Angry and impatient boaters

[Laurie Booth]

20 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Illegal.

Why is it illegal ?

[cheesegas]

Just now, Laurie Booth said:

Why is it illegal ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-offence-of-buying-scrap-metal-for-cash

 

Aims to make it more difficult to rob a bunch of copper etc from a building site or lead from a roof and get cash for it without a paper trail. 

[Ex Brummie]

One local scrapyard is also a registered cheque exchanger. 

You can take in your scrap, he pays with a cheque, and then cashes it for you, minus the commission of course😉

[NB Alnwick]

1 minute ago, Ex Brummie said:

One local scrapyard is also a registered cheque exchanger. 

You can take in your scrap, he pays with a cheque, and then cashes it for you, minus the commission of course😉

 

The regulations were introduced in an attempt to deter crime including those who rob lead from church roofs causing millions of pounds worth of damage to historic buildings and those who rob copper from our railways putting themselves and the travelling public in danger. Unfortunately, rogue scrap metal dealers have found ways to circumnavigate the regulations. As usual the motivation is selfish greed and, as far as they are concerned, the safety of the public is irrelevant.

[bizzard]

We just present a debit card sort code and the dosh is credited to our account right away.

Quote

 

 

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, Ex Brummie said:

One local scrapyard is also a registered cheque exchanger. 

You can take in your scrap, he pays with a cheque, and then cashes it for you, minus the commission of course😉

Same with Ron Hulls

[Mike Todd]

On 15/09/2024 at 11:37, Ex Brummie said:

One local scrapyard is also a registered cheque exchanger. 

You can take in your scrap, he pays with a cheque, and then cashes it for you, minus the commission of course😉

But at least there is a traceable record for HMRC and others to peruse.

On 15/09/2024 at 11:51, bizzard said:

We just present a debit card sort code and the dosh is credited to our account right away.

 

Again  there will be a 'paper ' trail 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

But at least there is a traceable record for HMRC and others to peruse.

Again  there will be a 'paper ' trail 

 

Exactly. It's so when the fuzz visits and asks "Where did that three tonnes of copper railway signalling cable come from?", the scrappie can't just say "I can't remember". 

[TheBiscuits]

On 15/09/2024 at 09:29, cheesegas said:

Agreed. There are some people who earn a bit of extra cash by collecting people's old batteries for free and then taking them to the scrappy, but it's a lot of work! One of the pump out boats down south used to do it as he'd pass by Southall frequently, where there's a scrappy within staggering distance of the canal. I gave mine to him as I'd much rather not have them cluttering up the boat for months.

 

There used to be a chap on the upper Peak Forest who would helpfully take away dead batteries, and only charged a modest cost of a fiver for each one he took away.

 

I thought this was a genius plan, but MrsBiscuit won't let me do the same on our boat.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

There used to be a chap on the upper Peak Forest who would helpfully take away dead batteries, and only charged a modest cost of a fiver for each one he took away.

 

I thought this was a genius plan, but MrsBiscuit won't let me do the same on our boat.

 

 

He has taken a leaf out of C&RTs playbook.

Charge companies for water exrtaction and then charge them to discharge it back into the canal/river.

 

C&RT are now making almost as much income from doing this as they are from boat licences,

[Pluto]

In 1910, the L&LC was receiving £10,000, that is £1,450,000 today, from water sales.

[Mike Todd]

18 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

He has taken a leaf out of C&RTs playbook.

Charge companies for water exrtaction and then charge them to discharge it back into the canal/river.

 

C&RT are now making almost as much income from doing this as they are from boat licences,

And remember that this was one of the good things CRT did quite early in, they recognised how badly under charging BW had been and quickly remedied that.

 

[MtB]

14 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

And remember that this was one of the good things CRT did quite early in, they recognised how badly under charging BW had been and quickly remedied that.

 

Curious how, similarly, they can't seem to recognise how badly they are undercharging CCers then.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18 by MtB
Re-organise the words to make sense!

[mrsmelly]

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Curious how similarly, they can't seem to recognise how badly undercharging they are CCers, then.

 

 

 

 

In my thirty plus years of living aboard I could never understand why the boat licence was so cheap, wether with or without a mooring. Strange when you look at costs in other walks of life.

[IanD]

10 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Curious how, similarly, they can't seem to recognise how badly they are undercharging CCers then.

 

 

Or widebeams... 😉 

[Stroudwater1]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Or widebeams... 😉 

 

 

Or the discounted electric boats 😉

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

 

Or the discounted electric boats 😉

 

 

 

 

 

And don't forget ...............................

 

 

Qualifying historic boats 10% discount. Please see guidance notes and application form for this discount.

Unpowered Butty 50% discount for a butty boat more than 50ft long that never travels separately from its motor boat. The motor boat must be licensed and licences for motor and butty must be concurrent with the same start and end date. To claim this discount, You must declare the name and index number of the motor boat.

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

Or the discounted electric boats 😉

 

 

I agree -- as I've said before, I voted to remove this in the consultation... 😉 

 

CART trying to encourage electric/hybrid boats could be viewed as a positively green idea, but the fact that there is no realistic plan to provide charging points across the network -- so they need diesel generators on board -- makes a bit of a nonsense of it, so it's paying lip service to "going green" instead of actually doing anything effective... 😞 

 

If CART really want canal boats to "go green", a far more realistic option which would actually do far more a lot more quickly and at less cost would be to encourage/mandate the use of HVO instead of diesel -- because this would reduce emissions from all the diesel boats out there as well as the tiny number of hybrid ones.

 

But that would be joined-up thinking, which neither CART or DEFRA or the government seem to be doing particularly well at present... 😞 

Edited September 18 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

31 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

 

Or the discounted electric boats 😉

 

 

 

 

even though they have big fk off generators?

6 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

In my thirty plus years of living aboard I could never understand why the boat licence was so cheap, wether with or without a mooring. Strange when you look at costs in other walks of life.

no council tax either!

it’s outrageous,

😃😃

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Curious how, similarly, they can't seem to recognise how badly they are undercharging CCers then.

 

 

 

 

That is a political issue, the water contracts purely commercial .

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That is a political issue, the water contracts purely commercial .

 

Why are CC licences 'political'.

 

C&RT have the legal right to subdivide licences in anyway they wish, and make any charge for the licence - EXCEPT the River Only "Licence" for the same boat must be a maximum of 60% of the Canal & River licence

[IanD]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Why are CC licences 'political'.

 

C&RT have the legal right to subdivide licences in anyway they wish, and make any charge for the licence - EXCEPT the River Only "Licence" for the same boat must be a maximum of 60% of the Canal & River licence

Is there anything that stops them making the license fee dependent on where the boat is, for example higher in overcrowded areas/honeypots and lower in lightly used areas/middle of nowhere, or do they have to charge the same everywhere?

 

Apart from the issues of how to detect/enforce any differential fees (what happens if boats move?) this is effectively what happens on land, housing costs vary with area and are lower in unpopular areas and higher in popular ones.

[Paul C]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Is there anything that stops them making the license fee dependent on where the boat is, for example higher in overcrowded areas/honeypots and lower in lightly used areas/middle of nowhere, or do they have to charge the same everywhere?

 

Apart from the issues of how to detect/enforce any differential fees (what happens if boats move?) this is effectively what happens on land, housing costs vary with area and are lower in unpopular areas and higher in popular ones.

 

The legislation says they can charge for services "as they see fit". Just being in one place isn't really a "service" over and above another different place - so I don't think it would be "reasonable" to simply do that. BUT they can charge for extra things offered which counts as a "service", for example a straight edge to moor against, rings/bollards, the mooring area being dredged.

 

So, make something of honeypot sites and they can happily charge (extra) for mooring there. 

 

Add a (for example) "London" surcharge to the licence simply for being in a geographical area of the country, is likely to be robustly challenged - probably by our friends at NBTA.

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

The legislation says they can charge for services "as they see fit". Just being in one place isn't really a "service" over and above another different place - so I don't think it would be "reasonable" to simply do that. BUT they can charge for extra things offered which counts as a "service", for example a straight edge to moor against, rings/bollards, the mooring area being dredged.

 

So, make something of honeypot sites and they can happily charge (extra) for mooring there. 

 

Add a (for example) "London" surcharge to the licence simply for being in a geographical area of the country, is likely to be robustly challenged - probably by our friends at NBTA.

I'm well aware that the NBTA will challenge anything which means their members and supporters will pay more, whether justified or not. I guess they'll ignore that honeypotters paying more would mean out-in-the-stickers paying less, since the NBTA seem to mainly congregate round honeypots...

 

Apart from speculation, still no facts on whether CART could charge different license fees in different areas, whether they provide extra "services" (like mooring rings) or not -- does the law say they have to charge the same everywhere or not? @Alan de Enfield ?

Edited September 18 by IanD

[Paul C]

No but everything is subject to challenge by judicial review as being “reasonable “.