CRT Licence / Marina Mooring?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

It is not part of the main point I'm following.

 

 

 

But YOU are the one who keeps harping on about "9% of my mooring fee goes to C&RT" you cannot have it both ways.

 

Maybe you would be less 'upset' if C&RT said to the Marina that "your access charge is £10000 per annum" (like another fixed overhead), it seems to unreasonaly irk you that it is linked to the number of berths.

[Graham Davis]

 

 

You have missed the point of my protest.

 

CBA!

Edited December 29, 2016 by Graham Davis

[Higgs]

 

But YOU are the one who keeps harping on about "9% of my mooring fee goes to C&RT" you cannot have it both ways.

 

Maybe you would be less 'upset' if C&RT said to the Marina that "your access charge is £10000 per annum" (like another fixed overhead), it seems to unreasonaly irk you that it is linked to the number of berths.

 

 

It is mentioned because it is mentioned in reference to posts I answer. The charge exists and is passed on to CRT. People keep calling it an overhead, that seems ok. Where do the overheads not end up as customers' liabilities, when the marina is working out its charges to customers.

 

I'm not irked at all by the 9% that the marina owner is charged, empty or full. I think it was not a good move to accept such terms, but that's me.

Then how about spelling it out in a sensible and non-vitriolic manner?

 

CBA!

 

 

Try post #70.

 

I can assure you, I'm sitting here as cool as a cucumber. I try to respond in kind.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Higgs

[Machpoint005]

On the basis that CRT still has to obtain a given amount of annual income from people's boating activities (in the broadest sense) isn't this no more than an argument about the ratio between fixed costs and variable costs for each individual boater?

 

Any change would result in some winners and some losers. I'd probably be a winner, but I still think the system works in practice as it now stands.

 

 

 

ETA "for each individual boater"

Edited December 29, 2016 by Machpoint005

[lulu fish]

If I moor in a marina which pays little attention to whether or not boats are licensed, I could let my licence expire. I wouldn't be breaking any law, just the terms and conditions of my mooring arrangement. CRT would have no case against me. Once the marina got around to noticing that my boat is unicenced they tell me to licence it or leave, so I licence it again. I save myself licence fees for the period of time it takes the marina to notice, which could be a while..

 

Is that correct?

[Paul C]

If I moor in a marina which pays little attention to whether or not boats are licensed, I could let my licence expire. I wouldn't be breaking any law, just the terms and conditions of my mooring arrangement. CRT would have no case against me. Once the marina got around to noticing that my boat is unicenced they tell me to licence it or leave, so I licence it again. I save myself licence fees for the period of time it takes the marina to notice, which could be a while..

 

Is that correct?

 

I''m not sure what you're asking, its your situation so you're the one who would know if its factually correct etc.

 

If you're asking if its morally right or wrong, then obviously breaking the T&Cs of the marina contract could result in the non-renewal of it - there is no assurance of staying in a marina and being accepted (in the first place), or conract renewed etc.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the access charge is not an itemised part of the mooring fee. As with any overhead, it will effect the mooring fee charge. I'm not too interested in the connection fee. It is not part of the main point I'm following.

 

As for the other third party elements: I think it is common good practice to have a BSS and Insurance - no problems. No 2 and 3 : Not in effect here. No 4 : I have to buy the electrics from somewhere, I use it as I need to or don't. I use about £6.00 a month.

 

I do understand the principle that an empty marina still incurs the full 9% charge of the marina owner, based on a full marina.

Curious that you seem happy with the BSS. My boat doesn't need a BSS, it runs perfectly acceptably without one. I keep it maintained and safe since it is my current home but I have to have a BSS because otherwise my Insurance company wont cover it it. This would be another example of a Third Party forcing me to buy a product that I don't need. I may need a BSS should I wish to sell the boat but what other purpose does it serve? If I had a BSS examination today and on Monday the boat went up in flames what would the BSS prove? Much the same as a car MOT it is only valid on the day of testing (probably only for the period of the test ). It may run for 4 years but what will it prove? that on a certain date over 3 years ago everything was fine.

 

 

If I may use the bank example again - they, like CRT, wished to gain income by any means they could. It didn't mean they were doing it for the high moral principle of saving the bank for the betterment of its customers; in doing what they did, PPI, they were doing no such thing. It was underhanded, but got the job done. They've become unstuck since.

 

You cannot claim high moral principles whilst overlooking the low moral principles that protectionism amounts to. There is no benefit to the marina moorer in buying a licence that isn't valid inside the marina. And I'm sorry to say, If the boat owner never leaves a marina, the licence will never be valid. The access to water in and out of the marina is intrinsically part of a connection, for which a levy is charged. Paid for, you understand. Not a free gift.

 

Yes, I'm old enough to remember the canals at a time I used to play in one that contained amongst other things - pith helmets, tin baths, old bikes and prams. The prams were a good source of wheels for the carts we built as kids. The canal into Derby does not exist anymore and I saw it being transformed over the years to a cycle path.

If we were actually talking about banking or some other business in which the purpose of the exercise is to generate profits I could see your point. With CRT the purpose of the exercise is to generate income, there are no shareholders to trouser any excess 'profit', the purpose of the income is to maintain the waterways. You seem to view it as a business, which in reality it isn't. If it were and, for instance, I wanted to get from Braunston to Birmingham but couldn't because a paddle on one of the locks had failed and needed to be repaired if it were a business (like the railways) I would be entitled to some form of compensation for the inconvenience (the railways put on a bus service if they have to carry out emergency repairs). With the canal system I (and I believe most other users) accept that on occasions I will be inconvenienced but do not expect, or want, any 'compensation' for it. Perhaps you need to view your licence for what it is, a contribution to the upkeep of the waterways (and not the largest contribution either).

 

Your repeated use of the term 'protectionism' isn't particularly accurate since the purpose of 'protectionism' is to protect your own industry from competition, so tell me who is in 'competition' with CRT?

[lulu fish]

 

I''m not sure what you're asking, its your situation so you're the one who would know if its factually correct etc.

 

If you're asking if its morally right or wrong, then obviously breaking the T&Cs of the marina contract could result in the non-renewal of it - there is no assurance of staying in a marina and being accepted (in the first place), or conract renewed etc.

I suppose I am asking if I could save myself the licence money for the period of time it takes the marina to notice. Am I right in thinking that after a period of time un-licenced in a marina I can buy a new licence and CRT will have no claim to any backdated fees for the time I was not licenced?

[Alan de Enfield]

I suppose I am asking if I could save myself the licence money for the period of time it takes the marina to notice. Am I right in thinking that after a period of time un-licenced in a marina I can buy a new licence and CRT will have no claim to any backdated fees for the time I was not licenced?

 

You will fit in with other "what can I get for nothing brigade" but social responsibility is obviously not your strong point.

 

Edit to add :

 

Why not just go into a marina where no licence is required - there are plenty of them.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[lulu fish]

 

You will fit in with other "what can I get for nothing brigade" but social responsibility is obviously not your strong point.

 

Edit to add :

 

Why not just go into a marina where no licence is required - there are plenty of them.

 

What exactly would I "get for nothing"? I would be paying the marina for my mooring and their facilities. I wouldn't be using any CRT facilities or cruising on their canals so I would be getting nothing for nothing from them. In what way do you think this is socially irresponsible?

 

There are only two marinas within easy reach of my work that don't require a licence and both of them are full.

Edited December 29, 2016 by lulu fish

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

What exactly would I "get for nothing"? I would be paying the marina for my mooring and their facilities. I wouldn't be using any CRT facilities or cruising on their canals so I would be getting nothing for nothing from them. In what way do you think this is socially irresponsible?

 

There are only two marinas within easy reach of my work that don't require a licence and both of them are full.

I would say that if the canal wasn't there, neither would your marina be, so you have the amenity of a marina as a direct result of the efforts of others (not necessarily CRT) to restore the system. So that the system remains, an income needs to be generated, which you appear not to wish to contribute to. Should the canal outside of your marina cease to exist (a situation that has historically already happened in a number of locations) your marina would also cease to exist. So long as you are content for others to pay for the continuation of a system that has created your marina and are equally content for your marina to go when the canal does, then so be it, not really socially responsible though, is it? As Mr de Enfield suggests, it rather smacks of 'freeloading'

[lulu fish]

I would say that if the canal wasn't there, neither would your marina be, so you have the amenity of a marina as a direct result of the efforts of others (not necessarily CRT) to restore the system. So that the system remains, an income needs to be generated, which you appear not to wish to contribute to. Should the canal outside of your marina cease to exist (a situation that has historically already happened in a number of locations) your marina would also cease to exist. So long as you are content for others to pay for the continuation of a system that has created your marina and are equally content for your marina to go when the canal does, then so be it, not really socially responsible though, is it? As Mr de Enfield suggests, it rather smacks of 'freeloading'

You are grasping at straws there, lol.

 

I would be paying the marina for my mooring and the marina would be paying CRT for the connection to the canal.

 

Could it be that you want me to pay for something that I'm not using to subsidise your use of it?

 

Would that make you the freeloader?

Edited December 29, 2016 by lulu fish

[Paul C]

There's no issue in my mind with not having the licence - IF you are one of these tiny fraction of people who genuinely don't use the canal. No sneaking out for a day or two, knowing that the time spent on the canal is miniscule? Sure?

 

However the issue is you're breaking the T&Cs of the marina contract. Do you need to stay in that marina, more than they need you there? The marina WILL find out, because CRT check licences of boats in marinas regularly (approx monthly - you might not have noticed them though) and then they will contact the marina to inform them. Whether the marina management are bothered, is another matter. Some marina (owners) have an allergy to troublemakers or pisstakers.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

You are grasping at straws there, lol.

 

I would be paying the marina for my mooring and the marina would be paying CRT for the connection to the canal.

 

Could it be that you want me to pay for something that I'm not using to subsidise your use of it?

 

Would that make you the freeloader?

It's not grasping at straws, once the government pulls the plug on the DEFRA grant, if CRT haven't replaced it with something, the canals will start to close once again. If people are going to be encouraged to stop paying for a licence if they are marina based, this will happen even quicker. As I've said if you are happy for the canal outside of your marina to cease to exist (taking your marina with it) then so be it. The canal system isn't a profit making business (unlike your marina) it is a national asset, if you don't want it any more then just say so.

[lulu fish]

It's not grasping at straws, once the government pulls the plug on the DEFRA grant, if CRT haven't replaced it with something, the canals will start to close once again. If people are going to be encouraged to stop paying for a licence if they are marina based, this will happen even quicker. As I've said if you are happy for the canal outside of your marina to cease to exist (taking your marina with it) then so be it. The canal system isn't a profit making business (unlike your marina) it is a national asset, if you don't want it any more then just say so.

Let the people that use it pay for it. There are plenty of them, the canals here won't be shutting down any time soon.

 

Don't try to guilt me in to subsidising your hobby/way of life

[lulu fish]

There's no issue in my mind with not having the licence - IF you are one of these tiny fraction of people who genuinely don't use the canal. No sneaking out for a day or two, knowing that the time spent on the canal is miniscule? Sure?

 

However the issue is you're breaking the T&Cs of the marina contract. Do you need to stay in that marina, more than they need you there? The marina WILL find out, because CRT check licences of boats in marinas regularly (approx monthly - you might not have noticed them though) and then they will contact the marina to inform them. Whether the marina management are bothered, is another matter. Some marina (owners) have an allergy to troublemakers or pisstakers.

I have no need to take the boat out for a while, I never get time at the moment anyway. There are tons of boats here that never go out, the majority I would say, not a tiny fraction.

 

As I said, I'd be happy to licence the boat or leave if the marina asked me to. They are relaxed about these things, I think it would take them a while to get around to it.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Let the people that use it pay for it. There are plenty of them, the canals here won't be shutting down any time soon.

 

Don't try to guilt me in to subsidising your hobby/way of life

So those in marinas should be exempt from any CRT contribution and only those on the canal all the time should be paying for it. So with a licence fee for those using it of, say, £8,000 - £10,000 per year to cover the shortfall from those who aren't bothered whether the canals continue, all they want is somewhere cheap to live, you remain confident that,".... the canals here won't be shutting down any time soon....". Sounds to me like a lot of English High Streets who thought they were there forever 10 years ago, or the english pub that is rapidly dying out. There is no absolute rule that the canals will always exist and without finance they wont. I take it that you are of the mind that you aren't bothered.

[Higgs]

Curious that you seem happy with the BSS. My boat doesn't need a BSS, it runs perfectly acceptably without one. I keep it maintained and safe since it is my current home but I have to have a BSS because otherwise my Insurance company wont cover it it. This would be another example of a Third Party forcing me to buy a product that I don't need. I may need a BSS should I wish to sell the boat but what other purpose does it serve? If I had a BSS examination today and on Monday the boat went up in flames what would the BSS prove? Much the same as a car MOT it is only valid on the day of testing (probably only for the period of the test ). It may run for 4 years but what will it prove? that on a certain date over 3 years ago everything was fine.

 

 

 

I'll do the two paras separately. I'm not for throwing litter around either. In having both the boat safety and insurance, I'm taking precautions that the boat is as best can be judged on the day a safe boat. Insurance is a common need to have where you may be liable through causing accidental injury or loss by destruction of property. I can't say I have any trouble following this convention requiring attention to safety and need for insurance. The only thing you can deduce from that is I'm not inclined to be irresponsible. I'm also a prompt bill payer, as anyone that deals with my boat could attest.

[Paul C]

Let the people that use it pay for it. There are plenty of them, the canals here won't be shutting down any time soon.

 

Don't try to guilt me in to subsidising your hobby/way of life

 

So you'd be happy if a cost-neutral adjustment was made to licence fees, to go along with a reduction/elimination of the NAA.

 

Of course, both (all) of us would be guessing on the % amount the licence fee would need to rise, but its reasonable to use a sensible estimate based on market forces/analysis etc. You could go quite into detail about this, but as a starter, one could estimate that it could/would go up 20-30%. Are you happy with this scenario? After all, those that are using it (for example, CCers and anyone else mooring online are using it 24/7/365) would be paying for it.

[lulu fish]

So those in marinas should be exempt from any CRT contribution and only those on the canal all the time should be paying for it.

 

Is people not paying for things they don't need a strange concept for you? Do you buy car tax for your push bike?

 

So you'd be happy if a cost-neutral adjustment was made to licence fees, to go along with a reduction/elimination of the NAA.

 

Of course, both (all) of us would be guessing on the % amount the licence fee would need to rise, but its reasonable to use a sensible estimate based on market forces/analysis etc. You could go quite into detail about this, but as a starter, one could estimate that it could/would go up 20-30%. Are you happy with this scenario? After all, those that are using it (for example, CCers and anyone else mooring online are using it 24/7/365) would be paying for it.

Yes, I'd be extremely happy with that

[Higgs]

 

Your repeated use of the term 'protectionism' isn't particularly accurate since the purpose of 'protectionism' is to protect your own industry from competition, so tell me who is in 'competition' with CRT?

 

 

I don't care what CRT is, if they're not entitled to a licence fee, that's the way it is.

 

Protectionism, ok. They are protecting their income, because otherwise they would actually allow market forces to play a role in determining their ability to do the job they're set up to do. As in - you want to use the canal, you don't want to use the canal. I don't think it's mine or anyone else's responsibility to finance any project on the basis that if "it wasn't there, I wouldn't be able to use a marina". I also wouldn't have been able to buy a boat. But, as it is, It didn't come gift wrapped on a silver platter.

 

After about ten years of all things being possible, I started to wonder why on earth should CRT just tell me I had no choice. I realised they did not have enough power on their own. They need a team mate, the marinas who, judging by the marinas' deal, must have had a gun held to their' temples to sign such an agreement that burdens a marina with a charge based on a full marina and remains the same charge if they're empty.

[Graham Davis]

You are grasping at straws there, lol.

 

I would be paying the marina for my mooring and the marina would be paying CRT for the connection to the canal.

 

Could it be that you want me to pay for something that I'm not using to subsidise your use of it?

 

Would that make you the freeloader?

 

Actually I think it makes YOU the freeloader.

Your marina requires you to have a licence, but you don't think it applies to you.

Let the people that use it pay for it. There are plenty of them, the canals here won't be shutting down any time soon.

 

Don't try to guilt me in to subsidising your hobby/way of life

 

I wonder why you bought a boat?

[lulu fish]

 

Actually I think it makes YOU the freeloader.

Your marina requires you to have a licence, but you don't think it applies to you.

 

I wonder why you bought a boat?

 

A freeloader that gets nothing for free. lol

[Higgs]

If I moor in a marina which pays little attention to whether or not boats are licensed, I could let my licence expire. I wouldn't be breaking any law, just the terms and conditions of my mooring arrangement. CRT would have no case against me. Once the marina got around to noticing that my boat is unicenced they tell me to licence it or leave, so I licence it again. I save myself licence fees for the period of time it takes the marina to notice, which could be a while..

 

Is that correct?

 

 

No, it wouldn't be. If you are in the same marina and on the same boat and you then, after a lapse of concentration, see that you're 4 months out of date with your licence, you will lose your quick payment discount for one, you will also have a penalty payment to make for being over one month late. You will still have to pay up your 12 months. If for some reason you wind them up at the marina, they can kick you out of it, that would make your predicament worse, because now you would be in sanction land and on CRT's territory.

[lulu fish]

 

 

No, it wouldn't be. If you are in the same marina and on the same boat and you then, after a lapse of concentration, see that you're 4 months out of date with your licence, you will lose your quick payment discount for one, you will also have a penalty payment to make for being over one month late. You will still have to pay up your 12 months. If for some reason you wind them up at the marina, they can kick you out of it, that would make your predicament worse, because now you would be in sanction land and on CRT's territory.

How could the payment be late if there is no legal requirement for me to have a licence? Surely I should be able to licence the boat on my return to CRT waters as someone who had spent time on another waterway would. With prompt payment discount and starting on the month of my return to their waters.