Jump to content

Should marina moorers need licences?

Delta9

By Delta9
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Delta9 Experienced

Delta9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Ta dah..........

 

Finally.

What do you mean finally? That has been the entire point of the thread since the start... Read the thread before posting.

 

 

Oh yes there is!

 

 

Buy a house or caravan.

"if you don't like it leave"

Edited by DHutch
Insult removed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

What do you mean finally? That has been the entire point of the thread since the start... Read the thread before posting.

 

"if you don't like it leave"

 

pillock.

I have read the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Yes there are other options if you don't like 'it'. Fighting 'it' or trying to change 'it' for the better are two examples.

 

So after expressing your views on a relatively insignificant boating forum what's your next move?

 

Marina entrance blockade would be good...

Then you have no excuse.

I don't need one. I am not the one trying to wriggle out of something I've signed up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Delta9 Experienced

Delta9

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So after expressing your views on a relatively insignificant boating forum what's your next move?

 

Marina entrance blockade would be good...

 

I'll probably go to bed shortly, I may blockade the marina entrance tomorrow.

 

 

I don't need one. I am not the one trying to wriggle out of something I've signed up to.

I haven't 'signed up' to anything that requires me to have a licence in a private marina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

Yes there are other options if you don't like 'it'. Fighting 'it' or trying to change 'it' for the better are two examples.

What you mean is fighting to try to change it for your advantage, not necessarily for the better. Your proposal would make licence evasion for marina users a simple matter. To counter the massive loss in revenue CRT would suffer if marina users only had to pay if/when they come out of the marina all other boaters would have to make up the difference since it ain't going to come from government anytime soon. Any suggestion of 'spending more wisely' is exactly what I would expect a politician to say as they cut the DEFRA grant. If your proposal came to fruition it would probably be the quickest way to bring about the total destruction of the canals due to loss of revenue both from licenceholders and Government who wouldn't feel inclined to pay the DEFRA grant if CRT can't be bothered to collect from user/boaters in whatever way that they can. I hope that your proposal fails.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sabcat Rising Star

Sabcat

Posted
Posted

What you mean is fighting to try to change it for your advantage, not necessarily for the better. Your proposal would make licence evasion for marina users a simple matter. To counter the massive loss in revenue CRT would suffer if marina users only had to pay if/when they come out of the marina all other boaters would have to make up the difference since it ain't going to come from government anytime soon. Any suggestion of 'spending more wisely' is exactly what I would expect a politician to say as they cut the DEFRA grant. If your proposal came to fruition it would probably be the quickest way to bring about the total destruction of the canals due to loss of revenue both from licenceholders and Government who wouldn't feel inclined to pay the DEFRA grant if CRT can't be bothered to collect from user/boaters in whatever way that they can. I hope that your proposal fails.

Sorry, this is emotive and loaded garbage.

 

If a boat is not on CRT waters not licensing is not "evasion" it's simply not buying something for which there is no need. You might just as well say I'm evading BMW by not buying a new 3 series for all the sense there is in your argument.

 

If CRT are relying on revenue from people who are not making use of their services (and we've put the water argument to bed in this thread already) then the problem is CRT's model, not the people who are being robbed by them.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

What you mean is fighting to try to change it for your advantage, not necessarily for the better. Your proposal would make licence evasion for marina users a simple matter. To counter the massive loss in revenue CRT would suffer if marina users only had to pay if/when they come out of the marina all other boaters would have to make up the difference since it ain't going to come from government anytime soon. Any suggestion of 'spending more wisely' is exactly what I would expect a politician to say as they cut the DEFRA grant. If your proposal came to fruition it would probably be the quickest way to bring about the total destruction of the canals due to loss of revenue both from licenceholders and Government who wouldn't feel inclined to pay the DEFRA grant if CRT can't be bothered to collect from user/boaters in whatever way that they can. I hope that your proposal fails.

 

 

I don't have the pessimistic view you and others have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

 

1. That is the case. The ramifications of the contract do effect the conditions placed on me and others to submit to a requirement that has no basis in need or legitimacy.

 

2. The NAA is a business contract. It lays down the rules and requirements of practice. Not much of a contract if it isn't binding. It's a contract, what more can you say. I also do follow the T&C's supplied to me. By either of the business partners involved, I am fully paid up and compliant. I just happen to think I could produce a more ethically sound version of the NAA; in it every party would receive exactly what they are owed, and no one would be out of pocket. No one would be paid more than is their due.

 

3. All your saying is that you fully approve protectionist practice. You are also not interested in giving boaters choice or a voice. And if you do, how are going to get it, if you want it. All I see is lap dog mentality. The dynamics should be changed and that can be done.

 

There are laws that provide for the legimate collection of a licence fee. The NAA goes around those laws. But, it is not law. As you say, the contract has nothing to do with boaters (moorers). And, it really isn't the law that requires a boater to have a licence. it doesn't exist in the marina. It is contrived to side step the actual law that would require a boat to have a licence. It's a strange business that one (CRT) would complicate their business by watering down their statutory powers. What is in the T&C's of a marina are not statutory powers. Not authorised by parliament.

It is the law that you abide by the terms of any contract you enter into freely.

This whole thread seems to be along the lines of various others such as 'Why can't I stay moored where I like for as long as I like?' The point is that no-one has concealed the terms and conditions of anything from people wishing to put a boat either in a marina or on the canal. Did you take your marina place and only then were told by the marina owner, "Oh, by the way you'll need to get yourself a licence"? Much the same as those who put their boat on the canal then whinge because they are required to periodically move, was this condition of the licence withheld from them until they'd bought it? I would suggest that in both instances the answer is 'no'. These were the conditions you signed up to, if you didn't like them them complain before you signed up, or even more radically don't sign up to them at all and do something else.

caveat emptor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wanderer Vagabond Influencer

Wanderer VagabondDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

I doubt it. That's more likely to happen because of the sheep like attitide I keep seeing from some on this forum. Baa...

So you don't think that removing the requirement for those in a marina to pay for a licence would affect the income stream of CRT then. I am currently in the Braunston area where I'm reliably told there are over 2000 marina boats within 5 miles, by my reckoning, at an average of £750 per boat that's £1.5 million off their income to start with (ignoring the rest of the country).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jenlyn Veteran II

jenlyn

Posted
Posted

So you don't think that removing the requirement for those in a marina to pay for a licence would affect the income stream of CRT then. I am currently in the Braunston area where I'm reliably told there are over 2000 marina boats within 5 miles, by my reckoning, at an average of £750 per boat that's £1.5 million off their income to start with (ignoring the rest of the country).

Strange how CRT behaves with one of it's top income streams isn't it. You would think CRT might interact with that income stream.

Talk to the people who actually "have" experience, and more importantly, listen to that stream.

Even the most menial questions directed at the trust seem to require an foi these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bassplayer Influencer

bassplayer

Posted
Posted

So you don't think that removing the requirement for those in a marina to pay for a licence would affect the income stream of CRT then. I am currently in the Braunston area where I'm reliably told there are over 2000 marina boats within 5 miles, by my reckoning, at an average of £750 per boat that's £1.5 million off their income to start with (ignoring the rest of the country).

I believe most of those boats will navigate at least once in a year so I don't think it would be as bad as you think.

 

What will kill of tbe navigation is it not being used. The most important thing to me is the ability to travel all over the country. It's taken enthusiasm and hard work to get us to where we are now. Without a demand, or harmonious voice from the boating community we will lose this great asset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

So you don't think that removing the requirement for those in a marina to pay for a licence would affect the income stream of CRT then. I am currently in the Braunston area where I'm reliably told there are over 2000 marina boats within 5 miles, by my reckoning, at an average of £750 per boat that's £1.5 million off their income to start with (ignoring the rest of the country).

 

 

 

I don't think it would be anywhere near what you may fear. There would be some added bonuses. CRT wouldn't go for the option of trying to corral as many into marinas as possible, they would actually have to encourage boaters onto the canal. To do that, they would have to adopt a more positive attitude towards their customers and recognise that it isn't sufficient for them and the government to call the canals a national treasure while allowing it to decline as a navigation.

 

Boaters would have choice and leverage. This one obstructing para in the NAA needs to be removed, for the reasons already mentioned during the coarse of this thread, it will add a new dynamic to the canals. I believe the canals will become a more vibrant and used and respected place, the boaters will also feel more respected. I think it will be a happier place. And I will not stop buying a licence, as I want to use the canal. The difference would be that I'd had the choice, which actually should exist now, but for the one unscrupulous part of the NAA.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike Todd Veteran

Mike ToddDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

So you don't think that removing the requirement for those in a marina to pay for a licence would affect the income stream of CRT then. I am currently in the Braunston area where I'm reliably told there are over 2000 marina boats within 5 miles, by my reckoning, at an average of £750 per boat that's £1.5 million off their income to start with (ignoring the rest of the country).

It is also (almost explicitly) part of CaRT's enforcement strategy. Given that they have insufficient resources to be everywhere all the time, the contractual obligation which the marina operators enter into in exchange for the right to connect to the canal system as a business benefit, is an additional means of ensuring the boats are licensed. They are unconcerned by the needs of people who, apart from this matter, would not be customers.

I believe most of those boats will navigate at least once in a year so I don't think it would be as bad as you think.

 

What will kill of tbe navigation is it not being used. The most important thing to me is the ability to travel all over the country. It's taken enthusiasm and hard work to get us to where we are now. Without a demand, or harmonious voice from the boating community we will lose this great asset.

If the number of boats who moor in marinas with an extant NAA is minimal, then it is likely that CaRT (and any judicial review) would conclude that the current arrangement has a net benefit compared with removing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.