Some bed time reading from BW

[Triton]

http://www.waterwaysworld.com/downloads/bw_licence_paper.pdf

[magnetman]

http://www.waterwaysworld.com/downloads/bw_licence_paper.pdf

interesting reading.

 

why do I get the impression there will be a sudden increase in license application forms declaring that the boat is kept out of the water when not in use

 

I see a loophole

 

[grahoom]

All boats should pay licence fees on a standard basis not related to the type or extent of use [3.10]

We understand this to be consistent with continued application of our current policy. We do not yet

consider it practicable to set charges according to specific extent of usage. However, subject to certain

limitations, BW does have discretion to charge different prices for the use of its waterways by reference

to identifiable classes or groups of vessels or customers. In doing this, we must have reasonable

justification for charging one group a higher or lower level than another. Reasonable justifications

include:

• Evidence that one group incurs higher costs in its use of the waterways.

• An overall increase in consumer welfare - for example, charging a group with a higher willingness to

pay a larger amount than a group with a lower willingness to pay. This is beneficial as it tends to

result in greater participation amongst people with a lower willingness to pay.

 

this bit is brilliant, so I am presuming this is the bit where they feel that CC'ers have a higher willingness to pay a larger amount than non-CC'ers.

 

 

7. Use only strengthened enforcement of mooring rules to prevent ‘continuous mooring [9.16, Option ]

Our current enforcement strategy is to prioritise action against boats without a licence – this is financially

productive. We recognise that more rigorous enforcement of mooring rules is needed in the face of

strongly growing demand for casual extended mooring in a particular neighbourhood, because the

consequences of this mooring demand is to reduce the amenity for cruising boats. However, this

enforcement effort is not financially productive for us, and would require reduced expenditure elsewhere.

We continue to make judgements on competing budgetary claims, but believe that judicious use of

pricing to reduce demand for ‘continuous mooring’ is a better long term solution. We therefore believe

that the impact of Option B would be marginal, and the extra income nil.

 

so in this bit they admit that it's not cost effective for them to enforce moorings, so it's easier to lump an extra charge on people who are declaired CCers than bother dealing with people who are not following the "rules" ? or am i reading this wrong?

[magnetman]

this bit is brilliant, so I am presuming this is the bit where they feel that CC'ers have a higher willingness to pay a larger amount than non-CC'ers.

 

its because CCers are generally (although not always) residential and the boat is their primary residence and as they have no other costs associated with rent, mortgage, council tax etc they are assumed to have a greater willingness to pay than someone who lives in a house, with its associated costs, and spends a proportion of their income on a leisure activity known as boating. It all boils down to trying to discourage residential use of the canal system and encourage leisure use. thats how I see it.

[grahoom]

its because CCers are generally (although not always) residential and the boat is their primary residence and as they have no other costs associated with rent, mortgage, council tax etc they are assumed to have a greater willingness to pay than someone who lives in a house, with its associated costs, and spends a proportion of their income on a leisure activity known as boating. It all boils down to trying to discourage residential use of the canal system and encourage leisure use. thats how I see it.

 

 

ah yes, I read this a bit further down... shouldn't comment until read everything they have to say...

[bottle]

I will be CCing and I definitely do not have the 'willingness to pay'.

[magnetman]

I will be CCing and I definitely do not have the 'willingness to pay'.

If the boat is your primary residence then there is a fairly good chance you actually will have the 'willingness to pay' in the sense that if costs are increased you will pay up rather than leave the system. I get the impression that the term 'Willingness to pay' is used in the sense of the alternative being loss of a customer.

I personally think there is quite a lot more money available to be extracted from residential boaters and that this will be looked at in more detail before long.

 

edited typos

Edited October 21, 2008 by magnetman

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Did they mean greater potential to be fleeced perhaps?

[bottle]

If the boat is your primary residence then there is a fairly good chance you actually will have the 'willingness to pay' in the sense that if costs are increased you will pay up rather than leave the system.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP

 

 

You are not wrong, no doubt I will pay but I will not do it willingly.

[tidal]

Did they mean greater potential to be fleeced perhaps?

Sureley the more correct term from a etymological point of view is screwed?

[Steilsteven]

.

Er, I thought this had been done to death on ''BW advisory forum-blimey''