Higher Licence Fee for Continuous Cruisers

[bottle]

Quote from Narrowboat World

 

Higher licence fee for

continuous cruisers?

 

IT WAS announced yesterday (Thursday) that there is to be a consultation with users and interested parties inviting their comments on the underlying principles and proposed changes that effect licence fee categories.

A consultation document will be published by British Waterways within the next few weeks, which will be available either direct from Watford or electronically, with one of the proposals being the reclassification of continuously cruising boats into the higher licence category.

This is the result of a review led by Oxera Consulting, specialists in pricing economics and competition issues, that examined British Waterways' boat licence pricing structure, including the range of discounts. It used standard economic theory as put into practice in the United Kingdom by institutions such as the Competition Commission and Office of Fair Trading.

The review proposes:

Renaming the two main licence fee categories from ‘business’ and ‘private pleasure boat’ to ‘higher rate’ and ‘base rate’ respectively.

Reclassification of shared ownership, multi-user boats and continuously cruising boats into the higher rate licence category.

Replacement of the threshold for small business turnover discount with a VAT registration criterion.

With the increasing costs of both licences and mooring over the past few years, there has been great controversy over continuous cruisers using the system and mooring yet paying no mooring fees.

Boaters, especially those paying for linear moorings, with virtually no facilities, object strongly to others being free to moor anywhere, very often for extended periods at better moorings, yet paying for a normal licence but for no mooring whatsoever,

An increased licence fee for continuous cruisers would certainly ease the controversy.

[Richard Bustens]

So it is not just me that thinks that then... Note to Maffi...

[John Orentas]

Quote;

 

"This is the result of a review led by Oxera Consulting, specialists in pricing economics and competition issues".

 

So BW have brought in consultants to advise them with regard to their charges, in that case why also are they also issuing a consultation document, presumably to it's user groups.

 

A cynical person may suggest that BW want to put up their charges in such a way that they can later claim that it is by popular demand or in response to advice from a third party. They are likely to try and drive a wedge between different types of user types and use any conflict to their own advantage.

Edited June 24, 2005 by John Orentas

[David Schweizer]

I would have thought that there are too many variables in this proposal for any formula to be seen as fair. It is true to say that all continuous cruisers will normally take up a bankside space, somewhere every night of the year without paying for it, but that is quite legal under the current legislation. Many Marina and on line moorers also spend months each year doing exactly the same thing during the summer. Then there are the characters like me who pay BW for a Winter mooring and then cruise fairly continuously throughout the summer, occassionally taking short summer stays at Boat clubs or Marinas. I am sure that others could identify more variables. Somewhere there would have to be a differentiation between permanent moorers and Permanent cruisers, and to simply classify boats into either one catagory or the other would be just as unfair as the current alledged unfairness. Given the current mess surrounding other Government "fairness" schemes, there must also be serious concerns regarding how BW will be able to to rationalize all this without it costing more to administer than the addiditional revenue it will generate?

 

If the issue is about the comparative cost to the infrastructure between continuous users and short term cruisers, then the proposed removal of derogation on marine diesel would go a long way towards balancing the books, excactly as it does on the roads. We all pay a standard fee for licencing our vehicle and then the Chancellor collects tax on the fuel which more fairly reflects the amount of mileage ( and therefore Road usage) covered. It woud not be difficult for any tax on Marine diesel to be identidfied separately and for that tax to be diverted to the navigation authorities. Or is that far too simplistic a concept?

 

At the end of the day I am of the cynical view that this is just yet another ham fisted attemt by BW Managers to try and resolve the issue of those boaters who claim to be continuous crusers, whilst staying in the same area all year round. The proposals will not acheve any sucess in that area and the loosers will be the genuine continuous cruisers. As for the suggestion that on line (paying) moorers resent the freedoms of the continuous cruisers, so be it. Avarice and Jealousy are not attractive characteristics.

Edited June 24, 2005 by David Schweizer

[Alan Saunders]

I would have thought that there are too many variables in this proposal for any formula to be seen as fair . . . 

 

If the issue is about the comparative cost to the infrastructure between continuous users and short term cruisers, then the proposed removal of derogation on marine diesel would go a long way towards balancing the books,  . . .

 

At the end of the day I am of the cynical view that this is just yet another ham fisted attemt by BW Managers to try and resolve the issue  . . .

24130[/snapback]

Whilst supporting a licence increase for boats without permanent moorings I think grouping them with hire boats etc is too much. By reducing the licence options to two, administration would be simplified. As I understand it there are currently several grades of commercial licence as well as the two classes of private licence. BW have said something to the effect that increasing revenue is not a priority, I doubt this but in the unlikely event that a system 'seen to be fair' was achieved the charges would no doubt be adjusted to maintain revenue. If sufficiently large numbers of boats were paying the higher fee it is possible, though unlikely, that the 'higher rate' could be reduced .

 

I accept that duty on fuel may work but is unlikely to be taken up as a solution. I and others have long advocated removal of road vehicle tax coupled with a balancing increase of duty on fuel. I assume there would be a considerable increase in evasion of such a duty resulting in lost revenue and additional enforcement costs.

 

Perhaps you will be able to buy an annual 'higher rate' licence and automatically receive a rebate when you paid for a permanent mooring (e.g.winter).

 

It seems a little unfair to call BW 'ham-fisted' when they have gone to the trouble of employing outside expertise to solve the problem. I hope the brief included the problems of enforcement. After consultation has passed through many committees I have no doubt that it will be to the same standard as all products designed by a committee. Let's hope for something better than th e'poll-tax'.

 

I am fairly certain that BW's main objective is to reduce on-line mooring to a minimum, justified by the 'view of the majority'. If this were not the case they would make short term chargeable moorings available on a daily or weekly basis based on local mooring charges rather than the current £25 or £50 per day 'fine'.

 

I think this announcement was premature; better if they had waited until the paper was ready for publication. When we have read it we will really have something to discuss.

 

Alan

[maffi mushkila]

So it is not just me that thinks that then... Note to Maffi...

 

No Richard this is not what you have been saying all along.

 

What you have in fact been saying is that you need extra facilities because of your chosen life style and CCer's should pay for it.

 

If you would just once take your head out of your arse you would realise that if this goes through it will be a sad day for ALL boaters.

 

Gloat all you like but you will notice your fees will not be reduced by one penny which is what I have been saying all along

[bottle]

Quote Alan Saunders

 

As I understand it there are currently several grades of commercial licence as well as the two classes of private licence.

 

Alan I do not know about the number of commercial licence but I can only find One Private Licence. I have the form in front of me and its heading is "Application for a private boat licence."

In part two there is a place to declare where the boat will be kept if not cruising,

1. permanent mooring site. 2. Out of the water. 3. boat is used for contiuously cruising.

Is this what you mean as different classes.

The cost is the same and should remain so.

 

 

The cost of a licence for a motor car is the same (there is now a small dfferntial connected with polution)no matter how often or far "you" drive, so why should true Continuous Cruisers be penalised just because some people decided to permanately moor.

 

I may be looking at this simplistically but a licence is a licence is a licence and as it stands now it costs the same for everyone now if you decide that you wish to "park" your boat in your own reserved parking space (365/24) then that is your choice but do not penalise those who do not wish to live that way.

 

P.s Alan none of this is personal , please do not take it that way

[fender]

Messrs Swift & Co have opened a can of worms. I am surprised that BW has decided to appoint a consultancy (Oxera) who have absolutely no idea of the issues. but claim on their website that they "develop truly innovative ideas and insightful analyses that achieve forward-thinking, tangible results." Ha ha! More like backward thinking and tangled!

 

I am concerned by statements bandied on NBW such as "Boaters, especially those paying for linear moorings, with virtually no facilities, object strongly to others being free to moor anywhere, very often for extended periods at better moorings..." as I take this to include other boaters from other moorings elsewhere and visiting boaters, and also i am concerened about the illusion statements such as this giving ammo that CC's are a big problem to be sorted out. I certainly do not see CC's as being on better moorings "very often for extended periods." Ok if they are, where's the 240v landlines then?? Why arent these provided?

 

If there is a 'disrepancy' with moorings then BW should upgrade those moorings with little or no facilities as soon as it is practical. My only hestancy on this is that BW will use the circumstances to justfiy increasing the licences AND ALSO (wait for it...) continue to foist these low-grade moorings on those who have to pay hefty mooring fees.

 

I am also personally concerned about Canalworld because from where I see it, despite its attempts to 'democractise' the arguements on ths subject, it has actually marginalised CC's even more with its stupid 'final final' topics on the subject. Arent these topics simply a cover for aspiring subversives hoping to launch a sidewinder or two at the CC brigade?

 

A lot of you are certainly going to be blinded by these arguements and not until the end of the day will any of you anti-CC's SEE the damage that has been done to BOTH permanent moorers and CC's. Pity on those who concocted this anti-CC diatribe because in the end this mess is of their very own making.

 

EDITED TO REMOVE OBSCENE WORD WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED THANKYOU.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Bernie

[dor]

The cost of a licence for a motor car is the same (there is now a small dfferntial connected with polution)no matter how often or far "you" drive, so why should true Continuous Cruisers be penalised just because some people decided to permanately moor.

 

I think we need to be careful using this analogy. With a car, if you drive a lot you pay significantly more for the privilidge, due to the fuel tax.

 

Also, does a continuous cruiser necessarily travel more than a home moorer?

 

They may only move a few miles every couple of weeks, wheras a regular home-moorer may cruise all weekend every weekend.

[Richard Bustens]

The problem with arguments is there are two or more people with differing points of view both thinking they are right

[fender]

The problem with arguments is there are two or more people with differing points of view both thinking they are right

24150[/snapback]

 

Nobody is right. Some have a more clearer view of the implications under consideration than others. For ages many of us have seen the limitations of the arguements used against CC's. Its all about how far ahead one is prepared to see. From the view of others I'm probably wrong on a lot of points, but at least I'm trying to see the implications that would be caused by new regulations or limitations on CC's. Those who dont see the implications in such depth are the problem because they are "more right" than others.

[Yamanx]

Of course I will always fall into to the "higher" bracket eventually, I always have done with everything. The thresholds will move to accommodate me and most others in time. Leaving small minorities in the "lower" bracket and maximising revenue.

 

The other possible problem with this is, "Well I have paid more to moor here, more than you have, so I'm entitled, more than you are" and "I'll stick my boat wherever I like because I pay a premium for doing so"

 

Its a shame all this "debate" only happens on forums like this and in inpersonal ways. On the canal, when you are cruising along enjoying your pastime and surroundings, everybody is as freindly as ever to whomever, its great!, regardless of their licence, mooring situation. Maybe we, you, me, us are all just paper tigers eh?

[Big COL]

So it is not just me that thinks that then... Note to Maffi...

24114[/snapback]

 

Richard

 

Shouldn't that have read (So it is not just me that Thought that then?) You were a full convert not so long ago, I would think you hardly know what to think about this, the number of times you have changed your mind.

Basically it's a price hike, a wolf in sheep's clothing, waring factions being made to look that they were responsible rather than BW. If BW freely admit that it's not cost effective to pursue non licensed boats then whats this likely to cause? less of them! I think not. A boat on the move will be harder to catch than one that overstays. Genuine CC's wouldn't need to buy a license.

[bottle]

United we stand, divide we fall

 

 

I wonder if this is the plan, to let us fight amongst ourselves so we can blame each other, when the real culprits keep there heads down and blame everyone else.

 

Consultants are used to become the scapegoat, if you can find one that has no idea what so ever about what he/she is to be consulted about, thats the one to choose.

 

As stated before we (boaters) will not win only lose.

[fuzzyduck]

My 2C

 

suprise suprise, it's not just the CCers that'll be stung by this. everytine people fight amonst themselves someone always leaps in and takes advantage, in this case BW and the consultants.

 

Anyone care to guess how much they (the consultants) cost? And who's going to be paying for this? there's an example of the kind of spongers that we need to stamp out.

 

why is it humans must always act like Daily Mail readers? "Oh group X gets a better deal than me, ohhhh it's so unfair, rant rant rant" having a small cruiser that I use at evenings and weekends, I'm not going to be hit by this, but boy I feel outraged on behalf of the CCers, and i'm willing to bet that this won't be "revenue neutral" so all we've managed to do is argue our way into a price rise. If you have a licence, and you manage to get more value for money out of it than me, that's great, see you on the cut.

 

How the hell is this supposed to solve the problem with bridge hoppers taking up CC licences, and continueing to bridge hop. They're still going to sit on 48 hour moorings for weeks, the moorings are going to be just as full.

 

Fuzzy

[David Schweizer]

I am also personally concerned about Canalworld because from where I see it, despite its attempts to 'democractise' the arguements on ths subject, it has actually marginalised CC's even more with its stupid 'final final' topics on the subject. Arent these topics simply a cover for aspiring subversives hoping to launch a sidewinder or two at the CC brigade?

 

A lot of you are certainly going to be blinded by these arguements and not until the end of the day will any of you anti-CC's SEE the damage that has been done to BOTH permanent moorers and CC's. Pity on those who concocted this anti-CC diatribe because in the end this mess is of their very own making.

 

24147[/snapback]

Please, Please, Fender read all the postings. There is already considerable support amongst the contributors to this discussion, who do NOT support any increase in price rises for continuouis Cruisers. To lay accusation that we are all anti-CC will not serve your argument in any constructive way, and could be counter productive if it galvanizes hostility.

[John Orentas]

Fender.

 

It was me that used the final, final tag but only to differentiate from the previous topic which was getting very long, a bit repetitive and frankly boring. I have generally tried to keep out of this debate because frankly a lot of it goes over my head.

 

This business of two types of licenses, I didn't know there were two types and I am still not convinced that there are.

 

A continuous cruiser means to me someone who cruises continuously, I don't recognise any of the other stuff that is added on, I gather there is some resentment that they don't pay for a mooring, of course they don't, they don't need one. I they had a mooring they would not be continuous cruiser, or have I missed something.

 

What I do know is that all this squabbling is not doing our cause (whatever that may be) any good at all. Those people in the BW office lack any kind of subtlety, and they understand little of the system they are supposed to be managing. They will however pick up on any division they observe and will use it to their advantage, we will all be losers.

Edited June 24, 2005 by John Orentas

[onionbargee]

Look, if all the boats on CC licences moved every 14 days, it will cost Bw more in maitainance, and clog up the system solid. The idea of CC is totally against human nature, and very few people will ever want to really do it. It's in BW's own interest to just let boats go where they want, because they don't have the manpower to chase, and prosecute any one. As i said before the problem with people complaining is because they are paying for BW moorings, and just getting a bit of muddy towpath, the same as any other bit of muddy towpath

 

The whole buissness is a typical BW mess.

[Richard Bustens]

No Big C

I still think the same as always but i was prepared to see the other side of the coin (unlike Maffi)

I dint think it is practical to do anything about changing anything from what it is now , i certainly don't want anyone to pay for my extras as Maffi says, and i don't want any extras i am happy with the mooring i have, though it would be nice not to have to back up through a lock to fill up with water but hay ho that is the price i must pay for the mooring i like.

i still can not understand that some out there can not see that cc has a mooring, or am i mistaken and they travel through the night.

[Guest st170dw]

A lot of you are certainly going to be blinded by these arguements and not until the end of the day will any of you anti-CC's SEE the damage that has been done to BOTH permanent moorers and CC's. Pity on those who concocted this anti-CC diatribe because in the end this mess is of their very own making.

 

24147[/snapback]

 

We are all continuous cruisers when we are away from our home mooring. It is the perceived non-continuous cruisers people have a problem with. A proportion of these people do not have current licenses. They are also notable because they are always there. It is a factor of human nature that we focus on those who do not conform to the rules we accept.

 

I choose (at present) to have a home mooring because my personal circumstances do not allow me to fully explore the system. Given half a chance I will become a CC. I feel that a lot of the current anti-CC issue is a matter of jealousy.

 

If BW enforced the current rules - especially licensing - a large amount of the current friction would evaporate.

 

Dave

[David Schweizer]

I have just read the full document (all 13 pages of it) The core argument appears to be that there is a moral justification in recovering a larger proportion of the fixed infrastructure costs from those who use the system the most. It is difficult to argue with that hypothesis, however the evidence marshalled to support the identification of those groups who are deemed heavy users, and those who should be excempted becomes inconsistent, with emotional criteria outweighing the original stated objectives. The arguements are weak and lack any clear definition. If this is what BW have payed external consultants to produce, I sincerely hope they didn't pay a high fee.

 

The final page of the document is described as a Consultation Feed back Form. As someone who has been involved in directing a number of Academic Research programmes in the past, I immediately recognised the style of the questions, which are clearly designed to produce the response that they want to obtain. The substance of the first three Questions, on the face of it, appear to be fair, however answering Yes to them conditions your answers to questions Nos. 4 to 9 and if you answer No to them, they are invalidated by the answers to the first three. Question seven is only answerable if you answerd yes to question six. If you answerd no to question six, then Question seven becomes unanswerable. These are a well tried practices used in lengthy Academic research programmes to test out the authenticity of original responses, but in such a short document such as this, it is at best naive, and at worst devisive

 

There are also some other interesting features of the proposals which come to light, including one which I have previously raised. The Document includes a proposal to offer three month and six month continuous crusing licences for those people who "continuously cruise for only part of the year". So far so good, BUT the six month CC licence will be charged at 60% of the full year licence, and as we already know a six month standard Licence is also charged at 60% of the full year rate. This means that the Winter Moorer/Summer cruiser will be penalized for chosing that approach to boating. I have already worked out that it will be £700 a year cheaper for me to take up a full years mooring and pay a lower Rate cruising licence and just not be on my mooring for half the year. But that assumes that a mooring space will be available all year, and also assumes they don't try and hike the mooring fee to compensate themselves.

 

BW have been quoted as saying that the raising additional Revenue is not part of the Criteria, however the figures provided by themselves do not support this position. I have calculated that taking into account the loosers and winners in this proposal, BW will net about one million extra revenue at todays prices.

 

The full document can be downloaded from the NABO site or from the BW website.

Edited June 24, 2005 by David Schweizer

[Alan Saunders]

Quote Alan Saunders

 

As I understand it there are currently several grades of commercial licence as well as the two classes of private licence.

 

Alan I do not know about the number of commercial licence but I can only find One Private Licence. I have the form in front of me and its heading is "Application for a private boat licence."

In part two there is a place to declare where the boat will be kept if not cruising,

1. permanent mooring site. 2. Out of the water. 3. boat is used for contiuously cruising.

Is this what you mean as different classes.

The cost is the same and should remain so.

The cost of a licence for a motor car is the same (there is now a small dfferntial connected with polution)no matter how often or far "you" drive, so why should true Continuous Cruisers be penalised just because some people decided to permanately moor.

 

I may be looking at this simplistically but a licence is a licence is a licence and as it stands now it costs the same for everyone now if you decide that you wish to "park" your boat in your own reserved parking space (365/24) then that is your choice but do not penalise those who do not wish to live that way.

 

P.s Alan none of this is personal , please do not take it that way

24139[/snapback]

The phrase 'Continuous Cruising Licence' is used by many people including a few Boat Brokers. As I understand it, if the CC box is ticked a copy of the rules is sent and the licence is only issued when BW receive confirmation that they have been read and understood. If one of the other boxes is ticked there is no such requirement, implying that the rules do not apply. Sounds like a different licence to me!

 

As I said above, I do not think the road taxation system is fair. I do not consider £160, £110, £zero a small difference. Road usage charging could be fair but I doubt it will be implemented. BTW a Vehicle Licence confers no right to park on a Public Highway, in theory anyone can be prosecuted for 'Obstruction' if they park outside a designated area.

 

Previous to the 'consultation' I was hoping we might start haggling at a 50% increase. It now seems likely that we are looking at perhaps 100% increase.

 

Alan

P.S. I think I have avoided the use of the personal pronoun 'you' but it was hard work!

[Incentive]

We're off next week.

Two years that we have waited (and worked) 20 for.

We cant afford to have a home a boat, and a mooring, so we have to choose.

We chose to devote two years (or as long as we last!), to sell our home, leave our jobs and continuously cruise, and we have a license that allows us to do that.

 

When we applied for it, BW strangely asked us for a home navigation.

 

We entered continuous cruising.

 

They wrote back and asked for a home navigation.

 

On the telephone they accepted that we would be genuinely continuously cruising, but that it would help them with their administration if we could name a home navigation. They also noted that many "continuous Cruisers" continuously cruise just a small stretch of the avilable waterways.

 

Having read all the contributions, and being very new, it seems as if there is a degree of resentment directed towards people who wish to continuously cruise. Perhaps this comes about through a contamination of resentments arising from the inevitable few who exploit, or break the rules and avoid paying morring fees, and through a completely understandable resentment of the opportunity that people like myself appear to have been able to construct. (consider however that beyond the escapist romance, there are significant costs and losses too)

 

Surely the first issue is to police the situation more thoroughly, and ensure that the rule breakers, bridgehoppers and non-payers are brought to account.

 

The second issue is both less fixable, and more understandable. Consider your choices, and choose. Stop wasting your time resenting the choices that others make.

 

When we have had enough, or financial, domestic, health or other circumstances require further choices, decisions or changes, then we will change. Hopefully we will find away to have our cake and eat it, by owning a house, paying for a mooring, keeping "incentive" and returning to work.

 

How different is that from the position of any other responsible adult?

 

Martin.

[Alan Saunders]

. . . I have just read the full document (all 13 pages of it) The full document can be downloaded from the NABO site or from the BW website.

24196[/snapback]

I cannot find the the document on http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/ or http://www.waterscape.com/boating/ or http://www.nabo.org.uk/. I would like to read it before commenting further. Cold some kind soul please give us a link? I am not a NABO member, maybe its a good time to join?.

 

Alan

[Richard Bustens]

Hi Martin

 

I don't think ANYONE objects to GENUINE CCers, but for every one there is, there are two that say they are but in fact are not, this is where the problems stem from, and the genuine ones tend to get tared with the same brush.

 

Resenting, is, i think the wrong word, but i am envious of your new life style and hope in the next couple of years to join you.

 

Good luck, enjoy, and if possible please keep in contact with us as you go on your way.