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

[magnetman]

Higgs. I know you are tired but let me give you another scenario and see what you think.

 

I live on my boat on an "online" ( on the cut rather than in a layby or marina) residential mooring for which i pay a not inconsiderable fee as I am one of those boat-addict types and it is in central london. I also pay a cruising license. In the last year I have only used one CRT owned lock (connected to the Thames which is my preferred cruising waterway) so my cruising license really doesn't look like good value compared with a few day passes.

 

Would you suggest that I also ought to be exempt from the cruising license as the water I float on is from the same source as your connected marina - ie CRT owned and maintained waterway.

 

If its too smart for you just say - I won't be offended

[Higgs]

 

Here in France we have exactly what you propose. A boat with a mooring pays when it navigates, if it doesn't navigate it doesn't pay.

 

Short term licenses are a high portion of the year license so there's no sense of anyone not paying their way. There's also plenty of boats that don't go anywhere paying a yearly mooring fee.

 

Neither of these figures are the laughable amounts you pay in England. €3,000 to stop by a towpath with no water and electric. Incroyable!

 

We also have the VNF who know how to run a professional canal and river system, a government who sincerely believes it works on behalf of the people. What we don't have is the mickey mouse outfit CRT who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.

 

 

[Naughty Cal]

 

Here in France we have exactly what you propose. A boat with a mooring pays when it navigates, if it doesn't navigate it doesn't pay.

 

Short term licenses are a high portion of the year license so there's no sense of anyone not paying their way. There's also plenty of boats that don't go anywhere paying a yearly mooring fee.

 

Neither of these figures are the laughable amounts you pay in England. €3,000 to stop by a towpath with no water and electric. Incroyable!

 

We also have the VNF who know how to run a professional canal and river system, a government who sincerely believes it works on behalf of the people. What we don't have is the mickey mouse outfit CRT who couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.

Over there in France you also have a nasty habit of letting all of your black water out into the canals

 

Slime lines........Lovely

[mayalld]

 

 

1. That is a possibility. Choice works that way.

 

2. The market is in mooring, that's the business. The marina I live at was a pond. It's now a pond with an opening. If I close my eyes, I can almost imagine it is still a pond. Your point about why we haven't already seen a demand was?

 

Stop imagining that it is still a pond.

 

Instead, move your boat to one of those marinas that have decided not to bother with the opening.

 

If there is the demand for them, they will exist.

 

The fact that they DON'T exist suggests that there is very little demand for such marinas, and plenty of demand for marinas with openings.

[Jerra]

I keep my boat in a private marina, it is connect to another, very, very long, long marina. Approximately 2000 miles long.

My car is on the drive just outside if a long "drive" thousands of miles long. However I have to either have the car taxed for at least 6 months or declare it SORN and never move it off the drive.

 

Not a lot of difference to being in a marina as far as I am concerned. I can't just decide to use it for a weekend and then pop it back on the drive.

[Murflynn]

 

 

I keep my boat in a private marina, it is connect to another, very, very long, long marina. Approximately 2000 miles long.

 

There is no choice. I pay for a boat licence, whether I go on to the CRT waterway or not.

 

The only people who are eating their cake and having it is CRT. At least they get something from me in my licence payment. They don't actually force you to go out onto the canal, ace. Maybe I don't want to go out this year.

 

They also get something from me with the connection fee, I actually do get something from them for that. Ta, awfully nice of you.

as I said earlier, if you don't wish to navigate, all you need is a gravel pit (not necessarily wet) to place your boat in.

you won't have to pay for a CRT licence. Win Win !!

[NilesMI]

 

You like all of the subsidies.

 

"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."

 

 

including those from boaters who choose not to use the canal, for whatever reason, it is their prerogative. I probably just want to give you less of a subsidy.

 

Of course it is their, your, perogative. But you know the cost before you sign the deal, as do I. And although you're right, that I do like my boating to be subsidised, I don't really see why it should be. Either by the general taxpayer or by other boaters.

 

The question is; can you be fairer to boaters in the way they pay for their boating, without compromising CRT's income?

[MEPitt]

as I said earlier, if you don't wish to navigate, all you need is a gravel pit (not necessarily wet) to place your boat in.

you won't have to pay for a CRT licence. Win Win !!

 

Funnily enough I know that Thomas Dolby (remember 'She Blinded me with Science'?) has a studio in a boat thats on hardstandings in his field:

http://www.treehugger.com/green-home/thomas-dolbys-sun-and-wind-powered-musical-lifeboat.html

 

I consider his 'Flat Earth' album from 1984 a masterpiece and well worth a listen

[churchward]

 

Of course it is their, your, perogative. But you know the cost before you sign the deal, as do I. And although you're right, that I do like my boating to be subsidised, I don't really see why it should be. Either by the general taxpayer or by other boaters.

 

The question is; can you be fairer to boaters in the way they pay for their boating, without compromising CRT's income?

I am not sure why the taxpayer is an unwelcome subsidy or can even be seen as a subsidy. In my view a contribution from the taxpayer for a national resource is the only fair way to make sure that other towpath users such as cyclists, walkers and gongoozerlers pay reasonable contribution to the upkeep of the system they are enjoying.

[NigelMoore]

My car is on the drive just outside if a long "drive" thousands of miles long. However I have to either have the car taxed for at least 6 months or declare it SORN and never move it off the drive.

 

Not a lot of difference to being in a marina as far as I am concerned. I can't just decide to use it for a weekend and then pop it back on the drive.

 

That is an example supporting Higgs rather than not. If you keep your car on a private drive, the option is there to declare SORN, and to keep it untaxed for the duration [maybe because you are renovating it].

 

If you want to drive for a day, you can insure for that day and take it out. If you want a fortnight’s driving holiday, or to take several trips within a month or so, you can pay your 6 month licence and return the discs for the refund on your return.

[magnetman]

 

If you want to drive for a day, you can insure for that day and take it out.

I didn't know that

Could be quite handy for people who just use a car for occasional trips to the beach or whatever. I wonder if there is some sort of limit to how many individual days one can use without paying road tax

[Higgs]

 

 

If marinas did not have this licensing requirement imposed by CaRT upon their T&C's on the strength of the perceived compulsion to obtain the NAA, they could choose to impose it or not at their choice. It is the NAA that removes the choice.

 

Apologies for cropping so much. I agree that marinas would be able to apply their own terms and conditions - 'House rules' . That, in my opinion, would be more preferable. There would be a certain degree of competition and some semblance of, or maybe real, choice for boaters and marinas.

 

"The only beneficial object of the licence for the marina, is, as others have observed, that it gives a minimum level of confidence in quality, safety and insurances, for the better protection of them and all the other customers."

 

The licence is granted on the production of BSS and insurance. I do not think it is a good guarantee of standards. If I forget the licence for a moment, I've recently been to the marina office with my Insurance. The BSS is nearly 4 years old. I've also had to request a different mooring, to keep me/the boat away from a licensed boater who prefers to stop by suddenly hitting an immovable object, at a lick.

 

 

Higgs. I know you are tired but let me give you another scenario and see what you think.

 

I live on my boat on an "online" ( on the cut rather than in a layby or marina) residential mooring for which i pay a not inconsiderable fee as I am one of those boat-addict types and it is in central london. I also pay a cruising license. In the last year I have only used one CRT owned lock (connected to the Thames which is my preferred cruising waterway) so my cruising license really doesn't look like good value compared with a few day passes.

 

Would you suggest that I also ought to be exempt from the cruising license as the water I float on is from the same source as your connected marina - ie CRT owned and maintained waterway.

 

If its too smart for you just say - I won't be offended

 

 

In the bold - You are on the Trust's waterway, you pay to be on that, by law. Likewise, to the Thames authority.

 

Not forgetting that moorers in a marina pay connection charges, I should think water in the marina has been fairly paid for. As you know, marinas are not sealed off from the canal, the marina is a reservoir and also supplies some water to the mix, as the water level goes down on the canal. You may even be floating on some, could we have it back please.

 

Water comes and goes. Difficult to own it. During a drought, I guess the marina could put the wood in the slots and keep us floating, as CRT would, to protect the water level in the canal, if the marina was losing water. It was a pond, some 300 yards away from the canal, long before it was a marina. I bet that while it was being fitted out, as a marina, the water was pumped into the canal. So,.....are you sure the water you're floating on isn't marina 'owned' and passing by.

[magnetman]

No. The marina is causing a water shortage problem as their bank protection worms were carried out by cowboys

 

Anyway I realise you are having a giggle about it all and I agree it is quite a funny subject really - and some marinas were dug out of 'virgin' farmland anyway. And some were built before the naa came I to existence

 

 

Anyway I am tired too

[NigelMoore]

 

Apologies for cropping so much.

 

Why apologise for cropping to the specific portion you are responding to? I wish more would do that more often.

 

Apropos the 1990 Bill’s proposed abolition of the riparian rights conferred by the Enabling Acts [foremost amongst them the right to create moorings alongside the canals], the Hansard debate of 17 May 1993 contains the effective representation of Mr Peter Luff –

 

“In recent times, ignorance of those rights, coupled with British Waterways' erosion of them, has resulted in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights —some 200 years old—were designed to prevent.”

 

The notorious clause objected to was subsequently removed, amidst dark warnings from BW about the difficulties this was going to present them. The difficulties never arose of course – BW and now CaRT just went ahead and ignored those rights, carrying on “in exactly the unreasonable and coercive behaviour that the rights —some 200 years old—were designed to prevent.”

[Higgs]

 

Stop imagining that it is still a pond.

 

Instead, move your boat to one of those marinas that have decided not to bother with the opening.

 

If there is the demand for them, they will exist.

 

The fact that they DON'T exist suggests that there is very little demand for such marinas, and plenty of demand for marinas with openings.

 

 

I am sure it would be just as easy to move your thinking to another channel. Sorry I can't conform to your thinking.

[NigelMoore]

Water comes and goes. Difficult to own it.

 

Under English law - impossible to own it; it belongs to all. The most control anyone can have is over use of it, whether that control is conferred by common law or statute.

[NilesMI]

I am not sure why the taxpayer is an unwelcome subsidy or can even be seen as a subsidy. In my view a contribution from the taxpayer for a national resource is the only fair way to make sure that other towpath users such as cyclists, walkers and gongoozerlers pay reasonable contribution to the upkeep of the system they are enjoying.

 

Of course it is a subsidy. CRT is now a private body, it would be insolvent without the grants from the Treasury.

 

There is a good argument to be made that some of what CRT does is good for the population in general and should be provided for out of general taxation. A reasonable contribution is a very good way of putting it. But what is reasonable? By accident of history many private landowners have footpaths and bridleways crossing their land and because they are rights of way, they are obliged to maintain access for which they don't recieve a cent. CRT is a privater landowner. Are their foot/cycle paths really so very different or special that CRT couldn't provide them without the millions in grants they recieve?

 

The drainage/flood protection argument is a better one, though I can't see it justifying spending anything like as much as is currently done to maintain canals and lock flights so that I may bring my boat through them.

 

The heritage argument is another one. The outdoor museum, or whatever it should be called - is kept for the benefit of the nation, so to that extent should have funding from the common pot of money.

 

But having deployed all those arguments, you would still be left with the realization that what boats pay i, in licence fees, doesn't cover the cost of maintaining canals in a fit state to boat on.

 

On the pro-subsidy side of the argument is the fact that in cash terms, what CRT recieves amounts to little more than a rounding error in the national buget calculations.

 

On the anti-subsidy side of the argument is the other fact that boaters who are effectively being subsidised are a select few and easily picked-on if it ever becomes a contentious subject. My fag packet calculation suggests that even at a flat annual rate licence, I am being subsidised by around £1k/year by the generous UK taxpayer in keeping CRT solvent so I can go boating. When libraries and other amenities are being closed, police numbers being cut and subsidies to the arts and so on slashed. A subsidy for privileged boat owners does not sit well and we could easily end up on the wrong side of some headlines, should someone want to make a political point.

[magnetman]

That's very technical - it is impossible to own water.

 

But tesco sell it

[NigelMoore]

I didn't know that

Could be quite handy for people who just use a car for occasional trips to the beach or whatever. I wonder if there is some sort of limit to how many individual days one can use without paying road tax

 

Strictly speaking, the day trip ought to be restricted to necessary purposes such as getting to a garage for work to be done to it; for an MOT, or for getting it ‘home’ from somewhere [perhaps upon purchase].

 

However even when stopped by police for unrelated matters, the only thing they were interested in was confirmation of the insurance [bit expensive for 24 hours looked at on a pro-rata basis, but fine if you just want to use it for that day].

 

Regardless of any other factor, if you were thinking of numerous such trips, that 24 hour rate would obviate the savings in not paying the tax! Sort of self-regulating.

[NilesMI]

I didn't know that

Could be quite handy for people who just use a car for occasional trips to the beach or whatever. I wonder if there is some sort of limit to how many individual days one can use without paying road tax

 

I do that.

 

Because I live in Germany when not on the boat, I drive a car for the odd day/week when in the UK. It is owned by a relative but not used by him, so I insure it by the day. The other reason is that it is quite difficult to get annual insurance to drive a car in the UK if you are not a UK resident. But even if you can insure by the day, the car itself has to be taxed throughout, or declared SORN, and therefore undriveable.

 

So the basic analogy between road tax/driveway and CRT licence/marina still holds.

[NigelMoore]

That's very technical - it is impossible to own water.

 

But tesco sell it

 

So do CaRT, and they can even improve it for the purpose – under empowerment of an old BW Statutory Instrument.

 

Tesco and other sell drinking water for your strictly transient use; it comes in and it goes out, being returned to the environment whence it came.

[magnetman]

Quite

 

I did the math in my head and came to the same conclusion sorry its a bit off topic

(Reply to NigelMoore's post about road tax)

 

 

Tesco and other sell drinking water for your strictly transient use; it comes in and it goes out, being returned to the environment whence it came.

 

So if (when) my tesco value spring water ends up in the cut is this subject to extra charges or can I claim a rebate.

[Higgs]

as I said earlier, if you don't wish to navigate, all you need is a gravel pit (not necessarily wet) to place your boat in.

you won't have to pay for a CRT licence. Win Win !!

 

Yes, you said it earlier. Well observed. Top marks. Are you going to say it again?

[NigelMoore]

 

But even if you can insure by the day, the car itself has to be taxed throughout . . .

 

Not so. If it were, you would have to get cars trailered to and from MOT stations in order to get them tested, repaired and licensed.

 

An unlicensed [taxed] car without an MOT can be driven to and from the garage for necessary repairs and/or MOT test, or returned from a pound or whatever, just so long as it is insured.

 

I’d be gaol otherwise, quite a few times over.

So if (when) my tesco value spring water ends up in the cut is this subject to extra charges or can I claim a rebate.

 

No rebate. You have received such benefit from your temporary custody as you paid for.

 

edit to add: I was perhaps too hasty. Depending upon the route taken in getting back to the cut, it could be subjected to extra charges for drainage easements - but hopefully that won't affect you, the contributor; not directly anyway.

Edited September 7, 2015 by NigelMoore

[NilesMI]

 

Not so. If it were, you would have to get cars trailered to and from MOT stations in order to get them tested, repaired and licensed.

 

An unlicensed [taxed] car without an MOT can be driven to and from the garage for necessary repairs and/or MOT test, or returned from a pound or whatever, just so long as it is insured.

 

Yes, I had to do that, too. The car in question had been SORN and had no MOT.

 

Not quite the same as being able to pay for road tax by the day or week, though.