CRT Commission

[IanD]

1 hour ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

I think they mentioned getting rid of the river licence, mentioning the discount could be a cause of congestion on certain rivers. 
 It would be far simpler to administer if they got rid of all and had just one type with no discounts, only surcharges(CC/Widebeam)

I really don't see how it would be easier to administer; all boats have different fees depending on length (and width and CC), anything else is just another box -- I expect the fees are calculated automatically (spreadsheet of boats?) given this information, there's nobody spending hours punching buttons on a calculator.

 

I agree the river license should go, but the other special cases are in such small numbers they're simply not going to make any difference to what the vast majority of boaters pay -- and it does seem to me that there's a certain amount of sour grapes going on here, that "a few people get special discounts but I don't"... 😉

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

I really don't see how it would be easier to administer; all boats have different fees depending on length (and width and CC), anything else is just another box -- I expect the fees are calculated automatically (spreadsheet of boats?) given this information, there's nobody spending hours punching buttons on a calculator.

 

I agree the river license should go, but the other special cases are in such small numbers they're simply not going to make any difference to what the vast majority of boaters pay -- and it does seem to me that there's a certain amount of sour grapes going on here, that "a few people get special discounts but I don't"... 😉

No Sour grapes, I just think there should be no difference in license fees for narrowboats that are the same length, apart from the CC surcharge. We can all afford the license, so the only sour grapes would be from people that can’t afford it.

Edited December 22, 2025 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

No Sour grapes, I just think there should be no difference in narrowboats that are the same length. We can all afford the license, the only sour grapes would be from people that can’t afford it.

That's a reasonable viewpoint -- at least, if you substitute "area" for "length" and get rid of the illogically-stepped widebeam surcharge... 😉

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

That's a reasonable viewpoint -- at least, if you substitute "area" for "length" and get rid of the illogically-stepped widebeam surcharge... 😉

 But wouldn’t that cause more admin, with owners arguing with CaRT over a few here and there?😂

[IanD]

1 hour ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

 But wouldn’t that cause more admin, with owners arguing with CaRT over a few here and there?😂

Why, when CART already have their length and width data? It's just multiplying two numbers together... 😉 

 

Surely it makes much more sense than the current system where a 1" increase in breadth can mean paying a 25% higher license fee?

[David Mack]

 

2 hours ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

 I think the commission mentioned something about antiquated rights for river navigation, whilst recommending to get rid of the Rivers licence.
 CaRT’s hands seem to be tied with out of date legislation, which obviously needs to be looked at to come in line with the modern world and current boating. Times and the use of the canals have changed massively since a lot of the rights and laws were introduced.

 

A simple way around that might be to change the law that requires a River Registration to be 60% of the cost of the corresponding Canals and Rivers licence, set them both at the same level, then allow holders of a River Registration (i.e. boats with a home mooring on a relevant river navigation) to have free use of the canals. The effect is that all boaters pay the same whether river-only or river and canal users, but no change is needed to the navigation status of rivers.

Edited December 22, 2025 by David Mack

[Alan de Enfield]

52 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

A simple way around that might be to change the law that requires a River Registration to be 60% of the cost of the corresponding Canals and Rivers licence, set them both at the same level, then allow holders of a River Registration (i.e. boats with a home mooring on a relevant river navigation) to have free use of the canals. The effect is that all boaters pay the same whether river-only or river and canal users, but no change is needed to the navigation status of rivers.

 

Don't boats on non-connected canals get a discount ?

 Many boats on rivers far exceed the stated maximum dimensions of the canals so in effect they are using 'unconnected waterways' - I'm sure there would be arguments that the 'unconnected discount' should be applied to boats with (say) 5 foot draft. 12 foot air draft, etc.

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Why, when CART already have their length and width data? It's just multiplying two numbers together... 😉 

 

Surely it makes much more sense than the current system where a 1" increase in breadth can mean paying a 25% higher license fee?

But people could argue that their 60ft boat they just bought actually came out as 59’ 11” even though it was registered as a 60’ and I doubt many actually know the accurate length of their boat.
 Would CaRT have to measure every boat to get the correct licence for that particular boat, lots of boats are over/under length be an inch or two.  So the current generic length & width brackets work and people know that if they go over 6’10” they pay more, if they get a longer boat they pay more. 

[IanD]

24 minutes ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

But people could argue that their 60ft boat they just bought actually came out as 59’ 11” even though it was registered as a 60’ and I doubt many actually know the accurate length of their boat.
 Would CaRT have to measure every boat to get the correct licence for that particular boat, lots of boats are over/under length be an inch or two.  So the current generic length & width brackets work and people know that if they go over 6’10” they pay more, if they get a longer boat they pay more. 

With a length*width system none of this would matter, you get charged on the registered length and width whether this is accurate to the inch or not.

 

It's no different to today except it removes the sudden steps in license fees, especially with width, so it's fairer -- which is why I don't understand your objections... 😉

[Peanut]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

With a length*width system none of this would matter, you get charged on the registered length and width whether this is accurate to the inch or not.

It's no different to today except it removes the sudden steps in licence fees, especially with width, so it's fairer -- which is why I don't understand your objections... 😉

Maybe, it is this.

If you have a 60ft x 7ft, narrowboat and pay £1,400 pa, and another boater has a 60ft x 12 wide beam. Then they would pay £1,400/7 x12, or £2,400 pa, which would be perfectly fair, for the extra utility they enjoy, but is a tad more than a 25% uplift which they already object to.

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Peanut said:

Maybe, it is this.

If you have a 60ft x 7ft, narrowboat and pay £1,400 pa, and another boater has a 60ft x 12 wide beam. Then they would pay £1,400/7 x12, or £2,400 pa, which would be perfectly fair, for the extra utility they enjoy, but is a tad more than a 25% uplift which they already object to.

 

Because nobody who has been getting an exceptionally good deal wants it to be made "fairer", if it means them paying more... 😉

 

See also capital gains tax and many others... 😉

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

Because nobody who has been getting an exceptionally good deal wants it to be made "fairer", if it means them paying more... 😉

 

See also capital gains tax and many others... 😉

So which boaters are getting the fairest deal, from the current Licence set up?

Edited December 22, 2025 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

So which boaters are getting the fairest deal, from the current Licence set up?

 

Compared to other boaters or to other options (rather than a boat) ?

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Compared to other boaters or to other options (rather than a boat) ?

It could be boat type, boat usage CCer/HMer, Licence type. Interesting to see who people think are getting the fairest deal, best value for their licence fee and maybe who should be paying more.

Edited December 22, 2025 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[MtB]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Because nobody who has been getting an exceptionally good deal wants it to be made "fairer", if it means them paying more... 😉

 

See also capital gains tax and many others... 😉

 

 

And no doubt half the fatty owners getting the steal of the century and objecting to paying their fair share also think 'rich people' should be "taxed more"! 

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Many boats on rivers far exceed the stated maximum dimensions of the canals so in effect they are using 'unconnected waterways' - I'm sure there would be arguments that the 'unconnected discount' should be applied to boats with (say) 5 foot draft. 12 foot air draft, etc.

Those larger boats on rivers are in no different a position to wide boats that can't use the narrow canals or transit between the northern and southern wide waterway networks.

[MtB]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Don't boats on non-connected canals get a discount ?

 Many boats on rivers far exceed the stated maximum dimensions of the canals so in effect they are using 'unconnected waterways' - I'm sure there would be arguments that the 'unconnected discount' should be applied to boats with (say) 5 foot draft. 12 foot air draft, etc.

 

Ah yes the old "My boat too big for the waterway I'm trying to use it in therefore I should not pay the full licence fee" argument.   

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by MtB
Add the emphasis

[IanD]

10 hours ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

So which boaters are getting the fairest deal, from the current Licence set up?

Wideboat owners whose boats fall just below the width thresholds in the fee structure -- a 14' wideboat occupies double the canal space and has about 2.5x the useful internal living space compared to a 7' narrowboat the same length but only pays 1.5x the fee.

 

In most places in the world the rent/fees for both houses and boats are worked out per square metre, so I don't see why CART shouldn't do the same.

 

Of course wideboat owners will disagree, as explained above... 😉

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

54 minutes ago, IanD said:

Wideboat owners whose boats fall just below the width thresholds in the fee structure -- a 14' wideboat occupies double the canal space and has about 2.5x the useful internal living space compared to a 7' narrowboat the same length but only pays 1.5x the fee.

 

In most places in the world the rent/fees for both houses and boats are worked out per square metre, so I don't see why CART shouldn't do the same.

 

Of course wideboat owners will disagree, as explained above... 😉

Just looking at a 70ft x14ft widebeam at the minute, all electric, to be moored on a river. With the double discount(electric & river only)on the license, it will seem a bargain, compared to the ridiculous cost of the boat.

 The boats licence for 2026, 12 month, 70ft x 14ft(21.34m x 4.27m) electric propulsion, River only licence with mooring according to CaRT’s licence calculator is £1002.96. This includes discounts of 25% electric, 40% river. It also includes the 32% surcharge for boats over 3.24m.

A 12 month licence fee for the same boat without discounts is £2228.68.

 So a saving of £1225.72 with the discounts. This is why I think CaRT should get rid of all the discounts, especially the River only discount. 

 

Edited December 23, 2025 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2

[Unicorn Stampede]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

And no doubt half the fatty owners getting the steal of the century and objecting to paying their fair share also think 'rich people' should be "taxed more"! 

I don't own a wide beam and think 'rich people' should be taxed more. 

 

As I've said before, I'd also be happy to pay more for our licences etc. I would just prefer transparency over their costs and expenditures. They're very good at providing total costs of X and Y (e.g. the network takes X millions to maintain) but not so good at the specific costs per area and so forth.

 

Or maybe they do provide this information clearly somewhere and I am just incapable of finding it. I would be quite happy to be proved wrong on this account.

 

Edit: Worth noting I guess that I don't believe there should be discounts and so forth around paying early or in full. I assume they do this because the % discount is offset by the interest they earn.

 

I do wonder if they made things difficult for themselves in the long term by having different licence types, surcharges, discounts and so forth.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Unicorn Stampede

[David Mack]

6 hours ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

Worth noting I guess that I don't believe there should be discounts and so forth around paying early or in full. I assume they do this because the % discount is offset by the interest they earn.

And the reduced admin cost of chasing late payers and dealing with multiple payments for those who pay in installments.

[ditchcrawler]

On 25/11/2025 at 17:02, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

A lot of the problematic boaters would be able to afford it, as they’re in and around the London area, so on good wages compared to others and the money it costs buying/living on a boat is far less than house renting/buying, so a 100% increase would still be good value compared.
 There’s no easy solution to solve a problem that has been allowed to develop over many years.

And its not only waterways people are turning to for affordable living which indicates the problem is elsewhere. The van dwellers left with no option but to live on the kerb

[waterworks]

3 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

And its not only waterways people are turning to for affordable living which indicates the problem is elsewhere. The van dwellers left with no option but to live on the kerb

Van dwellers chose to live in vans in full knowledge that no public parking facilities for them exist and that they wouldn't be paying council tax but now want local councils to provide facilities for them. 

[IanD]

On 23/12/2025 at 09:45, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

Just looking at a 70ft x14ft widebeam at the minute, all electric, to be moored on a river. With the double discount(electric & river only)on the license, it will seem a bargain, compared to the ridiculous cost of the boat.

 The boats licence for 2026, 12 month, 70ft x 14ft(21.34m x 4.27m) electric propulsion, River only licence with mooring according to CaRT’s licence calculator is £1002.96. This includes discounts of 25% electric, 40% river. It also includes the 32% surcharge for boats over 3.24m.

A 12 month licence fee for the same boat without discounts is £2228.68.

 So a saving of £1225.72 with the discounts. This is why I think CaRT should get rid of all the discounts, especially the River only discount. 

 

Isn't that one of the possibilities that was suggested by the Commission?

 

The electric discount would make more sense if there was a roadmap for chargers which would remove the need to have a generator on board, so they could be powered entirely from solar and increasingly-green grid power.

 

As it is such boats use less diesel (or HVO, if it vould be obtained!) than diesel boats, typically about half but could be less depending on how the boat is used -- but whether this justifies the discount is debatable, presumably CART think it does, but many diesel boaters obviously don't... 😉 

 

A discount for paying for a year in advance instead of monthly is very common across many sectors, CART get interest on the money and presumably less hassle in collecting it.

Edited Sunday at 13:52 by IanD

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Isn't that one of the possibilities that was suggested by the Commission?

 

The electric discount would make more sense if there was a roadmap for chargers which would remove the need to have a generator on board, so they could be powered entirely from solar and increasingly-green grid power.

 

As it is such boats use less diesel (or HVO, if it vould be obtained!) than diesel boats, typically about half but could be less depending on how the boat is used -- but whether this justifies the discount is debatable, presumably CART think it does, but many diesel boaters obviously don't... 😉 

 

A discount for paying for a year in advance instead of monthly is very common across many sectors, CART get interest on the money and presumably less hassle in collecting it.

A bit late. I posted that 2 months ago, thought you were on the ball with everything Forum. Old news.

Edited Sunday at 14:13 by BoatingLifeUpNorth2