No rise in licence fees in 2016.

[Southern Star]

Can't see this posted elsewhere, apologies if it has been. From an email received this afternoon...

 

No rise in licence fees in 2016

There will be no change to boat licences in 2016. This is in line with our three-year commitment to limit boat licence fee increases to inflation only until 2016 (based on the August 2015 Consumer Price Index) and applies to all private and business boats.

Mike Grimes said: “Boats bring life and colour to our canals and rivers and we are committed to offering fair prices to boaters who chose to cruise on our waterways. Licence fees won’t be changing in 2016, and this means boaters’ budgets will be able to stretch further. We hope it will help those who explore our canals and rivers, as well as those who live and work afloat.”

The new, full, price lists for licences from 1 April 2016 can be found on our website.

For further information please contact the Boat Licensing Team on 0303 040 4040.

[Chalky]

The cynic in me says that too many boats are leaving the system and they need to try and retain them...

[Arthur Marshall]

The cynic in me says they're going to put mooring permits way up instead...

[Naughty Cal]

The cynic in me says that too many boats are leaving the system and they need to try and retain them...

Why?

 

Rate rises are based on inflation which is currently running in the region of 0%.

[Guest]

I thought they made it pretty clear when they first became a trust three was no intention to raise it for three years.

 

Besides is there any actual eveidence that many boats are leaving the system?

 

Yes boaters are (we did) but our boat didn't.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I thought they made it pretty clear when they first became a trust three was no intention to raise it for three years.

 

Besides is there any actual eveidence that many boats are leaving the system?

 

Yes boaters are (we did) but our boat didn't.

The evidence is that BW/CaRT have misled both government and public regarding the actual number of boats on its waterways.

 

It appears that previous claims of more than 35,000 boats were exaggerated.

 

The actual numbers at last year end were 32,733 licensed boats with just 32,179 holding a 12 month licence.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The cynic in me says that too many boats are leaving the system and they need to try and retain them...

If your assumption that too many boats were leaving the system were true then they would have to increase the fee to maintain their current costs (or reduce their expenditure). The actual answer is contained in the screen snatch of the OP since it clearly says that "......limit boat licence fee increases to inflation only until 2016 (based on the August 2015 Consumer Price Index)......" and if you look up the CPI rate for August it was, oddly enough, 0%

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The evidence is that BW/CaRT have misled both government and public regarding the actual number of boats on its waterways.

 

It appears that previous claims of more than 35,000 boats were exaggerated.

 

The actual numbers at last year end were 32,733 licensed boats with just 32,179 holding a 12 month licence.

 

 

 

 

 

Does the DEFRA grant depend upon the number of boats on the waterways? If not then what difference does it make to government (or joe public) how many boats are on the waterways? If the overstatement of numbers dates back to the days of BW what would be the purpose of 'misleading' and to be honest a difference of 3000 boats (about 8.5%) is trivial (bearing in mind that licence evasion is supposed to be down to 4%)

Edited November 6, 2015 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Guest]

The evidence is that BW/CaRT have misled both government and public regarding the actual number of boats on its waterways.

 

It appears that previous claims of more than 35,000 boats were exaggerated.

 

The actual numbers at last year end were 32,733 licensed boats with just 32,179 holding a 12 month licence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not the same as boats being taken off the system though is it. Unless the 35,000 figure was indeed inaccurate at the outset.

 

(Though I agree if true the figure shouldn't have been over stated)

[alan_fincher]

Just stating the obvious, but....

Increasingly the "number of boats holding a 12 month licence" is not going to be a reliable indicator of the actually number of boats that are permanently on CRT ewaters, (or maybe EA waters, if those licences are "Gold").

As CRT steps up its action of only issuing 3 or 6 month licences to boats where they have challenged the amount they are moving, then "number of boats holding a 12 month licence" becomes an increasingly inaccurate measure of "total number of boats".

 

From now on if anybody is questioning whether the overall number of boats is rising or falling then the only valid count is total number of licences, without restricting it to those that are for a full year, surely?

[Sea Dog]

Is it me, or do we have a thread here that turns a rather good news "no increase in licence fee" announcement into a "Conspiracy! CRT Bar Stewards" rant?

[alan_fincher]

 

That's not the same as boats being taken off the system though is it. Unless the 35,000 figure was indeed inaccurate at the outset.

 

(Though I agree if true the figure shouldn't have been over stated)

 

I recall that Allan has also been keen to stress at certain times that licence evasion rates were starting to rise again.

 

So, although it is not perhaps an overall large factor in comparing the numbers, if you were to have the case where total number of boats on the system was constant, but licence evasion rates were rising, then by implication you would expect to see a decrease in the number of boats actually licenced, even if overall there were not one single less actual boat present.

 

Obviously it will not be the case that the total number of boats on the system is constant, but one does need to careful that any comparison isn't actually comparing two different things.

Is it me, or do we have a thread here that turns a rather good news "no increase in licence fee" announcement into a "Conspiracy! CRT Bar Stewards" rant?

 

I agree - as Martin said they agreed to have no increase beyond inflation for three years, so in a year when there is no inflation there has been no increase.

 

Seems spot on to me in this case in terms of them having done what they committed to.

[Alan de Enfield]

I can 'knock' C&RT, I can 'support' C&RT or I can 'sit on the fence' depending on the circumstances.

 

In this announcement they have done what they said they would do - what's to discuss ?

 

Vagabond - so 8.5% is 'trivial', I'm not sure it would be so trivial if your licence fee went up by this amount ( or your car tax, fuel, electricity, water, gas, mortgage, bank loan rate etc).

 

A difference of 3000 boat licences, at £800 each - that's a loss of income of £2,400,000

 

I would not consider that as 'trivial'.

[cuthound]

Is it me, or do we have a thread here that turns a rather good news "no increase in licence fee" announcement into a "Conspiracy! CRT Bar Stewards" rant?

Well why should the usual suspects let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy rant

[Emerald Fox]

The cynic in me says our licence fees should be reduced by 50% as CRT are failing to do the job they took over from BW, ie. maintain the canals and locks properly.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The cynic in me says our licence fees should be reduced by 50% as CRT are failing to do the job they took over from BW, ie. maintain the canals and locks properly.

That's going to work isn't it? If CRT were to cut the licence fees then DEFRA would also come forward demanding a cut in it's grant if CRT can't be bothered to collect the full licence fee. Bear in mind that the DEFRA grant is substantially more than CRT get in licence fees (2015/16 being about £39 million) Net result will be even less maintenance probably to the level that the canals would become unsustainable.

[Southern Star]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that if the entire cost of maintaining the canal network fell on boat licence payers then the licence would be seven times the amount it is, is this true or did I imagine it?

[Loafer]

Shame they can't enforce a license fee from all those sodding cyclists.

[b0atman]

How will this affect the Gold licence ?

[alan_fincher]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that if the entire cost of maintaining the canal network fell on boat licence payers then the licence would be seven times the amount it is, is this true or did I imagine it?

 

Well you could have read it somewhere but that doesn't make it true - you only need to look at some posts on this forum!

 

Actually I think the part of CRT income coming from boat licensing and moorings is more like one fifth than one seventh.

 

It is certainly true that we only pay a relatively modest sum compared to CRT's total outgoings.

[Guest]

 

Well you could have read it somewhere but that doesn't make it true - you only need to look at some posts on this forum!

 

Actually I think the part of CRT income coming from boat licensing and moorings is more like one fifth than one seventh.

 

It is certainly true that we only pay a relatively modest sum compared to CRT's total outgoings.

i have read similar (not necessarily on here.)

[Wanderer Vagabond]

I can 'knock' C&RT, I can 'support' C&RT or I can 'sit on the fence' depending on the circumstances.

 

In this announcement they have done what they said they would do - what's to discuss ?

 

Vagabond - so 8.5% is 'trivial', I'm not sure it would be so trivial if your licence fee went up by this amount ( or your car tax, fuel, electricity, water, gas, mortgage, bank loan rate etc).

 

A difference of 3000 boat licences, at £800 each - that's a loss of income of £2,400,000

 

I would not consider that as 'trivial'.

I think I'd stick with the alleged 'loss' of boats being a trivial number in the grand scheme of things. Working on your figure of a loss of £800 per boat to multiply this up to the 32000 that are apparently on the system and adding the DEFRA grant it gives CRT an income (purely on licences and grant) of about £64.6 million so £2.4 million would represent about 3.7% of that, or less than they are currently losing in licence evasion.

 

Quite how CRT are supposed to force people to keep their boats on the waterways (assuming that they ARE actually taking them off, which I'm not that convinced of) I'd be interested to hear practical proposals.

 

In terms of an 8.6% increase in other utility bills, so if they do go up what am I supposed to do? Stop using electricity,gas, fuel? Complain all that you like but you will still have to pay it in the end. In my lifetime I have had a load of stuff go up by more that 8.6% including my mortgage, you still have to pay!

[Alan de Enfield]

Working on your figure of a loss of £800 per boat to multiply this up to the 32000 that are apparently on the system and adding the DEFRA grant it gives CRT an income (purely on licences and grant) of about £64.6 million so £2.4 million would represent about 3.7% of that, or less than they are currently losing in licence evasion.

 

 

 

What has the DEFRA grant got to do with it - its still a loss of income of £2.4 million which is not insignificant - just think how many Enforcement Officers salaries that could pay for.

 

My calculation is for lost income

 

The quoted reduction in boat numbers gives £2.4 millions

'Loss of Income' due to unlicensed boats is £1.1 million

 

I think you are comparing apples and oranges and getting pears. If you include the DEFRA grant in one side of the calculation to get the 3.7% you must include it in the 'other side' of the calculation when you are considering lost income (as a %) due to licence evasion.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

What has the DEFRA grant got to do with it - its still a loss of income of £2.4 million which is not insignificant - just think how many Enforcement Officers salaries that could pay for.

 

My calculation is for lost income

 

The quoted reduction in boat numbers gives £2.4 millions

'Loss of Income' due to unlicensed boats is £1.1 million

 

I think you are comparing apples and oranges and getting pears. If you include the DEFRA grant in one side of the calculation to get the 3.7% you must include it in the 'other side' of the calculation when you are considering lost income (as a %) due to licence evasion.

To be honest all these figures are just 'ball park' figures based upon speculation. Your £2.4 million is based upon all of the 'missing' boats all being over 45 feet whereas no-one has yet come up with where all these 'missing' boats are going, so there is no means of seeing what boats are going 'missing' . And if these boats are indeed leaving the system (I still remain to be convinced) what practical proposals would you have to force them to remain, bearing in mind there may be a multitude of reasons for someone to take their boat out of the water (again, assuming that is IS happening).

[Alan de Enfield]

To be honest all these figures are just 'ball park' figures based upon speculation. Your £2.4 million is based upon all of the 'missing' boats all being over 45 feet whereas no-one has yet come up with where all these 'missing' boats are going, so there is no means of seeing what boats are going 'missing' . And if these boats are indeed leaving the system (I still remain to be convinced) what practical proposals would you have to force them to remain, bearing in mind there may be a multitude of reasons for someone to take their boat out of the water (again, assuming that is IS happening).

 

I do not need to licence my boat but I do because of where I keep it.

 

There is nothing that can be done to stop boaters leaving and I have not suggested that there should be.

 

This discussion started by your post in which you said why should anyone be worried about the number falling as it was only a trivial amount of money being 'lost'

 

Your post :

 

Does the DEFRA grant depend upon the number of boats on the waterways? If not then what difference does it make to government (or joe public) how many boats are on the waterways? If the overstatement of numbers dates back to the days of BW what would be the purpose of 'misleading' and to be honest a difference of 3000 boats (about 8.5%) is trivial (bearing in mind that licence evasion is supposed to be down to 4%)

 

The reduction in boat licences may not affect the DEFRA grant, it may not worry the Government (or Joe Public) but it should worry boaters, either costs must be reduced ( less maintenance ??) or licence fees increased for the remaining boaters, or alternative funding streams found.