Why no canal only licence ?

[Martin Megson]

 

Why is it that every time someone pops up on here suggesting a change to the licencing regime its always one which reduces the cost of their particular style of boating, but they never seem to consider the impact on the cost of other peoples' boating or on CRT's revenues?

 

Cynical moi?

Not cynical just being realistic about how selfish people can be.

[Delta9]

How selfish of them, only wanting to pay for the services they use.

[Alan de Enfield]

I do not expect to go onto Rivers except the Thames when I will be expected to pay extra so the question must be asked why am I being charged for something that I do not require ?A canal only licence will suit me and probably the majority of others.

 

We pay Council Tax (as we should), this goes towards paying for a number of local services, Police, Fire, Schools and Libraries. In addition there is a percentage used for street lighting, footpath construction and maintenance and instalaion of the 'rural' bus stops

 

We live approximately 2 miles from the nearest footpath and probably nearer 3 miles from the nearest streetlight. The nearest bus-stop is a mile away and no footpath to walk on to get there. - do I get a reduction because I have no footpath, no streetlights, no children at school, do not use the library and haven seen a Policemean on our 'lane' for several years - NO

[Alan Saunders]

I hoped that the introduction of the Gold Licence would herald a simplification of boat licencing; i.e. a single licence for all UK inland navigable waters.

This would decrease the cost of issuing and enforcing licences and remove all arguments such as "I am based on the K&A and I am isolated from the rest of the canal system". A portion of each licence fee could be allotted to each of the waterways, either as as a percentage or according to reported passages.

 

Alan

[MtB]

How selfish of them, only wanting to pay for the services they use.

 

Yes.

 

Hypothecation leads to all sorts of grief especially when applied to taxation.

 

MtB

[Phil Ambrose]

Perhaps they should change the name of the license to "Water license" or "Boat license" so if you have a boat you get a Boat license or if you boat on water you have a Water license, after all its only a name.

Phil

[Scholar Gypsy]

There is clearly a large amount of cross subsidy between different users, depending on how much they move their boat and which waterways they use. That is unavoidable if one goes for a national C&RT licence rather than tolls (which would of course be easier to run nowadays using modern technology eg remote sensing, RFID chips etc etc - compare the debates on road pricing!).

 

One could construct an argument that as canals are more expensive to maintain (for navigation purposes, eg electricity for back pumping) a canals only licence should be more expensive than an all system C&RT licence - comparing two users who do the same amount of cruising.

 

For now I think the current system is OK. (I am a Gold licence holder).

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scholar Gypsy

[Steilsteven]

 

Why is it that every time someone pops up on here suggesting a change to the licencing regime its always one which reduces the cost of their particular style of boating, but they never seem to consider the impact on the cost of other peoples' boating or on CRT's revenues?

 

Cynical moi?

I think everyone should pay as much as I do regardless of the size of their boat ( that is to say the smallest being as shown in the present scale of charges ), that would vastly increase CaRT's income.

After all, we pay the licence as a contribution to the upkeep of the waterways and that contribution should be equal.

 

Keith

[ditchcrawler]

This is actually snonkingly good value for money, when you consider things such as the Ribble Link, Standedge Tunnel, Anderton Lift are included within this.

 

 

 

Have you read this on the dark side http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6838-charge-to-use-anderton-lift

[Alan de Enfield]

Have you read this on the dark side http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6838-charge-to-use-anderton-lift

 

Thats possibly the original source of the information for the 'chap' I was talking with t'other day.

[andy3196]

Have you read this on the dark side http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6838-charge-to-use-anderton-lift

Brian, (& anyone else interested), go to http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing where you will find links to both the old and new versions of the terms and conditions.

 

The pages that are worth looking at are 13 & 22 of the old version and 5 & 18 of the new.

 

You can then make your own mind up as to the accuracy of the nbw story.

[b0atman]

Strange how its ok to have a river only licence got lots of aggro posts when I suggested that it should be increased now lots of aggro posts because I suggest that canal only should be a licence .Just one or two posts that it should be a one size fits all licence yes their will be no saving or profit in real terms for CaRT as licence should be averaged out but admin would be reduced.

[Naughty Cal]

I expect the rivers only licence may be more popular with owners of smaller craft which can be moved by trailer from river to river. Personally I have a Gold licence which also covers the EA managed waterways which I use almost as much as the canals.

We have cruised our boat extensively with a rivers only licence without the need to take it out of the water. The only time we have needed a "top up" visitor licence was when we visited Leeds. It very much depends on where you moor as to whether rivers only is a sensible choice or not.

[David Mack]

Have you read this on the dark side http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6838-charge-to-use-anderton-lift

 

That NBW article includes this:

 

"Wording that makes it clear that the licence allows free passage through the Anderton Boat Lift, Standedge Tunnel and Ribble Link has been removed."

 

and

"Licences no longer include permission to tow a butty or other craft. Again the ‘material implication' is that CaRT can now impose separate charges."

which had me a bit worried.

 

Brian, (& anyone else interested), go to http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/boating/licensing where you will find links to both the old and new versions of the terms and conditions.

 

The pages that are worth looking at are 13 & 22 of the old version and 5 & 18 of the new.

 

But looking at the April 2014 Terms and Conditions, on page 5 it says:

 

The licence allows free passage through the Anderton Boat Lift, Standedge Tunnel and the Ribble Link,

subject to local booking conditions. Charges may apply for the use of other structures which require our

people to operate them. Details are advertised locally.

and

 

You may use the boat for towing another licensed boat (for example, an unpowered butty or another boat

that has broken down) as long as you are not doing it for reward or a promise of payment.

So charges may apply to other structures, but not those listed.

 

In reality none of NBW's doom and gloom has come to pass!

 

I note that the new licence conditions were created on 10 April, so before the NBW article, so they can't even claim CRT have modified the wording in response to their item.

 

So are NBW deliberately misinforming their readers, or are they just incapable of finding the same wording as before in a reorganised document?

[Paul C]

I guess the author of the NBW article needs to learn how to press Ctrl+F to find things in documents. I guess it was just too complicated for them!