a positive idea about CC'ing.

[Paul C]

 

I don't care what they call it.

 

 

 

That's the issue here, the things you think are covered twice, are subtly different ("access" vs "keep and "use").

 

Lets take a not-too-dissimilar analogy. A boater has a boat which is kept at an online mooring place, but instead of being in the water, its kept on a hardstanding. The canal is a tempting 10 feet away from the boat, but alas, you can't access it because the boat's really heavy, and supported on sturdy blocks on a flat area. No matter how hard you push, you can't budge it from its static position. You need help. You need a service, Ideally, you need the services of a crane or trailer which can lift up the boat off the blocks and place it into the canal.

 

There is no agreement equivalent to the NAA between the online mooring place and CRT, for boats on the hardstanding. Among other things, it means you don't need a licence. But also, you don't get the "access" of going from the private area to the canal, free of charge. Each time you want to go boating, you need to pay the crane company for the means to access the canal.

 

Now lets look in detail at the connected marina. They've made it 100 times easier for boaters, by having a marina entrance which is a junction with the canal, meaning that boaters can easily pass from the canal (a public place) into the private area of the marina. BUT.....there's costs associated with this. One of the costs is that in setting up the agreement with the marina operator, CRT agreed to no longer run an equivalent number of online moorings in the local area, so that the marina may possibly entice customers for its moorings much more easily. And CRT and the marina also agreed, that no matter how well they did it, the bed of the marina leaks a little bit, thus more water is required to keep the canal at its operating level. And that the marina would attract lots of boaters in a small area, thus increasing the usage of the canal, and the wear/tear on the local infrastructure. If the marina operator chose to simply dig a hole on its land and neither fill it nor connect it to the canal, none of these issues would be present. These issues cost money. An agreement was reached - the NAA - between the marina operator and CRT.

[Alan de Enfield]

There are many marinas who do not pay a NAA for various (mainly historic reasons)

 

We bought our boat from a Marina on he T&M in which boats did not need to be licenced.

We currently keep our boat in a Marina which requires the boat to have a BSS, Insurance and a licence.

The nearby Marina (3 miles away) requires only Insurance and a BSS.

The Marina (20 miles away) requires only insurance and BSS

 

If you are not happy paying the NAA, then moor in non-NAA marina or moor-on-line (where the 'access' charge will no doubt be incorporated into your fee)

 

If you need to be in location 'Erm' for what ever reason then you have to pay the going rate (just like Londoners have to pay a higher mooring price than Northerners)

 

You have a choice.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Ray T]

Perhaps I am being naive here?

 

When you buy a CRT license, put your boat into a marina you sign to agree to their terms and conditions.

 

A bit like some locals in a village called Baginton near to where I live.. There is also Coventry Airport there built in 1936. It is used by light aircraft and some commercial flights.

 

A while ago some folks moved in to a newly built estate, complained about the aircraft noise and tried to get the airport closed.

 

To me it is simple, if you don't agree with the terms and conditions, don't buy a boat and then complain you don't like what you have signed up to. The rules were there before you made your purchase. If you didn't read the "small" print who's fault is that?

 

You refers to the royal you in this context.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Ray T

[mayalld]

 

Do the marinas want business or not? Anyway, this payment is going to CRT, isn't it.

 

I pay a mooring fee, and they take my money. It's a shop. They can't stop me going out onto the canal. If they want my business, they won't be stopping me entering the marina. My licence grants me the right to the canal. I don't care what they call it. Unless they put a gate at the entrance to the marinas with a toll booth, the payment is going to CRT. I already pay CRT.

 

I never for one moment doubted that NAA was an agreement between CRT and the businesses. It sucks.

 

Marinas want business.

 

Marinas will only actually GET business if they provide the facilities that moorers want.

 

A key facility that moorers want is to access the canal.

 

Access to the canal is something that CRT can sell, and they do.

 

They make a commercial arrangement that includes a fee, and the requirement that the marina only accepts people who can legitimately use the canal.

 

If the marina doesn't like those terms, they can see how much money they can make as a fishing lake.

[mayalld]

 

"throw the book at them" - CRT have powers that they can apply to any boat on their patch that doesn't have full documentation.

 

 

 

 

So you keep saying.

 

However, you don't seem to say what powers they are to use here.

 

The only powers they have are under the by-laws and they can bring a prosecution in a magistrates court,

 

The fine is derisory, and doesn't go to CRT anyway. The best they could hope for is to get their costs of that prosecution back.

 

So, they lose loads of licence income and need more resources to police licence evasion with no resultant income.

 

Let us get down to basics. YOU want to reduce your costs and you have come up with a "not fair" argument to reduce your costs without the faintest idea how the canals would be funded if you got your way.

[Higgs]

 

That's the issue here, the things you think are covered twice, are subtly different ("access" vs "keep and "use").

 

Lets take a not-too-dissimilar analogy. A boater has a boat which is kept at an online mooring place, but instead of being in the water, its kept on a hardstanding. The canal is a tempting 10 feet away from the boat, but alas, you can't access it because the boat's really heavy, and supported on sturdy blocks on a flat area. No matter how hard you push, you can't budge it from its static position. You need help. You need a service, Ideally, you need the services of a crane or trailer which can lift up the boat off the blocks and place it into the canal.

 

There is no agreement equivalent to the NAA between the online mooring place and CRT, for boats on the hardstanding. Among other things, it means you don't need a licence. But also, you don't get the "access" of going from the private area to the canal, free of charge. Each time you want to go boating, you need to pay the crane company for the means to access the canal.

 

Now lets look in detail at the connected marina. They've made it 100 times easier for boaters, by having a marina entrance which is a junction with the canal, meaning that boaters can easily pass from the canal (a public place) into the private area of the marina. BUT.....there's costs associated with this. One of the costs is that in setting up the agreement with the marina operator, CRT agreed to no longer run an equivalent number of online moorings in the local area, so that the marina may possibly entice customers for its moorings much more easily. And CRT and the marina also agreed, that no matter how well they did it, the bed of the marina leaks a little bit, thus more water is required to keep the canal at its operating level. And that the marina would attract lots of boaters in a small area, thus increasing the usage of the canal, and the wear/tear on the local infrastructure. If the marina operator chose to simply dig a hole on its land and neither fill it nor connect it to the canal, none of these issues would be present. These issues cost money. An agreement was reached - the NAA - between the marina operator and CRT.

 

The analogy with the hard standing doesn't work. The boat, my boat is floating. It therefore only has to use its own propulsion which is not provided by the marina or CRT.

 

The part of your post that mentions like for like numbers off online mooring to offline is incorrect. The ratio is 1:10. - 1 online mooring for 10 offline. And, I would agree that there would seem to be a need to compensate CRT for that loss of income.

 

What is being worked is a self serving protection racket. The boat has a licence, the marina has a mooring - both are paid for. CRT and the marina are compensated for their service provided to the boat.

[Higgs]

 

Marinas want business.

 

Marinas will only actually GET business if they provide the facilities that moorers want.

 

A key facility that moorers want is to access the canal.

 

Access to the canal is something that CRT can sell, and they do.

 

They make a commercial arrangement that includes a fee, and the requirement that the marina only accepts people who can legitimately use the canal.

 

If the marina doesn't like those terms, they can see how much money they can make as a fishing lake.

 

A key facility the marina wants is boats with paid up licences, and a canal, and an entrance.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Higgs

[mayalld]

 

The part of your post that mentions like for like numbers off online mooring to offline is incorrect. The ratio is 1:10. - 1 online mooring for 10 offline. And, I would agree that there would seem to be a need to compensate CRT for that loss of income.

 

 

Splendid, we are getting somewhere.

 

Curiously enough, the income to CRT from 10 marina berths is about the same as they make from a directly managed LTM. So, the NAA fee is fair.

 

 

 

A key facility the marina wants is boats with paid up licences, and a canal, and an entrance.

 

Yes, and that facility is something that CRT can supply. If the marina no longer wants to play on those terms, then CRT can choose to sever the connection.

[Higgs]

 

So you keep saying.

 

However, you don't seem to say what powers they are to use here.

 

The only powers they have are under the by-laws and they can bring a prosecution in a magistrates court,

 

The fine is derisory, and doesn't go to CRT anyway. The best they could hope for is to get their costs of that prosecution back.

 

So, they lose loads of licence income and need more resources to police licence evasion with no resultant income.

 

Let us get down to basics. YOU want to reduce your costs and you have come up with a "not fair" argument to reduce your costs without the faintest idea how the canals would be funded if you got your way.

 

 

So, you would allow unfair practices to work as a business plan?

[mayalld]

 

 

So, you would allow unfair practices to work as a business plan?

 

These are NOT unfair practices

 

If we return to the analogy that was offered in the long running PLM thread;

 

Let us say that I own a property immediately adjacent to the grounds of a popular stately home. My front door is on a country lane, which sees 6 people each day pass by. My rear wall is the boundary wall of the estate, close to one of the many walkways in the grounds.

 

I decide to open a quaing tea shop, serving cream teas.

 

My passing trade is virually nil, I cannot possibly make money here.

 

But I talk to the stately home, and they agree to put a gate in, so that people can get to my tea shop. Their customers can now become my customers.

 

They charge me a fee to allow the gate to be there, and I pay it because without the gate I have no business. That is perfectly fair. The cost of that fee is indirectly paid by the tea drinkers.

 

They also insist that I must only serve tea to their customers. I mustn't serve tea to people who come in the front door, because they may leave by the back door and gain admission without payment.

[Higgs]

 

 

Splendid, we are getting somewhere.

 

Curiously enough, the income to CRT from 10 marina berths is about the same as they make from a directly managed LTM. So, the NAA fee is fair.

 

 

Yes, and that facility is something that CRT can supply. If the marina no longer wants to play on those terms, then CRT can choose to sever the connection.

 

 

Ok, call it the cost of the business licence for the marina. The marina could pay CRT as a simple business arrangement from the proceeds of the business. Why call it a stupid connection fee which is placing a penalty payment on the boaters. I don't see the 'connection fee as the way to go. CRT and the marina both have their businesses. I expect to pay for each part. What's with the connection fee. No canal, no marina. No marina, no moorings, except online or more CC. The marina moorer has value to both CRT and the marina. There must be a need for marinas, that need is to provide what otherwise would cause problems for CRT and a business opportunity for the marina. No boat, no business for CRT or the marina.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Higgs

[mayalld]

 

Ok, call it the cost of the business licence for the marina. The marina could pay CRT as a simple business arrangement from the proceeds of the business. Why call it a stupid connection fee which is placing a penalty payment on the boaters. I don't see the 'connection fee as the way to go.

 

So, we have now slipped from "this charge isn't fair" to "this charge shouldn't be called that".

 

No matter what you call it (and it is actually called a Network Access Agreement fee), it is just one of the overheads that the business has.

 

You say that it would be met from the "proceeds of the business" rather than as a "penalty payment on the boaters".

 

This is true Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

From where do you imagine the "proceeds of the business" come? Yes, they come from the mooring fees charged.

[Higgs]

 

So, we have now slipped from "this charge isn't fair" to "this charge shouldn't be called that".

 

No matter what you call it (and it is actually called a Network Access Agreement fee), it is just one of the overheads that the business has.

 

You say that it would be met from the "proceeds of the business" rather than as a "penalty payment on the boaters".

 

This is true Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

From where do you imagine the "proceeds of the business" come? Yes, they come from the mooring fees charged.

 

 

Is it an overhead? Is it a tax deductible overhead.

 

The difference between a connection fee and a business overhead here is that the 'overhead' is a straight-through-to-CRT payment. A passing on of a tariff. The marinas are collecting agencies. I still pay for my licence and have access to both the marina and the canal, without the need for connection fees.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Higgs

[MtB]

 

So, we have now slipped from "this charge isn't fair" to "this charge shouldn't be called that".

 

No matter what you call it (and it is actually called a Network Access Agreement fee), it is just one of the overheads that the business has.

 

You say that it would be met from the "proceeds of the business" rather than as a "penalty payment on the boaters".

 

This is true Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

From where do you imagine the "proceeds of the business" come? Yes, they come from the mooring fees charged.

 

 

Indeed. It's reminding me of that similar long running thread where George94 struggled with the concept of a monopoly!

[Higgs]

 

 

Indeed. It's reminding me of that similar long running thread where George94 struggled with the concept of a monopoly!

 

Apt word (monopoly) monopolies.

 

I think someone should have a stab at explaining why the validity a boat licence breaks down at the entrance to a marina. Especially as one is needed on both sides. And where does full access stop.

 

Connection fee is a made-up idea. It's artificial and having a full licence carries with it all the permission needed.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Higgs

[MtB]

And as the great Screaming Lord Sutch once asked, why is there only one Monopolies Commission?

[NigelMoore]

Apt word (monopoly) monopolies.

 

It would be illuminating to read the arguments and judgment in the only case I know of where the requirement for BW’s consent for marinas was challenged. That was the 1998 case involving Alan Paine of Kingfisher Marina near Yardley Gobion on the Grand Union.

 

Like the Swan Hill Developments case, this was an early test case post failure to get Clause 27 incorporated into the 1995 Act.

 

Perhaps Higgs, you could make an FoI request through the ‘WhatDoTheyKnow’ website. I tried, but they pretended they couldn’t find any mention of it anywhere – however that was me, someone else might get luckier.

 

Even though Paine lost the case and did not appeal, there is sufficient evidence of the judgment’s content to suggest that some potentially embarrassing concessions made therein by BW’s Counsel would have made an appeal’s prospects of success if handled competently, very likely.

[onionbargee]

How can you charge a fee " in case someone breaks your byelaws " surely your innocent until you have entered CRT waters without a licence ?

 

And doesn't the marina benefit the trust more than the other way ? X amount of new licences, a large reservoir of water ect ?

 

Id say the two benefit each other at least equally, and theres no reason for fees.

[mayalld]

 

 

Is it an overhead? Is it a tax deductible overhead.

 

The difference between a connection fee and a business overhead here is that the 'overhead' is a straight-through-to-CRT payment. A passing on of a tariff. The marinas are collecting agencies. I still pay for my licence and have access to both the marina and the canal, without the need for connection fees.

 

Sorry, but you are quite simply WRONG.

 

Or rather you are wrong if the garbled message means what I think it means.

 

You appear to believe that the connection fee is a fee that CRT charge to a marina per boat, and which the marina simply collects from the boaters on CRT's behalf.

 

This is NOT the case.

 

The NAA fee is an overhead, it is a sum of money that the business pays to CRT, and as a legitimate expense of the business, of course it is tax deductible.

 

Specifically, it is NOT charged based on the number of boats that are actually moored in the marina. It is charged on the number of boats that COULD be moored in the marina.

 

So, the marina can't just pass on a per boat fee to each boat, because it needs to factor in occupancy levels.

 

It is a business overhead and like all the other overheads, is paid by setting prices at a level that brings in enough money to cover overheads and return a profit.

[mayalld]

How can you charge a fee " in case someone breaks your byelaws " surely your innocent until you have entered CRT waters without a licence ?

 

And doesn't the marina benefit the trust more than the other way ? X amount of new licences, a large reservoir of water ect ?

 

Id say the two benefit each other at least equally, and theres no reason for fees.

 

Not so.

 

The lake owner benefits, becasue without a connection to the canal, his lake is worth diddly squat.

 

If the lake owner chooses not to connect, there are other lake owners ready to pay for that connection.

 

In this life, everything is worth what somebody will pay for it. As lake owners have shown themselves willing to pay for connection, we may conclude that they believe that connection is worth that money, and that they believe that their investment of that money will improve the value of their lake by more than they pay out.

[NigelMoore]

. . . the only case I know of . . .

 

Coming across the same topic of marina connection charges on here back in 2011, I noticed that someone referred to a case fought and won by Ashwood Marina on the Staffs & Worcs.

 

However that is unlikely to be useful, because the marina was built on an existing private arm [so already connected], and the whole issue revolved around the fact that they had their own water supply.

[Higgs]

Hope I will be forgiven for not answering posts.

 

 

Even though a boat has a CRT licence both sides of a marina entrance, it is only of any necessity on one side of that boundary. Inside the marina, it has about as much worth as a beer mat. The management system outside the marina has one set of rules, inside the marina, the management are forced to force you to have a licence.

 

Can you imagine being on EA licenced waters and CRT saying to the EA - even though our licence carries no weight on your waters, we would like to require you to force boaters to be licenced for CRT waters.

 

Your CRT licence, inside the marine, has no value. You don't need a licence for inside the marina. It is forced on you. People who have disagreed with my opposition to the connection are so enthusiastic about pointing out that there is a boundary at the entrance to a marina. The area inside that boundary does not require a boat licence.

[Paul C]

Hope I will be forgiven for not answering posts.

 

 

Even though a boat has a CRT licence both sides of a marina entrance, it is only of any necessity on one side of that boundary. Inside the marina, it has about as much worth as a beer mat. The management system outside the marina has one set of rules, inside the marina, the management are forced to force you to have a licence.

 

Can you imagine being on EA licenced waters and CRT saying to the EA - even though our licence carries no weight on your waters, we would like to require you to force boaters to be licenced for CRT waters.

 

Your CRT licence, inside the marine, has no value. You don't need a licence for inside the marina. It is forced on you. People who have disagreed with my opposition to the connection are so enthusiastic about pointing out that there is a boundary at the entrance to a marina. The area inside that boundary does not require a boat licence.

But we're considering a hypothetical boater who NEVER leaves the marina. I would suggest something other than a boat would much better suit their accommodation needs.

[Higgs]

But we're considering a hypothetical boater who NEVER leaves the marina. I would suggest something other than a boat would much better suit their accommodation needs.

 

I would say that you can make those decisions for yourself only.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Higgs

[gazza]

Hope I will be forgiven for not answering posts.

 

 

Even though a boat has a CRT licence both sides of a marina entrance, it is only of any necessity on one side of that boundary. Inside the marina, it has about as much worth as a beer mat. The management system outside the marina has one set of rules, inside the marina, the management are forced to force you to have a licence.

 

Can you imagine being on EA licenced waters and CRT saying to the EA - even though our licence carries no weight on your waters, we would like to require you to force boaters to be licenced for CRT waters.

 

Your CRT licence, inside the marine, has no value. You don't need a licence for inside the marina. It is forced on you. People who have disagreed with my opposition to the connection are so enthusiastic about pointing out that there is a boundary at the entrance to a marina. The area inside that boundary does not require a boat licence.

 

 

We are on EA waters, a condition of mooring at our club is that we have a valid BSS, insurance and EA licence, most of our moorings are in a large lake or the mill pool, some are bankside of the river but the majority are in the two pools not on the main river. All moorings are on privately owned land. If you dont like the terms there is only one option - and that is to leave. Some have taken the stance that you have, and ultimatley have had to leave as they are not abiding by the rules they agreed to when they took up memebrship and a mooring.

 

Sound familiar?

Edited April 21, 2015 by gazza