BW advisory forum - blimey

[magnetman]

A lot,but not all, of ccers are retired on a fixed income or the poorer of society. What are they going to do when they can't pay the licence fees? Food & fuel will come first, no money for licences at the end of the year.

Sue

 

Some people who can no longer afford to pay their mortgage are in danger of losing their home to repossession, why would boats be any different? If you can't afford it you don't have it. Or should certain boaters somehow be protected from increased costs?

 

At the end of the day, selling your house and buying a boat is a very risky thing to do.

[carlt]

I like this bit from BW regarding wharfs.

 

"Britain is covered with castles that were built in medieval times when people had to protect themselves from invaders, but there are no longer battles, and no one is suggesting that we restore them to their original function. Why should it be different for canals?

And myself and my family are free to visit many hundreds of them, publicly owned and maintained, for our £69 (iirc) pa English Heritage licence.

 

Of course, if people needed to use the castles, for their original purpose, like boatyards and wharves, then they would be restored, and retained, by the MOD (Dymchurch Redoubt, for example)

Edited September 6, 2008 by carlt

[sociable_hermit]

And myself and my family are free to visit many hundreds of them, publicly owned and maintained, for our £69 (iirc) pa English Heritage licence.

 

Of course, if people needed to use the castles, for their original purpose, like boatyards and wharves, then they would be restored, and retained, by the MOD (Dymchurch Redoubt, for example)

 

Heheh, that's an excellent point!

[greywolf]

A lot,but not all, of ccers are retired on a fixed income or the poorer of society. What are they going to do when they can't pay the licence fees? Food & fuel will come first, no money for licences at the end of the year.

Sue

 

Agreed,if they were quite properly seen as homes, as well as boats then the license fee might be picked up by the government/council.Margret thatcher said she wanted Victorian values to come back and successive governments have continued her brief, off to the poor house with them! Very sad state of affairs.

[John Orentas]

I was present at one of those meetings held by Robin Evans earlier in the year.. Ostensibly they were to sound out the opinions of users, canal societies and traders..

 

The tone of those meetings was very different to what we are being told now, but is it possible that there will be an announcement of these new severe measures beginning with words something like, "After full consultation with all concerned ................."

 

If I remember the consensus of the meeting (no minutes were published) was that ways should be sought to spread the cost of the canal system among all users and not simply to yet again target the boaters.

Edited September 6, 2008 by John Orentas

[Mark L]

Just to note, most hire boat companies average out between 18 and 25 weeks hire per year. They already pay a very large premium over other boaters fees- as you would expect.

 

However, unlike CCer's, they don't use the system 52 weeks of the year.... so in that respect, I can see that people who don't have a home mooring (and hence saving costs in that area) might be considered for paying a premium, as they do use the services more.

 

I am not quite so sure about the broad beam costings though- as the cruising range is already restricted.

 

Mark

[saltysplash]

Just to note, most hire boat companies average out between 18 and 25 weeks hire per year. They already pay a very large premium over other boaters fees- as you would expect.

 

However, unlike CCer's, they don't use the system 52 weeks of the year.... so in that respect, I can see that people who don't have a home mooring (and hence saving costs in that area) might be considered for paying a premium, as they do use the services more.

 

I am not quite so sure about the broad beam costings though- as the cruising range is already restricted.

 

Mark

 

 

But surely, CC'ers already pay for the use of those services through the licence fee. We all pay (or should pay) for the use of those services.

 

Just coz 1 uses them more than the other shouldnt mean they have to pay more. We all pay our road fund licence but not everyone does the same milage every year.

 

Should I get a reduction in my TV licence because I never watch BBC channels?

 

If this 'advisory forum' is committed to a fairer licensing system and not just, as i suspect, being peevish about 1 section of boaters using the services more than others, then they should be looking at a system fairer to all, inc folk who never move their boats and CCers.

 

As for widebeams having to pay more for being unable to use the whole system!!! whats all that about?

 

Surely, Under the proposals that CC'ers should pay more as they use the sevices more, Shouldnt the wide beams pay less for not being able to use the services?

 

 

Its all crazey

[Mark L]

But surely, CC'ers already pay for the use of those services through the licence fee. We all pay (or should pay) for the use of those services.

 

Just coz 1 uses them more than the other shouldnt mean they have to pay more. We all pay our road fund licence but not everyone does the same milage every year.

 

Should I get a reduction in my TV licence because I never watch BBC channels?

 

If this 'advisory forum' is committed to a fairer licensing system and not just, as i suspect, being peevish about 1 section of boaters using the services more than others, then they should be looking at a system fairer to all, inc folk who never move their boats and CCers.

 

As for widebeams having to pay more for being unable to use the whole system!!! whats all that about?

 

Surely, Under the proposals that CC'ers should pay more as they use the sevices more, Shouldnt the wide beams pay less for not being able to use the services?

 

 

Its all crazey

 

If you go down that route, would you want to take all the boaters income (commercial, non-commercial, shared ownership, etc) and divided it equally? Then there would be a massive increase for most private boaters...!

 

(editied for crap spelling!)

Edited September 6, 2008 by Mark L

[alan_fincher]

As for widebeams having to pay more for being unable to use the whole system!!! whats all that about?

 

Yes, but if you make how much of the system they can access part of licence pricing, then a 72 foot narrowboat should pay less than a 62 foot narrowboat which in turn should pay less than a 57 foot narrowboat.

 

And let's really hammer anyone who can get through that 40 foot lock, wherever it is.

 

I want a discount because my weed hatch is so poor, I daren't go down any of the more weed infested bits of the BCN.

[carlt]

I draw 4 foot, can I have a discount please? Or, if they can dredge the canals to their original depth, widen all the canal system to 14' and increase the air draught to accommodate my fixed wheelhouse, I'll happily pay the full licence.

 

I don't see how they can charge more for a boat that can't access the whole product.

[saltysplash]

Yes, but if you make how much of the system they can access part of licence pricing, then a 72 foot narrowboat should pay less than a 62 foot narrowboat which in turn should pay less than a 57 foot narrowboat.

 

And let's really hammer anyone who can get through that 40 foot lock, wherever it is.

 

I want a discount because my weed hatch is so poor, I daren't go down any of the more weed infested bits of the BCN.

 

 

Which i think is realy my point, The current licence system is probably as fair as it can be.

 

All private boats pay the same if they choose to use the services or not.

 

Slamming CCers just coz they have the ability to use that which is provided is just simply not british.

[saltysplash]

If you go down that route, would you want to take all the boaters income (commercial, non-commercial, shared ownership, etc) and divided it equally? Then there would be a massive increase for most private boaters...!

 

(editied for crap spelling!)

 

 

I have no doubt that the costs involved for hire companies are staggering, but the representatives of these companies should be working with the private boat representatives for a fairer deal for all. Not just beeing peevish and pointing the finger at another section of boats and saying "they dont pay enough"

 

If BW adopt these proposals it may well be that they see an exodus off the system either onto land or other waters which in turn will then further increase the demand for cash by BW on the commercial companies.

[Nightwatch]

if BW want to see another £5,000,000 per annum, and there are 28500 boats on the register, doesn't that mean an increase of just £4.00 per week per boat?

[carlt]

if BW want to see another £5,000,000 per annum, and there are 28500 boats on the register, doesn't that mean an increase of just £4.00 per week per boat?

Or £200 pa. I think many would disagree with your dismissive "just".

[Big John]

if BW want to see another £5,000,000 per annum, and there are 28500 boats on the register, doesn't that mean an increase of just £4.00 per week per boat?

Rather than accepting BW/BWAF's divide and rule philosophy, shouldn't all users be getting together to challenge BW's desire to increase income from boaters from £13 to 18 million? Surely this is a misuse of their monopoly?

The board of a state-monopoly company that decides to penalise its customers because of its inability to run a profitable company, should be challenged. Is there any scope for a challenge to the Ombudsman?

Edited September 6, 2008 by Big John

[gaggle]

divided we fall.

[Tiller Slave]

Perhaps if the contributors ACTUALLY read the BWAF report and BW's response to it before commenting on it a more useful debate could result.

 

Here is the link again:http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Boat_Licensing_Paper_5_September_2008.pdf

 

See especially page 4, with the table for the various options.

 

 

What it boils down to is IF Continuous Cruisers and Broad beam boats pay more everyone else will have a much reduced % increase!

 

In other words is it fair for the bulk of ordinary boaters to effectively subsidise the others?

Or would it be fairer for Continuous Cruisers and wider boats to pay a slightly higher fee and keep everyone else cost increase down?

 

As the report explains commercial boats i.e hire craft already pay 2.35 x as much as a private boat and MUST have a permanent mooring for which BW receives revenue- BUT are only in use an average of 18 weeks per year, while live-aboard cc's enjoy the waterways for 52 weeks and do not pay for a mooring !

[carlt]

Perhaps if the contributors ACTUALLY read the BWAF report and BW's response to it before commenting on it a more useful debate could result.

 

Here is the link again:http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/documents/Boat_Licensing_Paper_5_September_2008.pdf

 

See especially page 4, with the table for the various options.

 

 

What it boils down to is IF Continuous Cruisers and Broad beam boats pay more everyone else will have a much reduced % increase!

 

In other words is it fair for the bulk of ordinary boaters to effectively subsidise the others?

Or would it be fairer for Continuous Cruisers and wider boats to pay a slightly higher fee and keep everyone else cost increase down?

 

As the report explains commercial boats i.e hire craft already pay 2.35 x as much as a private boat and MUST have a permanent mooring for which BW receives revenue- BUT are only in use an average of 18 weeks per year, while live-aboard cc's enjoy the waterways for 52 weeks and do not pay for a mooring !

How patronising! Just because someone may disagree with your point of view doesn't make them less informed.

 

I fail to see how you, however informed you are, can reach the conclusion that wide beam boats should pay more. They are already, effectively, subsidising the users of the parts of the system that they can't access.

 

Marina moorers have the option of using the system 52 weeks per year as do online moorers. They are paying for the mooring, not the canal usage, this is covered by the licence fee.

 

As Gaggle says, divided we fall.

[Tiller Slave]

Your reply perfectly illustrates my point!

 

Try reading the report before sounding off about it!

[GUMPY]

What it boils down to is IF Continuous Cruisers and Broad beam boats pay more everyone else will have a much reduced % increase!

 

In other words is it fair for the bulk of ordinary boaters to effectively subsidise the others?

Or would it be fairer for Continuous Cruisers and wider boats to pay a slightly higher fee and keep everyone else cost increase down?

 

I have read it and do understand it!

Thrre should be no subsidy at all we should all pay the same.

Personally I favour a usage scheme so the more miles and locks you do the more you pay since for me BW waters are just where I keep the barge and a route to get to other waters.

Having said that there is NO justification to charge boats over 2.1m more as they do not cause any more wear on the system and cannot use the full system anyway.

Has anyone actually worked out what 2.1m is in feet and inches? No, well its 6ft10 which will mean that many boats that thought that they would get away with the cheaper rate wont if BW follow it to the letter.

Have BW decided that 2.1m is the new gauge of the narrow canal system not 7ft1 as it always was?

 

J

[carlt]

Your reply perfectly illustrates my point!

 

Try reading the report before sounding off about it!

I have read it thank you.

[blackrose]

What it boils down to is IF Continuous Cruisers and Broad beam boats pay more everyone else will have a much reduced % increase!

 

In other words is it fair for the bulk of ordinary boaters to effectively subsidise the others?

Or would it be fairer for Continuous Cruisers and wider boats to pay a slightly higher fee and keep everyone else cost increase down?

 

You really believe that if CCers and widebeams pay more then it will keep everyone else's costs down? Dream on...

 

Edit: By the way, if narrow boats are subsidising widebeams, then by the same token widebeams are also subsidising narrow boats because WBs are already paying for large parts of the system which only NBs can access.

Edited September 9, 2008 by blackrose

[Tiller Slave]

I have read it and do understand it!

Thrre should be no subsidy at all we should all pay the same.

Personally I favour a usage scheme so the more miles and locks you do the more you pay since for me BW waters are just where I keep the barge and a route to get to other waters.

Having said that there is NO justification to charge boats over 2.1m more as they do not cause any more wear on the system and cannot use the full system anyway.

Has anyone actually worked out what 2.1m is in feet and inches? No, well its 6ft10 which will mean that many boats that thought that they would get away with the cheaper rate wont if BW follow it to the letter.

Have BW decided that 2.1m is the new gauge of the narrow canal system not 7ft1 as it always was?

 

J

 

Are you arguing for a flat rate for all boats?-

 

Good for big boats not so good for small ones!

[magnetman]

How patronising! Just because someone may disagree with your point of view doesn't make them less informed.

 

I fail to see how you, however informed you are, can reach the conclusion that wide beam boats should pay more. They are already, effectively, subsidising the users of the parts of the system that they can't access.

 

Marina moorers have the option of using the system 52 weeks per year as do online moorers. They are paying for the mooring, not the canal usage, this is covered by the licence fee.

 

As Gaggle says, divided we fall.

 

There is residential use of the canal system and there is leisure use of the canal system.

These two useage patterns will never comfortably co-exist and the fact that one appears to be a parasite relying on the other is what pisses some people off and these people have user groups and get involved.

[carlt]

Are you arguing for a flat rate for all boats?-

You're absolutely right.

 

It's high time Wide beam owners started campaigning for a reduction in their licence. By your reckoning they can't use the system as much as narrow boats, so they should pay less.

 

 

There is residential use of the canal system and there is leisure use of the canal system.

These two useage patterns will never comfortably co-exist and the fact that one appears to be a parasite relying on the other is what pisses some people off and these people have user groups and get involved.

Which are you then?

 

I suspect that, like me, you were an enthusiast to the point of obsession (leisure) who made it your home (residential).

 

The two patterns of usage peacefully co-existing.