CRT Bypassing The Auctions Process And Going Straight to A Standard Contract.

[ditchcrawler]

Only one north of Fenny on the s Oxford and has been for months

[wreckferret]

The details of the pre - cc1 state that I had been seen at three locations covering 10km.

In actual fact I had been at 8 locations in one direction of travel (30+ miles) and 7 locations on the return leg with NO overstaying at any (although I wasn't being accused of that)

I do keep a log but pointed out that I could if required provide witnesses and these would all be CaRT employees....

Whether this is the end of the matter only time will tell, but he did seem more interested in the fact that moorings were available but not offered.

[Alan de Enfield]

The details of the pre - cc1 state that I had been seen at three locations covering 10km.

In actual fact I had been at 8 locations in one direction of travel (30+ miles) and 7 locations on the return leg with NO overstaying at any (although I wasn't being accused of that)

I do keep a log but pointed out that I could if required provide witnesses and these would all be CaRT employees....

Whether this is the end of the matter only time will tell, but he did seem more interested in the fact that moorings were available but not offered.

 

Many thanks - so another example of only taking 3 readings and assuming no movement between those times ??

[muddywaters]

The sooner CRT drop this auction for moorings the better I've never liked it.

[system 4-50]

I don't understand why an auction cannot remain open until 3 weeks after the first bid is made.

[BlueStringPudding]

I run an organisation that includes a Business Hub. The brand new and quite frankly brilliant facilities were built in 2009. I joined the organisation in 2013 and not one unit, office or hot desk had been let. My organisation is a charity and it's madness and quite frankly shooting yourself in the foot to make no income out of some bizarre principle that the process has to be just so because sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

 

I changed the pricing and the contracts at the Centre. Now any office or hot desk can be rented massively undercutting the local commercial competition. The contracts run with a short notice period on both sides instead of tying in to long term, so both are empowered to change the arrangement if something better comes along. In the first 6 weeks I filled one whole office and a hot desk space - which 5 years of trying couldn't do under the old system. We are now generating contributed income instead of procrastinating about what the value of the spaces and process should be despite it not working.

 

If I was running CRT I would do what they're doing - let the auction run. If it does sell then the system has given them the maximum price they could get for that mooring at that time. If you get approached by someone wanting what you have laying empty and they need the mooring a bit shorter or bit longer or right now - and especially if they're offering the reserve price or pro rata equivalent - then take the money. The budgets for the next 1-3 years will have been estimated, stoppages and repairs and license fees planned based on estimated income. If that income isn't forthcoming watch the repair work stop and the license fees increase massively. I think CRT staff are being opportunistic and entrepreneurial while still allowing the prescribed system a chance to work.

[alan_fincher]

I agree, and the re-listing should be at a lower price. It does not make business sense to stand there all year telling people that it's worth £2,000, not letting it and gaining £0. Far better, surely, to knock it down to £1,500 for quick sale. That is the best way of finding the true market value.

 

 

 

I think the argument against that is all the other moorers on the site whose moorings have lapsed onto the 'book price' of £2,000 would have cast iron evidence that the book price was too high, leading to a reduction on renewal to £1,500 for all the other moorings on the same location.

 

So in many cases, especially sites with a lot of boats who have been there a long time, the sums show leaving one mooring empty rather than accepting a low bid actually saves CRT money.

 

 

MtB

 

Quite so, and it is the major flaw in their alleged approach of having a free market, and letting the buyers decide a fair price.

 

They are very happy to take your money if an auction goes to 2 or even 3 times the "guide" price, but have progressively increased typical reserves from 75% of, then 80% to now 90% of guide.

 

That means that the least they are ever prepared to let a mooring at a completely underutilised site go for is 90% of "list".

 

In fact it is worse than that....

 

If you are on a standard (non auctioned) contract, you can get 10% off by paying for a whole year's moorings in one go. That means you can actually get it for the same price as the minimum they will now sell it for at auction.

 

As Mike says the reason they have a problem with setting a low "reserve" at (say) 50% of guide, so people started to get a year's mooring for £1,000, when existing moorers are paying £2,000. Canny moorers paying the much higher price would start bidding on and winning £1,000 moorings, and then relinquishing their £2,000 ones.

 

IMO, that is the real reason CRT cannot afford to let moorings go at less than the 90% "reserve", but they don't quite spell it out that way, do they?

[BlueStringPudding]

 

As Mike says the reason they have a problem with setting a low "reserve" at (say) 50% of guide, so people started to get a year's mooring for £1,000, when existing moorers are paying £2,000. Canny moorers paying the much higher price would start bidding on and winning £1,000 moorings, and then relinquishing their £2,000 ones.

 

IMO, that is the real reason CRT cannot afford to let moorings go at less than the 90% "reserve", but they don't quite spell it out that way, do they?

That's a free market for you! Just like anything else (insurance policy providers being a good example) if you find something kinda the same for less money you change for the cheaper option. It makes sense in a competitive market. Trouble is CRT are only competing against themselves.

[dor]

My mooring has a number of vacancies. Several people have left in the last year mainly due to health problems and getting across the canal (e.g having new hips or knees).

The moorings occasionally get put up on the auction site, but often get no takers. I'm sure the moorings manager would listen favourably to anyone that approached him directly.

An update on this: My mooring manager has been approached recently and as a result a mooring was put up on the auction site and subsequently taken up by the person who approached him.

 

ETA: Henhull is not one of the moorings in the area that was marked for reducing due to the 1 for 10 arrangement with new marinas.

Edited June 18, 2014 by dor

[wiltshirewonderer]

I have noticed an increased flexibility with boat sales on CRT moorings (willingness to transfer). A couple of empty spots around here that I like the look of, might ask them the question....

[Wrinkley]

Mooring that did not make the Auction process. Top of Foxton Locks on the off side. Good luck to the man that has it but how CRT being open and honest.

[Tuscan]

Mooring that did not make the Auction process. Top of Foxton Locks on the off side. Good luck to the man that has it but how CRT being open and honest.

It's the guy that runs the cafe opposite. Perhaps it goes with the shop

[alan_fincher]

To be clear....

 

1) If a mooring has previously failed to find a bidder at auction, it seems entirely sensible that CRT quickly re-list it, if someone rings up expressing an interest. Hopefully it should then get let, rather than standing empty. Of course there is no guarantee that it would go to the person making the enquiry - some other person might still appear now prepared to bid more.

 

2) The discussion about what happens if someone wants a shorter mooring than was previously advertised is an interesting one, because presumably if all you have is a genuine 70 foot space, and you advertise it at 60 feet, then it more or less guarantees the remaining 10 feet will not get used, unless there are other departures and some shuffling is done. However if you have established little demand for a 70 foot space, but someone is prepared to bid on 60 feet, it hardly seems "a bad thing".

 

(I would question more the case I know of where a pontoon mooring has been sold at about half price for a very short boat - these moorings have generally let well in the past, so I think only getting 50% revenue for the next 3 years is hardly a good deal for CRT).

3) I think the whole thing seems a lot harder to justify once CRT simply start awarding "old style" contracts outside of their much vaunted auction system.
Whilst not suggesting anything underhand has happened, it lays them open to all the criticisms made of the former "waiting list" system, as they are then striking individual deals, and those lettings go "invisible", unlike those sold at auction. (We can't then log on anywhere and see what was sold, and for how much). As lack of transparency was a major reason given for the new system, I think, they have now placed themselves back in some cases of having exactly the same lack of transparency.

If I manage to get CRT to give me a mooring outside of their declared process, you don't know what I'm paying for it, and whether any special favour has been handed out to me, do you?

Note - absolutely no criticism is implied by me of anybody who has got a mooring by any of the routes listed above, or a variant of. I don't think they have done anything wrong at all, even if CRT decides to handle it an unusual way. It is purely CRT's actions I'm questioning - certainly not anybody else's!

[sueb]

Moorings at Reading were always occupied until the auction came in force. Now none of them are occupied. BW believed they weren't needed which is nonsense. They were just too expensive

[mango]

I've noticed repeatedly cases of moorings on the auction site failing to attract any bids followed by CRT failing to re-list them.

 

In my opinion if a mooring fails to attract a bid then it ought to be re-listed repeatedly until it gets one.

 

 

MtB

P.S. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with CRT accepting an offer of the reserve price after a listing has expired.

Just after an auction had ended for a second time with no offers I mentioned it to a friend who had not been aware of the mooring availability. I suggested he had a word with the moorings chap and he promptly was offered the mooring at the reserve price. That seems commonsense and I don't see any point in having a go at CRT except where there is evidence of specific cases of corruption.

 

I know that not everyone is happy with mooring auctions but if that is to be changed it needs to generate enough funds to generate at least the same income as the present system and to pay for a consultation about possible alternatives. The top priority must be to tackle the backlog of maintenance or some of the minor problems could become expensive and possibly mean stoppages until funds are available.

[MtB]

Moorings at Reading were always occupied until the auction came in force. Now none of them are occupied. BW believed they weren't needed which is nonsense. They were just too expensive

 

There were three boats on the CRT moorings on the right above County Lock the other day! Maybe visitors.

 

 

To be clear....

 

1) If a mooring has previously failed to find a bidder at auction, it seems entirely sensible that CRT quickly re-list it, if someone rings up expressing an interest. Hopefully it should then get let, rather than standing empty. Of course there is no guarantee that it would go to the person making the enquiry - some other person might still appear now prepared to bid more.

 

If a deal is agreed directly with CRT then in order to maintain transparency I'd suggest it is listed on the website as a "Buy-It-Now" at the agreed price. Then the person striking the agreement can snaffle it within seconds of it being listed, but the transaction becomes visible to all.

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Just after an auction had ended for a second time with no offers I mentioned it to a friend who had not been aware of the mooring availability. I suggested he had a word with the moorings chap and he promptly was offered the mooring at the reserve price. That seems commonsense and I don't see any point in having a go at CRT except where there is evidence of specific cases of corruption.

 

But apparently others are being offered it at the guide price - so no consistency of approach then?

 

In your case, what are the arguments against CRT re-listing it straight away, making it available for your friend to bid on? They might just end up with someone else who also hadn't known about it the first two times, and between the two of them your friend and "A N Other" might start bidding against each other, and getting CRT rather more than "reserve". (Thus "establishing the current "market rate"! )

[chubby]

 

There were three boats on the CRT moorings on the right above County Lock the other day! Maybe visitors.

 

 

 

If a deal is agreed directly with CRT then in order to maintain transparency I'd suggest it is listed on the website as a "Buy-It-Now" at the agreed price. Then the person striking the agreement can snaffle it within seconds of it being listed, but the transaction becomes visible to all.

 

MtB

This is pretty much what was offered to me . CRT said they could put it on the website with a " buy it now " price ( about £800 more than " reserve " IIRC ) . This would of course be open to all , though i would have advance notice of it being available . If i then went online and bought it i would have access to the mooring almost immediately .

My reply was that i didn t consider the " buy it now price " to represent a fair reflection of its value & that i would prefer to go thru the auction process which may have involved having to outbid another interested party .

I seem to remember that many of the " buy it now " prices were somewhat higher than the " guide " prices

 

cheers

[alan_fincher]

I seem to remember that many of the " buy it now " prices were somewhat higher than the " guide " prices

 

 

I have never seen a fully advertised "buy it now" that was any different from "guide".

 

That's not to say they never do it, but I've never witnessed it.

 

Less of an issue now reserve is only a 10% saving over "guide" in most cases, but when they first introduced "buy it now", "reserve" was usually only 75% of "guide".

 

I could never understand why they thought if nobody was prepared to pay 75% of "guide" price at auction, they would then find much success trying to sell it instead at 100% of "guide".

[mango]

 

But apparently others are being offered it at the guide price - so no consistency of approach then?

 

In your case, what are the arguments against CRT re-listing it straight away, making it available for your friend to bid on? They might just end up with someone else who also hadn't known about it the first two times, and between the two of them your friend and "A N Other" might start bidding against each other, and getting CRT rather more than "reserve". (Thus "establishing the current "market rate"! )

There were two moorings available at the same site, offered at the same price. I don't know if the second one was put up for auction.

[Tony Dunkley]

The sooner CRT drop this auction for moorings the better I've never liked it.

In 2010 and 2011 C&RT rented a mooring to me without first putting it up for Auction. I don't know why they did this but the mooring is on a river and on land they don't own. If you want to be kind about it you could say they were taking an opportunity to gain additional income for the Trust, on the other hand if you are feeling less charitable you could call it something else entirely.

[David Mack]

In 2010 and 2011 C&RT rented a mooring to me without first putting it up for Auction. I don't know why they did this but the mooring is on a river and on land they don't own. If you want to be kind about it you could say they were taking an opportunity to gain additional income for the Trust, on the other hand if you are feeling less charitable you could call it something else entirely.

If its on a river and on land they don't own, why do you have to pay them anything to moor there? Surely its just between you and the landowner.

[NigelMoore]

In 2010 and 2011 C&RT rented a mooring to me without first putting it up for Auction. I don't know why they did this but the mooring is on a river and on land they don't own. If you want to be kind about it you could say they were taking an opportunity to gain additional income for the Trust, on the other hand if you are feeling less charitable you could call it something else entirely.

 

Call it – “something else entirely”.

 

http://www.cutweb.org.uk/bw/eogmooring.pdf

 

“2. Natural parts of rivers managed by BW but which are not owned by it:

 

Where BW is navigational authority but does not own the bed of the river, a boater needs a licence from BW to cruise the river. However, the boater does not need to pay BW a mooring fee as well because BW does not own the river bed. As mentioned earlier common law rules of riparian ownership usually apply (Note 1). Therefore, the owners of the properties on either side of the river bank may ask a boater to pay them a charge for mooring over their land.” [my bold]

 

Edit to add: to be pedantic, on a seemingly small but vitally important point, no one is entitled to charge for "mooring over their land", they are entitled rather, to charge for mooring to their land. The phrasing is deliberate on BW's part, because they DO claim a right to charge for boats floating above their land. It is the only ground upon which they justify any EoG mooring charge.

Edited June 18, 2014 by NigelMoore

[davey b]

Whilst not in the market for a CRT mooring at the moment, I am at a loss why all available moorings are not up on the auction site at all times until let and on a rolling re-listing system (like many of the trade listings on ebay).

 

How can it possibly be cheaper to leave a mooring un-let? The majority of non-towpath mooring appear to have little more than basic maintenance applied that they might get anyway.

 

As a 70' boat owner, seeing 60' mooring that could clearly accommodate a 70' boat is also slightly frustrating - any mooring that can accommodate a 70' should b offered at 70' with an option for people to enquire about reduced length arrangements. Clearly is a mooring is not 70' then it should be up to the length it can accommodate.

 

I have no idea why these mooring auctions (or whatever system replaces it) seems so difficult to organise...

[alan_fincher]

As a 70' boat owner, seeing 60' mooring that could clearly accommodate a 70' boat is also slightly frustrating - any mooring that can accommodate a 70' should b offered at 70' with an option for people to enquire about reduced length arrangements. Clearly is a mooring is not 70' then it should be up to the length it can accommodate.

I know it is probably a special case, but just because a mooring is advertised as less long than it appears to be, does not mean all the space you see is available to let.....

 

Look at it the other way around.... If I have a 60 foot boat, but a space is advertised as 70 feet, I may decide to take the hit, and pay for 70 feet to get a mooring. I'm then paying for 10 feet of spare space, but not using it.

 

If the 60 foot boat next to me then leaves, (creating an apparent 70 foot space), they can still only re-advertise it as 60 feet, because to allow more would mean you getting part of the length I'm already paying for.

 

I also know of cases where someone is deliberately paying for more, whilst looking to buy a longer boat, (or even as I have seen, have their current one stretched).