C & R T 2016 NATIONAL BOAT COUNT SHOWS REDUCTION IN LICENCE EVASION

[Ray T]

12 May 2016

 

CANAL & RIVER TRUST 2016 NATIONAL BOAT COUNT SHOWS REDUCTION IN LICENCE EVASION

 

The Canal & River Trust’s annual national boat count shows that licence evasion on its waterways has reduced by 0.2% in the past year to 4.4%, with 95.6% of boats holding up-to-date licences. This is the seventh year the rate has stayed below 5%.

 

The national boat count also paints a picture of the changing numbers of boats across the country. London has seen an increase of just over 400 boats, with numbers in the south west and south east also rising, while other areas reduced by almost the same amount.

 

Mike Grimes, head of boating at Canal & River Trust, said: “I’m pleased that licence evasion continues to remain below 5%. The contribution boaters make to our canals and rivers helps fund their vital upkeep and it’s important for everyone to play their part. I’d like to thank our enforcement team for their sterling work in helping protect the income that goes towards looking after the waterways for the benefit of all boaters. There’s also an important safety aspect: if a boat isn’t licensed we can’t know that it’s safe, which poses a risk for both the boat owner and other boaters.

 

“While evasion has fallen slightly, it is disappointing to see a small minority taking the benefits of boating on the waterways without putting anything back to fund their upkeep. In 2015/16, we had to remove 90 boats from our canals and rivers as they were unlicensed or in breach of our terms and conditions.

 

“The national boat count also suggests that the popularity of boating in places like London is continuing to grow. We can’t, and wouldn’t want, to stop boats visiting but we would encourage all boaters in congested areas to share the space fairly, respect mooring and cruising guidelines and be considerate of their neighbours.”

 

The annual survey was completed in March, with Trust staff identifying boats on waterways across England & Wales. It provides a comprehensive snap-shot of licence evasion, with the information used to support the day-to-day enforcement work carried out by the Trust.

 

ENDS

 

For further media requests please contact:

Fran Read, national press officer, Canal & River Trust

m 07796 610 427 e fran.read@canalrivertrust.org.uk

 

 

 

[b0atman]

With enforcement officers being in place I would have expected a bigger drop in licence evasion .The target should be zero not 5%.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

With enforcement officers being in place I would have expected a bigger drop in licence evasion .The target should be zero not 5%.

The target evasion figure was 3% with Simon Salem having bonus targets set to reduce it to this amount.

 

In early 2012, at the end of BW's tenure, evasion was 3.4%, the lowest it has ever been. Now with the extra data gathering and enforcement it is 4.4%.

 

[john6767]

To me the 5% unlicensed boats is too much, something like 1500 boats, which seems unacceptable.

[cuthound]

To me the 5% unlicensed boats is too much, something like 1500 boats, which seems unacceptable.

I agree, at say £750 per boat (to make the sums simpler) it is around one and a quarter million pounds lost per year. Plenty enough to self finance around 50 EO's. However zero tolerance will not be cost effective.

[Graham Davis]

With enforcement officers being in place I would have expected a bigger drop in licence evasion .The target should be zero not 5%.

 

I know of no official body that would set a limit of 0% simply because it is unobtainable. If they set a low limit and then get below it they can consider it a success.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

I know of no official body that would set a limit of 0% simply because it is unobtainable. If they set a low limit and then get below it they can consider it a success.

They set a target evasion rate of 3%. It was not achieved so it was a failure.

 

However, every year about this time, they claim it as a success because it is below 5%.

 

Perhaps if they cared to explain why 3% is unobtainable ...

 

 

[Mike Todd]

To me the 5% unlicensed boats is too much, something like 1500 boats, which seems unacceptable.

What proportion of those are 'active' and which ones have just been abandoned. I certainly see plenty of boats that are on/in the water with no licence showing (not the same as not having one) that look at first sight as not having had much use for some time.

[Ray T]

They set a target evasion rate of 3%. It was not achieved so it was a failure.

 

However, every year about this time, they claim it as a success because it is below 5%.

 

Perhaps if they cared to explain why 3% is unobtainable ...

 

 

 

Allan you are always critical. Please tell me how you would get the evasion rate down, within the budget restraints that CRT have.

 

I don't know about the glass being half empty, yours appears to have nothing in it at all.

 

No hypothetical answers please.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Ray T

[cuthound]

Put the EO's on piecework?

[KroSha]

Good grief, no! They'd go for the low hanging fruit, not the ones that need picking.

[alan_fincher]

I agree, at say £750 per boat (to make the sums simpler) it is around one and a quarter million pounds lost per year. Plenty enough to self finance around 50 EO's. However zero tolerance will not be cost effective.

 

(I make that one and an eighth million pounds actually).

 

I can't really guess what the fully built up cost to CRT of each EO employed is, but you can usually reckon in most big businesses that the total cost of employing permanent staff is double what they are actually paid. (Presumably many / most have to be provided with vehicles.)

 

Also I doubt if it is realistic to get total evasion much below about half of the 5% being discussed, and you only get income from dealing with the evasion if you actually end up selling a licence. If you end up impounding and scrapping a boat, it is going to drain CRT coffers, not boost them.

 

I'd be surprised if the total extra money you could bring in by blitzing the system with far more enforcement was more than about half a million pounds, and suspect this is more likely to equate to the total cost of something like a dozen additional staff in total, rather than the 50 suggested. (I accept none of us can probably do more than guess at the numbers, though).

 

It is worth remembering that at least one region that achieved evasion levels about half the national average actually stated that it had changed its emphasis to do less chasing licence evasion, and more chasing of mooring infringements! Now that creates another interesting debate, doesn't it?

[Tuscan]

Allan you are always critical. Please tell me how you would get the evasion rate down, within the budget restraints that CRT have.

 

I don't know about the glass being half empty, yours appears to have nothing in it at all.

 

No hypothetical answers please.

Well it was easily done in previous years using CRTs own briefing papers the average in 2012 was 3.4 % 2013 3.9% and 2014 3.8%

 

With the increase in the number of data loggers and the updated technology being used with current focus on enforcement I would have hoped the numbers would have come down to previous levels

Edited May 12, 2016 by Tuscan

[alan_fincher]

 

Allan you are always critical. Please tell me how you would get the evasion rate down, within the budget restraints that CRT have.

 

I don't know about the glass being half empty, yours appears to have nothing in it at all.

 

No hypothetical answers please.

 

(I know I'm not the Alan you are asking!....)

 

What is certainly true is that in the past the claimed evasion rates in some regions have been three times what they are in others.

 

Whether that relates to a disproportionate ratio of EOs versus the size of the problem in each area, or whether some EOs are just much better at their jobs than others isn't clear, I think.

 

Certainly at one time not that far back the reported rate in the SE region, (which I seem to recall has the highest boat numbers of any) was just 1.8%.

 

I suppose it is valid to ask if "sub 2%" can be achieved in one region, then could it be in others, and, if so would the money brought in by achieving it outweigh the costs of making it happen.

 

I doubt it is as clear cut as those on either side of the argument are trying to present it, though.

[MtB]

Well it was easily done in previous years using CRTs own briefing papers the average in 2011 was 3.4 % 2013 3.9% and 2014 3.8%

 

With the increase in the number of data loggers and the updated technology being used with current focus on enforcement I would have hoped the numbers would have come down to previous levels

 

 

 

Surely this is the reason for the increase in the published evasion rate.

 

My money is on the number of actually unlicenced boats remaining about the same, but by increasing the amount of data logging, they are finding more of them.

[cuthound]

Surely this is the reason for the increase in the published evasion rate.

 

My money is on the number of actually unlicenced boats remaining about the same, but by increasing the amount of data logging, they are finding more of them.

I agree.

 

God only knows what will happen if they introduce "state of the art" systems, either based on ANPR or GPS tracking of licences.

[Tuscan]

Surely this is the reason for the increase in the published evasion rate.

 

My money is on the number of actually unlicenced boats remaining about the same, but by increasing the amount of data logging, they are finding more of them.

I suspect this is the case , so it's the failure to take effective action that appears to be the problem

[MtB]

I agree.

 

God only knows what will happen if they introduce "state of the art" systems, either based on ANPR or GPS tracking of licences.

 

 

I think the rate will stay about the same.

 

I'd say down here on the K&A, it IS about one in twenty boats that displays no licence.

 

One in twenty sounds worse than 5% doesn't it?

[Graham Davis]

They set a target evasion rate of 3%. It was not achieved so it was a failure.

 

However, every year about this time, they claim it as a success because it is below 5%.

 

Perhaps if they cared to explain why 3% is unobtainable ...

 

Quite simple; because they cannot be everywhere all the time.

And since you are the one criticising them, how would you reduce the number of unlicensed boats?

[magnetman]

 

Quite simple; because they cannot be everywhere all the time.

And since you are the one criticising them, how would you reduce the number of unlicensed boats?

Send out Edward Woodward?

[john6767]

I think the rate will stay about the same.

 

I'd say down here on the K&A, it IS about one in twenty boats that displays no licence.

 

One in twenty sounds worse than 5% doesn't it?

Sounds the same to me! Of course not displaying is not the same as not licences.

 

It would be interesting to understand the make up of these unlicensed boats, as CRT must have sighted them for them to be part of the count, so unless it is abandoned and untraceable they know who to owner is, so how can it still be unlicensed or at least in the process of being removed?

[magnetman]

Also interesting to know if they are incognito or displaying an index number and/or boat name.

I think there are a few people who just buy a boat and remove all identification then move about and hope not to get caught.

 

It is an option which works for some I believe.

[John G]

Sounds the same to me! Of course not displaying is not the same as not licences.

 

It would be interesting to understand the make up of these unlicensed boats, as CRT must have sighted them for them to be part of the count, so unless it is abandoned and untraceable they know who to owner is, so how can it still be unlicensed or at least in the process of being removed?

Exactly. I'd expect some to be 'churn' of those accidentally letting their licence lapse, etc, and some to be a 'hardcore' who have no intention of getting a licence. Getting an idea of duration and whether the owners of each boat are known to the crt would give a much better idea of what the problems are.

[onionbargee]

You are assuming that those unlicenced boats would all pay for a licence if caught, many are worthless old grp craft, when seized the owners abandon them, there is no large number of seized nice new narrowboats boats being sold off by the salvage company CRT uses ( name escapes me ) so the actual loss of income to CRT for 5% evasion is less than you might think. There will always be unlicenced craft on the canals, as no one can stop any craft entering the system, but the actual cost they incur to CRT individually is insignificant.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I note that the CaRT apologists are out in force asking how I would reduce evasion and suggesting I am always critical of CaRT.

 

However, the facts are as presented. CaRT is claiming success in tackling evasion saying that it is under 5% for seven years running. However, the target was always 3% and BW managed 3.4% so one has to query the self congratulation.

 

With regard to enhanced enforcement leading to better detection, I don't buy into that. The way in which these yearly snapshot figures are obtained remains the same.