that since 2012 it has, year on year, been improving on Navigation KPI's.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts/publication-data-required-under-the-defra-grant-agreement

[Mike Todd]

7 minutes ago, Ian Mac said:

The other thing that C&RT have to undertake are the 47? statuary obligations which they inherited from when they were a government body. I am not aware of any other charity which has such legal obligations. Anybody know of any?

Would be interesting to know just what the 47 obligations are, I suspect someone on here will have the list.

MAny charities operate in regulated activities where the regulations have statutory force. For example, anyone providing care has to comply with the very extensive conditions set by CSCI (or its predecessors).  In neither case do they wholly prevent problems but they do make it a whole lot better.

[magpie patrick]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

MAny charities operate in regulated activities where the regulations have statutory force. For example, anyone providing care has to comply with the very extensive conditions set by CSCI (or its predecessors).  In neither case do they wholly prevent problems but they do make it a whole lot better.

 Any care charity has the option of not providing the care if it can't achieve the standard - CRT don't have that option - they don't just have to meet statutory requirements, they have statutory duties.

 

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But without them C&RT would have no accountability.

 

 

There is a difference between holding CRT to account and "being on their case" - one frequent FOI user was found to be vexatious and CRT no longer have to comply with their requests.

 

Those who want CRT to improve (and that's probably most of us) should pick their battles, not just try and make CRT's life difficult. 

[cuthound]

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Charging faux CCers for overnight towpath mooring every night could fix a helluvalot more...

 

I wouldn't object to.CRT charging all boaters say £10.a night to moor on the towpath if they stayed longer than one night.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 Any care charity has the option of not providing the care if it can't achieve the standard - CRT don't have that option - they don't just have to meet statutory requirements, they have statutory duties.

 

 

There is a difference between holding CRT to account and "being on their case" - one frequent FOI user was found to be vexatious and CRT no longer have to comply with their requests.

 

Those who want CRT to improve (and that's probably most of us) should pick their battles, not just try and make CRT's life difficult. 

I thought that there was a mechanism to be invoked if CaRT become non-viable - ie they cannot fulfil their duties.

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

I wouldn't object to.CRT charging all boaters say £10.a night to moor on the towpath if they stayed longer than one night.

But can you devise a system for collecting that does not cost more than £10 a night? (or, more realistically £1 a night of it is to make a difference)

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

But can you devise a system for collecting that does not cost more than £10 a night? (or, more realistically £1 a night of it is to make a difference)

Only by using technology such as GPS. However this would be difficult for CRT to implement unless having an onboard device was made mandatory with a penalty of having your licence revoked if the device was interfered with or removed.

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Only by using technology such as GPS. However this would be difficult for CRT to implement unless having an onboard device was made mandatory with a penalty of having your licence revoked if the device was interfered with or removed.

So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring...

 

But then that's a flat fee which is regressive, so it would be fairer to have a percentage surcharge on the license fee. Which is where we came in... 😉

[MtB]

4 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

I thought that there was a mechanism to be invoked if CaRT become non-viable - ie they cannot fulfil their duties.

But can you devise a system for collecting that does not cost more than £10 a night? (or, more realistically £1 a night of it is to make a difference)

 

Yes that's easy. CRT asks "Do you have a home mooring?"

 

Answer no and that means you must be mooring out on the towpath all year round so a bill is issued for 365 nights at £10 a night. Cheap and easy. I can't imagine that costing £10, let alone £10 a night. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16 by MtB
Add a detail

[Midnight]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

So the solution is to make the charge (e.g. £3/night) for every night including the first one. Then a boat without a home mooring would pay £3*365=£1100 per year, at the same time they pay their (similar) CART license fee. Still *much* cheaper than a typical home mooring...

 

...but wouldn't many marina dwellers just leave and moor on the towpath where it's cheaper? Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.

Edited April 16 by Midnight

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

...but wouldn't many marina dwellers just leave and moor on the towpath where it's cheaper? Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.

I think over the last few years many have realised it’s cheaper not to have a home mooring and dump the boat on towpath visitor moorings in relative safety when they go home. 
 

 

[Paul C]

12 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.

 

It already is......

[Lady M]

52 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Yes that's easy. CRT asks "Do you have a home mooring?"

 

Answer no and that means you must be mooring out on the towpath all year round so a bill is issued for 365 nights at £10 a night. Cheap and easy. I can't imagine that costing £10, let alone £10 a night. 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this approach and the current surcharging arrangement, as I see it, is that it doesn't take any account of CCers and others who use a winter mooring for several months of the year.

[IanD]

56 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

...but wouldn't many marina dwellers just leave and moor on the towpath where it's cheaper? Might make it difficult to find a mooring in popular places.

But marinas would cost the same and towpath moorings cost more than now, so why should anyone move *out* of a marina?

 

The whole point is to try and level out the massive cost difference, which is what is encouraging CMers.

 

44 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

It already is......

...because in these places the short-term visitor moorings (2-day, 7-day, 14-day) are perpetually bunged up with CM overstayers -- sometimes for weeks, or months, or even years... 😞

Edited April 16 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

gloomy world ain’t it,

if you want/need it to be,

 

I always seem to find a mooring, 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

18 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

gloomy world ain’t it,

if you want/need it to be,

 

I always seem to find a mooring, 

 

 

I've not had any problems this trip, apart from my all time favourite bit of piling being sat on by someone who got there first, which I'm not sure I can legitimately whinge about.

Stone was empty, which is certainly unusual, so was Tixall though that's probably because the towpath is lovely and the piling terrible, and they seem to have dumped all the crud dug out of the towpath in the cut so you can't get in to moor half the time.

I do start and finish early, which helps.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Tixall empty is unusual,

I deliberately went there from time to time over the winter because I expected it to be empty but I guess others had the same idea,

The towpath has got busy with walkers since the towpath upgrade so could become a good place to trade,

 

If I’m eager for space anywhere I generally try to arrive between 10 and 12 

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Yes that's easy. CRT asks "Do you have a home mooring?"

 

Answer no and that means you must be mooring out on the towpath all year round so a bill is issued for 365 nights at £10 a night. Cheap and easy. I can't imagine that costing £10, let alone £10 a night. 

 

 

 

 

But the proposal on which I was commenting was to charge everyone per night when not on a home mooring.