Mooring Auctions Reserve Prices

[alan_fincher]

When I used to study reserve prices on BW moorings, apart from the "premium" ones like Brentford and Engineer's Wharf, the norm was for BW to set the "reserve" price at 80% of the "guide" price.

 

"Reserve" is the lowest bid you can make, and the least they claim they can "economically" let it for.

"Guide" is fairly meaningless, but is what those who have held moorings from before the days auctions started will be paying for a similar one.

 

Then after a while BW dropped the percentage they set "reserve" at from 80% to 75% for many moorings being advertised.

 

Even at this level, for some time it can be demonstrated that more moorings remain un-let than actually find a bidder prepared to pay at least the 75% "reserve".

 

I have argued strongly that it must be more "economic" to let them at all, than to let them stand empty, producing no revenue.

 

But based on recently advertised Grand Union moorings, BW have now decided to start setting "reserve" at 80% of "guide" again.

 

This means that moorings not let when "reserve" was 75% of guide are now being re-advertised with an even higher minimum bid.

 

Needless to say they are not finding "buyers" at the higher prices - I can't imagine why!

 

What kind of twisted logic leads to this type of business decision ? Bonkers, in my view!

[davidc]

When I used to study reserve prices on BW moorings, apart from the "premium" ones like Brentford and Engineer's Wharf, the norm was for BW to set the "reserve" price at 80% of the "guide" price.

 

"Reserve" is the lowest bid you can make, and the least they claim they can "economically" let it for.

"Guide" is fairly meaningless, but is what those who have held moorings from before the days auctions started will be paying for a similar one.

 

Then after a while BW dropped the percentage they set "reserve" at from 80% to 75% for many moorings being advertised.

 

Even at this level, for some time it can be demonstrated that more moorings remain un-let than actually find a bidder prepared to pay at least the 75% "reserve".

 

I have argued strongly that it must be more "economic" to let them at all, than to let them stand empty, producing no revenue.

 

But based on recently advertised Grand Union moorings, BW have now decided to start setting "reserve" at 80% of "guide" again.

 

This means that moorings not let when "reserve" was 75% of guide are now being re-advertised with an even higher minimum bid.

 

Needless to say they are not finding "buyers" at the higher prices - I can't imagine why!

 

What kind of twisted logic leads to this type of business decision ? Bonkers, in my view!

 

 

What happened to Market forces i.e let the market decide the cost?.

[Dekazer]

I wonder whether there are any people left still paying hugely inflated mooring fees, simply because they bid under the old 'blind bid' system.

 

I used to know someone on a residential mooring who was paying several thousand pounds more than anyone else there, because he'd bid under the closed system. In order to re-bid on a cheaper mooring, he would have had to change his address, which was a bit of a faff, plus there was always the risk of being outbid.

 

I wonder whether these inflated fees are still around, and skewing the prices for others...

[WJM]

 

I have argued strongly that it must be more "economic" to let them at all, than to let them stand empty, producing no revenue.

 

 

That is not a correct assumption. It is sometimes better to be less than full but achieving a better price for what you have sold. This strategy also prevents prices from falling generally.

[Burgiesburnin]

When I used to study reserve prices on BW moorings, apart from the "premium" ones like Brentford and Engineer's Wharf, the norm was for BW to set the "reserve" price at 80% of the "guide" price.

 

"Reserve" is the lowest bid you can make, and the least they claim they can "economically" let it for.

"Guide" is fairly meaningless, but is what those who have held moorings from before the days auctions started will be paying for a similar one.

 

Then after a while BW dropped the percentage they set "reserve" at from 80% to 75% for many moorings being advertised.

 

Even at this level, for some time it can be demonstrated that more moorings remain un-let than actually find a bidder prepared to pay at least the 75% "reserve".

 

I have argued strongly that it must be more "economic" to let them at all, than to let them stand empty, producing no revenue.

 

But based on recently advertised Grand Union moorings, BW have now decided to start setting "reserve" at 80% of "guide" again.

 

This means that moorings not let when "reserve" was 75% of guide are now being re-advertised with an even higher minimum bid.

 

Needless to say they are not finding "buyers" at the higher prices - I can't imagine why!

 

What kind of twisted logic leads to this type of business decision ? Bonkers, in my view!

 

 

 

It does seem silly but this seems to work much the same on shops for rent.

 

Landlords seem more than happy to let the place stand empty than let it at any or best price.

 

I have a cottage that we rent out and due to tax on the income from it, if it is empty for 3 months of the year then we are no worse or better off.

[sueb]

Why pay for a towpath mooring when you can moor for free?

[alan_fincher]

That is not a correct assumption. It is sometimes better to be less than full but achieving a better price for what you have sold. This strategy also prevents prices from falling generally.

We are not just talking "less than full, though are we ?"

 

We are talking about perhaps more than half the moorings put up for auction in some areas failing to let time and time again.

 

How is upping the typical reserve price from 75% to 80% of "guide" possibly going to make this a better deal for BW / CRT ?

 

The point someone else has made is a valid one. BW argued strongly initially that the tender and/or auctions system should set a fair economic rate for a mooring. In that case why put a reserve on it that means you never do find out what someone might have been prepared to pay, had you not ?

 

The truth remains this is a bloody stupid, and unfair system. It must have cost a heap to set up, to continually readvertise what you are not going to let must cost a heap to administer, and they are undoubtedly now making less revenue out of moorings than if they had not tampered with the process in the first place.

 

Why pay for a towpath mooring when you can moor for free?

One reason might be because you can legitimately moor your boat there 365 days a year, year in, year out, if you wish to, and all without attracting criticism from anybody.

 

"Mooring for free" in the same spot for extended periods does seem to attract a lot of attention, even if that attention is often not coming from BW.

[Rod a mod from Tod]

Does anybody know how long after the end of the auction do unsold moorings stay on the shelf before being re-advertised. They don't look to be transferred to the "buy now" farce. So what happens to 'em? Just stay empty. Perhaps if they started at a lower percentage of guide, say 50%, they would probably find there truer worth to the boater and not BW opinion of what they are worth.

 

Something is only worth what somebody else is prepared to pay for it.

[alan_fincher]

Does anybody know how long after the end of the auction do unsold moorings stay on the shelf before being re-advertised.

I monitor Grand Union ones fairly closely, and there is no rhyme or reason to what BW do about them each time they fail to let.

 

Some keep getting re-advertised at maybe 2-monthly intervals. This isn't completely mad, because you can never be sure there will not be a taker when there wasn't before - in fact this is how we finally got a mooring for "Sickle" after various other (non BW) leads failed to deliver one.

 

However in these cases what you would have to bid has now gone up on the latest re-advertised, because of upping "reserve" from 75% to 80% of "guide".

 

However at other sites, a mooring can stay empty for months or years, with no attempt to re-advertise it. (There is one of these where we keep Chalice, where the last people gave it up a full year ago).

 

It is unlikely any that fail to let at 75% or 80% of "guide" will re-let under the farcical "buy it now", because for the few they do put on "buy it now", they set the price at a full 100% of "guide" in my experience.

 

Something is only worth what somebody else is prepared to pay for it.

Yes, but I guess the dilemma BW have is that if they start letting them go too cheap, those already paying more at the same site will start to rebel.

 

I certainly know of cases where people have given notice on a mooring at a site, having bid for an auctioned one at the same location, and won it at 75% of the cost, (with that price also inflation-proofed for three years).

 

I'm surprised more don't do it - lethargy, I guess. If it became known you could half your mooring costs (say) rather than just reduced them 20-25%, I guess it would be more commonplace.

 

If they had thought this stupid idea through, they might have realised the potential monster they were building themselves. The truth, I think, is they hoped it would generally inflate prices, and they would raise a load of extra cash. For a while it did in some areas, (we still pay way over the going rate for "Chalice's" mooring), but they have got stung by a general down-turn in what people are prepared to pay. I think this is as much to do with the country's economic situation as anything TBH.

 

I know for a fact that many in my local area have given up paying for moorings at all in a bid to save costs, and are prepared to put up with any hassle that this causes them. To that extent I do understand the point sueb has made.

[Guest]

Why pay for a towpath mooring when you can moor for free?

 

I'm not sure what relevance this question has given that not all BW auctions are for tow-path moorings, often they are offside or in basins.....

[Rod a mod from Tod]

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3894

 

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3736

 

Proof if proof were needed. As Alan said end date 2 month apart and getting on for £300 more.

 

Makes you wonder how some people think. I couldn't sell it at £1391 a couple of month ago i'll try it at a £1669 now. Catch a weasel asleep

[alan_fincher]

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3894

 

https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/vacancy/vacancy_details.php?id=3736

 

Proof if proof were needed. As Alan said end date 2 month apart and getting on for £300 more.

 

Makes you wonder how some people think. I couldn't sell it at £1391 a couple of month ago i'll try it at a £1669 now. Catch a weasel asleep

Actually in that case the £1,391 looks like they made a mistake the first two times they advertised it.

 

The current rate at Market Harborough Towpath for existing moorers, (which is how they set "guide"), is £79.48 per metre, so 21 metres should be £1,669.08, the level in the most recent re-advertising.

 

£1,391 looks to be the correct rate for a 17.5 metre berth, so I think someone got something wrong the first two times around.

 

Mind you, it didn't let at what appearers to have been an erroneously low figure.

[bowten]

I have just received a letter from BW,I quote"We have recently undertaken a full moorings price review at all of our directly managed sites.Following the review,it has been decided that Springs Branch Skipton is the suitable comparison site for the pricing of your mooring at Bowers Wharf Skipton.As of April 1st 2012 Springs Branch will be priced at £71.32 per metre(exc VAT).50% of this rate for your end of garden mooring will represent a 32.6% increase in mooring fees.This increase will be applied over the next 3 years".End quote.Personally I would not pay £71.32 for the moorings on Springs branch,however that is my personal opinion.

[Neil2]

I don't have a problem with BW arguing there is an "uneconomic" ceiling, it's how they arrive at it that has to be questionable. My experience of towpath moorings suggests there is very little expense involved in maintaining these, and little more than maintaining the canal/towpath generally. In fact if you read the moorings agreement, BW don't have much in the way of responsibilities at all - not even to ensure the canal has water in it.

I can't imagine any private sector organisation adopting the same approach as BW do. One hopes some common sense will prevail under the new arrangements.

 

I have just received a letter from BW,I quote"We have recently undertaken a full moorings price review at all of our directly managed sites.Following the review,it has been decided that Springs Branch Skipton is the suitable comparison site for the pricing of your mooring at Bowers Wharf Skipton.As of April 1st 2012 Springs Branch will be priced at £71.32 per metre(exc VAT).50% of this rate for your end of garden mooring will represent a 32.6% increase in mooring fees.This increase will be applied over the next 3 years".End quote.Personally I would not pay £71.32 for the moorings on Springs branch,however that is my personal opinion.

 

 

I'd like to know how they define "directly managed".

[Higgs]

Before all of this blind auctioning started, they used to have waiting lists. Your name could be placed against a number of choices.

 

Each mooring was of a price that, I presume, would rise with inflation. It did seem like a reasonable system.

 

At this marina, the mooring is secure and costs £2,800 a year. Down the road it is under £2,000 a year, but has fewer facilities and less security. To be out on the cut, with less, you'd have to gauge the moorings worth based on local marina charges, then reduce the offer accordingly, reduced facilities noted .

 

No one is going to be out on the cut, paying fees that locally would seem ridiculous. Would only happen if all other options were closed and moorings were as scarce has hens teeth. In that situation, only CC licences could be issued and CM'ing would be valid, at least, understandable.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Higgs

[Higgs]

I'd like to know how they define "directly managed".

 

On some BW sites there may be a Warden appointed. Usually a moorer. There may be concessions - no idea.

[bowten]

Let me explain the moorings at Springs Branch Skipton.Tow path side,no water,no leccy,dog shit alley,rowdy drunks causing mayhem and noisy pub open til late,oh and gongoozelers all year round peering into yer boat.Lovely it is not.The price for a 57ft will be approx £1520 per year inc.vat.Now they want me to pay a 32.66 per cent increase based on the notion that someone not knowing what the moorings are like will pay their inflated price.

[Charles]

GBP 1391 + 20% vat = 1669.

[LEO]

Hi,

 

Actually the whole mooring set up is a shambles - confirming that BW/CRT are poor property managers.

 

Really the problems starts with the actual registration of a boat, lenght is given on a self certification basis - the boat may only be measured by a surveyor carrying out work at a later date. A slight understatement of lenght adds up to a considerable saving on licence charges during a boat's life.

 

With regard to moorings, leisure moorings rapidly (and unofficially) become residential ones - no one from BW/CRT really checks - inspection of moorings by BW/CRT staff rarely takes place. I thought mooring rates were higher for residential occupancy?.

 

Breaches of the conditions of the mooring Agreement regulary take place, BW/CRT make whimpering noises but do not take action.

 

No one from BW checks that the boat which takes a mooring is the correct lenght except by reference to their own records (remember length is self certified).

 

The turn over of staff within BW/CRT is high as personnel swap jobs so there is little continuity with regard to controls/action.

 

So one can understand why the auction process is such a shambles, if you can't administer the moorings when they are let you don't stand a chance of administering an auction of them.

 

Leo.

[alan_fincher]

GBP 1391 + 20% vat = 1669.

Yes, it's a possible explanation, I suppose.

 

But as the BW "Price List" shows prices with the VAT alreafy added,it seems an odd mistake for them to have made ?

 

As I said, it is also the correct price for a shorter mooring, but we can only guess how they got it wrong!

[deletedaccount]

I'm with alan on this, it's an idiotic system. Perhaps the 'economic' bit comes from the fact that they can seriously inflate an unlet mooring price and the knock on effect raises revenue from end of gardens and nearby marinas quoting these imaginary market rates.

[Lady Muck]

I thought mooring rates were higher for residential occupancy?

 

Well in London.....

 

The auction system has put paid to this, boaters often push the price up massively bidding for leisure moorings for residential purposes and there can end up being no difference in the prices.

You have a situation where the mooring prices are unaffordable for anyone who wants to moor a boat for leisure. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for BW with this one, they made a rod for their own back with the auction system.

 

As for checking up, how can you tell? They admitted in a report they would need to pay private detectives to watch boats for weeks 24/7 and there isn't the money. It *is* very easy to get it wrong. I can think of an example where one boater on a leisure mooring was challenged for residing there because he attracted complaints from the LA - they assumed because he had so many sheds and general clutter on the bankside that he was living there. But he has a house and he doesn't live onboard - he only visits the boat in the summer! He has a thing about sheds and is very untidy, that's all!

[LEO]

Well in London.....

 

The auction system has put paid to this, boaters often push the price up massively bidding for leisure moorings for residential purposes and there can end up being no difference in the prices.

You have a situation where the mooring prices are unaffordable for anyone who wants to moor a boat for leisure. I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for BW with this one, they made a rod for their own back with the auction system.

 

As for checking up, how can you tell? They admitted in a report they would need to pay private detectives to watch boats for weeks 24/7 and there isn't the money. It *is* very easy to get it wrong. I can think of an example where one boater on a leisure mooring was challenged for residing there because he attracted complaints from the LA - they assumed because he had so many sheds and general clutter on the bankside that he was living there. But he has a house and he doesn't live onboard - he only visits the boat in the summer! He has a thing about sheds and is very untidy, that's all!

 

It's fairly easy to check if someone is resident on a mooring - do leisure moorers need washing machines, tumble driers etc other than those fitted in boats?. The other important point is that your mooring is a right to tie a boat up to a designated section of bankside - use of adjacent BW/CRT land does not go with the mooring - technically you are tresspassing if using it.

 

He may have a house ashore, which gives an accomodation address, but this may be let.

 

The regulations on sheds are normally one shed per mooring, having obtained consent from BW,- as for it being untidy BW?CRT are the idiots here as they may have to clear it if the mooring is terminated.

 

The BW mooring agreement lays down rules about use and care of the mooring, even controlling the lighting of BBQ's.

 

BW/CRT may be introducing a regulatorty system to control use of adjacent land.

 

Leo.

[Lady Muck]

He may have a house ashore, which gives an accomodation address, but this may be let.

But in this case he doesn't live there. I still think it is impossible to know for sure unless you follow people around for weeks. There is no ticklist to tell if someone is residing on a mooring.

Take private marinas for instance, they have very strict rules on sheds/junk on the roof etc (and unlike BW they have the funds and manpower to enforce), but there may be still dozens of boaters residing there.

 

having obtained consent from BW

 

I expect they're pleased that no one does this, though. I think our moorings warden has about 400 sites to manage, imagine the deluge of communication and all of the checking every time someone wanted to put up a garden brolly or storage box. No wonder so many are signed off sick with stress. It's like many BW ideas, great, but doesn't work in practise.

 

Anyway, I would just like to be able to moor our boat against the bankside. Anyone who comes past when our boat is there will note it is moored sticking out - there isn't enough depth to moor up properly and I've given up trying to get them to dig it out a bit several years ago. Sigh.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Lady Muck

[LEO]

But in this case he doesn't live there. I still think it is impossible to know for sure unless you follow people around for weeks. There is no ticklist to tell if someone is residing on a mooring.

Take private marinas for instance, they have very strict rules on sheds/junk on the roof etc (and unlike BW they have the funds and manpower to enforce), but there may be still dozens of boaters residing there.

 

True, but they cover this by charging a high user fee in most cases

 

 

 

I expect they're pleased that no one does this, though. I think our moorings warden has about 400 sites to manage, imagine the deluge of communication and all of the checking every time someone wanted to put up a garden brolly or storage box. No wonder so many are signed off sick with stress. It's like many BW ideas, great, but doesn't work in practise.

 

Possibly, but why include conditions in mooring agreements if they are to be ignored. Does your mooring warden have 400 mooring sites or berths to administer, if it's the latter he should be able to cope, perhaps the introduction of a bonus scheme would concentrate his/her mind. Our mooring warden was given the push a couple of years ago.

 

Anyway, I would just like to be able to moor our boat against the bankside. Anyone who comes past when our boat is there will note it is moored sticking out - there isn't enough depth to moor up properly and I've given up trying to get them to dig it out a bit several years ago. Sigh.

 

Might be worth checking you mooring agreement to see what depth was indicated when you took the mooring and complain to get that section dredged, BW regional managers love being badgered over such things - but if they had more money available, by being more astute property managers, they would be able to carry out such work. Or try to get to BW user group meetings for your area and raise questions there.