Higher Licence Fee for Continuous Cruisers

[fender]

Someone said that 1 in 20 boats have no license at all, and i suspect they also have no mooring, making them CCer or B/hopper, probably the latter.

24337[/snapback]

 

I pays my licence I get annoyeds at those who dont pay licences. This includes people who are in the affordability section but dont bother. I keep saying this again and again. Some of yous in the 'credibility section' dont pay either! I get sick of these people - thats ANYBODY without a licence - and sick of bridge hoppers and the whole damned lot. It does nothing but tar us people crusing the waterways in goodwill with incredibly bad faith.

 

I should be wary of Victor's rantings - someone has pointed out inconsitency - VS mentioned a figure of £2,142 in fines (seems like he used length of Braunston plus an extra 100!) of course there's no such fine the multiples are always X25 as someone has pointed out. Like the tunnel, this man is entirely off course. Any chance of him getting lost in Barnton or getting his kit crewbucketed??

Edited June 27, 2005 by fender

[David Schweizer]

I pays my licence I get annoyeds at those who dont pay licences. This includes people who are in the affordability section but dont bother. I keep saying this again and again. Some of yous in the 'credibility section' dont pay either! I get sick of these people - thats ANYBODY without a licence - and sick of bridge hoppers and the whole damned lot. It does nothing but tar us people crusing the waterways in goodwill with incredibly bad faith.

 

I should be wary of Victor's rantings - someone has pointed out inconsitency - VS mentioned a figure of £2,142 in fines (seems like he used length of Braunston plus an extra 100!) of course there's no such fine the multiples are always X25 as someone has pointed out. Like the tunnel, this man is entirely off course. Any chance of him getting lost in Barnton or getting his kit crewbucketed??

24355[/snapback]

I agree with your assesment of Victor's claims, at best they are usually inacurate, at worst they are completely wrong. I would also counsell against the use of the word fines, which is totaly inapropriate. BW are not legally empowered to impose fines for breaches of the regulations, something which in another arena, they have acknowledged. It is one of (but not the only) reasons why they droppped their threat to withold licences from people who did not pay the "overstay charges"

 

At the risk of beginning to sound a bit like someone else on this forum, I have said it numerous times before - BW have the legal power to bring prosecutions against persistant offenders, but for some reason seem to be reluctant to do so.

[Bernie]

BW have the legal power to bring prosecutions against persistant offenders, but for some reason seem to be reluctant to do so.

24383[/snapback]

 

They do eventually although it took 5 years in this case. A boat owner on our moorings refused to pay licence or mooring fees. Didn't think he should since his father worked for BW, but his father had died and the boat was passed to him. Despite notices being attached to the boat by BW, he removed them and still didn't think he should pay. Eventually things caught up with him and he was ordered to pay 5 years back mooring and licence fees + costs. Now since the boat is never taken out from it's mooring it cost him dearly.

Edited June 27, 2005 by Bernie

[Big COL]

Richard

 

So until BW sort out the classifications and create a third one, the Genuine CCer is of the same classification as B/hoppers and will get treated as one, but we all know this can not happen as no one is going to admit, when applying for there license they are a B/H, so they say they CC.

 

Reply

 

To apply as a CC with no intention of becoming one is a false declaration, I am no legal expert, but surely this amounts to fraud, and a different line that BW could act upon if they so wished.

[David Schweizer]

 

  To apply as a CC with no intention of becoming one is a false declaration, I am no legal expert, but surely this amounts to fraud, and a different line that BW could act upon if they so wished.

24389[/snapback]

Sounds like fraud to me, but I think you will find that fraud is a Criminal Offence, which would require the prosecution to be brought by the police, not BW, Furthermore BW would need to gather witnessed evidence over a considerable period of time to support the allegation, Can you see them doing that?

[Richard Bustens]

BW could do a lot of things they seem to be neglecting to do.

But they do seem to be acting now on some boats 2 were removed by them last week.

The local length man will know all the boats in his area and which ones do and do not have licenses, on a stretch i went down last week there were 8 boats in BW moorings and 2 were displaying out of date licenses and mooring permits both dated 05/05, now this does not mean they are not paid but they are not on display.

[fender]

BW should get their house in order. Its a total mess in all aspects. Before they start a-consulting etc they ought to take a deep subjective look at their own organisation and put their house in order cos whatever consultative conclusions they come up with wont work considering the shambles they are in. Why introduce new rules legislation etc if they cant be arsed to enforce any of it?

[Alan Saunders]

Some said they couldn't find a pdf to download re the Oxera stuff. There's a summarised report on BW's website that's 3 pages (David said there was one 15 pages but cant find it.)

Link:http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/images/B..._tcm6-98525.pdf

24295[/snapback]

It was me. The link you give is for the private moorings pricing investigation, not the recent licence pricing exercise.

 

Alan

[Richard Bustens]

From NBW

 

FOUR more boats have been removed from the water by British Waterways under Section 8 as a result of their owners failing to comply with licence conditions.

Two of the boats were taken from the Kennet & Avon Canal and two from the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal on the same day during June.

The boats will be stored at a secure location for six weeks, giving the owners of the boats time to resolve the matter with British Waterways and pay all of the costs that were incurred.

If after six weeks the matter has not been resolved, British Waterways has the power to dispose of the vessels, under the British Waterways Act 1983. At this point British Waterways will decide whether to sell the boats or destroy them.

Eliza Botham, Service Manager for British Waterways South West tells us:

“British Waterways is determined to ensure that all boats on its waters are both licensed and safe. The decision to remove boats from the water is not taken lightly, and owners are given plenty of time and assistance if needed to sort out any problems. We hope that responsible owners will be pleased to see that British Waterways is taking action against non-payers and will continue to do so.”

A total of 378 Section 8 notices were issued to non-live-aboards during the year, and proceedings were issued against 16 live-aboards.

Extra resources have been allocated to enforcement in order to properly address the problem of licence evasion, particularly in the South West.

 

Looks like BW may be starting to do something

[Alan Saunders]

Eliza Botham, Service Manager for British Waterways South West tells us: " . . .  Extra resources have been  allocated to enforcement in order to properly address the problem of licence evasion, particularly in the South West."

 

Looks like BW may be starting to do something

24491[/snapback]

Every so often, on the K&A, I used to see a BW foot patrol recording boat registration numbers on a dictaphone. Yesterday my neighbour reported that the dictaphone is now being carried by a young, fit lad on a mountain bike. Innovation from BW!

 

We reckon he could record every boat on the 90 miles of the K&A once a week. If your boat is unlicenced or you have outstayed your welcome BW will now know about it.

 

Alan

[ChrisPy]

Just to add a bit of flavour, and noting the earlier references to people parking on the public road, maybe the following points will put some of the arguments into perspective:

 

I remember the good old days when residential roads were not clogged up with cars parked on both sides of the road, and when parking was only allowed on one side of the road, which alternated from day to day. It was not feasible to use the road as a permanent parking place for your car, even though there was plenty of available space.

 

Since then in many areas you pay for a resident's parking permit if you want to use the public road as a permanent car park. But that doesn't give you the right to park in the most convenient locations.

 

In many areas the roads have become linear car parks for residents, to the detriment of the environment and the safety of other road users. And all without any additional payment by the car owners. Please don't quote the council tax, it does not confer any rights to continuously park in the road outside your front fence. I'll bet that many cars parked in London's streets are owned by commuters who use public transport every day, and don't use their car for weeks. But they 'reserve their place' by leaving their car in the street.

 

I have a front yard and a garage, which I have paid for. When I want to park in a convenient place in the town centre or at an event, I expect to pay for the privilege and I expect there to be some limitations on how long I can leave the car there.

 

We should not allow the canals to suffer the same problem as can be found in many urban and suburban areas.

 

I'm not cruising yet. I hope to secure a marina mooring when the boat goes in the water. Just like parking my car, I'll be happy to pay for a guaranteed mooring for my boat 12 months of the year, and will not expect to get free mooring everywhere when I leave my home base.

 

SUGGESTION :

 

- Nobody should have an automatic right to moor free of charge anywhere on the system.

- Mooring fees should be relative to the season, the day of the week, the convenience of the location and the facilities provided. The technology is available to do this without direct payment to a 'mooring attendant'. All it would need is for him to point his 'meter reader' at your boat occasionally, to confirm the licence fee has been paid and to register the flexible mooring charge.

- If people want to moor up miles from civilisation they can have it for free, at the discretion of the operator of the waterway and the owner of the land.

- One (modest) licence fee for all private owners, but those who want to moor up in popular places for an hour, a day or a month should pay for the convenience and the privilege.

- No extra licence fee for CCs, so if they forego the convenience of a prime mooring slot they can have it all at minimal cost.

 

It may not be in keeping with the traditions of the canals, but neither is clogging up popular locations on the canals with static boats.

 

............... Chris ducks as the brickbats begin to fly.

[fender]

U looking for a fight??

[bottle]

I wonder if Chris's other name is Victor

[Sue]

I don't know if the links to the documents have been put somewhere else, but I have found the 12 page Proposal and the Response Document here

 

An action group has also been set up, The Continuous Cruisers Action Group telephone 07985 055 478. Sarah is on the end of the line.

 

The Response form isn't much good, in my opinion, not the right sort of things to ask in the main.

 

An email to consultation@britishwaterways.co.uk with your opinions is a must as well as the response forum, or send by snail mail to

 

Eugene Baston

External Relations Manager

British Waterways

Willow Grange

Church Road

Watford

WD17 4QA

 

Or by fax 01923 201300

 

I hope this information helps either those who agree with the increase and those who don't.

 

Edit: Ooops I promoted Eugene to Market and Customer Services Director. He has only just been given the External Relations Manager job!!

Edited July 15, 2005 by Sue

[fender]

Sue, can we have one topic on this only. I started a new one and whilst in the process of posting on another thread I found your posting. Thanks

Fender

[Sue]

I think we probably wrote our posts at the same time fender, your new topic wasn't there when I started to put my post together

[Tralfamadorean]

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.

24147[/snapback]

 

 

BW are fairly skilled at playing one group of boaters against the other.

The result being that whatever group is under attack they furiously defend thier position often at the expense of others. Until we shrug off 'canal time' (temporarily) and look towards an organised common front we are are always going to lose out overall. I think that the time is right for boaters to stand against local and district councils as well as BW; to present a common front towards the oppression of all boaters. I am (although an old lefty) newer to boating than a lot of you, but I am fed up with having choosen a lifestyle often often compared to freedom, finding that I am being bullied by all coucils, BW, as well as local communities that consider me to be a social class lower than mass murders.

 

I reckon that we have choices to make. It is up to us. We can winge, shrug our shoulders, and move on, or we can at least try control our own destinies.

[Sir Richard Head]

I’ve read with great interest the varying views on this somewhat emotive subject and at the risk of having my head shot off would like to add my observations.

 

BW quite rightly states that its variable costs are related directly to usage. This is a reasonable argument in that the greater the usage the greater the impact upon wear and tear on lock mechanisms, water usage and bank erosion.

 

The basis that is used to determine the license fee as set out in Table 3.1 of the consultation document is also reasonable.

 

Where I do take issue is the proposal for a two tier banding; higher rate and basic rate. BW asserts that, on the basis of their 2004 survey, that CCs do the greatest mileage and thus cause the greatest damage; the survey indicates that CCs are cruising for 177 days in the year whereas Hire Boats are only cruising for 130 to 150 days in a year. What is not in dispute is the number of cruising days per group; what has been overlooked however, is the relative number of lock/miles covered on each of those days.

 

I would suggest that hire boats are likely to cruise many more hours per day during a hire period than any CC. Hirers are likely to have planned to complete a ring or linear cruise within a hire period and will thus press on for as many hours as necessary to reach their target. CCs on the other hand, whilst they might have an ultimate destination in mind, are much less likely to commit themselves to reaching a particular location by a specific date. Continuous Cruisers could probably be more accurately described as Continuous Drifters!!

 

Another difference between a hire boat user and a CC is likely to be experience. It is arguable that a CC will have more experience at boat handling that a hirer and will probably be more likely to have greater respect for their chosen environment; therefore a CC is likely to have less of an impact upon the system than a hirer.

 

To lump CCs into the same higher rate bracket as hire boats and shared ownership boats would be unfair in the extreme, particularly in view of the fact that the survey indicates that the vast majority of CCs fall into the lowest Household Income bracket in the survey results. (Table 2)

 

One has to accept that there is a higher cost impact upon BW incurred by CCs when compared to home mooring based boats. They will travel more; they will use the canalside facilities more and because of that they should be prepared to bear a greater share of that cost than home mooring boaters.

 

I would suggest that an Intermediate Rate be introduced and set at around 1.5 times the base rate.

 

If my views seem naïve, then you will have to forgive me as I view this as an outsider looking in, but as an outsider with plans to become and insider as soon as my boat is completed. It is also likely that for a year or so I will have to be a Continuous Cruiser until such time as I can acquire permanent base.

 

Right!

Tin hat on!

Hatches battened down!

INCOMING!!!!!!!!

Edited July 16, 2005 by Sir Richard Head

[maffi mushkila]

As another outsider I agree with most of your post.

 

Another point I would like to throw into the pot is this, if the CCer is forced to pay the higher rate will BW throw a hissy fit when he starts selling his art work from his boat. Or selling canal related nik-naks as part of the 'experience'.

 

For most non boaters that walk the canal, boats are an important part of it. Why should those that live permanently on the canal not use that opportunity to make some extra cash after all they are being charged as a business even though the name has been changed.

Edited July 16, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[Paul Evans]

As a home mooring boater, I am currently out and about for around 60-65 days each year. In a few years time, I expect that to increase markedly but I will still retain a home mooring. I am not convinced than continuous cruisers, hire boats and multi-user boats impose markedly more wear and tear on the system than other boaters and I see no reason why they should pay a higher licence fee simply because they are out and about more than others.

 

If we are going to move to a charging system where use is the determining factor then surely BW should be looking to reinstate the "toll" system that operated in the days of commercial carrying. Admittedly, without using the sort of technology that is being mooted for road use charges, it would be a great job creation exercise but just think of all those restored toll office and all those people with an intimate knowledge of their lengths. Differential charging rates could be used to encourage cruising under-cruised water - the Wyrley & Essington as a toll free route perhaps!

Edited July 16, 2005 by Paul Evans

[John Orentas]

Paul.

 

If you are going to retain you mooring there is surely no way that you can fall into a higher charge category, if for no other reason how would they ever know.

 

I believe BW will be looking to charge extra to those who claim to be continuous cruisers, in the literal sense but are merely dodging legitimate mooring charges. I think they will also be looking for ways to make an extra charge for multi-ownership boats, which it could be argued may have some justification.

 

I do not believe that any kind of toll any other kind of consumer use charges would be even considered.

[maffi mushkila]

As a home mooring boater, I am currently out and about for around 60-65 days each year. In a few years time, I expect that to increase markedly but I will still retain a home mooring. I am not convinced than continuous cruisers, hire boats and multi-user boats impose markedly more wear and tear on the system than other boaters and I see no reason why they should pay a higher licence fee simply because they are out and about more than others.

 

If we are going to move to a charging system where use is the determining factor then surely BW should be looking to reinstate the "toll" system that operated in the days of commercial carrying. Admittedly, without using the sort of technology that is being mooted for road use charges, it would be a great job creation exercise but just think of all those restored toll office and all those people with an intimate knowledge of their lengths. Differential charging rates could be used to encourage cruising under-cruised water - the Wyrley & Essington as a toll free route perhaps!

 

Paul you do talk some twaddle!

 

A boater pays the licence to use the system asking him to pay twice is the second dumbest thing I have heard.

[Alan Saunders]

I don't know if the links to the documents have been put somewhere else, but I have found the 12 page Proposal and the Response Document here

 

An action group has also been set up, The Continuous Cruisers Action Group telephone 07985 055 478.  Sarah is on the end of the line. 

 

The Response form isn't much good, in my opinion, not the right sort of things to ask in the main . . .

25366[/snapback]

Sue,

Thanks for the link. I promised not to contribute to this topic until I had read the consultation paper. Unfortunately we do not have the original Oxera report. BW have clearly 'cherry-picked' the (expensive) report to their own ends. Without even 'reading between the lines' they intend to set aside the decision of the Ombudsman and devalue his office. They have disregarded the Oxera recommendations on 'willingness (ability) to pay' saying "it is not practical to track or monitor individual use, nor undertake individual willingness/ability to pay estimates for each user" and then give figures and tables that indicate otherwise!

 

They have made no attempt to normalise the figures; it seems likely that Continuous Cruisers, illegal live-aboards etc were less likely to respond or respond honestly and, significantly, there is no correlation between the number of respondents and the total number of boats used on the relevant waterways. According to BW's figures there are only 88 Continuous Cruisers out of 1702 boats! Even if the true figures are double or treble these, can 176 or 264 boaters in 2,000 miles of canal (one every 7.5 to 11 miles) be worth so much trouble?

 

Are the options listed in the response form exclusive? e.g. I have no mooring but my boat is my office - does that mean I pay the lower rate?

 

I will re-read the document and try to reply but not in the divisive context that the BW 'spin-doctors' are trying to achieve!

 

I currently have a 33' mooring which BW refuse to extend to 70' even though there is space available as those on the waiting-list come first. If only I had had the foresight, as others had, to remain on the waiting list even though I had a mooring! In two years time I expect to be (willingly & genuinely) continuously cruising for a while.

 

I still maintain that BW should stop charging 50% of the lowest rate mooring fee to all moorers and add the same figure to the licence fee. So, those with moorings would pay the same as they do now and those without moorings would pay £15/metre/pa more; i.e. a 15m boat currently paying £524 would pay £748 - an increase of about 43%, not the 147% proposed.

 

I am sure you and Sarah and 'The Continuous Cruisers Action Group' believe in what you are doing but I think you are dividing the boating community to BW's advantage. Only 0.5% claimed to be Continuous Cruisers, the number truly complying with the rules is likely to be much lower.

 

Alan

[Paul Evans]

I do not believe that any kind of toll any other kind of consumer use charges would be even considered.

25411[/snapback]

Paul you do talk some twaddle!

 

A boater pays the licence to use the system asking him to pay twice is the second dumbest thing I have heard.

25414[/snapback]

My tongue was firmly in my cheek when I suggested reinstating tolls - although the idea has some attractions. Tolls could replace licence fees so that the cost of using the canals would be directly related to mileage/locks covered but it's pie in the sky to think that BW would ever enter into such a job creation exercise.

[TheBiscuits]

Zombie Thread Alert!

 

This is a 2005 thread resurrected because the same subject was being discussed earlier.