CRT RIP OFF ALERT!! :(

[MHS]

19 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

What makes me giggle is we STILL get umpteen people on such forums as this moaning about various costs etc etc relating to their CHOSEN way of life or hobby. All these costs are easy  enough to find out about with basic research BEFORE boat purchase. I will again reitereate two things

1/ It is NOT cheap living on a boat

2/ It is NOT a cheap hobby

But all the magazine articles and telly programs say it is a cheap way of living. Are we lead to believe they don’t always tell us the truth?!??

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, MHS said:

But all the magazine articles and telly programs say it is a cheap way of living. Are we lead to believe they don’t always tell us the truth?!??

I suppose it depends what you are comparing it to.

Annual licence, insurance for two boats and a mooring for one costs me about a month's rent for a flat in London.

I read that people are paying up to about £8000 for a rail season ticket just to get to work in the Smoke.

I'd rather be boating!

[MHS]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

I suppose it depends what you are comparing it to.

Annual licence, insurance for two boats and a mooring for one costs me about a month's rent for a flat in London.

I read that people are paying up to about £8000 for a rail season ticket just to get to work in the Smoke.

I'd rather be boating!

But I live up North, so the cost of running a house is relatively cheap vs marina fees, licensing etc. 

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, MHS said:

But I live up North, so the cost of running a house is relatively cheap vs marina fees, licensing etc. 

Why the hell would anyone live in and pay silly London prices? I find after years of doing it properly that add everything up including basic maintainance and it costs similar to a smallish house in a sensible part of the UK. I would never use London prices they are simply stupid and as the majority of people dont live there not realy relevant. Rents vary too much everywhere anyway but compare a paid for house against a paid for boat and you save nowt by living on a boat.

[TheBiscuits]

6 minutes ago, MHS said:

But I live up North, so the cost of running a house is relatively cheap vs marina fees, licensing etc. 

Me too.

Just now, mrsmelly said:

Why the hell would anyone live in and pay silly London prices? I find after years of doing it properly that add everything up including basic maintainance and it costs similar to a smallish house in a sensible part of the UK. I would never use London prices they are simply stupid and as the majority of people dont live there not realy relevant.

Rents vary too much everywhere anyway but compare a paid for house against a paid for boat and you save nowt by living on a boat.

Agree entirely, but I suspect the journalists fiction writers who keep producing these "it's cheap to live on a boat" lifestyle articles do live or work in that London, so have a skewed view of living costs.

If you are CC'ing and can't get a council to take council tax off you, that would be about the price of a licence and insurance covered. Beyond that it's diesel & solid fuel costs, with some set aside for maintaining the boat.

If you are a marina dweller, then costs are more comparable.

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, JamesFrance said:

It seems ridiculous to me that you cannot do an on-line notification of a change of ownership.   CRT have had the money for the year so why have all this beurocratic performance.

Apparently theres a new online system for changing trade plate information but CRT hasnt bothered to tell boatyards and brokerages about it yet.....

[rasputin]

17 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Depending on the insurer, he may be effectively uninsured, even if the new owner has paid a premium - if the policy specifies it applies only licensed boats. 

What policy would? 

[TheBiscuits]

8 minutes ago, rasputin said:

What policy would? 

They must exist - you don't need to have a CRT licence in some marinas.

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, rasputin said:

What policy would? 

Eggsactly.

One of our boats doesn't need a licence for the waters it operates on - we still have fully comp and £10m third party insurance.

 

As part of the application for a licence, you must first have :

Insurance

BSSC

Mooring / CC declaration.

How would you ever apply for a licence if you needed a licence before you could get insurance - some folks just do not think things thru'.

[Jess--]

one oddity with licenses seems to be the gold license

if I am reading it correctly it is non-refundable and non transferable 

[OldGoat]

6 hours ago, Jess-- said:

one oddity with licenses seems to be the gold license

if I am reading it correctly it is non-refundable and non transferable 

You're absolutely right. That's because it's an arrangement between two quite different 'authorities' and given that they don't sell many of them, needs too much hassle to unravel.

They (BW) going to dump it until somebody showed how much income it generated (not a lot, but enough)

[Momac]

On 24/02/2018 at 17:15, Mike Todd said:

Could end up quite nasty - but he could get away with it. Depending on the insurer, he may be effectively uninsured, even if the new owner has paid a premium - if the policy specifies it applies only licensed boats. Any infringement by the new owner that is of interest to CaRT will be the responsibility of the seller, I'm almost sure. If he gives the (physical) licence to the new owner in a manner that implies that the licence remains valid then he could be at the wrong end of a claim from the new owner for misrepresentation. (see #37)

Not having a canal/river  license does not invalidate insurance. If a boat is ashore and declared offwater , for example ,it does not need to be licensed (in a  C&RT area) . Or as in my case afloat and  in one of the marinas where a license is not required . Or in a marina on the coast.

However if you did travel on C&RT waters and were unlicensed and had an accident  that might be  a different matter . Insurers could try to reject a claim by arguing  you were travelling illegally . Whether insurers  would win this argument  is debatable. 

For the avoidance of risk it is always better to obey the rules.

 

 

[roland elsdon]

If over the last 35 years i had spent what i have spent on boats surveyors licences moorings etc on a couple  of lovely propertiesin the united democratic repulic of hackney  i would now be rich, on paper but divorced and mad.

instead we have had interesting and varied life rich in memories. 'Being ripped off has happened a few times  so what..

 

[Naughty Cal]

On 2/24/2018 at 18:23, MHS said:

But I live up North, so the cost of running a house is relatively cheap vs marina fees, licensing etc. 

We live up North. We boat up North.

The cost of our licence, insurance and mooring fees are still cheap compared to the cost of owning and running our house.

I have literally just (i.e this morning) renewed our CRT licence for £340 for 12 months and our insurance at £148 for 12 months and on Wednesday our mooring fees of £756 for 6 months will come out. 

[Bee]

Yeah, but.... The original point in the first post was that non transferrable licence fees coupled with a an arbitrary admin fee is 'unfair' I think he is right. Its a crafty way of making a few quid for no service. Its a bit like the non transferable car tax thing, an easy way of providing nothing with the stroke of a pen and an admin figure made up over a cup of coffee. Anybody else get narked over parking machines that you have to enter your car number into? I used to give my ticket to another motorist as I came out of the car park if there was a good bit of time on it. Can't do that now. Just a mean spirited way of shaving a few more quid off of people. Boats are expensive things but lets not rush to embrace every crafty trick that gets thrown at us.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Not having a canal/river  license does not invalidate insurance. If a boat is ashore and declared offwater , for example ,it does not need to be licensed (in a  C&RT area) . Or as in my case afloat and  in one of the marinas where a license is not required . Or in a marina on the coast.

However if you did travel on C&RT waters and were unlicensed and had an accident  that might be  a different matter . Insurers could try to reject a claim by arguing  you were travelling illegally . Whether insurers  would win this argument  is debatable. 

For the avoidance of risk it is always better to obey the rules.

 

 

That's really what I was getting at - being in a place where you do not have permission (as CaRT formulate when applying some of the options for legal action). If you are off-water or in a marina then, in general, you are there by permission of the landowner.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That's really what I was getting at - being in a place where you do not have permission (as CaRT formulate when applying some of the options for legal action). If you are off-water or in a marina then, in general, you are there by permission of the landowner.

 

There are 'waters' where you don't need a licence, a BSSC or even insurance.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There are 'waters' where you don't need a licence, a BSSC or even insurance.

I wasn't trying to imply otherwise! Sin of omission not commission . . . I should have included eg in my list.

However, individuals might wish to check their policy to see what locations are covered. Mine (just renewed) says Inland non-tidal waters of United Kingdom but including inter-connecting tidal stretches for direct access to Inland Navigation Systems. I guess it might come down to careful interpretation of 'waters' but likely to exclude being on dry land. Also, an insurer might want to hide behind the 'navigation systems' bit as limiting 'waters'.

Should there ever be a case where this matters then I would expect that this simple para would become twice (or more) as complicated - that's how contracts and policies become so opaque!

Edited February 26, 2018 by Mike Todd
pressed return too soon

[Momac]

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There are 'waters' where you don't need a licence, a BSSC or even insurance.

True............... Salty waters .

Even so ......Only an idiot would be not have at least 3rd party insurance.

[rasputin]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

True............... Salty waters .

Even so ......Only an idiot would be not have at least 3rd party insurance.

I must be an idiot, I only insure my boats that are in a marina or on cart water, otherwise not.

[TheBiscuits]

12 hours ago, MartynG said:

Not having a canal/river  license does not invalidate insurance. If a boat is ashore and declared offwater , for example ,it does not need to be licensed (in a  C&RT area) . Or as in my case afloat and  in one of the marinas where a license is not required . Or in a marina on the coast.

However if you did travel on C&RT waters and were unlicensed and had an accident  that might be  a different matter . Insurers could try to reject a claim by arguing  you were travelling illegally . Whether insurers  would win this argument  is debatable. 

For the avoidance of risk it is always better to obey the rules.

It depends entirely on your policy wording.  My UK Inland Waterways insurance specifically states that the boat must be licensed and have a valid BSS certificate for the cover to be valid.

We queried this when we were out on the hard to do some work, and the insurers confirm that if we cancelled the licence for the couple of months were were out we would need to boost our policy to remain covered. 

I would strongly recommend that people check their own policies or ask their brokers rather than just assuming it is all OK from the forum posts. Every insurance policy can be different, so check!

8 minutes ago, rasputin said:

I must be an idiot, I only insure my boats that are in a marina or on cart water, otherwise not.

That's fine, if you understand you are accepting the risks.  Crash into a couple of million quids worth of gin palace and have it found your fault, and a few quid for 3rd party insurance might seem to have been well spent though.

Alternatively, if you are on hardstanding and your boat catches fire like that Dutch barge a few weeks ago, are you covered?

Edited February 26, 2018 by TheBiscuits

[Momac]

19 minutes ago, rasputin said:

I must be an idiot

It seems so.

 

 

[rasputin]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

It seems so.

 

 

Maybe it is not me that is the idiot, maybe a lot of folks are risk averse

 

[MtB]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

Even so ......Only an idiot would be not have at least 3rd party insurance.

 

Or someone well off enough to self insure. 

[TheBiscuits]

9 minutes ago, rasputin said:

Maybe it is not me that is the idiot, maybe a lot of folks are risk averse

Depends on the risk. A friend's boat sank last year, uninsured. It cost her about ten grand to get it lifted, and she lost everything on board.  Total cost to her was about twenty five grand so far and she now needs to fully refit her boat.

My fully comp insurance is about a hundred quid a year, and covers me up to 5 million quid.