Should marina moorers need licences?

[George94]

 

Okay, I can see what I'm up against, someone who assumes that because I use a commonly known name for a government authority, whilst working in a business that often has to make reference to that authority, I must be a dunce. I am not...

 

I have no doubt at all that the competition and markets authority would ask some very, very searching questions of CRT before allowing them anywhere near any say in a marina's pricing, and I also have little doubt (as someone who periodiacally works with marina developers) that marina operators would run a mile before agreeing to anything that had the faintest whiff of being enforceable.

 

Marina operators will live with known costs being imposed, they will not live with an outside agency trying to influence what they can charge for their services.

 

It may surprise you but professionals in any field often use archaic and out of date terms for authorities and legislation because we all know what we mean. Pedants don't last long, they annoy the clients too much

 

Not only did you get the name wrong, but you didn't even know that the OFT no longer exists. And you call yourself a professional!

 

You also don't know what they do, which is why you are now back-pedalling.

 

CART requiring a marina not to raise prices for five years is nothing to do with competition or price-fixing. Furthermore, no business in the world would turn down the opportunity to get rid of a fixed charge which could be as high as 18% of its revenue (at 50% occupancy), so I don't think you really know any more about business than you do about competition law.

 

Getting important facts right is not pedantry, it's being professional.

Edited February 5, 2016 by George94

[bassplayer]

 

You're making my point. They use the canals more, and should therefore pay more - just like drivers on the road.

 

 

I'm not making your point at all. We also pay fuel duty on diesel. Tax is still being used to subsidise CRT. Car tax is also less than the boat licence so I'm not convinced by your analogy.

 

The current licence fees would be fine anyway if the money was used to pay for maintenance instead of enforcement and unnecessary wage bills.

 

I don't quite know why you have picked out CC'ers because the licence fee also lets a boater in a marina travel all over the system as much as they like.

 

Maybe one problem here is if the CRT fee for the marina is being passed onto the boater. Perhaps it should come out of their profit margin.

[bassplayer]

 

 

A compliant CCer moving three miles a fortnight (as I observe many do here on the K&A) will use bugger all fuel for propulsion. Probably less than the average weekender.

Ah, but they will still be paying some tax on domestic use. Just at a reduced rate. Anyway, stop encouraging the CC'er basher.

 

Many CC'ers travel further anyway so will be paying more on propulsion duty.

[Alan de Enfield]

.....................Maybe one problem here is if the CRT fee for the marina is being passed onto the boater. Perhaps it should come out of their profit margin.

 

It does.

 

Our Marina has an NAA and pays C&RT their 9% (based on full occupancy) or 18% (based on 50% occupancy) or any other figure you want to work on.

 

The Marina 2 miles away has no NAA agreement.

 

Within 'a pound or two' both Marinas charge the same price for the same sized boat.

 

The Marina without the NAA is (assuming other costs are similar) is making more profit, ergo, the Marina with the NAA is paying it via reduced profits.

[costalot]

 

You're making my point. They use the canals more, and should therefore pay more - just like drivers on the road.

 

 

If you support that position it appears logical that you also support TV licenses being based on the number of hours you watch.

[Alan de Enfield]

If you support that position it appears logical that you also support TV licenses being based on the number of hours you watch.

 

And of course your car 'road fund licence' is based on the number of miles you drive, and your shotgun licence is based on the number of cartridges you fire, and my "Personal Licence" ( to sell / serve alcohol) cost is dependent on how many pints I 'pull', and so on and so on.

[Jerra]

 

It's news to me that the duty on red diesel is paid to CART.

Who said it was paid to CRT/ The point being they pay duty on the fuel just as cars do. If you think all (or going by the roads round here any) of the fuel duty goes on roads you are probably mistaken. So suggesting traffic pays for the roads is not the case.

[jenlyn]

 

 

A compliant CCer moving three miles a fortnight (as I observe many do here on the K&A) will use bugger all fuel for propulsion. Probably less than the average weekender.

I take it your doing exactly the same? If your able to observe.

[George94]

If you support that position it appears logical that you also support TV licenses being based on the number of hours you watch.

 

In theory, yes. In practice, no.

 

It's just a question of what is practicable. In the case of TV, the number of hours watched varies seamlessly from nothing to all the time, so it would need something like an electricity meter to measure. Not practicable.

 

In the case of canal licensing, its either or. If you can produce a marina agreement, you get a reduced rate. If you can't, you don't. Simple, and therefore practicable.

 

And of course your car 'road fund licence' is based on the number of miles you drive, and your shotgun licence is based on the number of cartridges you fire, and my "Personal Licence" ( to sell / serve alcohol) cost is dependent on how many pints I 'pull', and so on and so on.

 

And your electricity bill is based on how much you use. The duty on alcohol is based on quantity and pre-paid.

Who said it was paid to CRT/ The point being they pay duty on the fuel just as cars do. If you think all (or going by the roads round here any) of the fuel duty goes on roads you are probably mistaken. So suggesting traffic pays for the roads is not the case.

 

I was being sarcastic.

 

Fuel duty is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

[MtB]

I take it your doing exactly the same? If your able to observe

 

 

To a degree, yes. But I ride my bike regularly on the towpath too, so get to see how the same set of boats shuffles short distances regularly. And compliantly too, as I said. Nothing wrong with their cruising pattern.

 

However, I have a home mooring so I'm not bound by the same rules, assuming you were attempting to imply some sort of criticism of my own cruising pattern!

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

And your electricity bill is based on how much you use. The duty on alcohol is based on quantity and pre-paid.

 

 

Fuel duty is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

 

All mention of 'duty' is irrelevant and you don't need to have a 'licence' to have electricity.

 

The thread is about having a licence and the comparisons quoted where licences are not proportional to usage are to counter your proposal that boats should only have a licence when they 'use C&RT water'.

[jenlyn]

 

 

To a degree, yes. But I ride my bike regularly on the towpath too, so get to see how the same set of boats shuffles short distances regularly. And compliantly too, as I said. Nothing wrong with their cruising pattern.

 

However, I have a home mooring so I'm not bound by the same rules, assuming you were attempting to imply some sort of criticism of my own cruising pattern!

You shouldn't practice "assuming", your not very good at it.

I was asking merely to obtain a clear picture of cruising in that area, as I am considering doing so next winter.

[Higgs]

Like to guess from which unconcerned quarter this quote came from, for what process?

 

 

"We will not be concerned with the viability of the proposal, the impact of the proposal on the existing supply of moorings in the area or whether there will be sufficient customer demand to support all operators "

Edited February 5, 2016 by Higgs

[George94]

 

All mention of 'duty' is irrelevant and you don't need to have a 'licence' to have electricity.

 

The thread is about having a licence and the comparisons quoted where licences are not proportional to usage are to counter your proposal that boats should only have a licence when they 'use C&RT water'.

 

Please don't invent things. I have never said that.

[Mike Todd]

Like to guess from which unconcerned quarter this quote came from, for what process?

 

 

"We will not be concerned with the viability of the proposal, the impact of the proposal on the existing supply of moorings in the area or whether there will be sufficient customer demand to support all operators "

Let me guess: it seems reminiscent of statement thrown around as coming from a BW Brochure encouraging the construction of new marinas.PL tried, unsuccessfully, to argue that they should not have to pay the NAA since BW had sold them a pup in terms of the business possibilities, no matter their own business plan was flawed, such as publicly admitting that they forgot about VAT!.

 

A very necessary part of any invitation to invest is that it disclaims any responsibility whatsoever for appearing to have advised potential investor and therefore having to bear some responsibility when it turns out badly (funnily, investors who do well rarely turn up asking to hand over extra cash!) The duty to take proper advice and to make their own business plans must lie with the investor.

 

What might have been an issue is if BW had indicated that they would henceforth treat all marinas the same and everyone would have to pay the NAA, and then it turned out that some marinas were able to negotiate different terms behind the scenes, or even if CaRT now adopted a stance that impacted the viability of some marinas in respect of others.

 

The fact that some marinas grew up in a different era and gained certain rights is not material. Henceforth all marinas will make a contribution, based largely on the fact the in-line moorings nearby had been withdrawn in order to assist the passage of boats and to make the marina financially viable. If the NAA were cancelled then CaRT would be entitled to restore those moorings at a rate that could easily undercut the marina. Who has gained?

[Higgs]

 

 

The fact that some marinas grew up in a different era and gained certain rights is not material. Henceforth all marinas will make a contribution, based largely on the fact the in-line moorings nearby had been withdrawn in order to assist the passage of boats and to make the marina financially viable.

 

"We will not be concerned with the viability of the proposal, the impact of the proposal on the existing supply of moorings in the area or whether there will be sufficient customer demand to support all operators"

 

 

How on earth you could possibly imagine there existed a positive slant in the above quote, I don't know. It is not only not interested in the viability a marina, it is also not interested in the viability of its own moorings as, "in the area" would imply. CRT also don't need to be interested, as they have made sure that their own income is secure and without risk.

 

 

"in-line moorings nearby had been withdrawn in order to assist the passage of boats and to make the marina financially viable. "

 

Pull the other one.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Higgs

[costalot]

 

 

How on earth you could possibly imagine there existed a positive slant in the above quote, I don't know. It is not only not interested in the viability a marina, it is also not interested in the viability of its own moorings as, "in the area" would imply. CRT also don't need to be interested, as they have made sure that their own income is secure and without risk.

 

 

"in-line moorings nearby had been withdrawn in order to assist the passage of boats and to make the marina financially viable. "

 

Pull the other one.

 

I don't believe MT put a "positive slant" on the quoted text. Rather, he gave a clear and concise description of the situation. It's true there was pressure on BW from boating organisations to remove online moorings in order to improve the passage of boats. Removing BW moorings created demand for moorings in nearby new marinas who required a NAA hat in part compensated BW for the loss of their removed moorings.

[Higgs]

 

How on earth you could possibly imagine there existed a positive slant in the above quote, I don't know. It is not only not interested in the viability a marina, it is also not interested in the viability of its own moorings as, "in the area" would imply. CRT also don't need to be interested, as they have made sure that their own income is secure and without risk.

 

 

"in-line moorings nearby had been withdrawn in order to assist the passage of boats and to make the marina financially viable. "

 

Pull the other one.

 

I don't believe MT put a "positive slant" on the quoted text. Rather, he gave a clear and concise description of the situation. It's true there was pressure on BW from boating organisations to remove online moorings in order to improve the passage of boats. Removing BW moorings created demand for moorings in nearby new marinas who required a NAA hat in part compensated BW for the loss of their removed moorings.

 

 

Well, the quote clearly stated the kind of interest CRT had in the viability of a marina or, any mooring in the area - non. The roulette wheel was fixed by the casino so it could not lose, even if its customers went to the wall.

 

Your explanation is short on reality.

[costalot]

Well, the quote clearly stated the kind of interest CRT had in the viability of a marina or, any mooring in the area - non. The roulette wheel was fixed by the casino so it could not lose, even if its customers went to the wall.

 

Your explanation is short on reality.

I suspect most rationale people would agree CRT has no direct interest in the viability of a proposed marina development or an existing marina. It's none of their business. However it is important for them (and indirectly all canal boat owners) that they ensure they don't suffer financially as a result of a proposed marina development.

 

Where is my explanation in #567 short on reality?

Edited February 5, 2016 by costalot

[Higgs]

I suspect most rationale people would agree CRT has no direct interest in the viability of a proposed marina development or an existing marina. It's none of their business. However it is important for them (and indirectly all canal boat owners) that they ensure they don't suffer financially as a result of a proposed marina development.

 

Where is my explanation in #567 short on reality?

 

 

You subscribe to MT's explanation. And you know what I thought of that.

[1st ade]

 

Pedants don't last long, they annoy the clients too much

 

Greenie awarded.

[jon.h]

On 27/01/2016 at 10:32, b0atman said:

if you do not want to pay for a licence after checking your insurance conditions then ask yourself would you like to be moored next to a boat with no Licence insurance Or BSS yet connected to bank power and fire lit when needed .That's what I had when in a marina that did not have to have a licence as off EA waters that fed into CRT's . There are marinas you can move to choice is yours .CRT only exists whilst money is coming in .

The CRT are a private company and not a public sector body (see https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07807276) Many don't realise this, it may claim charitable status but it is a private company nonetheless and is not a not-for-profit in the real sense. Income reported in 2018/2019 was £210 million.

 

The trust is a privately owned interest group who bought the rights to the network from the government. Like all businesses they are subject to competition laws, where is their competition? They own a monopoly over "the market" and thus they are actually required to be broken up by all good measure of the law by the government.

 

I have caught them out a number of times when one of their staff mentions "...is illegal" and then they have to backtrack and admit that technically not "illegal".  Their rules are not enforceable by law, only those who have subscribed to enter into contract with them by law can be held accountable to the private contract they entered.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with insurance. I am insured but I do not have a licence because I am not using the canals while my boat is not in use. Simple. Anyone saying a boat owner has to pay them money other than a private marina whose private domain is being used is just trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

If someone uses a marina, they have paid for the use of a private domain. The water that the canal system use falls free from the sky and is not owned by the network.

 

If a boat is not using a canal system no-one has the legal right to say they have to pay for it.

 

It is daylight robbery and doesn't make any legal sense for a private company to have a right to enforce anything on a customer of other private domains which are is beyond their reach.

 

Neither the water nor the private domain belong to them, the network of canals belongs to them. When you use it you should pay a licence and that's it!

 

As long as your vessel is insured and kept off their network in a private domain no-one can force you to pay them hundreds of pounds otherwise maybe we should start charging an air tax for vessels using the network of oxygen that flows around the boats too?

 

They are a private organisation and not a government body. I would like to see CRT try to sue someone moored up on a private marina when they are not using the network.

 

Like many organisations that used to be public bodies, they are legally in limbo and live only on the fear and claims that they are legally in the right...it is only a matter of time when someone with the slightest know how refuses to fall for the company line when it will become aparent.

Edited August 20, 2020 by jon.h

[Alan de Enfield]

OK, I'm ready ................................

 

 

 

 

[Graham Davis]

I can see the huge chip on his shoulder from here.

[Arthur Marshall]

Couldn't care less. Picking unwinnable fights might boost someone's ego because they think they're being martyred,but it doesn't stop it being a damn silly thing to do.