The Licenses Fees Are Not Going Up - - - - - - BUT

[journeyperson]

How do they know how much they should be getting?

 

Not being argumentative, just curious.

 

I'm not an expert but if they know how many registered boats there are and have the details of length etc they will know how much they should be getting and will send out demands for that amount, but they only receive 95.7% of that amount.

Edited November 19, 2009 by journeyperson

[casper ghost]

How do they know how much they should be getting?

 

Not being argumentative, just curious.

 

I suppose it takes time to take all evaders to court even when you know who they are..

[johnjo]

I'm not an expert but if they know how many registered boats there are and have the details of length etc they will know how much they should be getting and will send out demands for that amount, but they only receive 95.7% of that amount.

 

That sounds logical, thanks.

Edited November 19, 2009 by johnjo

[NB Alnwick]

Snipped from the document:-

 

"reducing evasion from 10.4 % in November 2007 to 4.3% in August 09"

How do they arrive at these figures?

If they know that these figures are correct, then presumeably they know who is evading! so why not reduce it to zero!

or am I missing something?

 

Edited to reduce screaming text [too large]

 

At a recent users group meeting we were given a presentation on similar figures - it was a couple of months ago. The figures are calculated by the number of unlicensed boats confirmed as being on BW waters by patrol officers and other BW staff. It would appear that efforts are being made to reduce the number of unlicensed boats to zero but, whereas many boat owners, when challenged, pay up - there are a few with issues. These seem to fall into three categories:

 

1. Unlicensed boats where the owner cannot be contacted;
   
2. Liveaboards with who say they cannot afford to pay and have nowhere else to live;
   
3. Deliberate evaders, who move the boat to non-BW waters or some other location as soon as legal proceeding start and then return to BW waters after the orignal proceedings have timed out.
   

In all three scenarios BW have to get involved in long and complicated legal procedures - often with no satisfactory outcome for either side.

Edited November 19, 2009 by NB Alnwick

[casper ghost]

That sounds logical, thanks.

 

BW can't work out how much the total licence fees should be from boat numbers and length as they can't predict which boats will pay early and qualify for the prompt payment discount. So this idea doesn't work..

[johnjo]

But in some marinas, like the one we are in, you only have to licence it if you go out on the canal, and I know of two or three here that never venture out. They just like the pleasure of living on a boat. So although their boats are registered they don't require a licence. So the question still remains, but it now seems that they are guessing, aren't they?

Edited November 19, 2009 by johnjo

[casper ghost]

I was moored in a line of boats, a bw chap came past with his clipboard and checked my licence. I was chatting with him and he said that most of the other boats in the line had no licence and weren't even registered but as BW didn't know who owned the boat they were doing nothing..

[journeyperson]

BW can't work out how much the total licence fees should be from boat numbers and length as they can't predict which boats will pay early and qualify for the prompt payment discount. So this idea doesn't work..

 

If people pay promptly that is money BW have got and the discount is accounted for. Surely the figures are released when they have done all the working out. I'm only speculating I haven't a clue how they work things out and to be honest I don't care! Why am I doing this then? A sense of duty. Never leave a question put directly to me unanswered....f**k it......

[mayalld]

I would expect the priority to be to protect the system as a leisure resource and tourist destination. There will always be breaches, there always have been, they are not an indication of decline and decay.

 

Yes, there have always been breaches.

 

Can anybody else remember the last time we so many breaches in a single year?

[journeyperson]

Yes, there have always been breaches.

 

Can anybody else remember the last time we so many breaches in a single year?

 

 

Have there been four this year? (so far)

[RLWP]

Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge?

 

Richard

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge?

 

Richard

 

My count is 6 - but two were self inflicted. The missing one is the Coventry.

[Smelly]

My count is 6 - but two were self inflicted. The missing one is the Coventry.

 

Self inflicted?

[mayalld]

Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge?

 

Richard

 

Haven't we missed the Shropshire Union breach here?

 

And yes, the breach on the Coventry was different, as it was down to over-enthusiastic dredging.

[alan_fincher]

Haven't we missed the Shropshire Union breach here?

I thought the line on that was "it's not a breach, but a leak that we couldn't ignore ?"

[mayalld]

I thought the line on that was "it's not a breach, but a leak that we couldn't ignore ?"

 

Yeees.

 

As I understand it, there was a "significant leak", and as soon as they started to work on it, it breached (much like the situation on the Llangollen)

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I thought the line on that was "it's not a breach, but a leak that we couldn't ignore ?"

 

I have a confidential report that says the leak was due to "piping" from the bed of the canal. The reason's given -

 

• It has probably leaked since it was built.
  
• Boaters have the temerity to use powered craft which disturbs the puddle.
  
• The contractors, Arup, who designed and implemented a technical solution to the leaking embankment several years ago (which included piling to great depth) forgot a canal has a bottom as well as sides.
  

The local business unit had unsuccessfully tried to fix leakage in the near vicinity in recent years.

 

Pleased to know it was not BW's fault:-)

[RLWP]

Haven't we missed the Shropshire Union breach here?

 

And yes, the breach on the Coventry was different, as it was down to over-enthusiastic dredging.

 

Well, unless you are doing the thinking in my head with me I think I missed the SU one.

 

So Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge, Shropshire Union, Coventry.

 

Seven in 2009 so far?

 

I don't remember that many in a single year before.

 

Richard

Edited November 20, 2009 by RLWP

[casper ghost]

Well, unless you are doing the thinking in my head with me I think I missed the SU one.

 

So Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge, Shropshire Union, Coventry.

 

Seven in 2009 so far?

 

I don't remember that many in a single year before.

 

Richard

 

Yes twice on Llangollen , at Grindley brook and now Bettisfield..

[mayalld]

Well, unless you are doing the thinking in my head with me I think I missed the SU one.

 

So Caldon, Huddersfield, Llangollen (twice?), Stourbridge, Shropshire Union, Coventry.

 

Seven in 2009 so far?

 

I don't remember that many in a single year before.

 

Richard

 

Which suggests that we do have a serious problem with maintenance

[Machpoint005]

They should be reducing the fee, after all i'm blocked in at the mooring for quite a few months with the winter stoppages and now the new breach has further reduced cruising here.

This makes no difference whatsoever. The licence conditions clearly state that you're paying for the use of the waterways provided that they are available. The licence fee is 'adjusted' to take account of when you can't use them because of maintenance stoppages, breaches or whatever. You sign up to these conditons when you buy your licence.

 

You can cry 'foul' all you want, but it's still in the conditions.

[casper ghost]

You can cry 'foul' all you want, but it's still in the conditions.

 

I know, not very good is it

[Lewis 53]

Its easy. BW are short of money. Its easy to extract it from the most obvious target. Its hard to hide a boat. Most of us pay up because we are honest and we love being on the waterways, so they have the majority by the short and curlies. I just wish they wouldn't try to disguise fee increases by stealth. It really presses my grumpy button big time. Try being like the rest of us HONEST!!!

 

Lewis.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Its easy. BW are short of money. Its easy to extract it from the most obvious target. Its hard to hide a boat. Most of us pay up because we are honest and we love being on the waterways, so they have the majority by the short and curlies. I just wish they wouldn't try to disguise fee increases by stealth. It really presses my grumpy button big time. Try being like the rest of us HONEST!!!

 

Lewis.

 

I could not agree more! The other example of dishonesty this week is to start a second moorings consultation in parallel with the first. Why can't they be honest and say they messed the first up and rewrite the document?

[magpie patrick]

Which suggests that we do have a serious problem with maintenance

 

I think as likely it suggests serious problem with inspections. nearly all of these carry some report of an inspection a few days earlier when no problem was noted. Cursory? Not competent? Or should someone start a research process on why breaches are unpredictable?