BW advisory forum - blimey

[Boaty Jo]

You'd better have a look at breaking news on Narrowboatworld.

[fender]

You'd better have a look at breaking news on Narrowboatworld.

 

You mean here?

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/breaking.html

 

Seems its been 'hidden' away from the main home page!

[Chris Pink]

interesting the headline is 'bleak news for boaters' but they can hardly suppress their glee in the body of the article.

 

Does anyone know how the procedure works, BW advisory forum to.... what other stages are there before recommendations become fact?

[fender]

interesting the headline is 'bleak news for boaters' but they can hardly suppress their glee in the body of the article.

 

I agree, no doubt it was full of 'hooray this' and 'hooray that.'

 

Their rabble rousing isnt far off from that of a meglomaniac despot who began WW2.

[carlt]

The "9%" of the mooring fee going direct to BW bit is intriguing. I assume this must be an average.

 

100% of every online moorer's fee goes to BW so that must make the contribution from marina moorers fees pretty tiny.

 

Maybe, in the interests of fairness, the online mooring fee should be reduced to the percentage paid, to BW, by the private marina moorer.

[mayalld]

The "9%" of the mooring fee going direct to BW bit is intriguing. I assume this must be an average.

 

100% of every online moorer's fee goes to BW so that must make the contribution from marina moorers fees pretty tiny.

 

Maybe, in the interests of fairness, the online mooring fee should be reduced to the percentage paid, to BW, by the private marina moorer.

 

100% of every online moorers fee?

 

I think not! There are online moorers on non-BW moorings.

[carlt]

100% of every online moorers fee?

 

I think not! There are online moorers on non-BW moorings.

Unless they are paying the owner, as if it were a marina, then they'll be paying an offside mooring to BW.

 

British Waterways don't care what you are paying the landowner, if it is treated as an EOG. They just want their off-side fee (100% of it)

[mayalld]

Unless they are paying the owner, as if it were a marina, then they'll be paying an offside mooring to BW.

 

British Waterways don't care what you are paying the landowner, if it is treated as an EOG. They just want their off-side fee (100% of it)

 

Exactly!

 

There are two kinds of o/s o/l moorings

 

On some, you pay BW for an EOG mooring, and a fee to the landowner. On others, you pay the landowner, and the landowner pays BW a proportion.

[carlt]

Exactly!

 

There are two kinds of o/s o/l moorings

 

On some, you pay BW for an EOG mooring, and a fee to the landowner. On others, you pay the landowner, and the landowner pays BW a proportion.

I would guess that the huge majority of online moorings are either BW owned or treated as EOG.

 

I know our local farmer has made it quite clear that he can't be doing with the expense and hassle of dealing with BW.

 

The point (beyond the nit-picking) I'm making is that the marina moorer makes a much smaller contribution, in mooring fees, to BW than the majority of on-line moorers. Much closer to the ccer, in fact.

 

This disparity is rarely mentioned. But the "Let's hammer the ccers" lobby is always calling for fairness.

[tidal]

Can someone please tell me who ARE the BWAF?

What is their mandate?

Who created them?

 

Net searches come up with LOTS of minutes but few details

[stickleback]

Of course, BW has to maintain the online moorings, banks and towpath - while the marina owners pay to maintain the marinas. Which means that marina moorers are paying the marina owners - why should they pay a second time to BW?

Stickleback.

[tony collins]

The "9%" of the mooring fee going direct to BW bit is intriguing. I assume this must be an average.

 

Exactly. I know some moorings that are on private water, over which BW has no control. Two clubs shares the private arm. If a boat doesn't leave the arm, there is no need for a boat licence. I am pretty certain that neither of the two clubs nor their landlord pays anything to BW.

 

Incidentally it has been reported that some boaters have given BW this arm as their home mooring when it clearly is not. BW monitor the boats in the arm on a regular basis in an attempt to stamp out this fraudulent practice.

 

I am going to the BW AGM on the 8th October, so may learn more then.

 

Tony.

[sociable_hermit]

Carlt - Surely that's the pay off for BW encouraging private marinas - they don't have the money to build them themselves, and probably don't want the hassle either, so they encourage private businesses in to fill the gap (or in this case open one up and fill most of it with water, lol). The 'opportunity cost' of this policy is the loss of mooring revenue. Nothing wrong with that - why should BW cream off more of the marina mooring fees when they haven't really done anything to deserve them?

 

The payment for wear and tear on locks etc. I would regard as part of the BW licence fee, and nothing to do with moorings. Although the number of boats is increasing this should be matched by the increasing revenue from the licences on those boats - there won't be a maintainence gap as a consequence of having more boats around unless BW have got their licence fees badly wrong (although sadly that's quite possible, thinking about it). CCers are more likely to be moving around regularly wearing out the canals (outrageous!) so perhaps their licences should be more expensive compared to boats with moorings - I don't know whether this is true at the moment (??).

 

The real issue here is that BW has been asset-stripped and mismanaged for decades for the direct benefit of politicians and the indirect benefit of all taxpayers, through reduced taxes and/or cross-subsidies to other public agencies. So why, when everyone benefitted, could the process not be reversed so that now, everyone pays? Everyone benefits -> boaters pay the shortfall seems like a very crappy deal to me

[carlt]

Of course, BW has to maintain the online moorings, banks and towpath - while the marina owners pay to maintain the marinas. Which means that marina moorers are paying the marina owners - why should they pay a second time to BW?

Stickleback.

Do marina moorers not use the towpath or banks? In nearly 10 years they never carried out one shred of maintenance, on my BW online mooring.

 

If a boat never leaves a marina then they can use that argument. I know some boaters who maintain a marina mooring but haven't actually seen it for years, essentially continuously cruising.

[Tim Lewis]

The "9%" of the mooring fee going direct to BW bit is intriguing. I assume this must be an average.

 

100% of every online moorer's fee goes to BW so that must make the contribution from marina moorers fees pretty tiny.

 

Maybe, in the interests of fairness, the online mooring fee should be reduced to the percentage paid, to BW, by the private marina moorer.

 

The 9% refers to the Network Access Agreement fee that marinas pay. details here

 

Tim

[carlt]

CCers are more likely to be moving around regularly wearing out the canals (outrageous!) so perhaps their licences should be more expensive compared to boats with moorings - I don't know whether this is true at the moment (??).

You go and operate a lock that hasn't been used all winter and then one that has been regularly used by ccers, who travel as much as stoppages allow, and then tell me which one requires maintenance.

 

The one thing that leads to dereliction, quicker than anything else, is lack of use.

 

 

The 9% refers to the Network Access Agreement fee that marinas pay. details here

 

Tim

So it is still a lot closer to the 0% that ccers pay, than the 100% that most onliners pay.

[mayalld]

So it is still a lot closer to the 0% that ccers pay, than the 100% that most onliners pay.

 

Whilst I don't dispute the fact that somebody on an online BW mooring pays more into BW coffers than somebody in a marina, it is a little disingenuous to compare percentages without considering that a small percentage of a large number isn't as far apart from a large percentage of a small number as quoting percentages out of context appears!

 

[note to self - rewrite that in English!]

 

Let us consider 4 hypothetical moorings.

• Unserviced BW mooring - £1,000 per annum
  
• Serviced BW mooring - £1,500 per annum
  
• Marina mooring - £2,000 per annum
  
• EOG Mooring - £500 per annum
  

Now clearly, each fee includes an element to BW, but let us consider this a little more deeply. BW is a landlord (of more things than moorings), and has an expectation of making an income from letting its property (just like the private landlord), so we need to give consideration to the fact that when considering the contribution that a mooring makes to BW's coffers, we should consider only the "levy" that BW applies to moorings, rather than the total charge. In effect, we build a chinese wall between rental income and levy income.

 

As such, we can identify, for the on-line moorings, that the levy element is £500 paid for an EOG mooring, and that the landlords rental income is the £500-£1,000 that they get for actually providing the mooring.

 

On that basis, the 9% means that the marina moorer is paying £180 in "levy" to BW. It is indeed considerably less than the £500 paid by the on-line moorer, but not by the margin that you suggest, and reflects the fact that the marina operator is providing BW with a way to reduce the number of craft on the cruising system.

[carlt]

This "reduction of the number of craft on the system" still implies that marina moorers never venture off their moorings.

 

Many online moorers, whether EOG or towpath never move their boats and their little bit of bank is rarely, if ever maintained by BW (EOGs are certainly not).

 

Many marina moorers spend much of their time cruising the system.

 

If BW wishes to operate a "pay as you use" system then loading that onto ccers is not the fair way to do it.

 

Their may be an argument to introduce a toll-type system, similar to the French where, if you ain't moving, you don't pay.

 

Only problem with that is the system would probably lead to most boaters paying less, something BW definitely don't want.

[mayalld]

This "reduction of the number of craft on the system" still implies that marina moorers never venture off their moorings.

 

No, it implies that at any given time, 90% of marina-moored boats are off the system.

[kiki]

I agree, no doubt it was full of 'hooray this' and 'hooray that.'

 

Their rabble rousing isnt far off from that of a meglomaniac despot who began WW2.

 

 

and that meglomanica despot quite possibly had better grammar skills as well!!!

 

Waterways stated it wants an extra £5 millions raising from licence revenue over the next three years, with 9% plus inflation for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

This would bring its licensing income up from the present £13 millions to £18 millions a year

 

 

and that meglomanica despot quite possibly had better grammar skills as well!!!

 

Waterways stated it wants an extra £5 millions raising from licence revenue over the next three years, with 9% plus inflation for 2010, 2011 and 2012.

 

This would bring its licensing income up from the present £13 millions to £18 millions a year

[carlt]

No, it implies that at any given time, 90% of marina-moored boats are off the system.

So what? If the bits of the system the online boats are moored on are never maintained, what's the difference?

[sociable_hermit]

Mooring fees are all about who maintains the mooring. In the case of a Marina the only reason I can think of for BW getting any money at all is because they supply the water (though it gets topped up quite a bit by all of the washing up and shower water, lol).

 

The fact that BW do very little about maintaining BW moorings is something that you'd need to take up with BW.

 

Variable costs influenced by usage, i.e. dredging, lock repairs etc. should come out of the BW licence fee AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MOORINGS.

[Catrin]

Their rabble rousing isnt far off from that of a meglomaniac despot who began WW2.

And it's an unusually early appearance for Godwin's Law in this discussion.....

[carlt]

And it's an unusually early appearance for Godwin's Law in this discussion.....

Isn't raising Godwin's Law specifically, rather than arguing the point, considered bad form and poor debating practice?

[Dominic M]

And it's an unusually early appearance for Godwin's Law in this discussion.....

Quite so. Leave George Formby out of this.