CRT moorings auction petition

[Robbo]

Exactly so - I guess Robbo believes anything not decreed by his masters is not fit for purpose.

Actually it's because they didn't correct the inaccuracies or post the the accused response on the site, so was purely one sided view.

[SimonRNABO]

In response to the question if not auctions, what else, some past suggestions can be seen in the responses under '2008 BW long term moorings: allocating vacancies and setting prices' at http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/consultation.

 

Athy - the question/point is not about whether the highest bid wins (of course it does) but about to to what extent that one individual sale should be applied to justify increases for others. I don't think it's fair to say that if I bought a car at auction for £300 last week and then you pay £400 for a similar car next week, then I have to go back and give the auctioneer another £100? Hope that clarifies that one a bit....

Edited October 10, 2014 by SimonRNABO

[Allan(nb Albert)]

In response to the question if not auctions, what else, some past suggestions can be seen in the responses under '2008 BW long term moorings: allocating vacancies and setting prices' at http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/consultation.

 

Athy - the question/point is not about whether the highest bid wins (of course it does) but about to to what extent that one individual sale should be applied to justify increases for others. I don't think it's fair to say that if I bought a car at auction for £300 last week and then you pay £400 for a similar car next week, then I have to go back and give the auctioneer another £100? Hope that clarifies that one a bit....

The rationale behind mooring auctions is to artificially inflate boaters mooring costs. Why else would BW/CaRT increase reserve prices?

 

CaRT's suggestion that reserve prices relate to the lowest price at which CaRT can sell a mooring and remain profitable are a complete fallacy.

 

 

 

[Jerra]

Surely a reserve price in any auction is the lowest price you are prepared to accept. So if CRT set a high reserve it is because they aren't wanting to let it for less.

 

I suspect we would need a lot more information than we have before we could decide if the reserve is sensible or not. However the fact remains that is the lowest price they are prepared to accept.

[alan_fincher]

I still firmly believe that the reason that CRT now normally set "reserve" at a full 90% of the "guide" is because when it was lower, people already at a site under old long term contracts were bidding on moorings at far less than they currently pay, and winning them. All they then had to do was to give notice on the equivalent mooring for which they were already paying a lot more.

 

Setting reserve at 90% stops this happening, because by the time you have paid for two moorings for a month or two, (because you can't give up the old one immediately), the maths is probably no longer sufficiently in your favour, (if at all).

 

Also under "old" arrangements, if you can afford it, you can pay whole years at a time, and get a 10% discount, effectively costing the same as a mooring won at "reserve" at auction. (You cannot get a discount on a moorings won auction, even if you pay "year in advance".) This alone makes a complete mockery of the suggestion that the costs of CRT operating the mooring mean it cannot economically be let for less - otherwise they would be making no money out of people who pay a year in advance under old arrangements, (or at best making what they could on investing that money because they are getting most of it earlier than if you paid monthly).

 

Sorry, a bit hastily typed and garbled, but hopefully understandable?

[Paul G2]

The sensibility of letting moorings for less than the reserve CRT have set depends on the number of empty moorings they have. At some point, holding out for a higher price reaches the point of diminishing returns. It's better to have two moorings let for £1,000/year than to have one let for £1,500 and one not let (sitting empty) for £1,500.

 

As a matter of principle, if CRT wants to let market forces dictate the upper limit of value for their moorings, they should also be willing to let market forces dictate the lower limit. It also seems prescient to keep in mind that CRT has no investment in those moorings, the British taxpayers do. Since it is British taxpayers that are renting the moorings, it stands to reason that they should not be overcharged for renting something that belongs to them.

[SimonRNABO]

I still firmly believe that the reason that CRT now normally set "reserve" at a full 90% of the "guide" is because when it was lower, people already at a site under old long term contracts were bidding on moorings at far less than they currently pay, and winning them. All they then had to do was to give notice on the equivalent mooring for which they were already paying a lot more.

 

... something like this happened early on (at Brentford) and of course the then BW changed the rules.

 

And Thank You Alan for your other post: I truly hadn't spotted the 'reserves at 90% of the current 'list' price' "scam" before now so thanks pointing that one out!

 

More evidence that it's fixed to ensure that overall prices can only go up, no matter what the market says.