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

[magnetman]

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of being licensed for the Trust's waterways, using it requires a licence. Would it be so odd for short term licences to be an option? Marinas are already working as agents for CRT, it wouldn't be approaching privatisation for marinas to be dealing with the issuing of short term licences. I'm sure there would be some mutual business arrangements involved.

There would have to be a gate of some sort or you would be relying on people to volunteer to buy a license and they might be more interested in spending time on their boat in the sun than form filling in the marina oroffice.

 

I would suggest that a lot of people would just go boating but may well be wrong.

I guess a smartphone app to buy short visitor licenses would be one option

 

Could be doable I suppose.

[mayalld]

 

 

You need a licence to get into the marina and one to get out of the marina. The licence gives the marina access to business. The canal gives the boater access to the marina. Everyone inside the marina pays handsomely for the connection.

 

The condition requiring boats to have a licence, inside a marina, is nothing more nor less than protectionism, the abuse of a dominant position, the intimidation of customers.

 

OK, let's run with that thought.

 

Let's say that tomorrow, CRT do away with the requirement for baots in marinas to be licenced.

 

What do you imagine the outcomes will be?

 

Let us try a few;

 

• Most Marina dwelling leisure boaters will licence for 6 months of the year.
• Some marina dwelling liveaboards won't licence at all.
• Licence evasion will increase as those above chance the odd cruise whilst unlicenced, and then claim that the cheque is in the post.
• Revenue from licences falls
• Licence fees rise to compensate.
• Mooring in a marina becomes more attractive than mooring on-line, due to licence changes. Supply and demand leads to an increase in marina prices.

Basically, at the end of it all most boaters will probably see very little difference in cost. CCers will be the big losers, because they will see higher licence fees and still need 12 months of licences.

[Higgs]

There would have to be a gate of some sort or you would be relying on people to volunteer to buy a license and they might be more interested in spending time on their boat in the sun than form filling in the marina oroffice.

 

I would suggest that a lot of people would just go boating but may well be wrong.

I guess a smartphone app to buy short visitor licenses would be one option

 

Could be doable I suppose.

 

 

The two biggest concerns aired have been - CRT losing revenue and people just not bothering to get a licence for the odd weekend jaunt. Both are possibilities. There is absolutely one thing that CRT would be petrified of - Boaters having choice.

[jenlyn]

 

 

The two biggest concerns aired have been - CRT losing revenue and people just not bothering to get a licence for the odd weekend jaunt. Both are possibilities. There is absolutely one thing that CRT would be petrified of - Boaters having choice.

Your right really, and I tend to agree with what your saying. The system as it stands stinks. I don't think you should have to pay for a licence if your moored in a marina. CRT are monopolising, and in my view taking advantage.

It really needs a new system of charging, and sorting ways to fund. Especially for everyone using canals-towpath etc.

[magnetman]

 

 

The two biggest concerns aired have been - CRT losing revenue and people just not bothering to get a licence for the odd weekend jaunt. Both are possibilities. There is absolutely one thing that CRT would be petrified of - Boaters having choice.

But with the system as it currently works CRT run most of the network. Not all. So yes if you want to go on narrow canals for example you probably have no choice but to pay CRT. That's just the way it is until the system gets broken up as I see it.

[Higgs]

 

OK, let's run with that thought.

 

Let's say that tomorrow, CRT do away with the requirement for baots in marinas to be licenced.

 

What do you imagine the outcomes will be?

 

Let us try a few;

 

• Most Marina dwelling leisure boaters will licence for 6 months of the year.
• Some marina dwelling liveaboards won't licence at all.
• Licence evasion will increase as those above chance the odd cruise whilst unlicenced, and then claim that the cheque is in the post.
• Revenue from licences falls
• Licence fees rise to compensate.
• Mooring in a marina becomes more attractive than mooring on-line, due to licence changes. Supply and demand leads to an increase in marina prices.

Basically, at the end of it all most boaters will probably see very little difference in cost. CCers will be the big losers, because they will see higher licence fees and still need 12 months of licences.

 

 

Are you trying to say that, if the condition changed for marina moorers, it would be wholly unfair to the rest? Basically something, even though unfair to some, is worth it, because it makes things cheaper for those that the unfairness doesn't effect. You are also playing the game of protection without consideration. The licence is there for the use of the Trust's waterways.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Higgs

[mayalld]

 

 

Are you trying to say that, if the condition changed for marina moorers, it would be wholly unfair to the rest? Basically something, even though unfair to some, is worth it, because it makes things cheaper for those that the unfairness doesn't effect. You are also playing the game of protection without consideration. The licence is there for the use of the Trust's waterways.

 

I would be somebody who might expect a small reduction in cost.

 

I still don't support the idea.

[Higgs]

 

I would be somebody who might expect a small reduction in cost.

 

I still don't support the idea.

 

 

I do not begrudge CRT their right to charge for the use of the Trust's waterway. And, on its own, I do not begrudge paying the connection fee.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Higgs

[NilesMI]

Payment by usage sounds very fair and reasonable, but I like the current licencing arrangements.

 

I do lots of boating. Hundreds of miles and hundreds of locks a year. Fantastic. And it's all subsidised. Firstly by the general taxpayer through the grants and payments that come to CRT via central and local government, and secondly by the boaters who pay their licence fee but hardly use the network at all.

 

I was trying to do the maths.. Having to make guesses.

 

What proportion of CRT's income is spent keeping the network (mostly) navigable. My guess - 75%.

 

What proportion of CRT's income comes from boat licencing. 25% ?? What proportion from central/local government. 50% ??

 

Rough guesses, I admit, but if there was no money from general taxation and boat licencing had to raise all the money needed to keep the network navigable, it would probably need to generate about 2 to 3 times that of the current licencing arrangements.

 

So let's say the grants/payments dry up. Even if you assume all boaters were willing to pay it to keep their boats on the canals, we'd be looking at an average annual licence of £2k, rather than £800.

 

 

Now, to make some guesses about payment by usage... Rather than the day, I'll take the boat-lock-mile as my unit of usage as it relates more directly to the where the expediture goes on keeping the canals navigable. Very wild guess here but, with an average licence fee of £2k, and an annual average of, say, 200 lock-miles for each boat, thats £10 per lock-mile if it was to be charged on usage rather than as an annual fee.

 

So to raise all the licence fee necessary to keep the system going, without government subsidy, and if boats were charged for their usage by lock-miles (assuming that the numbers of boats and their usage of the network remained unchanged) my 1200 lock-miles of summer cruising would cost me £12k in usage fees, not £800.

 

I think I am getting a bargain.

 

That's just a classic fag-packet calculation, so feel free to swap in your own assuptions and guesses.

[magnetman]

The cruising license certainly is a major bargain for what we get

[TheBiscuits]

What proportion of CRT's income is spent keeping the network (mostly) navigable. My guess - 75%.

 

There was a BW report that concluded NOT keeping the system navigable would still cost around 80% of standard maintenance IIRC. The canals still would need to allow water flow for land drainage etc, so the only additional cost is fixing locks and bridges and providing water and waste facilities.

 

You could argue that that extra fraction is the only bit that boaters need to pay for.

 

The cruising license certainly is a major bargain for what we get

 

Massively so.

 

Lots of lumpy water harbours charge around £10-£50 per night for visitors, obviously heavily discounted by the week/month/year.

 

Caravan sites charge £10-£50 per night depending on facilities and location, and usually an extra charge per person too!

[matty40s]

What proportion of CRT's income is spent keeping the network (mostly) navigable. My guess is 75%

If that figure were anywhere near, we wouldn't have the problems and closures we have today.

[NilesMI]

 

There was a BW report that concluded NOT keeping the system navigable would still cost around 80% of standard maintenance IIRC. The canals still would need to allow water flow for land drainage etc, so the only additional cost is fixing locks and bridges and providing water and waste facilities.

 

You could argue that that extra fraction is the only bit that boaters need to pay for.

 

Not wishing this to be the case... but in the doomsday scenario where CRT becomes insolvent^* and ceases to exist, there would indeed be a cost to someone, somewhere of providing the drainage, flood protection and other amenities that the waterways currently provide.

 

However, it is a BIG assumption that the most cost effective way of doing those things would be to continue to maintain the canals, but in a non-navigable state. In fact, look at all the miles upon miles of disused/derilict canals which are not maintained at all to see that that the assumption that they NEED to be, is not realistic at all. However, I would guess that IS the assumption which is the basis for the BW report you mention.

 

So while you raise a very fair point, the fraction the boater should be paying (for having a navigable canal system) is the difference between the cost of the staus quo and the cost of providing all the non-boater amenities (drainage, etc) by other means. Perhaps we could make some wild guesses as to what that cost might be?

 

 

*To my mind, one of the most significant changes between the BW world and the CRT one is that while formerly BW could run up losses, it could not go bust. CRT certainly can.

If that figure were anywhere near, we wouldn't have the problems and closures we have today.

 

I'm happy to be corrected.

 

What is the actual proportion of CRT income which is spent maintaining the waterways in their (I did say, mostly) navigable state?

[tidal]

 

Lots of lumpy water harbours charge around £10-£50 per night for visitors, obviously heavily discounted by the week/month/year.

 

Lots of lumpy water sailors don't use harbours all that often during the "season"

AND don't have to pay for the privilege of a license to travel.

 

I agree the license is a bargain for most though

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

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

It is no secret that BWML's managing director, Derek Newman, lost his job due to poor financial performance.

 

His replacement, Geoff Whyatt, was put in to turn things around. However, the financial results from GW's first year in office show a loss of £878,642 compared to a £714,000 profit under DN.

 

Ed Helps, ABC Leisure Group MD, has also pointed out that £714,000 of BWML assets were written off in GW's first year and on checking, I found that a further £312,000 was written off in DN's last year.

 

Whilst there are some extenuating circumstances for the massive 'headline' loss last year, the fact is that they have written off over a £1m in the last two years and the return on CaRT's investment is still abysmal.

 

Turning to the O/P, BWML has over 3,100 berths but with an unknown number residential. A cornerstone of its recovery plan is the convert more berths to residential because there is a perceived demand and the higher income obtained (It abandoned its previous plan of buying up competitors marinas cheaply some time back).

 

Last year, it converted a further 30 berths to residential but was still reporting one in four residential berths empty. I guess the reporting of competitors is a fairly desperate attempt by Geoff Whyatt fill those empty residential berths.

 

No doubt competitors have been quick to point out that CaRT's own directly managed mooring business should have also been reported which resulted in Geoff Whyatt apologising.

[MEPitt]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

[jenlyn]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

A monopoly.

[Arthur Marshall]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

Not sure... don't they own pubs as well?

[jenlyn]

Not sure... don't they own pubs as well?

Yep.

[MEPitt]

A monopoly.

 

Well there are other marinas operating so I wouldnt say its a monopoly but surely it has a massive advantage over private marinas whom are not competing on a level playing field?

[Gordias]

[...]

CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust

[... ]

 

Isn't CaRT supposed to break even in a few years via a range of activities, some purely commercial (income from "offline" land and building for example), but currently dependent on public money?

 

They may or may not be playing fair in this case, but it doesn't seem reasonable for them to try to earn money from their marinas at market prices?

 

As a scenario: if they happened to have evidence that a significant number of their competitors were undercutting them because they weren't paying their taxes, it would make sense to "level the playing field" by reporting that to the appropriate authorities.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Gordias

[churchward]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

I think you misunderstand the nature of the C&RT setup. I agree they are indeed in competition other enterprises with their owned marinas but it does not mean they cannot have commercial assets. In any case nor for profit just means that any income must be used for the benefit of the Trust not given to shareholders etc. In fact we had all better hope that the income from commercial property and other investments continue to bring in the revenue that they do otherwise they are going to have to find 10s of millions of revenue from other sources like doubling the licence fee etc.

Edited September 7, 2015 by churchward

[Neil2]

I'm not sure what he meant by "the spirit of the marina industry" but it does seem a particularly clumsy tactic which is probably why he was apologising. I mean, you can imagine the delight on the faces of those local government officers who seemingly haven't had a pay rise for 20 years presented with the life and death matter of finding out how many folk are living on marinas these days.

 

Because it's like that scene in the Shawshank Redemption when Tim Robbins asks Morgan Freeman what he's in for ("everyone here's innocent, don't you know that..?") When I signed up at our current marina I asked how many liveaboards there were "Oh we don't allow anyone to live permanently on the marina..." If I was a planning officer that would certainly be good enough for me.

 

 

[Dave_P]

So lets get this straight, BWML is a commercial arm of CaRT. CaRT is supposed to be a not-for-profit trust while BWML as far as I can see are a wholly limited company that has commercial interests that means its compteting with existing private marinas, am I right in this?

And BWML got its assets from the old BW as far as I can gather?

 

Surely this is a massive conflict of interest having a competetive money making enterprise so closely connected to a charitable trust?

I tend to agree but it's a very common thing within larger charities. For example, the National Trust has a side arm called National Trust Enterprises (from memory?) Money spent in on-site shops goes there and profits are then (hopefully) put back into the charity.

[mango]

What I find interesting is that every time the clarion call is sounded, and we are urged to stick together as boaters, rather than be divided into leisure boaters and liveaboards (or any other split you care to mention), it always comes with the rider that OF COURSE this united group of boaters, who will not be partitioned into sub-groups MUST be represented by a liveaboard CCer.

 

Most boaters don't live on board. Most boaters aren't CCers. I regularly hear that as I am neither, my opinion on how the canals should be run is worth the square root of bugger all.

 

It seems to me that what the leisure boater wants and what the liveaboard wants are often at odds. That is fine, and there is a balance to be struck, but how do we get balance if we fall for the "all in this together" line and allow the minority to be the voice of all boaters?

It looks as if CRT is rejecting the views of people pursuing their own agenda with little consideration for others, and long may that continue.