Jump to content

Should marina moorers need licences?

Delta9

By Delta9
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

So if you make the choice you have to pay what they ask. Unfortunately, a great many marinas agreed to the NAA charge, otherwise they would just be a lake at the side of the canal. If the marinas owners choose to claw some of that money back from moorers surely the moorers beef should be with the marina. Fact. Life is rarely fair, no one ever said it was.

 

 

How about if you were told to pay for a marina mooring - is that a choice? Anyway, you are confusing two different charges of the marina moorer. One - the connection element; two - the licence payment.

 

One is not contested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

 

 

Choice, that's an important part of being a consumer. How about being told you have to buy £800 of fuel, even if you don't need to.

You and all marina moorers have just the same choice as when they buy any service from anywhere. You look at what is on offer and decide if you like what you are getting for the price paid. If you don't like the offer you go elsewhere. I understand there are a good number of marinas without an NAA.

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

Higgs

Posted
Posted

Yes thank you i have read tne thread.....if you don't want to pay what the marina charge MOVE.

 

The marina charges are fine.

You and all marina moorers have just the same choice as when they buy any service from anywhere. You look at what is on offer and decide if you like what you are getting for the price paid. If you don't like the offer you go elsewhere. I understand there are a good number of marinas without an NAA.

 

 

I'm not interested in the 'other' marinas. I'm interested in having a paragraph removed from the NAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

 

The marina charges are fine.

Well that's all right then. The NAA is a business expense paid by the marina operators and of course taken out of the money they take by trading. It is just like all the other services they buy, they pay for the service they use. CRT provide access to the canal as a service the marina operator pays for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well that's all right then. The NAA is a business expense paid by the marina operators and of course taken out of the money they take by trading. It is just like all the other services they buy, they pay for the service they use. CRT provide access to the canal as a service the marina operator pays for it.

 

 

I want a paragraph removed from the NAA.

 

It provides for a payment to CRT for which they cannot legally charge by direct contact with the marina mooring boater.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tillergirl Experienced

tillergirl

Posted
Posted

You and all marina moorers have just the same choice as when they buy any service from anywhere. You look at what is on offer and decide if you like what you are getting for the price paid. If you don't like the offer you go elsewhere. I understand there are a good number of marinas without an NAA.

Exactly

 

The marina charges are fine.I'm not interested in the 'other' marinas. I'm interested in having a paragraph removed from the NAA.

 

Take that up with CRT

 

Well that's all right then. The NAA is a business expense paid by the marina operators and of course taken out of the money they take by trading. It is just like all the other services they buy, they pay for the service they use. CRT provide access to the canal as a service the marina operator pays for it.

 

Correct

 

 

 

It provides for a payment to CRT for which they cannot legally charge by direct contact with the marina mooring boater.

Take it up with CRT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

And you can cite the relevant piece of Legislation to support that statement?

 

 

I could, but not tonight. But, it refers to the Trusts waterways. You find any private marina that fits that bill. Not including BWML's, I think.

 

I should also add, that in response to your bold, they can charge legally, but you have left out the qualifying part of the sentence - by direct contact with the marina mooring boater. Until the boater leaves the marina, the marina moorer is not answerable to CRT's legal statutory power, but the marinas' T&C's.

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted

 

 

I want a paragraph removed from the NAA.

 

It provides for a payment to CRT for which they cannot legally charge by direct contact with the marina mooring boater.

 

See post #212

 

C&RT do not have direct contact with the marina moorers and do no charge them a proportion of the NAA.

 

You will be suggesting next that the local council have direct access to charge moorers a proportion of the dustbin emptying charges, or that the Electricty board charge directly each moorer,

 

Just consider what you are saying.

 

Wanting to have the paragraph in the NAA removed is one thing, but suggesting that C&RT individually charge each boat in a marina a proportion of the Marinas NAA cost is just nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

 

Wanting to have the paragraph in the NAA removed is one thing, but suggesting that C&RT individually charge each boat in a marina a proportion of the Marinas NAA cost is just nonsense.

It has to be nonsense because as I understand it the NAA is worked out on the assumption all 100% of berths are full. Who would pay the say 25% of the berths that are empty if it was a direct charge on the boater?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

 

See post #212

 

C&RT do not have direct contact with the marina moorers and do no charge them a proportion of the NAA.

 

You will be suggesting next that the local council have direct access to charge moorers a proportion of the dustbin emptying charges, or that the Electricty board charge directly each moorer,

 

Just consider what you are saying.

 

Wanting to have the paragraph in the NAA removed is one thing, but suggesting that C&RT individually charge each boat in a marina a proportion of the Marinas NAA cost is just nonsense.

 

 

I don't want to alter the way I pay my marina fees. It has nothing to do with dustbins or electricity. Fact - marina moorers pay a proportion of their fees to service the connection fee. Fallacy - a licence fee is legally necessary. You're over complicating the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alan de Enfield Veteran II

Alan de Enfield

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

I don't want to alter the way I pay my marina fees. It has nothing to do with dustbins or electricity. Fact - marina moorers pay a proportion of their fees to service the connection fee. Fallacy - a licence fee is legally necessary. You're over complicating the matter.

 

I am sorry to point out again that you are incorrect.

 

Marina moorers DO NOT pay a proportion of their fees to service the connection fee.

The Marina management DO pay a proportion of their income to service the connection fees.

 

Taking it to the extreme, the marina could say we will raise sufficient income from raffles and social evenings such that you can all have free moorings - would you therefore say that the moorers now have to pay an extra amount to C&RT, or do you accept that with the same income the marina will pay the NAA and the moorers get to moor for free ?

 

Fallacy - a licence fee is legally necessary.

 

The marinas have an agreement with C&RT that in return for allowing access to C&RTs waters the marinas will agree to certain clauses, two of which are :

1) They will pay 9%.............NAA

2) They will insist that all boats within the marina have a licence.

 

If the Marinas do not agree to C&RTs terms then they do not have to sign the agreement or have access to C&RT waters.

 

I own a static caravan park - two of the conditions of ownership are that :

1) The owner will pay the annual ground-rent

2) The owner will ensure that they have 3rd party insurance in force at all times.

 

If they are not agreeable to having insurance they can leave.

Its not a legal requirement, but its in my T&Cs they either do it or they don't, its 'no skin off my nose'.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

 

I am sorry to point out again that you are incorrect.

 

Marina moorers DO NOT pay a proportion of their fees to service the connection fee.

The Marina management DO pay a proportion of their income to service the connection fees.

 

Taking it to the extreme, the marina could say we will raise sufficient income from raffles and social evenings such that you can all have free moorings - would you therefore say that the moorers now have to pay an extra amount to C&RT, or do you accept that with the same income the marina will pay the NAA and the moorers get to moor for free ?

 

I'm quite happy with the status quo. I pay the marina, and I know they don't go and mug old grannies for that bit that is the marina's obligation to CRT. I know they take some of my money, which coincidentally makes up part of my mooring fee (classed as part of their income) and use it to pay the connection fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted

 

I am sorry to point out again that you are incorrect.

 

Marina moorers DO NOT pay a proportion of their fees to service the connection fee.

The Marina management DO pay a proportion of their income to service the connection fees.

 

Taking it to the extreme, the marina could say we will raise sufficient income from raffles and social evenings such that you can all have free moorings - would you therefore say that the moorers now have to pay an extra amount to C&RT, or do you accept that with the same income the marina will pay the NAA and the moorers get to moor for free ?

 

Fallacy - a licence fee is legally necessary.

 

The marinas have an agreement with C&RT that in return for allowing access to C&RTs waters the marinas will agree to certain clauses, two of which are :

1) They will pay 9%.............NAA

2) They will insist that all boats within the marina have a licence.

 

If the Marinas do not agree to C&RTs terms then they do not have to sign the agreement or have access to C&RT waters.

 

I own a static caravan park - two of the conditions of ownership are that :

1) The owner will pay the annual ground-rent

2) The owner will ensure that they have 3rd party insurance in force at all times.

 

If they are not agreeable to having insurance they can leave.

Its not a legal requirement, but its in my T&Cs they either do it or they don't, its 'no skin off my nose'.

 

 

It is exactly the same for marinas, that is why it is so easy to oblige CRT. If a marina opened next door to the one I'm in and did not sign up to NAA, I would move to it. That doesn't make the particular paragraph I object to in the NAA any less an example of protectionism and against choice, against marina mooring boaters. As your last line illustrates, you're not bothered; and why should the marinas or CRT, they're getting away with it.

 

And BTW, I haven't mentioned making do without boat safety or insurance.

 

That'll have to be goodnight, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jerra Veteran II

Jerra

Posted
Posted

 

 

As your last line illustrates, you're not bothered; and why should the marinas or CRT, they're getting away with it.

CRT aren't getting away with anything! They enter into an agreement with an agreeable business just as the utility companies enter into agreements with agreeable businesses. Are you suggesting the utility companies are "getting away with it". They offer a service at a cost the business chooses to agree or not. CRT offer a service (access to the canal) at a cost the marina owners either agree or disagree.

 

If they don't like the terms they can choose to build their business on a different waterway.

 

What are they getting away with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Higgs Influencer

Higgs

Posted
Posted (edited)

CRT aren't getting away with anything! They enter into an agreement with an agreeable business just as the utility companies enter into agreements with agreeable businesses. Are you suggesting the utility companies are "getting away with it". They offer a service at a cost the business chooses to agree or not. CRT offer a service (access to the canal) at a cost the marina owners either agree or disagree.

 

If they don't like the terms they can choose to build their business on a different waterway.

 

What are they getting away with?

 

 

They're getting away with agreeing to a mutually beneficial setup that disadvantages their customers. I see no reference to the customer in your post. You may have trouble understanding where I'm coming from. That is partly my fault.

 

CRT and the marinas offer a service in their respective domains. If you are without a licence, and you are on CRT property (the canal), you might expect a knock on the side of your boat and the possible posting on a section 8 on it. Without going into the reason, it is their legal domain to be doing this. If you are without a licence in a marina, it is not their domain and you will not be getting a knock on the side of your boat by CRT, because they know that they have no legal power there to raise the issue with you directly. It would be like one landlord going into the property of another and telling the resident they (the non landlord) are the boss. In actual fact, the marina is the boss of their business.

 

It is the marina operator that will tell its customers what to do. But, they have no statutory legal power to be enforcing a rule on its customers that only CRT have the power to do, and CRT can only enforce their powers in their domain. The T&C's of the marina do not constitute powers that only parliament can authorise. They are simply 'House Rules'.

 

What CRT do on the canal, parliament have 'endorsed'. It is through this power that CRT operate. It doesn't operate in the marina.

 

If you come into my boat and I tell you to remove your shoes, you can agree or disagree, but law isn't backing me, they're house rules only and do not carry the weight of law. CRT have to have law on their side to charge for a licence, it isn't given to them to act directly according to these laws inside a marina, which is outside of their direct legal domain. It boils down to a business contract between CRT and the marina. Anyone can come up with a business contract, but the law doesn't give just anyone the right to impose the cost of a licence, and certainly not for areas in which the licence is inoperative.

Edited by Higgs
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George94 Experienced

George94

Posted
Posted

 

Well, actually, CRT aren't getting any free money.

 

CRT set the licence to bring in a certain amount of money. If the number of people who pay goes down, the price goes up.

 

So, the only result of this will be that some other boaters have to pay more.

 

So boaters that use the canal would be paying more than those that don't?

 

Explain where the unfairness is in that.

Apologies if somebody has already linked to this:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34883856

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.