Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

On 4/6/2017 at 09:06, Jess-- said:

If I had to guess I would come up with one of 2 options

1. Narrow boat owners complaining that a boat that takes up to twice their width pays the same price as them

2. CRT decided that welding 2 boats together side by side (so they are classed as one boat) shouldn't reduce their license cost by half

There have been two narrow boats fixed together on one licence with BW / CaRT consent, however others have been refused a licence, in one case CaRT demanded ridiculous conditions be met like both engines running and two crew steering at all times, and produced invented terms on the way the two boats should be linked written by someone with no engineering knowledge, so that the boat owner could not go ahead without taking legal action to demand their licence. Those two boats remained on the canal for around a year because BW/CaRT falsified their sightings records and claimed that only one of the boats had ever been spotted even though it was chained to the other at all times. 

[MtB]

On 4/6/2017 at 09:06, Jess-- said:

If I had to guess I would come up with one of 2 options

1. Narrow boat owners complaining that a boat that takes up to twice their width pays the same price as them

2. CRT decided that welding 2 boats together side by side (so they are classed as one boat) shouldn't reduce their license cost by half

 

I'd say it was both of those reasons, along with a third. They'd like to introduce a second (more expensive) tier of charges for boats with no home mooring.

[rowland al]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'd say it was both of those reasons, along with a third. They'd like to introduce a second (more expensive) tier of charges for boats with no home mooring.

Who are they? 

[WotEver]

54 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Who are they? 

At a guess, CaRT. 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'd say it was both of those reasons, along with a third. They'd like to introduce a second (more expensive) tier of charges for boats with no home mooring.

More likely just your third. CRT get more money from people with home moorings, and it's easy enough to see why someone in an office would think that's unfair.  They would also consider it a way of clearing out some of the congestion where people manage to CC in a relatively small area.

Didn't Parkinson have something to say about people working in organisations ending up forgetting what the organisastion was actually there for, and just end up working to maintain the organisation itself?

[MtB]

On 07/04/2017 at 22:42, Arthur Marshall said:

More likely just your third. CRT get more money from people with home moorings, and it's easy enough to see why someone in an office would think that's unfair.  They would also consider it a way of clearing out some of the congestion where people manage to CC in a relatively small area.

Didn't Parkinson have something to say about people working in organisations ending up forgetting what the organisastion was actually there for, and just end up working to maintain the organisation itself?

Michael Parkinson? A very perceptive bloke!

He was right. And substituting the word 'organism' for 'organisation' gives a further insight into what's happening there.

[Scholar Gypsy]

4 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Michael Parkinson? A very perceptive bloke!

He was right. And substituting the word 'organism' for 'organisation' gives a further insight into what's happening there.

No, C Northcote Parkinson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law 

(It's one of the reasons I believe in backwards planning - ie plan backwards from a desired objective and timetable, rather than working forwards from the current position to see how long it will take to get to the objective.)

I think CRT have said the aim here is revenue neutrality. Why does nobody believe them? Of course if any significant changes are made, then to achieve the objective of revenue neutrality will mean making various forecasts of how people will respond to any changes (eg switching from wide boats to narrow boats etc etc). Such forecasts will be wrong, but that could lead to revenue falling or rising.

[rowland al]

9 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

More likely just your third. CRT get more money from people with home moorings, and it's easy enough to see why someone in an office would think that's unfair.  They would also consider it a way of clearing out some of the congestion where people manage to CC in a relatively small area.

Didn't Parkinson have something to say about people working in organisations ending up forgetting what the organisastion was actually there for, and just end up working to maintain the organisation itself?

Well what does seem fairly certain is that as 90 % boaters have home moorings, there would be much more pressure in this (so called) consultation to put the licence increase squarely on the minority of boaters with no home mooring.

CRT management know there would be a massive outcry from those with no mooring, so CRT will be now be able to turn around and say "well consultation showed an overwhelming show of hands from the 'boating community' that the increase should be applied to boaters with no home mooring".

It's a very smart way of passing the buck. 

For me, the most important thing is keeping the waterways network open. Yes, money ia a factor in this, but what is even more a factor in this, is useage. Boaters who genuinely continuously cruise all year around, are helping to keep the network open. As the old saying says, use it or lose it. 

CRT management are very happy to continue to take in revenue from boaters who rarely use the system and are are not adding much to the maintenance costs. CC'ers (as are CM'ers) are a thorn in CRT's side as they use the infrastructure a lot. So I'm pretty sure this is more about driving CC'ers (and CM'ers) off the system, not so much trying to create a fairer licencing fee system.

The next phase will probably be shutting down sections of the network due to low useage.

[Arthur Marshall]

I don't see why anyone would think us home moorers would support an increase in fees for CCers. If it's revenue neutral, there are so many of us and so few of them it would hardly affect our costs while just winding it up for others. We aren't all such selfish buggers... I suspect that's a bit of a simplistic reduction. 

[Jerra]

31 minutes ago, rowland al said:

For me, the most important thing is keeping the waterways network open. Yes, money ia a factor in this, but what is even more a factor in this, is useage. Boaters who genuinely continuously cruise all year around, are helping to keep the network open. As the old saying says, use it or lose it. 

Personally I am not sure that little use of the system in winter will contribute to its closure, after all thye virtually close a big lump of it for maintenance.   They may even welcome reduced traffic (or no traffic) at all during some months.

 

34 minutes ago, rowland al said:

CC'ers (as are CM'ers) are a thorn in CRT's side as they use the infrastructure a lot. So I'm pretty sure this is more about driving CC'ers (and CM'ers) off the system, not so much trying to create a fairer licencing fee system.

Surely if it was about getting rid of who uses most infrastructure then they would target hire companies first.   From what I read never having CCed many travel a bit then stop for a fortnight or so.   CMers appear to only use the little bit of infrastructure between where they moor and the nearest facilities.  While hire boats are travelling much more and for as much of the season as the owners can persuade people on to the canal.

[rowland al]

32 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Personally I am not sure that little use of the system in winter will contribute to its closure, after all thye virtually close a big lump of it for maintenance.   They may even welcome reduced traffic (or no traffic) at all during some months.

 

Surely if it was about getting rid of who uses most infrastructure then they would target hire companies first.   From what I read never having CCed many travel a bit then stop for a fortnight or so.   CMers appear to only use the little bit of infrastructure between where they moor and the nearest facilities.  While hire boats are travelling much more and for as much of the season as the owners can persuade people on to the canal.

Fair point about hire boats although I'm not sure they all reach out to the more obscure parts of the network. So long as they can shuffle up and down the same popular stretch they will be happy.

Yes, maybe I am being a tad over negative but from the views I've seen so far it looks like CRT are just trying to find more funds to run their empire. We will probably all get hit one way or another.

Maybe this hasn't been initiated by boaters after all. CRT will certainly like to make it look like the increased fees are down to disgruntled boaters complaining though.

[b0atman]

Maybe this could be the time to make boaters members, with terms and conditions, that to get a licence you agree to .This could stop all the vagaries and disputes of laws .

 

[rowland al]

5 minutes ago, b0atman said:

Maybe this could be the time to make boaters members, with terms and conditions, that to get a licence you agree to .This could stop all the vagaries and disputes of laws .

 

I thought we are already forced to sign up to their T&C's in order to get a licence. The issue there is that T&C's produced by an organisation don't overide statute law.

[MtB]

On 08/04/2017 at 06:49, Scholar Gypsy said:

No, C Northcote Parkinson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law 

 

Oh gawd, that effect I wrote about a few months ago is happening again.

No matter how ludicrous a humourous comment I make happens to be, someone always seems to take it at face value and post, saying 'oh no, that's not right, this is'...

[peterboat]

At the heart of this is the London problem according to IWA and they are one of the bodies driving the license review, we all know at the end it will cost more so now is the time to scupper it. If you are in a organisation contact them and say the system we have is fine, and dont waste OUR MONEY on a review if they dont agree leave and cut off their funds. I have done this and sent emails telling them why!

Remember CRT lie it will always cost us more after the review because it has to paid for and lot of jollies will be had as they look at the issues, now is the time to act as one, and get the word out there what will happen if we dont

Edited April 8, 2017 by peterboat

[MtB]

On 08/04/2017 at 09:06, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't see why anyone would think us home moorers would support an increase in fees for CCers. If it's revenue neutral, there are so many of us and so few of them it would hardly affect our costs while just winding it up for others. We aren't all such selfish buggers... I suspect that's a bit of a simplistic reduction. 

 

I'm rather taken aback to hear the review is to be 'revenue neutral'. Why on earth would they do that? 

CRT are definitely missing a trick here. A perfect opportunity to raise licence costs a little for some and a lot for others, missed. CRT really need to take some lessons about revenue raising from the way central government operates. It's not as though CRT don't need more cash is it?

[Scholar Gypsy]

47 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Oh gawd, that effect I wrote about a few months ago is happening again.

No matter how ludicrous a humourous comment I make happens to be, someone always seems to take it at face value and post, saying 'oh no, that's not right, this is'...

Emoticons do have their uses to indicate irony (though I admit I often ignore them...). I also read Private Eye, eg this week from a TV quiz show

"Q: The inhabitants of which Scottish town or city are referred to as Dundonians?

A: Cardiff"

 

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

... this week from a TV quiz show

"Q: The inhabitants of which Scottish town or city are referred to as Dundonians?

A: Cardiff"

Is that wrong then?

[MtB]

On 08/04/2017 at 13:22, WotEver said:

Is that wrong then?

 

Yes its wrong. The answer is obviously the town called Dundon.

Now, lets see if anyone steps in with that effect, again!

[Neil2]

No it's actually the ancient Scottish kingdom of Dundonia famed for it's inhabitants who all have arms too short to reach their pockets.

[cuthound]

23 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes its wrong. The answer is obviously the town called Dundon.

Now, lets see if anyone steps in with that effect, again!

I used to work with a guy who lived in Dundee. 

 

He referred to it as "Dumpdee". 

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

This FOI request shows that CaRT has received no formal complaints about the structure of boat licencing, the statement they made that it is "  is often cited by boat owners as being complex and out of date"  is yet another lie.

 

 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/plans_to_review_boat_licencing#incoming-960250

 

 

[WotEver]

Whilst I agree that they're almost certainly lying about this, the lack of any formal complaints does not, in itself, prove them to be so doing. They stated that they'd heard complaints in an unofficial verbal manner. Probably another lie but difficult to disprove. 

[Arthur Marshall]

My only complaint is that i can't  get my mooring permit online same as I do my licence. Not complex, but definitely out of date.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

2 hours ago, WotEver said:

Whilst I agree that they're almost certainly lying about this, the lack of any formal complaints does not, in itself, prove them to be so doing. They stated that they'd heard complaints in an unofficial verbal manner. Probably another lie but difficult to disprove. 

It would be strange if a big organisation mounted a review like this on the strength of rumours. Remember when another FOI request caught them lying about complaints about visitor moorings ? 

What CaRT don't like is the fact that boaters have statutory rights, and the issue and revocation of licences is not under their control, they just check the details and send them out, hence their ongoing push to deceive boaters that the licence is a contract that can be cancelled without notice for any reason they like. That creates a climate of fear for the licence holder who has invested in a boat, and changed their lifestyle to living on water. Exactly what parliment refused to allow to become law in the 1995 BW act bill.