Licence Reminder

[sociable_hermit]

Just got my licence reminder. The figures don't add up. They're showing:

 

£586.82 (Prompt Payment Rate)*

 

£586.82 (Full fee)

 

£736.82 (Full fee plus late payment charge**)

 

* The prompt payment rate only applies if the correctly completed application (and any enclosures) is received by us before the start date of the licence. It does not apply if you wish to pay by Direct Debit instalments.

 

** For applications received more than one month after the start date, an additional late payment charge of £150 is payable.

 

This is clearly balls. Worse, nowhere in the letter does it state either a. what the prompt payment discount is, in percentage terms, or b. whether the £586.82 is the full fee before discount or the prompt payment rate after discount. It clearly can't be both, but some sort of clue might be nice.

 

When I telephoned for clarification I was told that because I paid by DD last year, it was assumed that I'd do so again. This is a bit bloody presumptious. What I'd like is the full set of figures so I can make an informed choice as to how I wish to pay, thanks very much. It's my decision, and they need to provide me with the facts so I can make it. Also, surely the whole point of the asterisk is that you can quote the prompt payment rate whilst informing people that it doesn't apply with DD, so why not put the correct figure in?

 

There's also a note in the accompanying paperwork that claims "there has been a change to the format of the renewal quotations following minor software changes. This means that the details of some discounts are not displayed". In other words, someone has bought or upgraded some software so it is no longer fit for purpose. That isn't good enough, and it's something that BW need to sort out with their suppliers, rather than knowingly sending out inadequate and misleading information. Somebody has f*cked up.

 

If I went past WH Smiths and they had signs in the window saying SALE! DISCOUNTS! REDUCTIONS! and when I went in they refused to tell me either the starting prices or the nature of the discounts, I'd walk out laughing. Certainly wouldn't do business with them. So why do BW think this is ok?

 

They've now confirmed over the phone that £586.82 is the full rate, and the prompt payment discount would be 10%. However I would still like this in writing, and have requested it thus. If I do decide that I wish to pay up front and their confirmation letter arrives too late, we may be having a disagreement.

 

I am really annoyed about this - it's just plain wrong. Mind you, they can't even decide whether to use 'licence' or 'license' on the form...

 

Gggrrrrrrrrrr

[carlt]

Mind you, they can't even decide whether to use 'licence' or 'license' on the form...

 

Gggrrrrrrrrrr

Depending on whether they are using the verb or the noun, they may well be correct in using both spellings.

 

You "license" a boat but you buy a "licence" for it.

[sociable_hermit]

Depending on whether they are using the verb or the noun, they may well be correct in using both spellings.

 

You "license" a boat but you buy a "licence" for it.

 

Ah! Fair enough, that's my mistake, then.

 

You might be amused to hear that they have introduced a DVLA-style 'SORN' notification requirement, the form is titled "Transfer of Boat Ownership or Off-Water Declaration". I jokingly referred to the idea as 'SOWN' in another thread. It is happening.

 

I'm wondering whether to declare my boat "off-water" for the 3 days it is in dry dock for blacking, and ask for a pro rata refund.

Edited April 7, 2009 by sociable_hermit

[carlt]

Ah! Fair enough, that's my mistake, then.

 

You might be amused to hear that they have introduced a DVLA-style 'SORN' notification requirement, the form is titled "Transfer of Boat Ownership or Off-Water Declaration". I jokingly referred to the idea as 'SOWN' in another thread. It is happening.

 

I'm wondering whether to declare my boat "off-water" for the 3 days it is in dry dock for blacking, and ask for a pro rata refund.

They have no legal authority to insist that you inform them that your boat is off water they manage, or that there has been a change of ownership.

 

Another example of the BW desk jockeys thinking they are the only licensing or registration authority, in the UK.

 

I look forward to attending court, when they chase me for the boats I own, that have BW index numbers but are nowhere near a BW managed waterway.

[Proper Job]

How 'legal' is this 'late payment charge' of £150 that BW appear to have arbitrarily bought in?

 

As Carl says, unlike the DVLA, BW aren't the only licencing authority. Do we all declare that out boats are moored on the fens.

 

I would be interested to know what would happen if you just sent in the required amount for 12 months and ignored their fine.

[koukouvagia]

Sorry this is a bit long.

 

We have two joshers – a motor and a motorised butty. It has taken me nearly eight years for BW to accede to a very easy request. Could I please have one bill each year so that I can pay two lots of mooring fees and two licences on a single cheque? Simples.

Dealing with BW is a Kafka-esque nightmare. Here’s a sample of the conversations I have had over the years:

 

 

Me: Can I pay for both boats on one cheque?

BW: Each boat has to have a unique customer number. This means we have to send out a different bill for each boat.

Me: But aren’t there other boaters with more than one boat?

BW: Yes, but they all have to have separate bills for each boat. (Think of the expense of this duplication)

 

 

Me: (Every year) You’ve have not given me the mooring discount for the butty.

BW: Discounts only apply to licences not to moorings.

Me: (patiently) Yes I know. But this is a special arrangement for an historic butty. I have a signed agreement to pay a full mooring fee for the motor and a half fee for the breasted up butty. If you look on my file you’ll see there’s a letter about this from Matthew Routledge (former Southern GU Manager).

BW: Can we get back to you?

Me: I’ll send you another copy of the letter. Do you think you could keep it so that I don’t have to have this conversation next year?)

(sequence repeats idefinitely)

 

 

Me: Thankyou for the revised invoices but I notice you’ve applied the discount to the motor, not the butty. (Thinks: Does she know the difference?)

BW: (Some incomprehensible rigmarole about the computer not being able to apply discounts to moorings)

Me: Would it be simpler if I transferred the ownership of the butty to my son and you simply charged him half the fee?

So I did, but now the confusion is doubled – My son first tries to explain, then I have to call and have the same conversation. Every year we go through a similar routine!

 

 

Me: Thankyou for your letter explaining that because of a computer failure/new system etc. you will not be issuing licence demands for three months. When I finally do get the invoices for both boats, could you make the start dates the same?

BW: Er… (The answer, after much to-ing and fro-ing was "no" – but I forget the exact reasons given.)

 

 

Me: My son tells me that he’s received an invoice for the full mooring for a motor, not a half fee for a breasted up butty If you consult your records, you see that we’ve a concession etc. etc.

BW: Sorry. Just pay the half.

Me: But I think I’d better have a new invoice for the correct amount.

BW: We’ll send it. (more postage and expense).

 

At the beginning of July 2007 I received mooring and licence demands for 2007-8. At last, I thought, I could pay a single bill for the two licences and the two moorings, with the 50% discount for the butty as had been agreed. The office at Milton Keynes had obviously no knowledge of the past correspondence. The following mistakes were noted on the application form:

* there was no attempt to harmonise the mooring dates for Owl. I should be paying 11/12ths (because Owl’s mooring runs from August to August) of the mooring fee so that next July all the dates for moorings and licences run from July to July.

* I was being asked for a new insurance certificate for Hampton. This is not necessary, because, if somebody had looked at the file, he or she would have realised that the boat has a perfectly valid certificate.

* the butty was described as an “unpowered craft” with a 50% discount

* a 50% discount had been applied to the licence fee of Hampton – something I’d never asked for!!

I was about to go on holiday so I sent off a cheque for the amount BW demanded - less the 50% discount for the butty to which I am entitled, crossed out “unpowered”, added the insurance policy number to the application form and waited to see what happened next.

 

When I returned from holiday I received a phone call from the new Moorings Officer at Milton Keynes, who informed me that there was a mistake on my application and that I owed another thousand odd pounds. She seemed vague when I asked her to give me the details, but it soon became evident that she had absolutely no knowledge of the 50% mooring discount or any of the correspondence relating to my breasted up butty. Aaaaaagh!! :lol:

 

Last year – hurrah – I got all four demands at the same time. The trouble was they arrived in four separate envelopes with four separate stamps.

 

The inefficiency, waste of time - mine as well as BW’s, stress, hassle lack of management and hopeless internal communications makes me wonder if, in the current management-speak, British Waterways can be deemed “fit for purpose”.

[carlt]

Did you have the "The Butty licence discount only applies if the motor and butty licences start in the same month." nightmare, too?

[koukouvagia]

Did you have the "The Butty licence discount only applies if the motor and butty licences start in the same month." nightmare, too?

 

Yes. In fact, the above account is only a very shortened version. There's an equally long saga of my trying to retain the butty discount which was only finally resolved at a Stage 2 Complaints procedure.

[blueprince]

There are a variety of techniques for discombobulating large, inefficient organisations, here are some:

 

Write cheques on inappropriate media, eg fish, used toilet paper, ice, they are still legal tender, and all these methods have been used in the past.

Send the letters like- "Regarding my letter on the 15th," when you haven't in fact sent any such letter.

Bill them for time wasted, using your banks charges as a guideline, ie £25 per letter.

Query them on highly vague or abstract points, and refer their failure to answer as the reason why you are not complying with....whatever.

Write "Private and confidential" on all letters and address them to the current chief executive.

The data protection act, there are a whole load of goodies under this, ask them to provide all details of staff allowed to access your personal information, and request that they obtain permission from you in writing for each person added to this list, and that each person undergo an enhanced CRB check.

Change your name regularly, you do not have to do this in court, you can simply decide you wish to be someone else, return and refuse to open any mail that's incorrectly addressed, as long as you inform them of your name changes, this is legal, though a court may decide you were being deliberately obstructive.

 

There are many more, the most important point, however, is not to use any of these methods to avoid paying, as they will simply refer you to their legal department, glad to see the back of you.

 

The idea is to cause so much confusion that the thought of opening your file causes migraines and sick days, and they will be grateful to simply accept what you tell them with no question, they will also avoid communicating with you if possible. This method actually works well if its just you doing it, if a large number of people do it simultaneously, it can bring a large, efficient organisation to it's knees, what it would do to BW I don't know, but nothing good.

[carlt]

Yes. In fact, the above account is only a very shortened version. There's an equally long saga of my trying to retain the butty discount which was only finally resolved at a Stage 2 Complaints procedure.

They actually suggested to me that I should pay for a new licence, for the motor, 5 month's early, to bring the renewal dates in line (actually having two licences for the one boat )

 

I suggested that, as it was their unreasonable (and illogical) demand, they should let me wait 5 months, before paying the butty licence, to meet their requirements.

 

Suffice to say it required a BW employee, capable of thinking, instead of blindly following stupid gobbledygook, to rectify the situation

[sociable_hermit]

I'm still annoyed by the way they've sent out a renewal letter with the cheapest rate missing. This is either stupidity or a deliberate attempt to mislead - how can you claim the cheaper rate if you aren't told about it?

 

"Prompt payment discount? Ooh, you wouldn't want that, would you?" *DELETE*

 

Not acceptable, I'm afraid.

 

 

P.S. I'm sure I've mentioned before, the absolute nightmare I had in trying to licence my boat the first time around. As I hadn't taken over the boat at that stage, I had some of the documents and the brokers had the rest. As BW claimed they weren't equipped with e-mail, I suggested that we faxed everything over from the two locations for BW to collate for themselves, with reference numbers etc. clearly marked. This was revolutionary thinking and caused widespread panic in the BW camp, especially when it emerged that the call centre was in Watford but the paperwork was processed in Leeds.

 

"It'll be slow, you see, because you'll have to fax it to us and then we'll have to fax it to Leeds. And there's a fair chance something might go missing".

Well can't you just give me the Leeds fax number and I'll send it all to them direct?

"Ooh no, they don't deal directly with the general public!".

 

What an absolute waste of time and money.

Edited April 7, 2009 by sociable_hermit

[koukouvagia]

There's also a note in the accompanying paperwork that claims "there has been a change to the format of the renewal quotations following minor software changes. This means that the details of some discounts are not displayed". In other words, someone has bought or upgraded some software so it is no longer fit for purpose.

 

I have a question that puzzles me.

If I have a 10% discount for an historic boat and a 10% discount for prompt payment am I entitled to a 20% discount on the licence fee?

i.e. 80% of £725.11 = £580.09

 

BW does the sum this way:

The licence fee is £725.11

They deduct 10% for historic discount making £652.60

Then they take off another 10% for prompt payment making £587.34.

 

Is this the usual way of applying multiple discounts? Or does BW owe me £7.25?

 

On the invoice, there is no mention of the historic boat discount, so until you go delving, it’s not apparent how they reach the sum.

[carlt]

On the invoice, there is no mention of the historic boat discount, so until you go delving, it’s not apparent how they reach the sum.

There's no point asking BW because the ones that work it out (in their favour) are not contactable and, trying to explain the importance of how you apply the various discounts, to those on the front line, usually produces a blank look.

[sociable_hermit]

There's no point asking BW because the ones that work it out (in their favour) are not contactable and, trying to explain the importance of how you apply the various discounts, to those on the front line, usually produces a blank look.

On the other hand, if you deduct the £7.25 when writing the cheque, and enclose your calculations to validate this approach, they'd either have to accept it or pass your letter over to someone with a bit more know-how to formulate a response. Either way this puts you in a more useful bargaining position.

[carlt]

On the other hand, if you deduct the £7.25 when writing the cheque, and enclose your calculations to validate this approach, they'd either have to accept it or pass your letter over to someone with a bit more know-how to formulate a response. Either way this puts you in a more useful bargaining position.

As my licence fee (well, harbour dues) are now £49 pa I no longer feel obliged to argue with my enforcing authority, over the amount I pay.

[Idunhoe]

Mind you, they can't even decide whether to use 'licence' or 'license' on the form...

 

Gggrrrrrrrrrr

Have you also noticed that they invite you to mark the 'tick boxes' with a cross (BWs words not mine) and why do they need to know an individuals date of birth in order to license a boat?

[GUMPY]

As my licence fee (well, harbour dues) are now £49 pa I no longer feel obliged to argue with my enforcing authority, over the amount I pay.

You are on the "wrong" river, I pay no licence fee, however the cost of the marina moorings more than makes up for it.

[debbifiggy]

Depending on whether they are using the verb or the noun, they may well be correct in using both spellings.

 

You "license" a boat but you buy a "licence" for it.

 

 

Shock horror, for once I agree with Carl. Roll out a hogshead and we boaters shall sup ale :-))

D

[debbifiggy]

Depending on whether they are using the verb or the noun, they may well be correct in using both spellings.

 

You "license" a boat but you buy a "licence" for it.

 

 

Shock horror, for once I agree with Carl. Roll out a hogshead and we boaters shall sup ale :-))

D

[sociable_hermit]

Shock horror, for once I agree with Carl. Roll out a hogshead and we boaters shall sup ale :-))

D

 

Aye, I was grateful for that correction, too!

 

Can you see my point about the licensing documents, though? If a private company tried something like that it would be regarded as fraud, I would say. To quote the full price as the discounted price is just wrong, and seems designed to confuse the customer into paying more than they need to, by hiding the cheaper option. It also adds ambiguity and wastes time, on a matter with a known time limit. Given the new £150 incentive for BW to mess everyone about, will there be more of this?

[sueb]

A wergie with a folding boat with an electric engine moored off a connected waterway and having a bsc, arranged the discounts so that BW owed him That took some sorting.

Sue

[sociable_hermit]

As my licence fee (well, harbour dues) are now £49 pa I no longer feel obliged to argue with my enforcing authority, over the amount I pay.

Sorry Carl, I quoted the wrong person - the advice was more for Koukouvagia.

[NBMike]

They have no legal authority to insist that you inform them that your boat is off water they manage, or that there has been a change of ownership.

 

Another example of the BW desk jockeys thinking they are the only licensing or registration authority, in the UK.

 

I look forward to attending court, when they chase me for the boats I own, that have BW index numbers but are nowhere near a BW managed waterway.

 

 

Maybe they had better watch out. Corgi thought that they were the only gas installer registration authority in the game. They have had a very rude awakening.

Mike

 

Gas safe registered (inc. LPG for boats)

[carlt]

Shock horror, for once I agree with Carl. Roll out a hogshead and we boaters shall sup ale :-))

D

Strange that you've disagreed with all the times I've praised BW, too!

[sociable_hermit]

Strange that you've disagreed with all the times I've praised BW, too!

Have you, by any chance, found that the local offices and the guys out and about are generally good, while the centralised functions are poor? That's my experience.

 

I've met a few BW people on the towpath who clearly think the tasks they're being given to do (bollards etc.) are a complete joke.