More C&RT Dishonesty?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

9 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.

 

This has been the case for many years.

 

More recently, ministerial powers to remove or replace CRT or transfer assets, in specific circumstances have been removed to counter the ONS classification as a public body.

Edited April 16 by Allan(nb Albert)

[nicknorman]

3 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

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 

We were in Tixall last week, oodles of space. In fact this was problematic because it was too difficult to decide which bit to moor at. It is so much easier when there is just 1 space!

[Midnight]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

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

"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"

 

??? 'cos it would be a lot cheaper.

[magpie patrick]

2 hours ago, Midnight 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"

 

??? 'cos it would be a lot cheaper.

A lot of us keep our boats on long term moorings now even though the towpath is free, so why would we change that? I have to admit thar, on the Kennet & Avon, I'm very happy paying a premium to be on the Coal Canal arm at Dundas where the summer crowds pass me by! 

[IanD]

7 hours ago, Midnight 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"

 

??? 'cos it would be a lot cheaper.

But more expensive than it is today -- in other words, less incentive to move out than today.

 

5 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

A lot of us keep our boats on long term moorings now even though the towpath is free, so why would we change that? I have to admit thar, on the Kennet & Avon, I'm very happy paying a premium to be on the Coal Canal arm at Dundas where the summer crowds pass me by! 

I wasn't suggesting that this "charge-per-night" is a good idea, it's really a big "CC surcharge" in disguise but more regressive since everyone pays the same, and also harder to administer.

 

CART already know if a boat has a home mooring or is CC/CMing, and whether this status changes during the year. If they want to extract more money from CCers and discourage CMers, a bigger "CC surcharge" seems the best way to go about this.

Edited April 17 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

I did make a suggestion a few years ago when C&RT were previously looking at this.....................

 

Standard licence fee is (say) £5000.

There is a staggered rebate for every mile travelled thru the year - maybe £20.00 per mile for the 1st 100 miles, £10 per miles for the next 100 miles , £5 per miles for the next  ..........................  and so on for someone 'travelling the system over the year it could end up much cheaper than now.

 

 Don't move and you are basically paying your £1000 licence and £4000 for a mooring.

 

The big Elephant in the room (which no one will accept) is that each boat would need to be fitted with a non-removable tracker.

 

It can be done !

 

This was the earlier proposal :

 

There is a standard licence fee based on a boat over 12 metres length, from that there are adders and subtractions. (This is before the days of having a 'beam' surchasrge).

 

Multiply by :-
 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I did make a suggestion a few years ago when C&RT were previously looking at this.....................

 

Standard licence fee is (say) £5000.

There is a staggered rebate for every mile travelled thru the year - maybe £20.00 per mile for the 1st 100 miles, £10 per miles for the next 100 miles , £5 per miles for the next  ..........................  and so on for someone 'travelling the system over the year it could end up much cheaper than now.

 

 Don't move and you are basically paying your £1000 licence and £4000 for a mooring.

 

The big Elephant in the room (which no one will accept) is that each boat would need to be fitted with a non-removable tracker.

 

It can be done !

 

This was the earlier proposal :

 

There is a standard licence fee based on a boat over 12 metres length, from that there are adders and subtractions. (This is before the days of having a 'beam' surchasrge).

 

Multiply by :-
 

 

 

It can't be done. How do you force fit a tracker to a boat? Chuck it out the window or hit it with a hammer and you're back to the unlicenced, unnamed and unnumbered boat problem, to which the only solution would be to tow them away and scrap them without warning - which could just as easily be done now to any unlicenced or unidentifiable boat.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It can't be done. How do you force fit a tracker to a boat? Chuck it out the window or hit it with a hammer and you're back to the unlicenced, unnamed and unnumbered boat problem, to which the only solution would be to tow them away and scrap them without warning - which could just as easily be done now to any unlicenced or unidentifiable boat.

 

Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.

There is a financial incentive not to damage the tracker.

[Paul C]

Would need more primary law. If CRT were to table, and get time for, more law they’d probably try eliminate CCing as it’s too burdensome to administer 

Edited April 17 by Paul C

[Naughty Cal]

45 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It can't be done. How do you force fit a tracker to a boat? Chuck it out the window or hit it with a hammer and you're back to the unlicenced, unnamed and unnumbered boat problem, to which the only solution would be to tow them away and scrap them without warning - which could just as easily be done now to any unlicenced or unidentifiable boat.

I guess in a similar way that it will eventually be rolled out to all vehicles on the road?

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I guess in a similar way that it will eventually be rolled out to all vehicles on the road?

 

Don't some car insurers offer a discount if you have a tracker fitted ?

 

C&RT could do the same :

 

Boat licence £5000, fit a tracker and get a monthly rebate.

[IanD]

53 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.

There is a financial incentive not to damage the tracker.

It could certainly be made to work, and would mean CMers paid a lot more than today and possibly that "real CCers" who do a lot of miles pay less.

 

However there's the opposing argument (put forward by CART) that CCers account for most of the use of locks/facilities which puts a bigger strain on the system -- in which case "real CCers" should pay more and CMers pay less. Which at least would keep the NBTA happy, if anything ever could... 😉 

 

Whichever way the fees are tilted there's bound be a lot of protest from whoever loses out. So probably the least contentious solution -- which also avoids the need to track boats -- is a percentage surcharge on the license fee paid by anyone without a home mooring, which is exactly what CART have adopted.

 

Like democracy it's the worst possible solution, except for all the others... 😉 

Edited April 17 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

15 hours ago, nicknorman said:

We were in Tixall last week, oodles of space. In fact this was problematic because it was too difficult to decide which bit to moor at. It is so much easier when there is just 1 space!

Did you see @Arthur Marshall while you were there 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.

There is a financial incentive not to damage the tracker.

Not if you don't have a licence or any ID on the boat there isn't. And once legit boats had trackers, CRT would stop any spotting, so you'd just get more and more unlicenced boats.

41 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Did you see @Arthur Marshall while you were there 

I didn't spot him, and I'm currently an anonymous boat until I get the name back on!

[Private Fraser]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I did make a suggestion a few years ago when C&RT were previously looking at this.....................

 

Standard licence fee is (say) £5000.

There is a staggered rebate for every mile travelled thru the year - maybe £20.00 per mile for the 1st 100 miles, £10 per miles for the next 100 miles , £5 per miles for the next  ..........................  and so on for someone 'travelling the system over the year it could end up much cheaper than now.

 

 Don't move and you are basically paying your £1000 licence and £4000 for a mooring.

 

The big Elephant in the room (which no one will accept) is that each boat would need to be fitted with a non-removable tracker.

 

It can be done !

 

This was the earlier proposal :

 

There is a standard licence fee based on a boat over 12 metres length, from that there are adders and subtractions. (This is before the days of having a 'beam' surchasrge).

 

Multiply by :-
 

 

 

And for a small fee from somebody who doesn’t want to move you could take their tracker with you, a win win, they get the rebate from staying put and the boat moving with 2 trackers gets a little fee 😉 could be a nice little earner with  a few trackers onboard😂

[Rob-M]

20 minutes ago, Private Fraser said:

And for a small fee from somebody who doesn’t want to move you could take their tracker with you, a win win, they get the rebate from staying put and the boat moving with 2 trackers gets a little fee 😉 could be a nice little earner with  a few trackers onboard😂

But when the data shows multiple numbers boats traveling through a narrow lock at the same time there may be suspicion raised and licenses revoked.

Edited April 17 by Rob-M

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But when the data shows multiple numbers boats traveling through a narrow lock at the same time there may be suspicion raised and licenses revoked.

The tracker idea just adds cost and complexity and Big Brother concerns and another way to try and cheat the system, as well as arguments about whether real--CCers or fake-CMers should pay more -- it's a solution looking for a problem (and not finding one)... 😞 

Edited April 17 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I’m still waiting for someone to explain how charging anyone more for a license will discourage those who  continuously moor from staying in the same spot. 
Or why it’s thought those who continuously moor have bought on the surcharge for those without a home mooring. 
🤷‍♀️

or have I misunderstood?

Edited April 17 by beerbeerbeerbeerbeer

[Alan de Enfield]

57 minutes ago, Private Fraser said:

And for a small fee from somebody who doesn’t want to move you could take their tracker with you

 

Did you read what I suggested ?

 

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

.................each boat would need to be fitted with a non-removable tracker.

 

If attempt to remove it was made  it would be destroyed - a bit like the security seals, and if it was destroyed then ............

 

 

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Tracker 'breaks' or is 'lost' then no rebate - licence costs you £5000.

 

[Paul C]

I suspect tracker is a non-starter.

 

What is the “problem “ the tracker will “solve”?

 

1984?

[IanD]

30 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

I’m still waiting for someone to explain how charging anyone more for a license will discourage those who  continuously moor from staying in the same spot. 
Or why it’s thought those who continuously moor have bought on the surcharge for those without a home mooring. 
🤷‍♀️

or have I misunderstood?

It will discourage CMers by making their cheap rule-bending parasitic lifestyle more expensive, so either some will change lifestyle as a result (get a home mooring/leave the canals) or fewer new people will be encouraged to become CMers to get a cheap home on the water which moves barely or not at all -- result, fewer CMers bending the rules and clogging up the canal system, and more money for CART (because the numbers who leave will be smaller than the money raised by the surcharge or switchers to HM).

 

It won't discourage CMers (who pay the extra surcharge) from staying in the same spot, that's an enforcement problem which is quite separate from funding.

 

But it does get more money for CART to try and close the funding gap.

 

17 minutes ago, Paul C said:

I suspect tracker is a non-starter.

 

What is the “problem “ the tracker will “solve”?

 

1984?

It solves the problem of "real CCers" who do a lot of miles paying more, so they're all in favour of it.

 

But this goes against one of CART's stated reasons for the CC surcharge which is that 20% of boaters (CCers) are responsible for 75% of boat movements, which adds to wear on the infrastructure.

Edited April 17 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

My license will be going up £17 per month from May 1st. 
Hardly enough to give up a parasitic life style. 
Were it an extra £170 then I’d simply not pay a license.

I’d reckon those living a ‘parasitic’ life style are not paying for a license either way. 

 

How many parasitic boaters do you reckon you saw on your most recent boat trip? and over how many days?

and where was it to and from?

and what does a parasitic boater look like? How will I recognise one?

How shall we identify them?

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

My license will be going up £17 per month from May 1st. 
Hardly enough to give up a parasitic life style. 
Were it an extra £170 then I’d simply not pay a license.

I’d reckon those living a ‘parasitic’ life style are not paying for a license either way. 

 

How many parasitic boaters do you reckon you saw on your most recent boat trip? and over how many days?

and where was it to and from?

and what does a parasitic boater look like? How will I recognise one?

How shall we identify them?

 

The boats lots of people complain about who sit on short-term moorings (or the same place on the towpath) for weeks/months or even years, and only shuffle round a tiny area if they move at all. Maybe they're NBTA members/supporters or not, but if not their aims seem rather similar, which is to bend or break the CC rules as far as possible. "Parasitic" seems the right term to me -- do you have a better one?

 

To see this you need to observe one area repeatedly over a longish period of time, which obviously I didn't do on a one-way trip of a few days -- though I had suspicions about boats on visitor moorings in several places with no signs of life, this isn't proof. However many posters on here have mentioned such unmoving boats, again based on repeated sightings over a considerable time.

 

But I do see this all the time (over repeated sightings) on the canals here in West London, and there are *plenty* of them... 😉 

Edited April 17 by IanD

[Momac]

21 minutes ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

 

How shall we identify them?

 

Its not for the boater to spot whether other boats are licensed or not.

C&RT say they  don't want boaters to act as  spotters as they have rangers who perform that task.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Lots of people complain about lots of things, I tend not to take notice. 

I take a look myself. 
 

And I’ve kind of enjoyed seeing so many boats through London. Quite a marvellous sight to see how they all seem to fit themselves in. 

I’d think the main concern should be whether they’re licensed or not?

 

you could make them all move for the sake of moving but you’ll still have the same number of boats using the same number of moorings. 
 

but how anyone could want to live in congestion in London is beyond me,

and I am not gonna tell them their boats can move to the delights of Tipton for a better quality of life.