The 25% CC Surcharge - What are your thoughts?

[robtheplod]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

Indeed -- but the "going rate" for paying CRT to have a boat on the canals is either (basic license fee+25% -- in another couple of years...) for a CCer or (basic license fee + 9% of mooring fee) for most HMers (more for some), roughly the same in both cases.

 

And it's still cheap, and still not enough to keep the canals properly maintained... 😞 

 

The housing problem in the UK is much bigger than this and can't be solved by CRT, it's an issue for government.

Its tricky.... CC'ers keep the canals alive with boat movement rather than those that just stay in a marina, so in reality maybe they should be encouraged rather than penalised?  

[Steve Bassplayer]

Looking at Daniel’s poll results so far, it seems that most people who have a home mooring are supportive of the surcharge, those who haven’t got a home mooring aren’t. TBH, it doesn’t surprise me.

 

So just some other thoughts :

 

When I used to have a home mooring (previous boats), I tended to do the same trip there and back as I was working and bringing up a family. I was using the same locks and infrastructure. I didn’t get the chance to explore far and wide, or go to canals which have see little use (e.g Huddersfield narrow and wide canals). As a boater with no home mooring and being retired, I have traveled to some of these places. 
 

My hobby horse has always been about keeping the navigation open. Use it or lose it! CC’ers do a good job at keeping these places open. Being out on the cut they can often spot issues before others and report back to C&RT (unless it’s something we can sort easily).

 

For those who dream of exploring the system in the future, please bear this in mind.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, robtheplod said:

Its tricky.... CC'ers keep the canals alive with boat movement rather than those that just stay in a marina, so in reality maybe they should be encouraged rather than penalised?  

Some CCers do, as do some HMers. Some CMers barely move at all, as do some HMers.

 

And if you move a lot and "keep the canals alive" you also use locks and paddles a lot more which contributes more wear and tear -- should you be charged less because of the first (your suggestion) or more because of the second (CRT justification for CC surcharge)?

 

There's also no doubt that enforcing the CC rules costs CRT money, even if they don't do a very good job of it.

 

Arguments for both sides... 😉 

[Anonathy]

18 minutes ago, robtheplod said:

Ultimately isn't this a much bigger issue of housing?  Housing is too expensive so people look to more affordable means, be it vans or boats.....?  I would guess most CC'ers live on boats because housing is too expensive?

 

I would hazard a guess that most continuous cruisers do it because they like the lifestyle. Those that get a boat because of housing usually end up in a marina somewhere pretty fast because they're not really that interested in the lifestyle, and fetching water, emptying waste, long walks, crappy towpaths becomes a slog fast for them.

 

It's not just a matter of housing either, it's a matter of suitable housing, there seems to be an obsession with building tiny apartments everywhere in this country but truth be told nobody really wants to live in them. They want outdoor space, a garden, a nice location. Honestly I think I'd rather live in a fibreglass wreck somewhere nice than some tiny apartment in a concrete jungle where you can't choose your neighbours, each to their own though 😂

[agg221]

A thought experiment.

 

Imagine CRT changes the license structure. They take the current basic HM license and add 25% to it, for everyone. They also stop charging mooring operators connection fees at the same time. That’s fair isn’t it? Everyone is paying the same for their license…

 

Except, all other things being equal, all boaters would be paying the same amount to CRT as they currently are, CRT would be generating as much income as it currently is and so would the mooring operators. The only thing to go would be a bit of admin.

 

This suggests it is not about the cost so much as a perception of fairness.

 

Alec

[GUMPY]

41 minutes ago, IanD said:

The reasoning behind the CC surcharge being discussed here is nothing to do with amount of use of the canals -- there are CCers who move a lot and ones who barely move at all, and the same applies to HMers, but that's a separate argument, and maybe charging per lock-mile is the only way to solve this?

Surely it should not be charging per lock mile but a discount per lock mile?

This would encourage lingalongerers to move rather than staying put in one place.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, GUMPY said:

Surely it should not be charging per lock mile but a discount per lock mile?

This would encourage lingalongerers to move rather than staying put in one place.

But that puts more wear on the system, which costs CRT more money... 😉 

 

Anyway charging this way isn't really practical, the costs involved in doing it*** would probably be far higher than any additional money raised... 😞 

 

*** unless you have automated and compulsory GPS boat tracking, which would whip the tinfoil-hat brigade into a frenzy... 🙂 

[Steve Bassplayer]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

*** unless you have automated and compulsory GPS boat tracking, which would whip the tinfoil-hat brigade into a frenzy... 🙂 

 I don’t think you have to be in the ‘tinfoil-hat brigade’ to see how much our privacy has been invaded more and more over the years…

 

That’s a very cheap shot Ian and quite rude. 🙄

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

 I don’t think you have to be in the ‘tinfoil-hat brigade’ to see how much our privacy has been invaded more and more over the years…

 

That’s a very cheap shot Ian and quite rude. 🙄

It's a cheap shot at a big target though, given the objections that some people raise... 😉 

 

As usual people want something that might benefit them but ignore the costs of doing it -- it's easy to say "ooh, give a discount per lock-mile, that'll be really good for me because I cruise a lot, and one in the eye for this marina-dwellers" but give no thought as to how this could be done. We've had this debate before, and the conclusion was that the only way to do this cost-effectively (which needs little or no expensive human time/effort) is boat tracking -- and this could be used to either reward (or charge?) CCers who use the system a lot, and charge (or reward?) CCers who don't (and of course HMers as well). It would also massively help reduce license fee evasion... 🙂 

 

And yes some (many?) people are against this for privacy reasons, that's their opinion which they're entitled to. But if it's the only sensible way to do such charging, they need to make their mind up which they want more, "fair" charging (and less fee evasion) or privacy -- because they can't have both... 😉 

Edited April 20 by IanD

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

 I don’t think you have to be in the ‘tinfoil-hat brigade’ to see how much our privacy has been invaded more and more over the years…

 

That’s a very cheap shot Ian and quite rude. 🙄

To be fair we have all brought the end to privacy on ourselves, especialy the pro plastic bank card people. I don't personaly give a hoot and will happily be tracked if it helps catch more criminal scum. We certaimly need more cctv as that along with DNA science is proving more and more invaluable in the fight against crime, cctv especialy means all those of us that are innocent will likely be on a cctv camera miles away from the crime scene. Nothing to hide. 

[Steve Bassplayer]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's a cheap shot at a big target though, given the objections that some people raise... 😉 

 

As usual people want something that might benefit them but ignore the costs of doing it -- it's easy to say "ooh, give a discount per lock-mile, that'll be really good for me because I cruise a lot, and one in the eye for this marina-dwellers" but give no thought as to how this could be done. We've had this debate before, and the conclusion was that the only way to do this cost-effectively (which needs little or no expensive human time/effort) is boat tracking -- and this could be used to either reward (or charge?) CCers who use the system a lot, and charge (or reward?) CCers who don't (and of course HMers as well). It would also massively help reduce license fee evasion... 🙂 

 

And yes some (many?) people are against this for privacy reasons, that's their opinion which they're entitled to. But if it's the only sensible way to do such charging, they need to make their mind up which they want more, "fair" charging (and less fee evasion) or privacy -- because they can't have both... 😉 

Depends whether you want this country to go the same way as China, or even North Korea Ian? Do you want an Orwellian life or a Roddenberry life in the future? 
 

My point was that it’s rude to imply that anyone who is critical about our privacy being eroded, is in the ‘tin-foil brigade’. Using insults to make a point IS a cheap shot at I suspect a very small target. As usual this seems to go over your head when you make points. It’s a pity as you make a lot of good points at times.

11 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

To be fair we have all brought the end to privacy on ourselves, especialy the pro plastic bank card people. I don't personaly give a hoot and will happily be tracked if it helps catch more criminal scum. We certaimly need more cctv as that along with DNA science is proving more and more invaluable in the fight against crime, cctv especialy means all those of us that are innocent will likely be on a cctv camera miles away from the crime scene. Nothing to hide. 

Correct, we have only ourselves to blame. It doesn’t mean we have to let it go further though.

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

 

Correct, we have only ourselves to blame. It doesn’t mean we have to let it go further though.

I think the cat is well and truly out the bag. I have long been a cash advocate but too many jumped on the wagon and before not much longer the banks will have full control and then charges will rise. 

I genuinely believe now that for those of us without criminal intent the pendulem has swung to a point where with nothing to hide being tracked actualy is better for is. 

[cuthound]

1 hour ago, robtheplod said:

Its tricky.... CC'ers keep the canals alive with boat movement rather than those that just stay in a marina, so in reality maybe they should be encouraged rather than penalised?  

 

I'm not sure about that. I would say the percentage of boats passing my house is 50% liveaboard 50% leisure in the winter and 25% liveaboard 75% leisure in the summer.

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, IanD said:

But that puts more wear on the system, which costs CRT more money... 😉 

 

Anyway charging this way isn't really practical, the costs involved in doing it*** would probably be far higher than any additional money raised... 😞 

 

*** unless you have automated and compulsory GPS boat tracking, which would whip the tinfoil-hat brigade into a frenzy... 🙂 

 

But lock gates still rot whether they are used or not and canals silt up quicker if no boats are passing through them, so it is not as simple as it seems.

Edited April 20 by cuthound
To add spaces between merged posts

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Anonathy said:

I would hazard a guess that most continuous cruisers do it because they like the lifestyle.

 

Yes. I notice lots of CCers find a spot they really like and is very convenient, and CC there. All the time.

 

 

 

 

[waterworks]

Buying a licence to use the waterways and then charging more because you actually used the waterways your licence covers. 

 

Another scam by CRT because they took over a money pit where there is no way to keep it functional without massive government funding.

 

Coming soon....surcharge for ducks per mile 

 

Mallard £1

Coot £1.50

Moorhen £ 2.00

Swan £ 3.00

Heron £ 7.50

 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Buying a licence to use the waterways and then charging more because you actually used the waterways your licence covers. 

 

Another scam by CRT because they took over a money pit where there is no way to keep it functional without massive government funding.

The point CRT have noticed is that an awful lot of people with a licence (but no home mooring) only use the waterways as a near permanent parking space. Which is not using it as designed.

The other point that appears to have been forgotten is that CRT is emphatically NOT a navigation authority. As far as they're concerned, it's not boaters keeping it open, it's visitors, of which boaters are a small minority. Which is why it should be largely funded by general taxation and not by constant increases of charges on the small minority of tub wallowers, whether stationary or mobile.

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The point CRT have noticed is that an awful lot of people with a licence (but no home mooring) only use the waterways as a near permanent parking space. Which is not using it as designed.

The other point that appears to have been forgotten is that CRT is emphatically NOT a navigation authority. As far as they're concerned, it's not boaters keeping it open, it's visitors, of which boaters are a small minority. Which is why it should be largely funded by general taxation and not by constant increases of charges on the small minority of tub wallowers, whether stationary or mobile.

It should be but isn't, and the government seems more interested in reducing the DEFRA grant than increasing it... 😞 

Edited April 20 by IanD

[Hudds Lad]

16 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Buying a licence to use the waterways and then charging more because you actually used the waterways your licence covers. 

 

Another scam by CRT because they took over a money pit where there is no way to keep it functional without massive government funding.

 

Coming soon....surcharge for ducks per mile 

 

Mallard £1

Coot £1.50

Moorhen £ 2.00

Swan £ 3.00

Heron £ 7.50

 

How much for a Kingfisher?

 

Of course this will balance out when they have to pay you per Canada Goose

[Anonathy]

37 minutes ago, waterworks said:

Buying a licence to use the waterways and then charging more because you actually used the waterways your licence covers. 

 

Another scam by CRT because they took over a money pit where there is no way to keep it functional without massive government funding.

 

Coming soon....surcharge for ducks per mile 

 

Mallard £1

Coot £1.50

Moorhen £ 2.00

Swan £ 3.00

Heron £ 7.50

 

 

Do you still have to pay for £7.50 for a heron each time you mistake someone's garden ornament for a real one? If so that's me bankrupted 😂

[Nick The Boatman]

So several points:
1 The majority demographic of this forum are mooring users - who don't pay the surcharge and CRT made a policy decision to not charge the entire customerbase and instead focus only on the itinerant boaters (who are 95% live-aboard) specifically so that the recreational users (who are predominantly (75% - 85%) mooring users) didn't have to pay so much. So this is an issue of "itinerant live aboard v recreational / mooring users". Is it therefore any surprise that the demographic that benefits from not paying the surcharge will support the surcharge? Junk stats.
2. I have 6 barristers opinions saying that the Surcharge is discriminatory. Deal with it...
3. While leafletting against the Surcharge at Ellesmere Port at Easter (Historic Narrowboat Club rally) a number of people came out and dispensed 20 minutes of vitriol each (not pleasant) using the same tropes: "freeloaders", "pay your way", "I _pay_ for my mooring", "get a mooring like the rest of us", "you never move", "none of you are licensed" etc etc. Quite unpleasant. Several members of the public who overheard these tirades were shocked and appalled. The facts that (a) these tropes are false and (b) given that they were all the same and reiterated suggested that the people were coached. This is not surprising given the tip-off that we had just before (in particular Lucy Waldron stating "The NBTA have announced their intention to be at the Port this weekend to leaflet about their stance on cost of boating. This has rather got by hackles up as I do not identify with these people in any way. Please can we give them a flea in their ear if encountered....").

In stark contrast the visitors to the Steam Punk event this weekend just gone were much more pleasant, shocked by the conduct of CRT, shocked by the wages that the senior personnel are paid and generally despairing of the acrimony dispensed by certain (minority) members of the boating fraternity. 
So for the sake of argument:
(A) the right to move every 14 days was a hard-fought and won issue that Parliament intervened over in 1994; BW and CRT always opposed this and have been doing their level est to subvert it ever since;
(B) itinerant boat dwellers are NOT freeloaders: they / we do not get the benefit of the security of a mooring and instead we move every 14 days. that's the deal. Deal with that as well.
HOWEVER what is also clear is that the historic trope of hatred by certain members of the boating community against itinerant live-aboard boaters, although diminishing, remains alive and well in certain minority places. This bigotry will always go challenged but we must also learn to live with each other and respect each other. 
I have to say that this "poll" is a soft-touch approach to the opposite. 

[LadyG]

3 hours ago, robtheplod said:

Ultimately isn't this a much bigger issue of housing?  Housing is too expensive so people look to more affordable means, be it vans or boats.....?  I would guess most CC'ers live on boats because housing is too expensive?

A big guess.

House will cost more than a boat, but

bricks and mortar are a better investment in the long term.

There are many factors to consider that mean living on a boat with three children is only for the most dedicated, but they might get benefits equivalent to earning £65K if in bricks and mortar. Rent is paid and no hassle.

The single liveaboard is not going to get these benefits and might be expected to get a job!

They can rentaroom,  or buy a boat, which certainly seems more attractive.

Edited April 20 by LadyG

[Arthur Marshall]

56 minutes ago, IanD said:

It should be but isn't, and the government seems more interested in reducing the DEFRA grant than increasing it... 😞 

That's because the canals will mostly work just as well as a big country park with no boats on, as it does with them, and will cost a whole lot less. Let's face it, since Thatcher days everything of any value in this country has been flogged off to someone abroad while the rest of the infrastructure rots, so why should we expect the canals to be any different?

We're lucky they still function at all, which is due to what I think of as economic inertia - stuff keeps being paid for while it falls to bits simply because nobody has the guts to make the decision to pull the plug until it's made for them by whatever it is becoming totally decrepit.

In our case, sooner or later the maintenance backlog will get so extreme that any real time fix becomes impossible, when every bodged repair (eg lock beams being the obvious example) starts to fail, one too many embankments fail at the same time, or half a dozen reservoirs become unstable.

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Anonathy said:

I would hazard a guess that most continuous cruisers do it because they like the lifestyle.

I would hazard a guess that you are wrong - at least in London and other cities. Most CCers are liveaboards whose are tied to one area for reasons of employment, education or family or other ties, and find living aboard to be more affordable than bricks and mortar. They 'CC' because there simply aren't enough permanent moorings where living aboard is tolerated (let alone formally permitted) and any official residential moorings are only available at a price that reflects their scarcity. And most move the minimum possible to avoid CRT enforcement, rather than actually 'continuously cruising'.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I would hazard a guess that you are wrong - at least in London and other cities. Most CCers are liveaboards whose are tied to one area for reasons of employment, education or family or other ties, and find living aboard to be more affordable than bricks and mortar. They 'CC' because there simply aren't enough permanent moorings where living aboard is tolerated (let alone formally permitted) and any official residential moorings are only available at a price that reflects their scarcity. And most move the minimum possible to avoid CRT enforcement, rather than actually 'continuously cruising'.

I suspect that the cost of any mooring in places like London -- residential or not -- is a bigger factor than their scarcity. Even if they were available (which they still are, if your pockets are deep enough...), few CCers would be able to afford the £5k-£10k*** annual cost, or indeed be willing to pay it when they can CC "for free"... 😉 

 

*** lower end is for marina/leisure moorings, upper end is for residential -- or even higher in some places...

Edited April 20 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

18 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

I thought the whole point of the change in the law was that if you are travelling around the country on an adventure (CC’ing in the true sense) it’s unfair to have to pay for a mooring you’d never use just to comply with the rules. 

 

But presumably you stop every night and therefore have a mooring, wherever you happen to be .

Maybe CCers should buy a "Roving Mooring" permit that allows you to moor upfor up to 14 days in any number of different places throughout the year.