Paying to use the canal?

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

I just don't like abuses of power. You obviously would put up with it or even condone it.

I would also disagree with your concerns that license fees would increase. I would also point out that it would offer choice to boaters - whether they choose to marina-moor a boat without a licence or use it on the canal with a licence. Boaters have little choice in the world of the canal. It's about time they had a voice. Here's a way to get it.

What abuse of power? I see nothing of the sort here, just a commercial arrangement between CaRT and the marina company, that occurs similarly in other places.

So explain how the shortfall in licence fees would be made up?
Boaters already have a choice; find another marina with different rules.

Shouting and bleatng on an internet forum is NOT a way to get it. For that you need to construct a balanced, logical, and fully costed alternative. You haven't done any of those things!

[Graham Davis]

54 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

I could choose not to have a boat, it would not change anything about the operation of the CRT/marinas set up. I would still make it something to be challenged.

I could choose not to own a classic car under 25 years old so that I have to pay VED, but I don't pointlessly moan about it.
I could choose not to run a diesel car and pay extra VED, but I don't moan about it.

You choose to have a boat and moor it in a marina that has an agreement with CaRT that they have agreed to. If you don't like it don't moor there.

49 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

The point is - having a boat, not having boat, it doesn't change the nature of the private property and CRT property. CRT property is the only place that statutory rules can be applied.

 

True. What about abuse of power?

WRONG.
I can think of plenty of private places where if I want to drive my car it has to be taxed and insured, and it will be checked.
 

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

What abuse of power? I see nothing of the sort here, just a commercial arrangement between CaRT and the marina company, that occurs similarly in other places.

So explain how the shortfall in licence fees would be made up?
Boaters already have a choice; find another marina with different rules.

Shouting and bleatng on an internet forum is NOT a way to get it. For that you need to construct a balanced, logical, and fully costed alternative. You haven't done any of those things!

 

CRT are abusing powers. They can't force you to buy a licence by the usual statutory laws, they have to require a third party to force you, by other means. So, that which they (CRT) are not entitled to, they still wish to have, anyway.

You have a strange idea of choice.

1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

I could choose not to own a classic car under 25 years old so that I have to pay VED, but I don't pointlessly moan about it.
I could choose not to run a diesel car and pay extra VED, but I don't moan about it.

You choose to have a boat and moor it in a marina that has an agreement with CaRT that they have agreed to. If you don't like it don't moor there.

 

You could choose to put any car on private property and not expect to pay VED, insurance or for an MOT. But, if you did have to pay VED, would you moan?

 

[Dave Payne]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT are abusing powers. They can't force you to buy a licence by the usual statutory laws, they have to require a third party to force you, by other means. So, that which they (CRT) are not entitled to, they still wish to have, anyway.

 

 

I kind of agree with this, but then as mentioned if they didnt how much money would they be short, what state would the canals be in....

 

[Graham Davis]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT are abusing powers. They can't force you to buy a licence by the usual statutory laws, they have to require a third party to force you, by other means. So, that which they (CRT) are not entitled to, they still wish to have, anyway.

You have a strange idea of choice.

 

You could choose to put any car on private property and not expect to pay VED, insurance or for an MOT. But, if you did have to pay VED, would you moan?

 

They are NOT abusing any powers.
They make an agreement with a marina that they will allow that business to connect to their waterway subject to certain terms and conditions, one of which is that boats there will be licenced. There is NO abuse in that agreement. If you think that abuses some Act of Parliament then please state that.

I fully understand choice; if you don't like something you go elsewhere.

But the Law is quite specific about keeping untaxed cars on the road, your your point is irrelevant

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT are abusing powers. They can't force you to buy a licence by the usual statutory laws, they have to require a third party to force you, by other means. So, that which they (CRT) are not entitled to, they still wish to have, anyway.

You have a strange idea of choice.

 

You could choose to put any car on private property and not expect to pay VED, insurance or for an MOT. But, if you did have to pay VED, would you moan?

 

So If I say you can park your car on my property, but, as a condition of that permission I want you to keep it 'taxed', insured and MOT'd you can either

1) agree and park it there, 

2) disagree and park somewhere that did not have those requirements, or

3) park it there, comply with the requirements and spend all year moaning about it on a car forum.

[Higgs]

23 minutes ago, Dave Payne said:

I kind of agree with this, but then as mentioned if they didnt how much money would they be short, what state would the canals be in....

 

 

This is valid. The fear that losing a revenue stream may cause problems.

There isn't a level playing field at the moment. That isn't good. It is artificial and gives very little in the way of participation for the average boater. What ever happens is handed down and no questions of any great consequence asked that CRT could be inclined to listen to. Having choice would create a playing position for boaters. They have nothing in the way of a say at the moment.

Boating is already very expensive. If CRT were unable to have access to the revenue they currently do have, by law or force, they would be challenged to provide an attractive well maintained system to attract the revenue back. It would not survive by hiking up the licence. If the canal is a heritage site, it means for the population as a whole. The government would have to keep the money coming in and make a national heritage contribution.

I also do not intend to stay put, in a marina. This would require me to buy a licence. In the 15 odd years I've had this boat, I haven't once failed to get a licence. There may actually only be a relatively small number of boaters that would never want a licence, by staying in a marina, but it should be a choice.   

 

20 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

They are NOT abusing any powers.
They make an agreement with a marina that they will allow that business to connect to their waterway subject to certain terms and conditions, one of which is that boats there will be licenced. There is NO abuse in that agreement. If you think that abuses some Act of Parliament then please state that.

I fully understand choice; if you don't like something you go elsewhere.

But the Law is quite specific about keeping untaxed cars on the road, your your point is irrelevant

 

You only understand choice as a one-choice option. Not really a choice at all.

[Higgs]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So If I say you can park your car on my property, but, as a condition of that permission I want you to keep it 'taxed', insured and MOT'd you can either

1) agree and park it there, 

2) disagree and park somewhere that did not have those requirements, or

3) park it there, comply with the requirements and spend all year moaning about it on a car forum.

 

Number 1. For convenience only. It is obviously a bad deal. I moan.

 

 

[Higgs]

34 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

But the Law is quite specific about keeping untaxed cars on the road, your your point is irrelevant

 

That's correct. But, it isn't necessary to tax a car on private property, per se. I don't remember ever suggesting that a car could be kept untaxed on the road. I'm sure you're confusing places that require licences with those that don't.

[Arthur Marshall]

36 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Number 1. For convenience only. It is obviously a bad deal. I moan.

That's a reasonable summing up and a fair enough response to a perceived injustice.  Sometimes you have to put up with one because, on balance, you're getting what you want - in this case, living in the marina you want even though you think the rules imposed are  unfair and you're being stung for money you don't think is really due. So you grumble.  No-one on here's going to change your mind about it (and I'm not sure you don't have a point anyway), and neither are CRT and the marina going to change theirs, so I don't know why everyone piles in and gets into a shouting match about it.

Grumbling is good for the soul, so I can see why you mention it every now and then. Shouldn't upset anyone else.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

In statutory terms, I do not need a licence in the marina.  The licence is linked to a waterway, which I am not on in the marina.

No, I don't need one -  as stated above. You get over it.

Not only in my mind, but it's an abuse of power. Full stop.

It needs removing from the NAA. Full stop.

 

 

It is statutory - only a different body of law.

statutory = decided or controlled by law

contract law provides a framework in which parties may enter voluntarily into an enforceable agreement that involves the exchange of a consideration.

In the particular, CaRT are entitled to control who has access (as in marina entrances) to the canals (subject to some arcane exceptions - see Nigel M for detail!) To make the contract valid, the marina operator has to give CaRT a consideration. Of course, CaRT can choose the level of that payment just as potential marina developers can choose whether to pay it or not.

Overall, CaRT have to balance their books and to make charges - where they are permitted to do so - at a level that, in a market context, maximises their total income. Too low a charge and their income falls below what could be achieved at a higher level. Too high a level and the numbers drop off and the total income falls. If someone decided that CaRT should reduce the NAA to a peppercorn (still not zero) then my guess is that they would increase some other charges to compensate. Or, to put it another way, by levying the NAA then CaRT are reducing the licence fee to all other boaters (compared with what it would, have been in the absence of such an income stream).

Since no-one is forced to pay the NAA (only if they wish to enter into a contract with CaRT to permit them to operate a marina in the first place) it can hardly be described as an abuse of power since the level of charges is market-driven. As there are new developers continuing to agree to the arrangement then it looks as if they have got it somewhere about right. Mooring charges are also market-driven and if the NAA charges were removed there would be no requirement for the marina operator to reduce mooring charges. Previous discussions on this topic seemed to suggest that mooring fees at marinas which existed prior to this scheme were much the same as elsewhere, taking into account the facilities provided. 

You are perfectly entitles to campaign for the reduction of NAA charges but to succeed you will need to build a strong case for doing so. At the moment, as I think is obvious, you have very little to offer CaRT to persuade them it would be a good thing - I doubt whether a court would begin to entertain an argument that the charges are illegal.

[Higgs]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's a reasonable summing up and a fair enough response to a perceived injustice.  Sometimes you have to put up with one because, on balance, you're getting what you want - in this case, living in the marina you want even though you think the rules imposed are  unfair and you're being stung for money you don't think is really due. So you grumble.  No-one on here's going to change your mind about it (and I'm not sure you don't have a point anyway), and neither are CRT and the marina going to change theirs, so I don't know why everyone piles in and gets into a shouting match about it.

Grumbling is good for the soul, so I can see why you mention it every now and then. Shouldn't upset anyone else.

 

I'm not angry. It's not something I want to live with on a permanent basis. The subject is not something I go banging on about. It's once in a blue moon. Can't remember the last time it seemed appropriate, but it was a long time ago. I don't obsess about it, and generally get on with ordinary living.

CRT will not be moved by any of this. Part of the point is, nothing can force CRT. All of the cards are theirs. That is unhealthy. People go on about choice, but the arrangement CRT and the marinas have has removed choice. It is beneficial for them both. Boaters are at the bottom of the heap, and they're so used to being there.  

[Iain_S]

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

In statutory terms, I do not need a licence in the marina.  The licence is linked to a waterway, which I am not on in the marina.

No, I don't need one -  as stated above. You get over it.

Not only in my mind, but it's an abuse of power. Full stop.

It needs removing from the NAA. Full stop.

 

 

So your view is that you don't need insurance, either? or a BSS certificate?

[Chewbacka]

Actually as a boater that pays for a licence and mooring I think I get a fairly good deal compared to others that pay for the system.

1). General tax payer that doesn’t live near a canal - pays a bit via general taxation and gets nothing back.

2). Towpath walker/cyclist - pays same as above, gets free use of a footpath 

3). Fisherman/woman/person - same as 2 above plus can sit next to water, but actually has no real need of locks etc, just so long as it is deep enough.  Usually pays a bit more for use of the canal.

4). Boaters without mooring - pay as 1 above plus another thousand for a licence but gets full use of a reasonably working heavily subsidised system.  

It’s worth bearing in mind that rail tickets cover - I think - about 70% of the true cost, whereas boaters licence fees cover maybe 30% of the true cost of running the canals.

I have to admit we do get a reasonably good deal, and probably we get the biggest financial benefit of all the users.

 

 

[Higgs]

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It is statutory - only a different body of law.

statutory = decided or controlled by law

contract law provides a framework in which parties may enter voluntarily into an enforceable agreement that involves the exchange of a consideration.

My contract with CRT is that I have the right to use the canal, on payment of my licence fee. Yet, if I never use the canal, I have to pay a licence fee to enable the marina to have a business. Whose using who here? 

In the particular, CaRT are entitled to control who has access (as in marina entrances) to the canals (subject to some arcane exceptions - see Nigel M for detail!) To make the contract valid, the marina operator has to give CaRT a consideration. Of course, CaRT can choose the level of that payment just as potential marina developers can choose whether to pay it or not.

There is a 'barrier' at the entrance of a marina, separating it from the canal. It is only dropped on the condition that access be paid for. Access to what exactly? I already have a licence. It can be assumed that the inside of a marina and the outside are treated as two different areas, even in business terms.  

Overall, CaRT have to balance their books and to make charges - where they are permitted to do so - at a level that, in a market context, maximises their total income. Too low a charge and their income falls below what could be achieved at a higher level. Too high a level and the numbers drop off and the total income falls. If someone decided that CaRT should reduce the NAA to a peppercorn (still not zero) then my guess is that they would increase some other charges to compensate. Or, to put it another way, by levying the NAA then CaRT are reducing the licence fee to all other boaters (compared with what it would, have been in the absence of such an income stream).

I don't really give a thought to supporting CRT's impropriety.

Since no-one is forced to pay the NAA (only if they wish to enter into a contract with CaRT to permit them to operate a marina in the first place) it can hardly be described as an abuse of power since the level of charges is market-driven. As there are new developers continuing to agree to the arrangement then it looks as if they have got it somewhere about right. Mooring charges are also market-driven and if the NAA charges were removed there would be no requirement for the marina operator to reduce mooring charges. Previous discussions on this topic seemed to suggest that mooring fees at marinas which existed prior to this scheme were much the same as elsewhere, taking into account the facilities provided. 

Business' go to CRT, because they want a business. I don't know where the negotiations come into it - there is only one contract on offer.

You are perfectly entitles to campaign for the reduction of NAA charges but to succeed you will need to build a strong case for doing so. At the moment, as I think is obvious, you have very little to offer CaRT to persuade them it would be a good thing - I doubt whether a court would begin to entertain an argument that the charges are illegal.

I have nothing to offer CRT - they've been having it, and forcing it for years.

 

6 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

So your view is that you don't need insurance, either? or a BSS certificate?

 

That question was answered earlier. It doesn't endorse the view you might think.

[Iain_S]

11 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

So your view is that you don't need insurance, either? or a BSS certificate?

 

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

That question was answered earlier. It doesn't endorse the view you might think.

Ok, rephrasing : "not required to have insurance or BSS Certificate"

[Graham Davis]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

You only understand choice as a one-choice option. Not really a choice at all.

Utter and complete twaddle.
You sir haven't got a clue!

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

That's correct. But, it isn't necessary to tax a car on private property, per se. I don't remember ever suggesting that a car could be kept untaxed on the road. I'm sure you're confusing places that require licences with those that don't.

Wrong again.
I can think of plenty of places that require me to TAX and insure my car if I take it there.

I think it is you that is confused.

[Higgs]

22 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

 

Ok, rephrasing : "not required to have insurance or BSS Certificate"

 

I hope post 75 will do.

7 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Utter and complete twaddle.
You sir haven't got a clue!

Wrong again.
I can think of plenty of places that require me to TAX and insure my car if I take it there.

I think it is you that is confused.

 

As you wish.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You are perfectly entitles to campaign for the reduction of NAA charges but to succeed you will need to build a strong case for doing so. At the moment, as I think is obvious, you have very little to offer CaRT to persuade them it would be a good thing - I doubt whether a court would begin to entertain an argument that the charges are illegal.

Quite.
As I said earlier he needs to provide a fully documented, balaance and reasonable arguement to support his view, including quoting exactly what laws or Acts have been broken. Until then this is nothing more than an ilthought and pointless internet rant.

And to be honest not that unusual from this member.

[Higgs]

Just now, Graham Davis said:

Quite.
As I said earlier he needs to provide a fully documented, balaance and reasonable arguement to support his view, including quoting exactly what laws or Acts have been broken. Until then this is nothing more than an ilthought and pointless internet rant.

And to be honest not that unusual from this member.

 

Ever heard of testing the waters?

[Chewbacka]

Or you and a few like minded individuals could build your own marina not connected to crt waters and see if you can run it as a business.  I doubt you can as most boaters want to go on the canals.

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Chewbacka said:

Or you and a few like minded individuals could build your own marina not connected to crt waters and see if you can run it as a business.  I doubt you can as most boaters want to go on the canals.

 

That's a new one.

[furnessvale]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

 There may actually only be a relatively small number of boaters that would never want a licence, by staying in a marina, but it should be a choice.   

 

Human nature being what it is, there will be a much larger number of boaters who would stay in a marina, not buy a license, but cruise as and when they wanted, taking a chance as to whether they get caught.  Exactly as my road diesel fuel analogy demonstrates.

George

[Higgs]

3 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Human nature being what it is, there will be a much larger number of boaters who would stay in a marina, not buy a license, but cruise as and when they wanted, taking a chance as to whether they get caught.  Exactly as my road diesel fuel analogy demonstrates.

George

 

I might suggest to you that the risk of a few boaters trying it on is nothing, compared to the level that CRT does it to its private marina mooring license payers. CRT do always get away with it, it seems. A wish to see the canal system survive is very understandable. It doesn't matter how understandable, I can see no value in supporting a 'worthwhile' venture, only by means of poor consumer practices. The end justifies the means, I gather.

[ditchcrawler]

Has the OP been back?