This figure is often quoted as "9% of mooring costs". However, since the 9% is leveled on Gross mooring capacity X rate charged, not actual fees paid (or actual occupancy ), surely for most marinas / moorings operating at less than 100% capacity, the Network Access Charge will represent more than 9%?

 

If a marina / mooring is at 75% capacity, the charge would represent 12%

 

The agreement says,

 

"The annual fee payable to us is calculated by multiplying your mooring rate (the rate charged to customers mooring in your marina) by an agreed gross mooring capacity (GMC) and then taking 9% of the resultant figure. Read our code of practice for determining GMC."

 

Or have I misunderstood the details?

 

If I'm right, what do contributors reckon is the average / typical % occupancy of the various mooring options?

 

Ta as ever for any insights.

1 hour ago, Bristolfashion said:

This figure is often quoted as "9% of mooring costs". However, since the 9% is leveled on Gross mooring capacity X rate charged, not actual fees paid (or actual occupancy ), surely for most marinas / moorings operating at less than 100% capacity, the Network Access Charge will represent more than 9%?

 

If a marina / mooring is at 75% capacity, the charge would represent 12%

 

The agreement says,

 

"The annual fee payable to us is calculated by multiplying your mooring rate (the rate charged to customers mooring in your marina) by an agreed gross mooring capacity (GMC) and then taking 9% of the resultant figure. Read our code of practice for determining GMC."

 

Or have I misunderstood the details?

 

If I'm right, what do contributors reckon is the average / typical % occupancy of the various mooring options?

 

Ta as ever for any insights.

That's correct, but most marinas seem to be pretty full nowadays -- at 90% occupancy the charge goes up from 9% to 10%, which is hardly any difference...

 

However even at 9% of a typical marina fee it's a bit more than the CC surcharge -- in my case it would be about £330/year, some will pay rather more than this, and those on EOG/farm/CRT moorings pay a *lot* more to CRT.

 

So to meet the NBTA demand of "Fair license fees, the same for everybody!!!" CRT should remove both the CC surcharge and the 9% precept and put all license fees up by 30% (by 2028, when the CC surcharge will be 25%)... 🙂 

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

I honestly think that will sound the death of pleasure/holiday cruising Ian, the mood amongst many appears  low with two years of stoppages. Boats have dropped in price  too. 
 

It will be interesting to see if the stoppages have led to a longer life for some gates, helping in a tiny way maintenance issues. 
 

Must say marina fill rate varies a lot. Yes honeypot areas, long lengths no locks are very full but others are not full. 

Its hard to justify such an increase with such poor canal availability for two years whatever formula one applies. 

 

5 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

I honestly think that will sound the death of pleasure/holiday cruising Ian, the mood amongst many appears  low with two years of stoppages. Boats have dropped in price  too. 
 

It will be interesting to see if the stoppages have led to a longer life for some gates, helping in a tiny way maintenance issues. 
 

Must say marina fill rate varies a lot. Yes honeypot areas, long lengths no locks are very full but others are not full. 

Its hard to justify such an increase with such poor canal availability for two years whatever formula one applies. 

 

But it's the same license cost overall as boaters are paying now, just "fairer" (which is what the NBTA are demanding, isn't it?) -- so why should this "...sound the death..." of anything?

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

The 9%/10%/12% issue is a red herring. It is a fixed charge which the marina pays to CRT, whether 0% occupied, 100% occupied, or anywhere in between (or indeed over 100% occupied if the marina manages to squeeze in more boats than the agreed nominal capacity).

So if a marina takes an extra boat, there is no extra income to CRT beyond the standard home moorer licence fee. Unlike a boat on an end of garden, farmers field or CRT online mooring, or a continuous cruiser paying the higher licence fee, all of whom contribute extra to CRT.

25 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The 9%/10%/12% issue is a red herring. It is a fixed charge which the marina pays to CRT, whether 0% occupied, 100% occupied, or anywhere in between (or indeed over 100% occupied if the marina manages to squeeze in more boats than the agreed nominal capacity).

So if a marina takes an extra boat, there is no extra income to CRT beyond the standard home moorer licence fee. Unlike a boat on an end of garden, farmers field or CRT online mooring, or a continuous cruiser paying the higher licence fee, all of whom contribute extra to CRT.

The issue isn't what happens when the marina takes in an extra boat (or not), it's what fraction of the marina income from mooring fees goes to CRT -- which, like income from license fees, is then used to maintain the canals.

 

If the marina is 100% full then 9% of the mooring fee goes to CRT; if it's less full then a bigger fraction goes to CRT -- so from the "is it fair?" NBTA point of view, 9% is their "best case" for comparison with the CC surcharge, anything bigger makes their case look even worse.

 

And it's easy to show that in terms of total amount of money flowing out of the boater's pockets and into CRT's pockets, CCers are certainly paying less on average than HMers today (15% CC surcharge) and will still be paying a bit less in 2028 (25% CC surcharge).

 

So if CRT want to get rid of the CC surcharge and the 9% marina precept and increase the standard license fee without increasing the overall amount paid by boaters -- 75% of who are HMers and 25% CCers IIRC -- they would need to calculate how much this increase should be. In 2028 it looks like this would be something around 30% (compared to 25% CC surcharge/9% HM precept). Marina mooring fees would drop by 9% with the removal of the precept -- and this would have to be enforced as a condition of their license.

 

Which means that CCers would pay a bit more to CRT than with the existing system and HMers a (rather smaller) amount less -- but then there's no possible argument about "fairness" since all boaters (CC or HM) would pay exactly the same license fee (with variations for boat size, obviously).

 

In fact there's then absolutely no need to distinguish between the two categories any more, which would hopefully remove a lot of the "CCer vs HMer" anger, including arguments about how much they "use" the system and whether this is a good or a bad thing -- there would just be "boaters"... 🙂 

 

I can't see why the NBTA who perpetually bang on about "fairness" could *possibly* object to this, surely it would be giving them exactly what they say they want... 😉 

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

I'm sure no marina operators would reduce their mooring fees if CRT removed the fee from marinas.

 

18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The 9%/10%/12% issue is a red herring. It is a fixed charge which the marina pays to CRT, whether 0% occupied, 100% occupied, or anywhere in between (or indeed over 100% occupied if the marina manages to squeeze in more boats than the agreed nominal capacity).

So if a marina takes an extra boat, there is no extra income to CRT beyond the standard

Quite so David ,  and I would suggest the cost of collecting the 'fee' from business is a lot less than chasing say 100 individual boatowners.

 

Ians argument ignores the main reason AIUI, for the CC surcharge, that CCers use more resources/cost CRT more...

 

the NBTA argument may be "fairer" for the 25% ccers they allude to represent, but the other 75% may disagree. Well actually there is no "may" about it as that has been the result of every survey or consultation CRT have run  those without home moorings should pay more...

16 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

I'm sure no marina operators would reduce their mooring fees if CRT removed the fee from marinas.

They would if CRT made it a condition of their license.

13 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

 

Quite so David ,  and I would suggest the cost of collecting the 'fee' from business is a lot less than chasing say 100 individual boatowners.

 

Ians argument ignores the main reason AIUI, for the CC surcharge, that CCers use more resources/cost CRT more...

 

the NBTA argument may be "fairer" for the 25% ccers they allude to represent, but the other 75% may disagree. Well actually there is no "may" about it as that has been the result of every survey or consultation CRT have run  those without home moorings should pay more...

CRT don't need to "chase individual boatowners", boaters already pay their license fee to CRT. It would actually make thing simpler for CRT, no need to change boaters different amounts depending on whether they have a mooring or not.

 

I'm ignoring that argument because it's contentious and a matter of opinion not fact; CCers say they should pay less because they keep the system running by travelling around, HMers say they wear it out more for the same reason -- and anyway most of them don't move much anyway, they're really CMers...

 

So get rid of the distinction entirely, then none of this matters any more... 🙂 

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

They would if CRT made it a condition of their license.

Who's license ? CRT can't force a business to charge or not charge something. 

9 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Who's license ? CRT can't force a business to charge or not charge something. 

Marinas are licensed by CRT to be allowed to access the canals. If CRT stop charging the 9% precept, they can require marinas to show that they have passed on this 9% saving to boaters in order to keep their license.

 

AFAIK this wouldn't take any legislation, it's purely a transaction between the two parties. Today if a marina doesn't pay the 9% precept (except for a few historical exceptions) they're not allowed to access the canal; the new condition would be that unless they pass the 9% saving on to boaters via lower mooring fees, they're not allowed to access the canal. It's no skin off their noses, they'll make exactly the same profit they do today -- but I agree there needs to be a way of stopping them just pocketing the 9%. It can't be beyond the wit of man -- or CRT -- to find a way to make this happen... 😉 

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Marinas are licensed by CRT. If CRT stop charging the precept, they can require marinas to show that they have passed on this saving to boaters in order to keep their license.

Well for starters its not a licence it's an agreement so a legal contract. I rather think CRT trying to dictate what another business charges  would be illegal.  Add in the not insignificant extra cost to CRT of now chasing all the individual boat owners and I would say its simply a none starter.

Surely as as been demonstrated many times the root issue is CRT not enforcing the bona fide navigation requirement coupled with not being unequivocal about that requirement..

 

Your suggestion to remove the distinction is surely a recipe for miles of permanently moored boats as cheap accommodation isn't it ? 

18 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Add in the not insignificant extra cost to CRT of now chasing all the individual boat owners and I would say its simply a none starter.

 

If it is collected through everyone having the same licence fee then why would there be an impact on costs of collection?

40 minutes ago, IanD said:

The issue isn't what happens when the marina takes in an extra boat (or not), it's what fraction of the marina income from mooring fees goes to CRT -- which, like income from license fees, is then used to maintain the canals.

Why is the fraction of a marina's income from mooring fees relevant to the question at all? Marinas are commercial businesses, with a whole range of costs which they have to cover out of income from their customers (which include moorers, those having work done on their boats, chandlery and cafe income etc. depending on what services the marina provides). The fact that one of the business costs is a charge to access CRT's waters, which is determined by the size of the marina, is irrelevant to boaters, since they never see that cost explicitly, it is simply part of their overall mooring charge.

Boatyards that rent their premises from CRT (as several do) make rental payments that are assessed on a different basis, and may amount to less or more than 9% of their theoretical maximum mooring income.

25 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

I rather think CRT trying to dictate what another business charges  would be illegal.

 

What if they are told that they cease to pay a charge for network access going forward, but this offer is conditional on demonstrating a mooring fee reduction in year one. Surely that would appeal to them.

 

Of course in subsequent years mooring rates would drift with market forces.

Edited September 7Sep 7 by alias

38 minutes ago, IanD said:

They would if CRT made it a condition of their license.

CRT can't dictate what a private business charges it's customers. In theory mooring rates are determined by market forces,  although I expect that market isn't particularly responsive to changes in supply and demand or mooring providers' costs.

26 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Your suggestion to remove the distinction is surely a recipe for miles of permanently moored boats as cheap accommodation isn't it ? 

It would take us back to the situation before the introduction of higher licence fees for CCers (and widebeams), which did indeed lead to a proliferation of little-moving boats on towpath moorings.

 

28 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Surely as as been demonstrated many times the root issue is CRT not enforcing the bona fide navigation requirement coupled with not being unequivocal about that requirement..

Indeed. It is a consequence of the vague wording of the 1995 Act, which was a last minute concession to objectors, to get the Bill through parliament and onto the statute book. If only that wording had been better thought through we might have had a 'continuous cruising' regime over the last 30 years that was enforceable and better met the objectives it was intended to provide for.

CRT's problem, and BW's before that, is that attempts to be more prescriptive about the movement requirement have been struck down in the courts, and attempts to deal with the worst offenders have been costly and protracted. And a position has been allowed to develop where not staying in any one place for more than 14 days (as the Act requires) is now interpreted as staying in every place visited for 14 days (or more if you can get away with it). And accompanied by a vocal group of notional (but in the main not actual) CCers who have objected to such enforcement as CRT are trying to carry out, to the extent that they have persuaded a member of the House of Lords to propose a Bill which would effectively nullify the 1995 Act's CCing requirements.

As the introduction to last year's CRT Commission noted, CRT have concluded that any change to the current accepted CCing practice will require legislative change, and the government appetite for such legislation is uncertain.

26 minutes ago, David Mack said:

CRT can't dictate what a private business charges it's customers. In theory mooring rates are determined by market forces,  although I expect that market isn't particularly responsive to changes in supply and demand or mooring providers' costs.

It would take us back to the situation before the introduction of higher licence fees for CCers (and widebeams), which did indeed lead to a proliferation of little-moving boats on towpath moorings.

 

Indeed. It is a consequence of the vague wording of the 1995 Act, which was a last minute concession to objectors, to get the Bill through parliament and onto the statute book. If only that wording had been better thought through we might have had a 'continuous cruising' regime over the last 30 years that was enforceable and better met the objectives it was intended to provide for.

CRT's problem, and BW's before that, is that attempts to be more prescriptive about the movement requirement have been struck down in the courts, and attempts to deal with the worst offenders have been costly and protracted. And a position has been allowed to develop where not staying in any one place for more than 14 days (as the Act requires) is now interpreted as staying in every place visited for 14 days (or more if you can get away with it). And accompanied by a vocal group of notional (but in the main not actual) CCers who have objected to such enforcement as CRT are trying to carry out, to the extent that they have persuaded a member of the House of Lords to propose a Bill which would effectively nullify the 1995 Act's CCing requirements.

As the introduction to last year's CRT Commission noted, CRT have concluded that any change to the current accepted CCing practice will require legislative change, and the government appetite for such legislation is uncertain.

The market should be dictated by market forces but with most of the marinas now being owned by Aquavista or Abc they can control it themselves

2 hours ago, alias said:

 

If it is collected through everyone having the same licence fee then why would there be an impact on costs of collection?

Think about it...  a marina with 100 boats...  CRT will collect their access charge quarterly direct from the marina. Very simple, easy to administer, Versus chasing 100 individual boaters, with no incentive for the marina operator to help,   lots of chasing debtors, changes of ownership etc etc.... 

 

Who do you think is going to pay for all the extra admin ? 

2 hours ago, alias said:

 

What if they are told that they cease to pay a charge for network access going forward, but this offer is conditional on demonstrating a mooring fee reduction in year one. Surely that would appeal to them.

 

Of course in subsequent years mooring rates would drift with market forces.

Marina A accepts and does that marina B doesn't ? What do the boaters in marina b pay CRT ? Completely unworkable...

30 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

Think about it...  a marina with 100 boats...  CRT will collect their access charge quarterly direct from the marina. Very simple, easy to administer, Versus chasing 100 individual boaters, with no incentive for the marina operator to help,   lots of chasing debtors, changes of ownership etc etc.... 

 

Surly they just do away with the CC surcharge and increase everyone's licence by X amount, no more chasing debtors than there is now, I doubt many licence evaders are paying marinas 

52 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Surly they just do away with the CC surcharge and increase everyone's licence by X amount, no more chasing debtors than there is now, I doubt many licence evaders are paying marinas 

Exactly what I said -- less admin for CRT than today, not more... 🙂

 

I can't help suspecting that those objecting to this may well be CCers who don't want to admit that even with the CC surcharge they're  currently contributing less overall to CRT than HMers are -- in direct opposition to what NBTA claim... 😉

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

4 hours ago, IanD said:

CRT don't need to "chase individual boatowners", boaters already pay their license fee to CRT.

 

 

Do they?

 

I thought it was closer to 85% of boaters pay their license fee, and 15% evade it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Do they?

 

I thought it was closer to 85% of boaters pay their license fee, and 15% evade it.

 

 

Still doesn't change the fact that getting rid of the CC surcharge and the 9% marina precept and having the same license fee for all boaters means less CRT admin not more. Evasion doesn't change this...

Edited September 7Sep 7 by IanD

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Surly they just do away with the CC surcharge and increase everyone's licence by X amount, no more chasing debtors than there is now, I doubt many licence evaders are paying marinas 

yes that makes sense, if you think increasing everyones licence fee is the answer  and 'fair', but still leaves the problem of how do CRT police the continuous moorers/pisstakers ?

 

and where does this leave non marina people who pay mooring fees - EOG/Farmers fields, waterside moorings etc....  and indeed how should CRT (rightfully) charge marina operators (and indeed me) 'mooring' charges or would we all be happy for our licence fees to be increased further and all CRT* mooring fees done away with ? 

 

This is all a complete red herring IMO.  The simple answer is clear and unambiguous CC rules and effective enforcement and simple licence fee structure isn't it ?

 

to be fair @IanD hi-jacked @Bristolfashion original post which was simply questioning the basis of the NAA charge. 

 

to that end, i agree with IanD and just for the record i have no interest one way or the other as I'm technically a 'mooring operator' - albeit small scale and don't have a NAA, but do have a mooring agreement and they do refer to me as a 'licencee' which i hadn't really noticed until i just looked at my 'mooring agreement' document a few minutes ago.  

 

* obviously people could choose to pay 'marina fees' as well as the CRT licence fee, for the facilities the marina/mooring provider offer. so then we have to have the concept of home moorings still....   

 

to me, and i'm open to persuasion, clear rules and effective enforcement of those rules for  those with home moorings and continuous cruisers seems like the only system that can work.  

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Still doesn't change the fact that getting rid of the CC surcharge and the 9% marina precept and having the same license fee for all boaters means less CRT admin not more. Evasion doesn't change this...

quite so, but as i have shown this introduces a whole new set of problems, unless the fundamental issue of clear rules and effective enforcement are addressed at the same time.  you can't simply stop charging one set of boaters a 'mooring fee' (the precept) and not all the others.  

 

what your actually saying is get rid of the CC surcharge AND all CRT mooring licences and increase all boat licences by an amount that gives the same overall income .... not easy...  

Edited September 7Sep 7 by jonathanA
sp

13 hours ago, David Mack said:

Why is the fraction of a marina's income from mooring fees relevant to the question at all? Marinas are commercial businesses, with a whole range of costs which they have to cover out of income from their customers (which include moorers, those having work done on their boats, chandlery and cafe income etc. depending on what services the marina provides). The fact that one of the business costs is a charge to access CRT's waters, which is determined by the size of the marina, is irrelevant to boaters, since they never see that cost explicitly, it is simply part of their overall mooring charge.

Boatyards that rent their premises from CRT (as several do) make rental payments that are assessed on a different basis, and may amount to less or more than 9% of their theoretical maximum mooring income.

Indeed.  There are some doubtful economics in the suggestions.

 

Ultimately, the costs of accessing the canals etc is a burden on the land.  A bare field otherwise suitable for a marina would have a lesser value if there is to be an additional expense in securing access than otherwise.

 

Similarly to say that the boater pays the 9% is mistaken.  They don't pay more or less depending on the NAA - the mooring fee is a function of supply and demand, not the total of the providers costs.

 

It is unrealistic to think that CRT could enforce a reduction in marina charges below market rates.  Would this be below the rates charged by others who don't pay the NAA?  That's not going to be popular with the competing providers.

1 hour ago, Tacet said:

Indeed.  There are some doubtful economics in the suggestions.

 

Ultimately, the costs of accessing the canals etc is a burden on the land.  A bare field otherwise suitable for a marina would have a lesser value if there is to be an additional expense in securing access than otherwise.

 

Similarly to say that the boater pays the 9% is mistaken.  They don't pay more or less depending on the NAA - the mooring fee is a function of supply and demand, not the total of the providers costs.

 

It is unrealistic to think that CRT could enforce a reduction in marina charges below market rates.  Would this be below the rates charged by others who don't pay the NAA?  That's not going to be popular with the competing providers.

If you think "the boater doesn't pay the 9%", can you explain who does and where the money to pay this comes from?

 

The marina has income from boaters who pay mooring fees -- let's take my figure of £3600/year (£300pcm), which is more than 3x the CRT license fee. Of this 9% (or more if the marina is not 100% occupied) goes straight back out to CRT, which is £324/year, leaving the marina with £3276 income to run their business. That's how accounts work -- the money isn't coloured to say it's mine or CRTs, it's just money in and money out.

 

Please explain how this is in any *meaningful* way different to CART increasing my license fee by £324/year and the marina reducing the mooring fee correspondingly to £3276/year -- everyone concerned (me, marina CRT) is in *exactly* the same financial position they are today.

 

My CRT license fee for the coming year is £1063, so £324 is 30% of this. If I was a CCer instead the surcharge this year would be 15% (£160/year), rising to 25% (£266/year) in 2028. So as a HMer I'm making a bigger contribution to CRT funding (used to run the canals) than I would as a CCer.

 

How is this "fair"?

 

The "market rates" for mooring fees would drop by 9%; any marinas who didn't do this would lose business to whose who did, regardless of whether CRT can apply any pressure to the marina -- which I'm sure they could, for example by only agreeing to remove the precept from marinas who can show they are lowering mooring fees, this could be shown as a 9% discount on the invoices to boaters.

Edited September 8Sep 8 by IanD