CRT has to say sorry - I think this is really bad

[Rambling]

Sorry for stabbing you small businesses in the back

A photo posted by @kkkay30 on

Sep 6, 2015 at 7:03am PDT

 

[jenlyn]

 

Sorry for stabbing you small businesses in the back

A photo posted by @kkkay30 on

Sep 6, 2015 at 7:03am PDT

 

 

It merely goes to show yet again what this organisation is capable of.

They are disgusting.

[magnetman]

"Some of its moorers had concerns"

 

And they acted on that.

 

Pull the other one

[Rambling]

I think an ultimate vote of no confidence in this organisation (as it is a govt funded charity) might eventually happen.

 

They simply do 'not get' how it should be run and waste money on taking people to court, harassing boaters, small marina owners, instead of dredging or mending, or providing more facilities and enhancing the experience for canal users in general.

I am disgusted with them.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Rambling

[GUMPY]

It merely goes to show yet again what this organisation is capable of.

They are disgusting.

Its not the organisation BWML its the slimey little toad.

Edited cos I just got an undeserved warning

Edited September 7, 2015 by Loddon

[Rambling]

GW?

[GUMPY]

GW?

Read the article......oh sorry you posted it so you must have read it Edited September 6, 2015 by Loddon

[Dick Dastardly]

I think an ultimate vote of no confidence in this organisation (as it is a govt funded charity) might eventually happen.

They simply do 'not get' how it should be run and waste money on taking people to court, harassing boaters, small marina owners, instead of dredging or mending, or providing more facilities and enhancing the experience for canal users in general.

I am disgusted with them.

I'll vote for no confidence, they are destroying the canals. Is this a new era of no livaboards allowed thanks?

[Alan de Enfield]

Its not the organisation BWML its GW the slimey little toad. Remember him a a waterway manager..........

 

The other side of the coin - I have nothing but praise for GW.

 

To cut a long story short I ended up (having sold my boat) paying for an extra months moorings, and having bought a new boat had to pay a backdated months moorings on that as well ( as 'sort of' outlined in BWML T&Cs)

 

I complained to him that the system was totally inflexible and you could not just change one boat for another ( and pay the length difference) but had to physically cancel your contract giving the 'end of the month' + one month notice, and cancel the Standing order. Then start a new contract and set up a new standing order.

 

He agreed, arranged for a refund on the payments and said he was instructing (whoever was necessary) that the system be changed so that a boat can be substituted with another and the contract amended to take in the revised / longer / shorter length.

[Naughty Cal]

I'll vote for no confidence, they are destroying the canals. Is this a new era of no livaboards allowed thanks?

I disagree.

[Rambling]

I think it's aimed at less boats eventually, and more walkers, cyclists, nature lovers, certainly not for long term navigation or continuous cruisers, or dreams of travelling in retirement.

[cotswoldsman]

It is simply an organisation not fit for purpose from the top I feel sorry for those lower down having to defend their behaviour

[Dick Dastardly]

It is simply an organisation not fit for purpose from the top I feel sorry for those lower down having to defend their behaviour

I agree

[Jerra]

Some of you must have a different moral code to me. If some marinas are having people living there what is wrong with expecting the council to check and correct the situation.

 

To me doing nothing is on a par with knowing somebody if taking a benefit they aren't entitled to and not reporting it.

 

Both are (if after investigation the council thinks tax is due) against the rules.

 

Why is one acceptable and the other to be condemned? Or perhaps you don't condemn benefit fraud.

[Rambling]

I agree too that it's not fit for purpose

Edited September 6, 2015 by Rambling

[Rambling]

Who says anything about benefit fraud?

 

It is yet to be decided whether boats on private marinas will have to pay a CRT licence isn't it? Isn't there a current court case surrounding this issue, as a privately owned marina is off the 'main navigation channel' that might clarify this issue?

 

I think CRT are overstepping themselves right left & centre and it remains to be seen how much of their behaviour is deemed 'unlawful' in the future.

 

Reporting rivals is just awful & lowlife & they should stick to messing up their own business, rather than trying to damage others.

 

Personally I think they are an appallingly managed organisation & I live aboard but not on their waters thank goodness. I pity all those boaters who spend their savings on a boat for retirement and will now get hassled & harassed.

 

It is absolutely NOT what the river life should be about.

[MtB]

Some of you must have a different moral code to me. If some marinas are having people living there what is wrong with expecting the council to check and correct the situation.

 

To me doing nothing is on a par with knowing somebody if taking a benefit they aren't entitled to and not reporting it.

 

Both are (if after investigation the council thinks tax is due) against the rules.

 

Why is one acceptable and the other to be condemned? Or perhaps you don't condemn benefit fraud.

 

 

I was thinking this too.

 

Imagine a national newspaper running the story. Who would get it in the neck? CRT? Or 'freeloading boaters and greedy marina owners colluding to evade council tax'?

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

I was thinking this too.

 

Imagine a national newspaper running the story. Who would get it in the neck? CRT? Or 'freeloading boaters and greedy marina owners colluding to evade council tax'?

This is not about people avoiding Council Tax but the way BWML went about trying to rectify the situation. Did you read the OP?

[magnetman]

Are CRT allowed to sell off BWML for cash?

 

Maybe its a way of building it up to increase its value for a selloff.

[cotswoldsman]

Are CRT allowed to sell off BWML for cash?

 

Maybe its a way of building it up to increase its value for a selloff.

How does complaining to the council instead of speaking direct to the marinas increase the value?

[magnetman]

No I mean they are installing more residential moorings in BWML marinas while attempting to imply that other marinas do not have correct pp.

 

Possible result is a general view that if you want a residential mooring you go to BWML. = ££££

 

I know it seems a bit complicated and probably way off the mark.

 

Why would BWML go to a competitor and ask them if they had planning permission as if its anything to do with them? Surely more straightforward to talk to the planning authority ?

 

And to the op Rambling - which publication is it in ?

[Higgs]

Some of you must have a different moral code to me. If some marinas are having people living there what is wrong with expecting the council to check and correct the situation.

 

To me doing nothing is on a par with knowing somebody if taking a benefit they aren't entitled to and not reporting it.

 

Both are (if after investigation the council thinks tax is due) against the rules.

 

Why is one acceptable and the other to be condemned? Or perhaps you don't condemn benefit fraud.

 

 

Do you think that should go hand in hand with acquiring the correct planning permission for residential use?

[Dick Dastardly]

Unless marinas have received planning permission for residential boaters then you do not have to pay council tax. However, a lot of marinas do not and to get around this legality, the marina owner has the opportunity to move boats around and this stops charges. Some marinas don't have many facilities, this is taken into account too. The council generally target people on benefits to pay council tax if you are on a mooring, this can be resolved by going to the valuation office agency. One councils rules may well differ greatly to another.

[matty40s]

 

 

I was thinking this too.

 

Imagine a national newspaper running the story. Who would get it in the neck? CRT? Or 'freeloading boaters and greedy marina owners colluding to evade council tax'?

This is

1. WYHATT trying to pi££ his own moorers off by introducing it, therefore taking a lot more money off them for no extra facilities.

2. WYHATT then trying to land anyone else in the sh£t by saying to local councils, we(Bwml) have done this, don't you think everyone else should do this as well.

 

The guy was an idiot working for BW,he hasn't changed one iota.

[b0atman]

BWML wanted planning permission so that they could charge boaters more for being in their marina giving them no more for this than any other boat owner . After that it is between the council and the Resident boater.

If other marinas applied for planning permission then most in my opinion would be refused.

The shoddy way that this has been done I think would be against councils wishes as they do not want the expense and responsibility.