Jump to content

2019-2020 Licence Fees Announced


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

This is what the government and banking system want us all today. The economy is geared to keep everyone in debt from the cradle to the grave. For years now we have paid every bill in one hit be it car tax, car/boat insurance, pet insurance, boat licence etc etc etc and nothing monthly such as the latest craze of people who now run about in new cars at x pounds each and every month for life. Just as a for instance last years dog insurance alone by paying in one hit for the year worked out £80 less over the year on the one item. Its a tough call sometimes but we only ever have one payment monthly out of our bank and thats for the phones.

I'm not really sure of your logic here, my understanding of the CRT Direct Debit is that you pay 9 monthly sums, the first of which is 20% of the total cost of the license and the rest make up the full price, if you are paying no more overall for a DD than one instalment, what is the incentive to pay in one lump? Currently I pay in one lump and early because doing so qualifies for a discount (for the reason being that the money is in CRT's account and no longer in mine). If there is no financial benefit in do so, why would I? As you quite correctly point out (I assume) your pet insurer will give you a discount for paying in one lump, it saves them admin costs which they pass on to you as a discount, if CRT don't wish to do that they will need to wait for their money, obviously.

 

Whilst I agree that the economy is set up to make sure everyone is in debt, it can be used to your benefit. I regularly use my credit card but always pay off the full amount at the end of the month, total interest that I've paid over the last 10 years or so? £0.00. I imagine that my Credit Card providers hate me but I always believe that money is better off in my account than in anyone else's:rolleyes:

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

As you quite correctly point out (I assume) your pet insurer* will give you a discount for paying in one lump, it saves them admin costs which they pass on to you as a discount,

More accurately, people who pay by instalments are charged a premium. Those who pay all in one go pay the basic cost only. Unfortunately, it is nowadays often seen as a favour passed on to the prompt payer, rather than a charge levied on those who are effectively late payers.

 

*or anyone else offering an annual service for a fee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

More accurately, people who pay by instalments are charged a premium. Those who pay all in one go pay the basic cost only. Unfortunately, it is nowadays often seen as a favour passed on to the prompt payer, rather than a charge levied on those who are effectively late payers.

 

*or anyone else offering an annual service for a fee

Yes, that is generally the case, but it appears with CRT that I will/would pay the same amount whether I pay by instalment or in a lump sum, why would I want to pay a lump sum if there is no benefit? This is why I don't understand why they are doing away with the early payment discount (they say it is because the majority now pay early, what a surprise). In commercial terms what a company does it to set its desired income on the 'discounted' rate and those who pay either late or by instalment generate additional income (after deduction of increased admin costs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And from 2020 a bit more than that for all those fatties out there (me included)

 

Any Idea how this is to be applied? The release says

"In addition to length-based pricing, from April 2020 two additional pricing bands for boat widths over 2.16 to 3.24 and those over 3.24 will be introduced.

"

Just checked and according to CART my boat is 3.33  so app 4"  into the higher band. Time to get the angle grinder out!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, croftie said:

 

Any Idea how this is to be applied? The release says

"In addition to length-based pricing, from April 2020 two additional pricing bands for boat widths over 2.16 to 3.24 and those over 3.24 will be introduced.

 

"

Just checked and according to CART my boat is 3.33  so app 4"  into the higher band. Time to get the angle grinder out!!!!

Have a look at the results of the original proposal - If I remember its all laid in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it :-
 
Based on these considerations, the Trust has decided to combine the current length based bands with new width bands so that craft wider than 2.16m (7”1ft) will pay slightly more on top of the length based charge. Three width bands will be introduced from April 2020
 
Band 1: 2.16m (7ft 1”) and below
Band 2: over 2.16m (7ft 1”) up to and including 3.24M (10ft 7.5’’)
Band 3: over 3.24M (10ft 7.5’’)
We envisage that ultimately the % surcharge for wider craft will rise to 10% for Band 2 and 20% for
Band 3, but it would be introduced in phases over several years (see proposed phasing until 2023
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gareth E said:

Higher than inflation, higher than average wage increases. What do you feel makes CRT a special case so they may justify this? 

I did not  say I  think CRT is a special case.

 

By the way.........

Folks with narrowbats are getting of lightly with a 5 % increase  as a result of the reduction in the prompt payment discount.

The narrowboaters voted for wider boats to have the charges increased .  I will be getting a 20% increase in due course even though my boat is not particularly wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I did not  say I  think CRT is a special case.

 

By the way.........

Folks with narrowbats are getting of lightly with a 5 % increase  as a result of the reduction in the prompt payment discount.

The narrowboaters voted for wider boats to have the charges increased .  I will be getting a 20% increase in due course even though my boat is not particularly wide.

The narrowboats voted for a wide beam surcharge because they thought the review was to be revenue neutral so assumed that if one group paid more they would pay less.

 

What has actually happened is that everyone will pay more and those with wider boats (and bear in mind that certainly in the cruiser market some of these will be the cheapest boats to buy) will pay more again.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The vote was unnecessary .Turkeys would not vote for Christmas.

Turns out they would in this case. 

 

All the narrowboaters (The turkeys) did indeed vote for the increases (christmas) .

 

Never have the words, be careful what you wish for, been more fitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

The narrowboats voted for a wide beam surcharge because they thought the review was to be revenue neutral so assumed that if one group paid more they would pay less.

I didn't vote for it for that reason.

I favoured an "area based" charging for no other reason than I believe it is fairer.

What they have actually come up with flew in the face of the answers they received, and is neither one thing not the other.

At east John Horsfall, acting Head of Boating, took the trouble to personally phone me up and explain why despite the bulk of the responses received, they actually recommended to the trustees that that they did something different.

 

The "revenue neutral" claim was clearly untrue, but I'm no longer surprised that CRT claim one thing and do another.

(Am I going to get chucked of f CWDF - it was recently under attack as being a CRT sympathisers site - CRT have lost most of my sympathy now!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Turns out they would in this case. 

 

All the narrowboaters (The turkeys) did indeed vote for the increases (christmas) .

 

Never have the words, be careful what you wish for, been more fitting.


Why do you feel narrow boat owners have lost out more by supporting a different charging regime?  (And note as I say above that they didn't do what most of us supported - i.e. area based, not the few width bands bodge they have gone with).

Do you imagine that we would all have hung on to the full 10% prompt payment discount, had charging for wide beams not been changed.

Of course we wouldn't, so your point is lost on me entirely.

Theoretically it could end up the other way about.  By raising a bit of extra cash from wide beam owners from 2020, maybe the future increases after this year might be at a lower percentage.  (Though I rather doubt that!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I'm not really sure of your logic here, my understanding of the CRT Direct Debit is that you pay 9 monthly sums, the first of which is 20% of the total cost of the license and the rest make up the full price, if you are paying no more overall for a DD than one instalment, what is the incentive to pay in one lump? Currently I pay in one lump and early because doing so qualifies for a discount (for the reason being that the money is in CRT's account and no longer in mine). If there is no financial benefit in do so, why would I? As you quite correctly point out (I assume) your pet insurer will give you a discount for paying in one lump, it saves them admin costs which they pass on to you as a discount, if CRT don't wish to do that they will need to wait for their money, obviously.

 

Whilst I agree that the economy is set up to make sure everyone is in debt, it can be used to your benefit. I regularly use my credit card but always pay off the full amount at the end of the month, total interest that I've paid over the last 10 years or so? £0.00. I imagine that my Credit Card providers hate me but I always believe that money is better off in my account than in anyone else's:rolleyes:

It is not quite that simple. Such logic works well in a commercial 'selling' organisation and helps to maximise turnover (which often incorrectly is used a measure of success). However, in organisations with largely fixed income and whose whole ethos is about how well they spend their income, it can have a detrimental effect as it appears that the organisation has lost income (rather than reduced expenses). I know as I have been responsible for a multi-million charity that keeps going through this debate. It is tempting always to end up deciding to do the opposite of what we decided last time. That is the nature of 'democratic' decision making: it attends to the problems and ignores the existing benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What percentage of boats on inland waterways are wide beams? I am guessing  it's very small. Maybe 1%?

The extra from everyone from the reduced prompt payment discount is probably a lot more than the future extra 20%  from wide beams.

Also bear in mind many of the so called wide beam cruisers are on a river only license so are paying less than a canal boat and this arrangement is to remain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said at the time of the review that reducing the prompt payment discount made sense given current interest rates. 

 

10% is too much of a discount these days, and costs CRT about £1.5 million a year.  Changing it to 5% is an instant win of £750,000 and they didn't uprate the fees with inflation. 

 

Do I like paying more? No, but I would have expected a 3% inflation uplift, so it is only an extra 2% out of my pocket, and some of my skint friends will finally be able to claim some discount on their licences. 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It is not quite that simple. Such logic works well in a commercial 'selling' organisation and helps to maximise turnover (which often incorrectly is used a measure of success). However, in organisations with largely fixed income and whose whole ethos is about how well they spend their income, it can have a detrimental effect as it appears that the organisation has lost income (rather than reduced expenses). I know as I have been responsible for a multi-million charity that keeps going through this debate. It is tempting always to end up deciding to do the opposite of what we decided last time. That is the nature of 'democratic' decision making: it attends to the problems and ignores the existing benefits.

I think you are over-complicating things a bit here. Any organisation, whether a charity or business, that gets an income in the manner that CRT do (annual subscription) should be basing their anticipated income on the discounted rate so that effectively becomes the base line. For those who wish to pay in instalments it is not unreasonable to pay extra since there is additional admin to consider. If the organisation can get their income at the earliest opportunity (by an early payment 'discount') then with the money in their bank account, rather than the contributors bank account, they have the potential to get further income from it over the year. By removing the 'discount' all it means is that their income will be spread throughout the year so if they have a major event (breach) they will have to wait for the money to come in, or start an appeal.

25 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I said at the time of the review that reducing the prompt payment discount made sense given current interest rates. 

 

10% is too much of a discount these days, and costs CRT about £1.5 million a year.  Changing it to 5% is an instant win of £750,000 and they didn't uprate the fees with inflation. 

 

Do I like paying more? No, but I would have expected a 3% inflation uplift, so it is only an extra 2% out of my pocket, and some of my skint friends will finally be able to claim some discount on their licences. 

As I said above, don't regard it as a 10% 'discount' since CRT should be basing their expected income on the 'discounted' rate, it is more like a 10% surcharge on those who don't pay promptly or pay by instalments. Is this reasonable? open to debate really, but if I am getting no benefit from paying promptly, why would I? If, rather oddly, they choose to charge the same amount whether I pay in instalments or pay in a lump sum I'll be paying in instalments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

if I am getting no benefit from paying promptly, why would I? If, rather oddly, they choose to charge the same amount whether I pay in instalments or pay in a lump sum I'll be paying in instalments.

I quite agree, but how much incentive do you need?  I think about 2.5% would be enough to make me prepay, with perhaps a further 2.5% if I just let CRT take the money via DD or card payment automatically. 

 

The 10% discount was introduced when you could get 8% on a savings account, so needed to be a bit higher to encourage people to pay up front.  If you can find any saving account paying 8% at present, please let me know! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

What percentage of boats on inland waterways are wide beams? I am guessing  it's very small. Maybe 1%?

The extra from everyone from the reduced prompt payment discount is probably a lot more than the future extra 20%  from wide beams.

 

Virtually ALL Collingwoods production for the last 2 years has been wide beams, I don't think Piper build narrowboats any more, Elton Moss similar, Nottingham Boats mostly wide beams and barges,Tyler is 50/50.....thats ones I know of.

I think you may be wrong, especially in 3 years time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.