Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Arthur Marshall]

Is there any particular reason, really, why a long boat should pay any more than a short boat? The only rationale I can see is that there is an assumption that someone who can afford a large boat can afford to pay more. Mooring fees, yes, a 70 footer uses more bank space. But it doesn't really have any greater effect when cruising than my 40 footer.

I can see them trying to differentiate between Ccers and leisure boaters though.- why should someone who only uses their boat for a few weeks in the year pay as much as someone who uses it all the time? That would also, of course, affect the "dumpers" as well as the liveaboards and would probably herd most of them into marinas where CRT thinks they belong.

[Iain_S]

 

 

Is there a logical reason for rivers registration fees to be cheaper than canals licences? Are rivers cheaper for CRT to maintain?

 

Enshrined in law, as per post 52

[Scholar Gypsy]

I think the challenge C&RT face here is that there are at least three approaches that could be adopted to setting licence fees. I would hope that the consultation would start by discussing this broad choice first before moving on to the detail.

 

1) To take account of willingness / ability to pay (affordability). It's an empirical question as to whether this is related at all to length of boat - I would suspect the correlation is weak.

 

2) To reflect the costs the individual boat imposes on the system, whether water consumption, space occupied at visitor moorings etc. So this approach might charge moor to use a flight where back-pumping is needed.

 

3) More widely, to either encourage or discourage certain behaviours by the boat's skipper. This might raise from emission standards (for engines, toilets or stoves), to size of boat (imposing congestion delays on other boaters), to movement patterns (for example a charge for each day the boat is inside a given zone, or a refund for using an out-of-the-way and underused branch).

 

As noted above, there is then a choice between some sort of annual charge or something that varies on a daily basis. And there is also a big question as to whether the charging system should be set to deliver a given total of revenue over say a ten year period (eg indexed with inflation and adjusted for changes in boat numbers) or should not be constrained in this way - which could for example lead to an income gap if behaviour changes are more than expected.

 

All of these choices apply, and have done for many years, to the taxation of motor vehicles ie the balance between vehicle excise duty, fuel duty, and tolls and other charges. The third element is much more to the fore now, in many other sectors of the economy, and the question is I think whether there is a case for moving in this direction in respect of inland waterways. Any system should of course be reasonably easy to administer and enforce, and in a way that commands trust (if not enthusiasm) by the user.

[costalot]

Is there any particular reason, really, why a long boat should pay any more than a short boat? The only rationale I can see is that there is an assumption that someone who can afford a large boat can afford to pay more. Mooring fees, yes, a 70 footer uses more bank space. But it doesn't really have any greater effect when cruising than my 40 footer.

I can see them trying to differentiate between Ccers and leisure boaters though.- why should someone who only uses their boat for a few weeks in the year pay as much as someone who uses it all the time? That would also, of course, affect the "dumpers" as well as the liveaboards and would probably herd most of them into marinas where CRT thinks they belong.

Why should someone who watches their TV one hour daily pay the same license fee as someone who watches it 8 hours daily?

[David Mack]

Is there any particular reason, really, why a long boat should pay any more than a short boat? The only rationale I can see is that there is an assumption that someone who can afford a large boat can afford to pay more. Mooring fees, yes, a 70 footer uses more bank space. But it doesn't really have any greater effect when cruising than my 40 footer.

 

It doesn't now. But it did rather more when the current charging structure was introduced, and the vast majority of pleasure boats were 20-30 feet long, and it was common to get 2 or 3 in a narrow lock at once. Must have saved quite a lot of water.

[WotEver]

Why should someone who watches their TV one hour daily pay the same license fee as someone who watches it 8 hours daily?

Why should someone who drives 1000 miles a year pay the same road fund duty as a rep doing 100,000 miles in a similar car?

[Alan de Enfield]

Why should someone who drives 1000 miles a year pay the same road fund duty as a rep doing 100,000 miles in a similar car?

 

The cost of a licence should be incorporated (surcharged) on the cost of fuel, then a low mileage driver pays less, a high mileage driver pays more.

 

In South Africa, compulsory 'basic' road traffic insurance is incorporated in the fuel cost. If you want 'fully comprehensive' then you have to take out your own, the fact that you have 3rd party insurance automatically means that you are 'never hit by an uninsured driver'.

[WotEver]

 

The cost of a licence should be incorporated (surcharged) on the cost of fuel, then a low mileage driver pays less, a high mileage driver pays more.

I've been saying this for 50 years but no-one listens

 

In South Africa, compulsory 'basic' road traffic insurance is incorporated in the fuel cost. If you want 'fully comprehensive' then you have to take out your own, the fact that you have 3rd party insurance automatically means that you are 'never hit by an uninsured driver'.

Yup, I have a friend who was recently involved in an RTC over there that resulted in a written-off car. However they tell me that the process is really slow and could take months before they receive the money. Is that right or are they BSing me?

[Arthur Marshall]

Why should someone who watches their TV one hour daily pay the same license fee as someone who watches it 8 hours daily?

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I can see this being an argument put forward by CRT. It isn't my idea of fairness. The amount of use someone gets out of their boat may have absolutely no relation to the distance they travel - I know several who use their boats in a marina every weekend as a retreat and never go anywhere.

The argument that boaters find the current system complex and out of date is ludicrous. It certainly isn't complex, and "out of date" is a meaningless phrase.

I suspect CRT will at least try to differentiate between liveaboards, continuous cruisers, and leisure boats, though how they'll do it while making it less complex beats me.

[mrsmelly]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I can see this being an argument put forward by CRT. It isn't my idea of fairness. The amount of use someone gets out of their boat may have absolutely no relation to the distance they travel - I know several who use their boats in a marina every weekend as a retreat and never go anywhere.

The argument that boaters find the current system complex and out of date is ludicrous. It certainly isn't complex, and "out of date" is a meaningless phrase.

I suspect CRT will at least try to differentiate between liveaboards, continuous cruisers, and leisure boats, though how they'll do it while making it less complex beats me.

 

Yes I agree. As Nigel said in an earlier post though the " complex " thing is probably a red herring? The present system is far from complex and its just a s easy to understand as the ccing rules BUT its the customers implementation that is sometimes found lacking.

[TheBiscuits]

I assume that it is all about the home mooring status. Boats without a home mooring seem to be the focus of CRT, and these are already treated differently in the 1995 Act.

 

I expect that they will charge more for CC-declared boat licences, possibly by upping all the prices and then giving a discount (25%?) for boats with a validated home mooring.

 

Note that does not prevent them moving to area (LOA x Beam) based charging too!

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Yup, I have a friend who was recently involved in an RTC over there that resulted in a written-off car. However they tell me that the process is really slow and could take months before they receive the money. Is that right or are they BSing me?

 

Don't know now - its 30+ years since I was there, but then it was not a problem.

A guy I knew wrote off a car most weeks, he just walked away and left them in the drainage ditches having rolled them. (he wasn't 'short of money', being a Rt. Hon and his father a Lord and known as "Maggie's Favourite Industrialist")

[costalot]

It seems to me that the first step in any consultation should be to state the objective(s). Only then can participants meaningfully contribute.

 

So CRT needs to state what they want to achieve. Eg, increased revenue, greater compliance, etc

[NilesMI]

It seems to me that the first step in any consultation should be to state the objective(s). Only then can participants meaningfully contribute.

 

So CRT needs to state what they want to achieve. Eg, increased revenue, greater compliance, etc

 

If you take the press release at face value: "It aims to ask boaters the fairest and simplest way to split the important financial contribution made by the different types of boats and boaters towards the upkeep of the waterways."

 

No mention of increasing revenue, or compliance, just changing the split between different types of boat/boaters.

[Mike Todd]

 

Yes I agree. As Nigel said in an earlier post though the " complex " thing is probably a red herring? The present system is far from complex and its just a s easy to understand as the ccing rules BUT its the customers implementation that is sometimes found lacking.

It may be simple for most of us, but the minority (<15%??) have a variety to sort through: river only, gold, traders, butty, historic, and no doubt others. This may be a classic case of simplifying for the few and ending up with the many losing out - with a hidden agenda to raise the revenue overall. (Not that I am necessarily against that).

 

I have spent enormous amounts of time discussing formulae (not like canals but the situation is very analogous) and have had to cope with the huge flak that comes from those who want to pay less - never hear a squeak from those who benefit from a change! In my case, there are a lot of amateur 'lawyers' out there, ready to argue their own case at whatever cost to the rest!

 

We have heard plenty about business rates recently - but only from the few who expect to have an increase whilst most businesses have been kept at the same level.

 

It is even harder in a context (as I have been) where the formula is about distributing costs (or a proportion of them) rather than in a more conventional business where it is somewhat easier to assess the link between supply and demand. The formula approach is often a zero-sum game and can easily become mathematically unstable - apparently small changes have large effects in some places. It can be worse in a situation such as boat licences where the majority have a simple mechanism but where it is all but impossible to predict how it will pan out with the minority of special cases. A similar debate was held a few years back over the right wing proposal for a flat rate tax.

[NigelMoore]

On 20/02/2017 at 12:32, Chris-B said:

One thisng they NEED to do is to standardise as per EA licences to Length x Beam

Whether it is the basis of the above suggestion or not, I do not understand any argument that bringing CaRT registrations into line with EA Charge Schemes would be necessary if CaRT took those navigations over. For a start, each EA navigation area has a different scheme anyway; of the 4 different schemes published, only one of them is based on area rather than just length, so is the odd one out. One could as lief say that the Thames scheme should be brought into line with all the others – not that I am advocating any particular scheme over another, just pointing out a certain logical absurdity in the standardisation argument.

It certainly IS inevitable, however, that the area formula will be the one that the ‘consultation’ discovers to be the simplest and fairest system favoured by contributing boaters and organisations.

EA registration charges:

Medway: based on length only -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591460/LIT_6609_v7.pdf

Anglian Waters: based on length only -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/591482/LIT_6608_v8.pdf

Rye Harbour: dues based on length only [pleasure boats] -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/487218/LIT_6655.pdf

Thames: – the ONLY EA scheme based on area -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478756/LIT_10253.pdf

 

[Chris-B]

Nigel

Without wishing to get into a long and protracted discussion  where two parties have differing views 

I would like to make a couple of points 

1. The use of Rye Harbour / Anglia and Medway are fairly irrelevant as they are not mainstream waterways 

2. The disparity on licencing costs I agree will have to be a mediated and balanced settlement but why should the owner of a pair of boats pay 2 x that of an equivalent wide beam

When the current licencing policy was introduced there were not the nuber of wider than narrow craft on the water than now , so a fair and balanced solution is to find a balance point between revenue and style of boat

The EA (THames) policy is in my opinion a fair one but those who own widebeams will say its unfair

No win win here for anyone as we will end up paying more to whichever licencing authority we are bound to

 

Chris

 

[NigelMoore]

1 hour ago, Chris-B said:

Nigel

Without wishing to get into a long and protracted discussion  where two parties have differing views . . .

I have not expressed a view on the relative merits of the various schemes Chris, so no differing views between us for discussion, whether long and protracted or short and sweet.

My only point was that if the same authority runs differing schemes [and has done for many years], then there is hardly any pressing need for a standardised formula – whether under the EA umbrella or that of a combine with CaRT. The desirability of a uniform scheme is, of course, a different matter [though it does not bother me one way or the other].

[ If anyone can inform me as to what happened to the 'preview' option, so that different formatting can be checked out visually before posting, I would be grateful.]

[Momac]

If each boat had to pay the same license fee regardless of boat size the cost would be unaffordable to some people who can only afford a small boat . 

It seems to me reasonable that the license fee should, as it is now, be  in some  way be linked with boat length. Length is a dimension that can easily be obtained and checked using simple tape measure.

Perhaps displacement would be a better guide but is more difficult to measure and also variable for any individual boat depending on the contents of fuel and water tanks etc. All too complicated.

I would have concerns  that a  large change in the license fee system would result in increased charges for all. Is it not better to argue that the existing system should remain? 

I do think there should, perhaps, be no EA/C&RT split on licensing.

As for the ''river only'' license that does benefit me so I am obviously in favour of it. Turkey's are not  going to vote in favour of Christmas. 

 

 

 

[Drayke]

If people think that it would be much fairer to base licence fees on the area of boats, as the EA do on the Thames, then it should also be based on which canals/rivers that any given boat could use, remember not all narrow boats can travel all canals.

Something else to consider is that when CRT take over the responsibility from the EA, will there still be a gold licence or will the standard CRT licence cover what the gold licence covers, or will it be a way for CRT to raising all licence fees, more revenue.

[Henhouse]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 12:50, Alan de Enfield said:

Would the fitting of 'trackers' and a 'pay-per-mile' be the fairest system ?

 

You pay (say) £2500 into your 'account', if you have unused 'credit' left at the end of the year then your next years 'deposit' is reduced and if you have used 'more' than your deposit then it is increased.

 

In effect similar to paying your domestic electricity bill based on 'average usage' and updated when you are seen to be using more or less than planned.

 

Edit to add :

 

Enforcement of 'non-moving CCers / Bridge hoppers' would need to be increased and clarity given of minimum movement expectations

That would be a big lose for nearly everybody, including CaRT,  and a big win for the Not Bleedin Travelling Anywhere mob.

The largest source of licence revenue at present comes from those boats which spend most of their time in a marina.  Venturing out at weekends, and for one or more holiday cruises each year.

The genuine CC'ers may do more mileage, but their numbers are relatively small compared to marina based boats.  

To try and give a marina based boat a meaningful reduction in licence fees by charging CC licenced boats more would, whilst being mathematically possible, achieve nothing more than discourage people from cruising.   So no real gain for anyone.

The benefit of Hire Boats to the wider economy is not inconsiderable.  If anything, we should be encouraging more people to holiday in this country.   Good for business, and far less polluting than jetting off abroad.  So trying to extract more cash from hire boaters could be counter productive.

If you wish to argue about fairness, then a good starting point for revised licencing rules would be to make it much easier for CaRT to deal with those who deliberately avoid paying, and who do not wish to play by the rules.    Hit them hard. Hit them quick, and make them pay their share.

Of course in any regime of increased enforcement, understanding and proper consideration should be given to those who are suffering with illness or mental health issues.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

55 minutes ago, Henhouse said:

That would be a big lose for nearly everybody, including CaRT,  and a big win for the Not Bleedin Travelling Anywhere mob.

The largest source of licence revenue at present comes from those boats which spend most of their time in a marina.  Venturing out at weekends, and for one or more holiday cruises each year.

The genuine CC'ers may do more mileage, but their numbers are relatively small compared to marina based boats.  

To try and give a marina based boat a meaningful reduction in licence fees by charging CC licenced boats more would, whilst being mathematically possible, achieve nothing more than discourage people from cruising.   So no real gain for anyone.

The benefit of Hire Boats to the wider economy is not inconsiderable.  If anything, we should be encouraging more people to holiday in this country.   Good for business, and far less polluting than jetting off abroad.  So trying to extract more cash from hire boaters could be counter productive.

If you wish to argue about fairness, then a good starting point for revised licencing rules would be to make it much easier for CaRT to deal with those who deliberately avoid paying, and who do not wish to play by the rules.    Hit them hard. Hit them quick, and make them pay their share.

Of course in any regime of increased enforcement, understanding and proper consideration should be given to those who are suffering with illness or mental health issues.

This isn't really an argument for 'fairness' though is it? If there was a viable way for those who use the system more paying more for it then it would not be unreasonable. Before anyone jumps on my neck, I am a Continuous Cruiser so this would be to my personal detriment but I can at least see the rationale. The problem with any such system falls in the policing of it. Either we have to have trackers fitted to our boat, (well not on my boat you wont since I have no wish to become like some Sports Direct or Amazon employee. If I choose to tell you where I am that is my privilege but I'm not having anyone track my every move). The alternative is a vast army of checkers to accurately monitor where boats are which isn't going to be economically practical. The only other way i can think of would be to impose a surcharge on the diesel sold on the canal but a) that is not in CRT's gift and b ) if you put up the cost of canal diesel people will just buy it elsewhere, so that is a non-starter as well really.,

I would strongly oppose any flat rate licencing system since by having a shorter boat that is cheaper to licence, people of reduce means are able to access the canal system which would not be possible under a flat rate system.

This just seems to leave us with pretty much what we already have, a system of licencing based upon boat length (or boat area, take your pick). Since that is how Marinas calculate their fees as a business enterprise, I would have thought if a better 'more simple' system existed, a marina somewhere would have come up with it.

[Jrtm]

At the end of the day they will backly want to charge us all more and get as much out of boaters as possible.

If this means charging a wide beam at say length cost +1/2,

Im supprised they havent tried to charge people on depth this way they can penalise all the boats that cause them to do dredging (not that ive seen them do this in years seam more bothered about making the towpath better for cyclists) (and yes im a cyclist too but a few bumpy towpaths have never bothered me)

Anyways whatever they do it will either stay the same or be changed to claim simplicity but it will all be to charge us more!

[AllanC]

It seems to me (even as a non boat owner) that a licence charge based on length x width would be a fair way to do it. How many miles you cruise and how often is a matter of choice for the individual.

If more revenue is to be squeezed out of boaters, then perhaps C&RT should look into window tax. Some boats have more windows and therefore a better outlook onto the cut.  It would be like "Pay per View".

[MtB]

Quite so. The argument that bigger boats have reduced cruising range so should pay a lower rate for their size is fallacious. By that argument 70ft narrowboats should pay less than 57ft narrowboats, clearly a nonsense.

And canoes should pay the most of all, as they have the biggest available cruising range of all craft on the canals.