The 25% CC Surcharge - What are your thoughts?

[DHutch]

Simple poll to canvas the opinion of the membership. 

[GUMPY]

Should be double that at least!🫣

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Should be double that at least!🫣

 

Is that all?

 

I think the surcharge should be the same as the cost of a mooring.

[Gybe Ho]

Point of order.

 

The surcharge is not yet 25%, it is annually incrementing its way to 25% over 5 years and is currently 15%.

[system 4-50]

Opinions of ex-boaters not sought?

[DHutch]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

I think the surcharge should be the same as the cost of a mooring.

Can you elaborate on why?

 

5 minutes ago, Gybe Ho said:

Point of order.

The surcharge is not yet 25%, it is annually incrementing its way to 25% over 5 years and is currently 15%.

Correct. 

 

3 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

Opinions of ex-boaters not sought?

Yes, why not. 

 

I've added "dont have a boat" as an option to the second question. 

[GUMPY]

If I was still boating and decided not to have a home mooring then I would pay whatever it cost to have such a wonderful free and easy lifestyle.🫣

[Anonathy]

Don't support it but I do think lots of boaters have been played like a fiddle and if the NBTA or similar suggests something they now reactively take the opposite position. Facebook groups are rife with it. If the NBTA says the licence fee is increasing too fast they'll all blindly argue it's not increasing enough and should be multiplied by the power of (insert absurd number here). Never once seen them post evidence of their 4 figure donation to CRT though so seems it's just those with deeper pockets, or not even on the cut at all, enjoying the thought of others being priced out 

 

CRT is mismanaged, inflation means prices will rise, and those that pay acknowledge this, but the surcharge is just another round of boaters being played off against each other by CRT. I also personally think the argument of moorers paying more to CRT to be grasping at straws because they're getting a service from a service provider that has to pay money to CRT. The continuous cruisers use these service providers for other services (repairs, docking, fuel etc) which in turn goes towards their obligations to CRT.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, DHutch said:

Can you elaborate on why?

. 

My CRT mooring fee for an online nonCRT mooring is about 80% of my licence fee.

Surely any logical surcharge to cover a non-home moorer, who in reality has a permanent on-line mooring (just not in one place) should be equivalent.

Anything I pay over and above that to wherever it is I moor is, I agree, irrelevant. But I really can't see why CRT charges me 80% of the licence to moor, and someone who may only move their boat twenty times a year gets charged 25% (in a few years time, and still moans like hell) while using more of the facilities and infrastructure.

There's no logic to it, that's all. It doesn't bother me, but you did ask!

[PCSB]

fwiw ...

 

I have always been of the view that the licence is too little (its ok, I have very thick skin).

 

In a discussion with some boating friends in the pub, I did some back of a beer mat maths. Needless to say there are some massive assumptions but I cba to dig up all the data and do a full case study so I generalised.

 

I understand that CaRT get around 9% of the mooring fee from a marina. Using the figure of £4K (which is what we "agreed" is likely to be avergae across the network) for a 57-60' boat this equates to £360 to CaRT.  The licence before surcharges this year is appx £1450 for a 60' boat, if paying the max surcharge this is £362 - remarkably close to the marina fee.

 

Of course it may have been the ramblings of a few Timothy Taylor's ...

 

Long and short I don't have an issue with the surchage as such.

 

[LadyG]

46 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Is that all?

 

I think the surcharge should be the same as the cost of a mooring.

Why, and what is the cost of a mooring?

This is a backward step.

I dont have a permanent mooring, if i had to pay for one i wpuld have a little " no mooring here" sign, explaining the CRT decided i should take up space whether i am there or not, and since i have paid i dont want anyone using my mooring. 

I did my sums when i invested in the boat, changing the rules for no good reason smells of dubious practice. The CRT are a navigstion authority, yet fail in that every year. Yes they need money, but they know, and i know, and you know that boaters can only ever pay part of the cost.

The government are getting a unique recreational resource, accessed by millions every year. 

If costs were incresed significsntly it would reduce the number of boaters, and change the character of the inland waterways.

Edited April 19 by LadyG

[dogless]

We who own boats make a choice, based on personal circumstances or personal preference, to live aboard full time or use occasionally.

 

The licence offers both options ... paying for a mooring part of the year or all year is an option available to all.

 

I see no justification for a GENUINE continous cruiser to have to pay more , just so  those that choose (for whatever personal reason) to pay for a mooring should feel  better.

 

But I'm not in charge you'll be pleased to learn 😁

 

Rog

[Unicorn Stampede]

My main problem ultimately comes down to, I don't believe CRT will spend the extra money wisely, so I'd rather not give it to them in the first place. This doesn't fix the issue though, and obviously accelerates the current issues. Feels like a bit of catch22 here. 

 

I would be more inclined to agree with CRTs desire to increase licence costs if they were frank, open and honest in their decisions. Even better if they bring data to the table to support that. Yet they seem intent on not doing that - which only harbors my distrust of them. 

 

We still pay the CC licence, on both our boats (plus roving trader costs on top), regardless of my thoughts on the matter (and would continue to do so as they go up in price). Would just appreciate them being transparent is all. 

[DHutch]

9 minutes ago, PCSB said:

I understand that CaRT get around 9% of the mooring fee from a marina. Using the figure of £4K (which is what we "agreed" is likely to be avergae across the network) for a 57-60' boat this equates to £360 to CaRT.  The licence before surcharges this year is appx £1450 for a 60' boat, if paying the max surcharge this is £362 - remarkably close to the marina fee.

Which might be a carefully considered methodology to determine the surcharge based on a typical NAA fee, or a random chance coincidence!

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, dogless said:

We who own boats make a choice, based on personal circumstances or personal preference, to live aboard full time or use occasionally.

 

The licence offers both options ... paying for a mooring part of the year or all year is an option available to all.

 

I see no justification for a GENUINE continous cruiser to have to pay more , just so  those that choose (for whatever personal reason) to pay for a mooring should feel  better.

 

But I'm not in charge you'll be pleased to learn 😁

 

Rog

Whether a continuous cruiser is "genuine" or not, the CC surcharge means they contribute about the same (or maybe still a bit less even at 25%...) to CART funds (which maintain the canals for everyone) than those who pay for a home mooring (via the 9% precept), as explained above.

 

So to turn it round -- if you think they shouldn't pay a CC surcharge, can you explain why they should contribute less to CART than those with a home mooring?

 

Please don't bring distance cruised into it, there are CCers and HMers who do very few miles a year and those who do a lot... 😉 

Edited April 19 by IanD

[LadyG]

It is very difficult for those on a fixed income, essentially many oaps, to take hits above the cost of living, We cant just find extra money from some previously untapped money pot.

[PCSB]

5 minutes ago, DHutch said:

Which might be a carefully considered methodology to determine the surcharge based on a typical NAA fee, or a random chance coincidence!

It would be interesting to find out if it was the case. 

[dogless]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Whether a continuous cruiser is "genuine" or not, the CC surcharge means they contribute about the same (or maybe still a bit less even at 25%...) to CART funds (which maintain the canals for everyone) than those who pay for a home mooring (via the 9% precept), as explained above.

 

So to turn it round -- if you think they shouldn't pay a CC surcharge, can you explain why they should contribute less to CART than those with a home mooring?

 

Please don't bring distance cruised into it, there are CCers and HMers who do very few miles a year and those who do a lot... 😉 

Because you CHOOSE to take a mooring, why should those who CHOOSE not to  pay more ... just so you feel better about your marina fee ?

 

Cancel your marina and cruise 24/7  😊

 

Opinions were invited ... I expressed mine.

 

You don't have to agree and you don't have to try and persuade me I'm wrong ... it's my opinion whether you agree or not.

 

Rog

[David Mack]

Slightly more Yes than No votes to Q1, and slightly more full time home moorers than surcharge payers in Q2. So probably most votes cast reflect the voters own financial interest!

[LadyG]

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Slightly more Yes than No votes to Q1, and slightly more full time home moorers than surcharge payers in Q2. So probably most votes cast reflect the voters own financial interest!

Yes, as expected.

[Graham Davis]

35 minutes ago, LadyG said:

It is very difficult for those on a fixed income, essentially many oaps, to take hits above the cost of living, We cant just find extra money from some previously untapped money pot.

Which applies to each and every person in that situation, be they boaters or not.
Therefore it is meaningless to this discussion.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Is that all?

 

I think the surcharge should be the same as the cost of a mooring.

Be careful what you wish for. If the license cost of not having a home mooring is the same as the total cost with one, plus the conveniences that a home mooring allows, expect a rush of former cc'rs looking for one. A price spike would follow, that would affect all boaters. It's supply limited and new moorings need to be approved and often built too, with CaRT controlling the supply via their required approval. They would have an incentive to keep the price as high as possible. 

[IanD]

38 minutes ago, dogless said:

Because you CHOOSE to take a mooring, why should those who CHOOSE not to  pay more ... just so you feel better about your marina fee ?

 

Cancel your marina and cruise 24/7  😊

 

Opinions were invited ... I expressed mine.

 

You don't have to agree and you don't have to try and persuade me I'm wrong ... it's my opinion whether you agree or not.

 

Rog

Nothing to do with whether I feel better or not -- I think it's only fair that everyone who uses the canals should contribute the same amount to CART to maintain them, whether they have a home mooring or not. Without the CC surcharge, HMers pay more.

 

Your opinion is that CCers should pay less, but you still aren't providing any justification for this. Which is fine, not all opinions are rational... 😉 

Edited April 19 by IanD

[Llamedos]

48 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

I dont have a permanent mooring, if i had to pay for one i wpuld have a little " no mooring here" sign, explaining the CRT decided i should take up space whether i am there or not, and since i have paid i dont want anyone using my mooring. 

 

It would cost you rather more than 25% though. That's the point here.

[agg221]

41 minutes ago, dogless said:

Because you CHOOSE to take a mooring, why should those who CHOOSE not to  pay more ... just so you feel better about your marina fee ?

 

Cancel your marina and cruise 24/7  😊

 

Opinions were invited ... I expressed mine.

 

You don't have to agree and you don't have to try and persuade me I'm wrong ... it's my opinion whether you agree or not.

 

Rog

Could the inverse argument also not be applied - you CHOOSE to not have a mooring so you CHOOSE to pay the surcharge?

 

I tend to think of it a different way around. I CHOOSE to have a mooring. I recognise that to do so I have to pay the mooring owner. To allow boats to moor there, the mooring owner has to pay CRT. She chooses how much she wants to charge me and then, to operate her moorings, she is obliged to charge me on top of the amount she wants to retain. I therefore CHOOSE to pay for the mooring; I ACCEPT that to have it, I also have to pay an additional amount to CRT.

 

By comparison, someone without a home mooring, CHOOSES not to have a home mooring and ACCEPTs that this type of licence makes a direct contribution to CRT which (whether coincidentally or by design) is equivalent in cost to the extra contribution paid to CRT by someone with a home mooring.

 

Neither party derives any direct additional benefit from that additional payment - it is simply a charge which CRT levies one way or the other.

 

Alec

 

Alec

Edited April 19 by agg221