Dispute at Pillings

[Rich]

Look after the water channels that the marina needs to keep wet.

?, or even ??

 

 

Think of it as a fee for the privilege of being connected to the waterways, therefore giving the marina owner the ability to make money.

 

Or think of it as Canal and River Trust taking the **** and charging because they can. What, as a marina moorer, do you get for the extra money YOU pay Canal and River Trust.

 

Also providing water into the marina for that lost by evaporation

 

Richard

In which case who pays Canal and River Trust for the water lost in the entire system due to evaporation.

[Mick and Maggie]

The issue of Pillings marina seems to be continuing its upward trend into the mainstream media. The issue has been escalated further by the blockade threat made by the trust. I discovered a long time ago that any expectation of morality in business holds very little sway. I also learned that morality for a charity was a paramount position it needs to maintain. At the time period when the marina was being proposed BW published a prospectus for new marina operators. Which is still available on line. It is a prospectus which clearly paints a very rosy operating position.

 

There is a rather interesting aspect to this issue and one that has not been aired so far. So I'm playing the role of devils advocate, the Canal and River Trust it should be remembered are in a monopoly situation operating as the sole provider for the waterways under their control, there is no competative element available from alternative suppliers. However, I would imagine that there are other marina who are currently paying the CaRT access charge, who will be watching the developments with more than a little interest. I would also imagine that marina owners who are not paying the charge will also be awaiting the outcome as it will possibly have serious consequences for their business.

It could be alleged that CaRT are abusing their position as monopoly provider. CaRT by using a specific access charge at one marina, a charge that is not levied at one or more other marinas within the area. That selective application of such a charge gives unfair advantage to the new marinas competitors. Add into the equation that BWML is operating marinas under much more favourable terms and conditions which are not available to many other operators. This could then be interpreted as providing BWML with an unfair advantage and undercutting competition to all other marinas.

 

One way or another the public and boaters are going to be picking up the not inconsequential bill for the whole issue. I would not hold my breath on this one, I think that this is a story that still has a long long way to run. It will bring even more dubious valuable publicity as the various colours of washing are laundered once more in public.

[Tony Brooks]

A hidden tax on boaters the charges may be, but they raise funds which are needed. Would you prefer the charges were abolished and all licenses raised by a percentage?

 

What a first rate idea, especially if the majority of marinas reduced their fees by the NAA amount. Such action would go some way to restoring fairness in fairness of those with proper moorings V those without situation.

[alan_fincher]

As I have said earlier, they are a hidden tax on boaters.

 

 

They are only "a hidden tax on boaters" if the boaters paying a fee to the moorings operative don't know that part of what they are paying goes to, (or more accurately, in this particular case, should go to!), CRT.

 

I think many boaters will be aware they are paying it - I was, when in a marina.

I wouldn't call VAT a "hidden tax", even though for most things I purchase it is not itemised in the purchase price.

 

Pillings are I think charging about £2,000 pa to a typical boat of about 56 feet, so 9% of that is less than £200 pa to CRT.

 

That is surely very considerably less than the same boat might be paying to CRT if it occupied an offside farmer's field mooring, and CRT were charging "end of garden" rate for that privilege? I would't be surprised if CRT would not charge up to three times the amount for an EOG mooring permit than the levy on a marina berth.

 

I leave it up to readers to decide if that part of the marina deal is poor value by comparison.

[Dangerous Dave]

Agreed! However, there are a lot of people contributing here who seem to think the situation is amusing. They seem to think character assassination is perfectly acceptable, but I find it insulting, rude and downright evil!

 

None of you know all the facts! Stop using the situation for your amusement and if you are not connected directly with the situation, why not butt out and start a thread about something more relevant to your situation.

 

I will be attending the meeting tomorrow and will reserve judgement until I hear what Paul has to say. I hope the marina will be saved as I would love to carry on mooring there. My hope is for a resolution that is fair to all...boaters, CaRT & marina. Unfortunately, a lot of you on here give the impression you would be disappointed if that happened. Some of you are truly sick.

 

richard, i'm quoting your post but this is not aimed at you!

 

 

I am fully aware of the facts .

 

.Actually we were neighbours..I found you a friendly and happy person and hope that this will continue

 

I'm sorry that you may find this offensive but you seem to be a guy who goes around with rose coloured sight glasses and somewhat nieve.

If you were to fulfil your transition from casual leisure boater to liveaboard moorer at PLM then you would find that the idealic pastime and experience change dramatically..

It is encouraging that postings on here are so accurate of the character called Paul Lillie ..As a leasehold moorer there for 5 years+ i can confirm everything they say..

 

I only wish you had turned up back in 2008/9 and seen the exodus of disgruntled boaters that left..Lucky souls!

 

I wish you all the best in the future but i find that will only happen if/when the managing director is fired!!

[Rich]

 

They are only "a hidden tax on boaters" if the boaters paying a fee to the moorings operative don't know that part of what they are paying goes to, (or more accurately, in this particular case, should go to!), CRT.

 

I think many boaters will be aware they are paying it - I was, when in a marina.

I wouldn't call VAT a "hidden tax", even though for most things I purchase it is not itemised in the purchase price.

 

Pillings are I think charging about £2,000 pa to a typical boat of about 56 feet, so 9% of that is less than £200 pa to CRT.

 

That is surely very considerably less than the same boat might be paying to CRT if it occupied an offside farmer's field mooring, and CRT were charging "end of garden" rate for that privilege? I would't be surprised if CRT would not charge up to three times the amount for an EOG mooring permit than the levy on a marina berth.

 

I leave it up to readers to decide if that part of the marina deal is poor value by comparison.

But both charges are taking advantage of the monopoly position. In the case of EOG moorings there could be a small extra cost for wear and tear caused by boaters getting on and off their boats. With NAA charge there doesn't seem to be real justification.

[RLWP]

?, or even ??

 

 

 

Or think of it as Canal and River Trust taking the **** and charging because they can. What, as a marina moorer, do you get for the extra money YOU pay Canal and River Trust.

 

In which case who pays Canal and River Trust for the water lost in the entire system due to evaporation.

No one! They have reservoirs and water feeds that they maintain themselves

 

Richard

[Jerra]

 

What a first rate idea, especially if the majority of marinas reduced their fees by the NAA amount. Such action would go some way to restoring fairness in fairness of those with proper moorings V those without situation.

So is it fair that a CC should be paying for the maintenance of the water supply to marinas when they have nothing tom do with them? To me the fees paid by marinas to CRT is the fairest way and we moor in a marina.

 

I also doubt in these hard trading times that most marinas would change their charges.

[Rich]

No one! They have reservoirs and water feeds that they maintain themselves

 

Richard

You aren't being serious surely.

 

I have no idea of the total surface area of the canals in the entire system but I would imagine that all the marinas added together would amount to a small percentage of it. 9% of mooring fees would add up to a hell of a lot of water. Ah, I know. Water in marinas evaporates at a higher rate due to all the hot air produced by CWDF posters.

[Stilllearning]

But both charges are taking advantage of the monopoly position. In the case of EOG moorings there could be a small extra cost for wear and tear caused by boaters getting on and off their boats. With NAA charge there doesn't seem to be real justification.

So it costs C&RT nothing to maintain the water so that the marina can have a business?

[Rich]

So is it fair that a CC should be paying for the maintenance of the water supply to marinas when they have nothing tom do with them? To me the fees paid by marinas to CRT is the fairest way and we moor in a marina.

 

I also doubt in these hard trading times that most marinas would change their charges.

Yes.

 

How much water do you imagine is lost through the marinas? And I have moored in marinas and have been a CC and even when a CC I thought the NAA charges were unfair.

[johnlillie]

^{It states on NBW that he has resigned of the now defunct QMP, but is still "in charge" of PLM! BE AWARE, BE VERY AWARE........}

[Graham Davis]

Rich, and others,

There is a new thread entitled "CART Connection Charge", could you please continue your arguement there and not here?

[ditchcrawler]

 

What a first rate idea, especially if the majority of marinas reduced their fees by the NAA amount. Such action would go some way to restoring fairness in fairness of those with proper moorings V those without situation.

I would love to think they would pass it on, but I bet some marinas would then say they only paid £10 per boat, or is that me being cynical again

[RichardH]

 

They are only "a hidden tax on boaters" if the boaters paying a fee to the moorings operative don't know that part of what they are paying goes to, (or more accurately, in this particular case, should go to!), CRT.

 

I think many boaters will be aware they are paying it - I was, when in a marina.

I wouldn't call VAT a "hidden tax", even though for most things I purchase it is not itemised in the purchase price.

 

Pillings are I think charging about £2,000 pa to a typical boat of about 56 feet, so 9% of that is less than £200 pa to CRT.

 

That is surely very considerably less than the same boat might be paying to CRT if it occupied an offside farmer's field mooring, and CRT were charging "end of garden" rate for that privilege? I would't be surprised if CRT would not charge up to three times the amount for an EOG mooring permit than the levy on a marina berth.

 

I leave it up to readers to decide if that part of the marina deal is poor value by comparison.

 

The EOG estimate is spot on - roughly what we pay for ours.

[Robbo]

But both charges are taking advantage of the monopoly position. In the case of EOG moorings there could be a small extra cost for wear and tear caused by boaters getting on and off their boats. With NAA charge there doesn't seem to be real justification.

EOG moorings are on private land, not CRTs.

[adam1uk]

EOG moorings are on private land, not CRTs.

The bank might be private, but the water the boat is floating in, and the canal bed it's floating over, belong to CRT. And without the water, the mooring wouldn't be up to much.

[Mike Todd]

That's what I meant!

 

Pedant alert!

 

If it is for your own exclusive use the electricty or phone company do not have to pay.

 

If it serves others as well as you a wayleave agreement with financial considerations is required.

 

Ex BT empolyee who delt with wayleaves on an almost weekly basis.

[Rich]

Rich, and others,

There is a new thread entitled "CART Connection Charge", could you please continue your arguement there and not here?

Thank you Graham, what would we do without you?

 

I have been told on more than one occasion that this is a discussion forum and discussions move off the original subject. Apparently this is negotiable.

[Stilllearning]

The bank might be private, but the water the boat is floating in, and the canal bed it's floating over, belong to CRT. And without the water, the mooring wouldn't be up to much.

I suspect there was some sort of legal change back in the 80s so that BW got control of a thin strip of land everywhere on the offside so that they could manage and maintain it. If that is the case, ownership of that land could be said to be in BW/C&RT's hands. Or am I totally dreaming?

[Rich]

I suspect there was some sort of legal change back in the 80s so that BW got control of a thin strip of land everywhere on the offside so that they could manage and maintain it. If that is the case, ownership of that land could be said to be in BW/C&RT's hands. Or am I totally dreaming?

I can recall reading about this. A boater took the case to court and BW were able to convince the learned judge that they, BW, owned a thin strip of the offside bank, I think a dimension was mentioned. On this basis BW won.

[nicknorman]

Rich, and others,

There is a new thread entitled "CART Connection Charge", could you please continue your arguement there and not here?

 

Who put you in charge? The subject of the NAA is entirely germane to this thread and splitting it away just causes unnecessary complications.

[john6767]

I suspect there was some sort of legal change back in the 80s so that BW got control of a thin strip of land everywhere on the offside so that they could manage and maintain it. If that is the case, ownership of that land could be said to be in BW/C&RT's hands. Or am I totally dreaming?

I believe that is the case is some places but not all, and I know of a couple of cases for certain. It is generally called a "ransom strip" for obvious reasons.

[Jerra]

How much water do you imagine is lost through the marinas?

Surely it isn't just a matter of water. As I understand it CRT remove an on line mooring for every 10 the marina has. This loss of income needs to be made up. Why should all boaters pay more so that a business can line its pockets.

 

The situation for the moorer in the marina is just like anybody buying anything from a business, they pay to cover the business's overheads and a profit. The fee so that CRT aren't "out of pocket" is part of the business's overheads.

[RLWP]

Surely it isn't just a matter of water. As I understand it CRT remove an on line mooring for every 10 the marina has. This loss of income needs to be made up. Why should all boaters pay more so that a business can line its pockets.

 

The situation for the moorer in the marina is just like anybody buying anything from a business, they pay to cover the business's overheads and a profit. The fee so that CRT aren't "out of pocket" is part of the business's overheads.

The water evaporation is a red herring. I introduced it as an example of something that the Trust provide to a marina. Unfortunately, it's become a point of ridicule rather than an example

 

Richard