Jump to content

number of boats on the system going up or down


kevinl

Featured Posts

why would it be a write off Mike ? the hull is sound, though it may be distorted, it looked quite straight to me, though when you cut the cabin off it releases all the pent up distortion, and springs all over the place, whap a ply cabin on and you have the basis of a cheap starter boat. Though it was a high price for a burn out, the end result would be worth just enough to make it worth doing.

 

I don't think anything has been said about the age of the hull. That could be a major factor in determining whether it's worth rebuilding. The ebay wording was a bit ambiguous, could be taken as declaring that the hull was sound or just that it was not distorted by the fire.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one Neil. This has been my observation also voyaging down the GU, across London and now going up the Lea. My observations would include a representative cross section of t'cut in the SE region. Empirical evidence of evasion is all over the place. One of the better indicators of potential evasion is the numbers of boats which do not clearly show their name and number as required by the 1971 Act.

 

9. (1) Every powered pleasure boat registered under this part of this Act shall have its name or number conspicuously painted or otherwise displayed on the outside thereof in letters of such colour, character and size as will be clearly legible at all times, and shall also have similarly displayed the mark and number which the Board shall have assigned in respect of such pleasure boat

 

I've spoken with people whose boats do not clearly display the name eg because they are painting the boat or getting a new screen made so spare me the Red Herrings on such situations and look at the bigger picture. When I see boats with ID numbers inside windows and some of the numerals covered by the out of date licence and/or no identifiable identity clearly visible, I'm entitled to apply the 'duck' test. (If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a ... ) When I see boats with no clearly identifiable markings according to the 1971 Act, I am entitled to suspect evasion. I am also entitled to advise CaRT of my observations if I so desire. That desire will become very focussed when I see CaRT planning to ask me for even more for my annual licence, because it cannot get on top of 'evasion'.

 

When I see a boat with a name unclearly displayed in amateurish and messy 'sign-writing' scrawled on with an indelible pen, or as in one case CHALK, I see a guy who is TRYING to stay legal and he will not be subjected to my 'duck' test. It is time to get real. There is widespread evasion rather than avoidance. Let's face up to it and stop playing around with 1%er exceptions. CaRT is trying to get on top of the problem but there are less wardens than users and not enough rogues being set upon the rogues. I'm on the side of CaRT. If CaRT knows there are SAY 32000 boats registered but records show SAY 28000 current licences, CaRT is entitled to apply the 'duck' test and go on the offensive, because 12.5% of registered boats may be unlicenced. So maybe all 4000 boats thus exampled are in places where a licence is not needed (this is avoidance and avoidance is not evasion). But I suspect not as there is in statistics a device called the bell jar test which never failed me. I am shortly to be craned out (for a month) and will be [legally] avoiding licence paying during that month. I have already visited the place where I will be avoiding having a licence and looked at the boats already out of the water there. Numbers of them are legally licenced. Once again spare me the red herrings. I hope to be dropped back into the wet sometime in January with a gold licence to continue cruising for all of 2013 Deo Vero.

 

Those of us who actually buy and display licences and pay our lawful dues need to become totally intransigent and intolerant of wasters and avoiders. Let us stop pointing to the very small number of canal users who are in genuine and uncalled for financial distress, bad health, or inability to cope. Indeed let us strive to protect such people as our needy neighbours and blitz the wasters and ne'er do well leeches who are sucking us dry. Because unless we all work together to eradicate this carry-on CaRT may have to look to us payers to pay even more.

 

I am totally pissed off with the 'naval gazing' and harping about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". We've got a new organisation. BW and all the crass stupidity of that failed entity is either going or gone. There is a new broom and canal user have the right to hold its handle AND sweep with it. Let's start sweeping now and stop talking bollox.

 

Have I made myself reasonably clear?

 

for most of last year i didnt display either my mooring or licence, not because i didnt have one but simply because im a bit crap sometimes, oh and i dont have my boat name displayed simply because i painted my boat last year and want pucker painted job and at the moment can not afford it.

 

I do display my boat number but oh dear its inside my bedroom window.

 

for your information i am not a waster, i pay my way.

 

it does seem as though i would be the "type" to be on your curtain twitching radar.

 

i did get reported last year as well, recived the BW email and i replied pointing out there mistake in not continueing my direct debit payments as they had for the last 4 years, BW quickly replied,apologised and sorted out my licence. I should thank that curtain twitcher i suppose they did draw my attention to BWs mistake

 

Hmmmmm where you on the Llangolen last year?

 

Its simple isnt it, life isnt as simple(?) as you seem to think, dont judge others until you have the full facts and as you are unlikely to have the full facts leave it to those who do, in this case CaRT.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for most of last year i didnt display either my mooring or licence, not because i didnt have one but simply because im a bit crap sometimes, oh and i dont have my boat name displayed simply because i painted my boat last year and want pucker painted job and at the moment can not afford it.

 

I do display my boat number but oh dear its inside my bedroom window.

 

for your information i am not a waster, i pay my way.

 

it does seem as though i would be the "type" to be on your curtain twitching radar.

 

i did get reported last year as well, recived the BW email and i replied pointing out there mistake in not continueing my direct debit payments as they had for the last 4 years, BW quickly replied,apologised and sorted out my licence. I should thank that curtain twitcher i suppose they did draw my attention to BWs mistake

 

Hmmmmm where you on the Llangolen last year?

 

Its simple isnt it, life isnt as simple(?) as you seem to think, dont judge others until you have the full facts and as you are unlikely to have the full facts leave it to those who do, in this case CaRT.

Yay!!! Monkeys been on the haribos, have a greenie.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay!!! Monkeys been on the haribos, have a greenie.

 

Yeah, greenie from me too!

 

REGINALD is a terminal offender as well. No registration number displayed. The plates are on the floor of my van waiting to be re-affixed and have been for MONTHS. Never mind that I actually have a valid (c9ondensation stained) licence and a home mooring.... this is a CRUSHING OFFENCE, don't you think Pent?

 

:)

 

MtB

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The O/P asked -

 

I read in a comment on Narrowboat World that C&RT have a problem, that the number of boats on the system has gone down, thus a reduction in their income. This was in a reader's comment not an article, is it true or just a bit of ill informed gossip? I can't find any up to date figures on it?

 

K

 

I replied in post #4 -

 

BW quote number of long term licences issued in annual reports with the latest showing that the number issued has fallen slightly after significant growth in previous years.

 

This did not affect licence income which rose from £17m (2010/11) to £17.4m (2011/12) due to licence fee increases and a reduction in evasion rates.

 

Alan Fincher confirmed my first paragraph giving the 'fallen slightly' as 191. The actual figure will be very slightly higher because evaders arequite obviously not included and evasion has decreased by 1.5%.

 

(Having said that, the 3.4% evasion rate quoted in the last annual report is now 4%)

 

Unless anyone wishes to dispute the figures on licence income, I would suggest the O/P had a reasonable answer very early on in this thread.

 

Unfortunately, Alan went on the say that a 0.7% drop was hardly significant. I would beg to differ. Historically, BW's income from licences has been boosted by price increases and year on year increases in the number of licences. With number of licences declining slightly and CaRT saying that post April 2013 increases will be pegged to CPI, licence income is liable to be static or decreasing in real terms (maybe for the first time ever?).

 

More alarming than the slight decrease in long term licences (191) is the decrease in private licences. They decreased by 550 (2%)last year. This has been partially offset by an increase in commercial licences.

 

One explanation could be that we now have craft up for sale with private licence expired but covered by trade plates.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More alarming than the slight decrease in long term licences (191) is the decrease in private licences. They decreased by 550 (2%)last year. This has been partially offset by an increase in commercial licences.

 

One explanation could be that we now have craft up for sale with private licence expired but covered by trade plates.

Another explanation is (possibly) that differences in the way small traders are now handled may mean that some licences that previously apperaed as "private" now appear as "commercial", but it may still be exactly the same owners and boats being talked about.

 

I suggested that as possibility in post 71, so await anyone telling me that that cannot possibly be the case.

 

I would have thought if they are counting boats licensed on trade plates, it is fairly unliukely that the number of trade plates increased by well over 300 in a year, but am happy to be proved wrong if any evidence can be found to support that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another explanation is (possibly) that differences in the way small traders are now handled may mean that some licences that previously apperaed as "private" now appear as "commercial", but it may still be exactly the same owners and boats being talked about.

 

I suggested that as possibility in post 71, so await anyone telling me that that cannot possibly be the case.

 

I would have thought if they are counting boats licensed on trade plates, it is fairly unliukely that the number of trade plates increased by well over 300 in a year, but am happy to be proved wrong if any evidence can be found to support that.

 

From BW's last annual report -

 

Despite economic pressures, the volume of boat licences issued remained broadly static. There was some redistribution of demand between private boat licences (down by about 200) and licences for commercial use which showed an increase, mainly due to an increase in demand for the trade plate facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Alan went on the say that a 0.7% drop was hardly significant. I would beg to differ. Historically, BW's income from licences has been boosted by price increases and year on year increases in the number of licences.

None the less, as you say, in the most recent year available, licence income did increase, (not fall), and the OPs question was about what has happened up until now, and not about predicting the future.

 

With number of licences declining slightly and CaRT saying that post April 2013 increases will be pegged to CPI, licence income is liable to be static or decreasing in real terms (maybe for the first time ever?).

Yes, this is possible, but again it was not the question asked.

 

CRT can't actually win, can they? If they try and peg prices in these difficult times they stand accused of not keeping up their revenue stream, but if they continue to layer on "inflation plus x%" price increases, (as I understand the EA have stated their firm intention to do), then they will stand accused of driving away loyal boat owners who can no longer find the funds, and who have incomes that are not even keeping up with RPI.

 

You also have to factor in that as you make something progressively more expensive, you are likely to drive numbers further down, and hence again impact the total income received.

 

So there are some guaranteed headlines there for anyone writing news articles, whichever way they play it in future, aren't there!

 

From BW's last annual report -

 

Despite economic pressures, the volume of boat licences issued remained broadly static. There was some redistribution of demand between private boat licences (down by about 200) and licences for commercial use which showed an increase, mainly due to an increase in demand for the trade plate facility.

 

Well if that is what it says, that final sentence seems a long way adrift from the numbers in the report, which show the fall not as "about 200", but "over 500", whether you consider just canal and river licences, or lump in the rivers only ones too.

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None the less, as you say, in the most recent year available, licence income did increase, (not fall), and the OPs question was about what has happened up until now, and not about predicting the future.

 

 

Yes, this is possible, but again it was not the question asked.

 

CRT can't actually win, can they? If they try and peg prices in these difficult times they stand accused of not keeping up their revenue stream, but if they continue to layer on "inflation plus x%" price increases, (as I understand the EA have stated their firm intention to do), then they will stand accused of driving away loyal boat owners who can no longer find the funds, and who have incomes that are not even keeping up with RPI.

 

You also have to factor in that as you make something progressively more expensive, you are likely to drive numbers further down, and hence again impact the total income received.

 

So there are some guaranteed headlines there for anyone writing news articles, whichever way they play it in future, aren't there!

 

 

 

 

 

Well if that is what it says, that final sentence seems a long way adrift from the numbers in the report, which show the fall not as "about 200", but "over 500", whether you consider just canal and river licences, or lump in the rivers only ones too.

 

The fact remains that the O/P asked a question and it has been answered using BW supplied information.

 

Instead of the bluster about what anyone writing news articles might say in future, you may wish to concentrate on the implications of what is in the public domain.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.