Dispute at Pillings

[Alan de Enfield]

 

............... and all persons whatsoever are to have free liberty 'to navigate upon the canal and collateral cuts with any boats . . . upon payment of such rates and dues as shall be demanded . . . not exceeding the rates before mentioned in the statute'."

 

 

 

I do struggle with some of the legalise and hence what maybe (to some) ridiculous questions :

 

Here again is the word "Navigate", is there any description or defintion of Navigate (except for the 'modern' C&RT definitions used for defining acceptable CC behaviour) ?

 

Having paid the relevant 'dues' (Licence fee) can the canal be used in whatever way the boater wishes ?

 

If Navigation is not defined, and a boat is moored for a 'considerable' period would this " payment of such rates and dues as shall be demanded" not allow C&RT to implement charges for overstaying / continuous mooring ? (The problem being I guess the enforcement and collection of such charges)

 

Is this the legislation C&RT are using for their changes to visitors moorings and the 'fines' (charges) imposed for an extra 24 hours etc.

[NigelMoore]

Aren't many of these problems due to a system based on precedent (can't remember the correct term) rather than a codified system.

 

The former is open to learned discussion (and a bonus for legal practitioners) and may be fairer in the long term. The latter is somewhat rigid?

 

The correct term for the English legal system is “Common Law”, which, while it builds on statute, relies upon progressively developed binding decisions of the judiciary to interpret the law. The system is quintessentially mutable, and even Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments by the terms of any statute passed.

 

This is diametrically opposed to the ancient Medo-Persian concept, wherein a law once passed could never be altered, not even by the King-Emperor of the then-known world who passed the law in the first place.

 

The American Constitution has somewhat of that character, even while individual States within the Federation are largely based on the English Common-Law system, and some even simultaneously contrive to have the Roman Civil Code as well!

 

It is notable that while the High Court and Appeal Court judges are largely bound by the precedent decisions they make, the same is not true of the Supreme Court [once the House of Lords]. There is a relatively recent case – the details of which I cannot remember off the top of my head – in which one of the judges reversed a decision of his own from a few years previous. He commented on the fortunate position he was in, unlike judges of the lower courts, to be able to admit he had made a mistake!

 

[PeterScott]

This document is ... I thought CRT was originally given a property grant from the ... government valued at £500m Everything else in the investment world has gone up, why is the value of CRT's investment portfolio down, showing a current value of £468.7m? Is CRT selling hard assets that are intended to produce income?

The movements in the property portfolio are on page 64 under note 11 to the accounts. The initial valuation on 12 October 2011 was £459.8m, and after ins and outs during the seventeen months the portfolio was estimated to be worth the £468.7m at the end. So, no they haven't been selling assets beyond what they say they do to manage to portfolio.

 

As a member of the NE partnership (volunteer, no operational responsibility, listed on page 80) we do have the occasional presentation from the property managers, and I quizzed them about the abolition of a government-sponsored organisation which had been a major occupier of an iconic waterside building. "Yes they have been wound up; the property is empty, but the government still pays the rent." Unlike a company which had gone bust, of course. That's what the property managers are tasked to do: provide secure income for the maintenance of the waterways, and having the government as a tenant does provide secure income ...

 

Whether overall that's a sensible way to run things is a separate debate: surely we ought to have been able to allow the government do-what-it-liked with the property portfolio in exchange for a long-term contract for £xxmillion.But governments prioritise health, schools, roads (etc). They may be good tenants but are poor masters and poor custodians of our national waterways heritage sigh

 

On investment income of £31.1m, CRT paid £12.6m for investment management. That seems like a pretty hefty fee for such a paltry return.

On page 57 it says there are 39 people involved in managing the portfolio. The direct costs before the accountants allocate overheads (page 31) are £8.9m. and I've no information on how much of that is salaries, external advisers, etc nor how much was exceptional costs related to the transfer from BW.. Yes it does seem a lot of money to generate the £31.1m

 

There must be lots of other gems of debate in the almost-six-thousand posts in the thread, all of which I have failed to read. But here's a link of the Pilings Marina debate to CRT structure: I was entertained by the CRT quote in this month's Canal Boat (p6) criticising the "unnecessarily complex" hireachy of companies involved in the [Pilings Lock] site. We should observe simply that the Canal and RIver Trust is the first trustee of the Canal Infrastructure Trust which owns the canals, that "Canal and River Trading CIC is a Community Interest Company", that the Waterways Trust has been absorbed into the structure; that Canal and River Reinsurance Ltd is a subsidiary, as is British Waterways Marinas Ltd ... Pots and Kettles, eh?

[NigelMoore]

 

I do struggle with some of the legalise and hence what maybe (to some) ridiculous questions :

 

Here again is the word "Navigate", is there any description or defintion of Navigate (except for the 'modern' C&RT definitions used for defining acceptable CC behaviour) ?

 

Having paid the relevant 'dues' (Licence fee) can the canal be used in whatever way the boater wishes ?

 

If Navigation is not defined, and a boat is moored for a 'considerable' period would this " payment of such rates and dues as shall be demanded" not allow C&RT to implement charges for overstaying / continuous mooring ? (The problem being I guess the enforcement and collection of such charges)

 

Is this the legislation C&RT are using for their changes to visitors moorings and the 'fines' (charges) imposed for an extra 24 hours etc.

 

The questions are by no means ridiculous, but you need to bear in mind that the section you quote is from the Stourbridge canal legislation, which in those specific terms applies only to that canal. CaRT cannot use the legislation governing one canal to apply to any other [and vice versa, nor can any boater].

 

“Navigate” in the Stourbridge context is used without any attempt at particularity beyond the right to keep and use vessels on the water, with the additional mention of rights: “. . . to use the wharfs and quays for loading and unloading any goods, wares, merchandise, and commodities; and also to use the towing paths with horses for hauling and drawing such boats and vessels . . .”

 

The other point to bear in mind is that this granted right to navigate the Stourbridge canal has been abolished by the 1968 Transport Act.

 

The point of the judgment in S v W was that dues were specified with particularity [as in all of the enabling Acts, in differing formulae] and consequently any use outside of that specified as being subject to dues, did not require the consent of the proprietors.

 

This is not to say that use was not subject to any byelaws that might be passed – again, another standard power usually given to the canal companies. All such byelaws have of course been abolished and replaced with the General Canal Byelaws still in place.

 

So the short answer to the latter part of the question is: no.

 

In fact, insofar as the Stourbridge and any of the other enabling Acts of other canals contain what the court here interpreted as prohibitions on any charges other than those specified, the reverse would apply - because the 1962 Act s.43 as amended in its most up-to-date form, states: -

 

“(2) Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the Canal and River Trust from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.”

 

The "local enactments" mentioned above are the original Enabling Acts [including the Stourbridge Acts] - all 500 plus of them - that still underpin the statutory framework governing the canal system today.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Thank you

[mayalld]

 

So the short answer to the latter part of the question is: no.

 

In fact, insofar as the Stourbridge and any of the other enabling Acts of other canals contain what the court here interpreted as prohibitions on any charges other than those specified, the reverse would apply - because the 1962 Act s.43 as amended in its most up-to-date form, states: -

 

“(2) Paragraph ( b ) of the foregoing subsection shall not be read as exempting the Canal and River Trust from any local enactment so far as it expressly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.”

 

The "local enactments" mentioned above are the original Enabling Acts [including the Stourbridge Acts] - all 500 plus of them - that still underpin the statutory framework governing the canal system today.

 

 

Nigel,

 

s 43 introduced a fairly catch-all right to charge, with the caveat that any EXPRESS freedom from charges would still have effect. That doesn't mean that any omission in the original act to provide for a right to charge remains in force.

 

So, in this example, the general lack of power to charge is gone, but the specific freedom from charges for the owners of neighbouring land may remain.

[costalot]

 

Good grief.

 

You clearly don't know much about internet forums, old chap.

 

Now run along. You clearly have an agenda to be unpleasant, and I am not prepared to play your little game.

LOL... Fascinating! The expression argumentum ad hominem comes to mind!

[Mike Todd]

 

I found a poor quality account of the Stourbridge v Wheeley judgment here -

 

http://www.forgottenbooks.org/readbook_text/A_Selection_of_Cases_on_Private_Corporations_v1_1000248182/171

 

The relevant bit I was thinking of in terms of the usual public benefit rationale is: -

 

"The act of parliament recites that the proposed canal will be of public utility . . . the lands acquired by voluntary or compulsory sale are vested in the proprietors for the use of the navigation, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever; and all persons whatsoever are to have free liberty 'to navigate upon the canal and collateral cuts with any boats . . . upon payment of such rates and dues as shall be demanded . . . not exceeding the rates before mentioned in the statute'."

 

The wording used by the court in this classic case likened the enabling Act to a “bargain” made between the public and the prospective company. Having made that bargain, the company was obliged to stick to the terms of what effectively comprised a contract.

 

“The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, – that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.” [my emphasis]

 

In that instance, the terms of the bargain only permitted the company to charge for using locks. As the canal had a long, lock-free section, trade was carried out by some people within the lock-free stretch without having to pay anything. The company decided that they were entitled to claim the common-law right of a landowner to consent to use of their property, and so to make charges for using it even though the users they were suing did not use the locks.

 

That would of course have been the case had they been a natural person, but they were created by statute on the basis of the drafted Act, and were consequently restricted in their rights to the terms of the Act – and were held to it. It would have taken a further Act of Parliament to extend the rights, and such an Act would have been subject to representations from all those affected.

But a bargain has (at least) two sides. If the canal owner has to keep to their part of the bargain, then so does the canal user. This includes willingly fulfilling their duties which, as you summarise them, include paying all appropriate fees.

 

Transferring the issue to today, we must always be clear that there are those who wish to explore all the backwaters (planned or unexpected) of the legislation. We musr repect their right to do so, even if we might also comment on their moral position if they exercise their right (see Merchant of Venice) There is, however, a quite distinct group who have very little intention of keeping to their side of the bargain whilst, at the same time, insisting on the canal owner meeting even the small print of theirs (see New Testament re eyes, motes and beams)

[johnlillie]

back on track (sort of) just to show the kind of person we have been discussing- I am a member of our local town council, and someone claiming to be a friend of Paul Lillie has written to the council, claiming that I am not a fit and proper person to be on a council! Needless to say, the council have treated it with the contempt it deserves,, I have yet to find out if the person who wrote it had the balls to sign it, but I hope he/she /they have! It COULD be argued that PL knew nothing about it............lol!

[NigelMoore]

But a bargain has (at least) two sides. If the canal owner has to keep to their part of the bargain, then so does the canal user.

 

Naturally. Boaters must voluntarily abide by the spirit of the law if they hope to escape any consequences from application of the letter of the law.

 

BUT - if there is a greater burden on the Agent of that law, it resides in the fact that they as guardians and appliers of the law are mandated and expected to understand and apply the law aright – a burden which is not so great for their ‘clients’ as it is for them. Long history demonstrates that they have been prepared to impose wrongful interpretations of the laws that are supposed to govern them. In short - with greater knowledge and power comes greater responsibility, and there is reason for their clientele to be wary of their probity.

 

That clarified - I quite agree with all your post.

 

Edit to correct punctuation.

 

Edited May 14, 2014 by NigelMoore

[NigelMoore]

 

Nigel,

 

s 43 introduced a fairly catch-all right to charge, with the caveat that any EXPRESS freedom from charges would still have effect. That doesn't mean that any omission in the original act to provide for a right to charge remains in force.

 

So, in this example, the general lack of power to charge is gone, but the specific freedom from charges for the owners of neighbouring land may remain.

 

That does sound like a reasonable interpretation mayalld, and it is certainly an arguable viewpoint. As you know, however, I don’t believe that the 1962 Act can be construed so narrowly.

 

An example of the ‘expressly provides’ provision you describe, would be s.43 of the 1793 GJC Act, which specifically forbad any charges whatsoever to do with boating on the tidal section below Bax’s Mill. The clause very specifically exempted the charges of the Thames Conservancy [which the GJCC was responsible for collecting]; forbad any charges “whatsoever” for use of barges and other vessels servicing riparian occupiers [and even nearby premises], and even those tolls on cargo which applied everywhere else on the navigation.

 

All such local enactments of this character - as it would appear to be common ground between us – are covered by the ’62 Act s.43(2). Where we differ – as you point out – is whether ONLY such express prohibitions are captured.

 

Recognising, as I say, that you have an arguable case, I nonetheless believe it to be wrong. Your interpretation would carry more force if the section limited itself to expressly forbidden charges – but it does not. It adds: “OR otherwise prohibits . . .” The additional description necessarily conveys a meaning not embraced within the prior term “expressly provides”. The application of the section, in other words, cannot logically be confined to the narrower application for which you argue.

 

The Stourbridge Acts did NOT expressly forbid charges for boats never using the locks, BUT – the opinion of the Court could be described as a finding that the ‘mere’ failure to specifically provide for the charges in question, amounted to an express prohibition “otherwise” applying to them.

 

This is the effect of all modern understanding of the limitations to statutory powers. An example would be the case of McCarthy & Stone v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [1992]. The statutory body [the Borough Council] was declared incapable of charging for services unless specifically empowered to do so, even for services for which any natural person would be entitled to charge.

 

I trust you will appreciate that I am very far from sneering at your perfectly plausible position; I am merely presenting the reasoning behind my contrary understanding. At the very least, there are grave doubts as to what you describe as the “catch all” nature of s.43 – this used to be recognised by BW in less desperate times.

 

For example, even though BW’s eminent QC’s asserted that s.43 entitled their client to unilaterally impose the charges and conditions for which they were seeking Parliamentary approval, they acknowledged that the legal force of the argument was in doubt [hence asking for the non-ambiguous statutory clauses].

 

Not having the material to hand, I can’t post the relevant excerpts by way of establishing that, but will do so in a few days’ time.

 

 

p.s. The parlous nature of BW/CaRT’s reliance on s.43 is illustrated by the 2012 Hildyard judgment in my case. See para.109 of Hildyard judgement – s.43(3) can be applicable “provided that it has the means of imposing those terms & conditions (in right of ownership, by consent or by permissible Bye-laws).”

 

And para.112 of the Hildyard Judgement: “Put shortly, even if the 1962 Act empowered BWB to impose terms and conditions for user by way of permanent mooring, I have not been persuaded that BWB has ever validly exercised such power.” [my emphasis]

 

 

Edited May 13, 2014 by NigelMoore

[George94]

 

I found a poor quality account of the Stourbridge v Wheeley judgment here -

 

http://www.forgottenbooks.org/readbook_text/A_Selection_of_Cases_on_Private_Corporations_v1_1000248182/171

 

The relevant bit I was thinking of in terms of the usual public benefit rationale is: -

 

"The act of parliament recites that the proposed canal will be of public utility . . . the lands acquired by voluntary or compulsory sale are vested in the proprietors for the use of the navigation, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever; and all persons whatsoever are to have free liberty 'to navigate upon the canal and collateral cuts with any boats . . . upon payment of such rates and dues as shall be demanded . . . not exceeding the rates before mentioned in the statute'."

 

The wording used by the court in this classic case likened the enabling Act to a “bargain” made between the public and the prospective company. Having made that bargain, the company was obliged to stick to the terms of what effectively comprised a contract.

 

“The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, – that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.” [my emphasis]

 

In that instance, the terms of the bargain only permitted the company to charge for using locks. As the canal had a long, lock-free section, trade was carried out by some people within the lock-free stretch without having to pay anything. The company decided that they were entitled to claim the common-law right of a landowner to consent to use of their property, and so to make charges for using it even though the users they were suing did not use the locks.

 

That would of course have been the case had they been a natural person, but they were created by statute on the basis of the drafted Act, and were consequently restricted in their rights to the terms of the Act – and were held to it. It would have taken a further Act of Parliament to extend the rights, and such an Act would have been subject to representations from all those affected.

 

This is fascinating. I now see what more clearly what you meant in reference to Johnson in an earlier post. Must read CART's Objects Clause in the Memorandum.

 

So, the 64,000 dollar question. Did BW have the power to impose a charge on access to the canals?

[Jerra]

 

So, the 64,000 dollar question. Did BW have the power to impose a charge on access to the canals?

Why are you so against the charge it is IMO just like a standing charge for electricity or line rental for a phone. It would also appear that British Marine Federation are happy with the charge. Have you read June's Canal Boat?

[George94]

LOL... Fascinating! The expression argumentum ad hominem comes to mind!

 

Costalot, I would much prefer to discuss things here without acrimony. Your latest posts, however, seemed to me to suggest that we did not share this objective.

 

If I am wrong, I am of course delighted to apologise.

Why are you so against the charge it is IMO just like a standing charge for electricity or line rental for a phone. It would also appear that British Marine Federation are happy with the charge. Have you read June's Canal Boat?

 

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

[Paul G2]

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

 

Would not a rose, by any other name, smell so sweet?

 

The Canals need maintenance or they will collapse and be no more. CRT needs money to maintain the canals. Some of this money they will get from boaters, just as they do now. It matters not what you call the money, it's funds boaters pay to support the waterways.

 

It's real easy to criticize something, quite another task to find something to replace what you are criticizing. If you are saying the NAA should just be abolished because it is "unfair", but fail to offer any alternative source of funds, then, essentially, you are advocating the destruction of the waterways because they need that money, and even more, to survive. If you really want to do something to change the NAA, you will first need to find some way to replace those funds.

 

If you want to look at what is really unfair about the canals and taxes, it is that canals add a lot of value to the areas around them, and they contribute to increased economic activity and increased property values in the areas where they exist, but the canals don't get any of the taxes that are levied against the economic activity and property values that they contribute to. There should be some kind of "economic zone" established around all the rivers and canals and CRT and whoever else maintains those rivers and canals should get a percentage of all the taxes collected in those economic zones.

 

The canals and rivers benefit a lot of people, but somehow the attitude has developed that only boaters should pay for their upkeep, and that's not really fair.

[adam1uk]

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

1 But it applies equally to all marinas built under the current system. Before that, each marina had its own agreement, all of which were different. So the current system is move level than the old one.

2 It's the non mover's choice not to move -- but the option is there should they need or want it. Of course CCers are not subject to it -- the marina user is getting something that CCers are not, ie the ability to get off line, and back on again. If a CCer wants to spent a few days or a week in a marina, they will pay it in their fees.

3 Many fees are not related to actual sales, such as business rates. A business has to plan for such things.

4 The marina's whole business depends of access to the canal, so it's inaccurate to say it gets nothing for it. I imagine a marina without canal access would do very little business.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Costalot, I would much prefer to discuss things here without acrimony. Your latest posts, however, seemed to me to suggest that we did not share this objective.

 

If I am wrong, I am of course delighted to apologise.

 

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

 

[NigelMoore]

So, the 64,000 dollar question. Did BW have the power to impose a charge on access to the canals?

 

Not that easy to answer without qualifiers. As a general question as distinct from a Pillings-specific one, I could only answer “it depends”. I am presuming [to begin with] that you are referring to access in terms of a waterway connection, rather than a boat entry [which was originally covered by the differing toll requirements, currently covered by the boat licence requirements].

 

The original canal companies had powers to charge ‘connection fees’ in certain instances, but I am dubious whether that applies to BW and successor, because the powers would have been expressed as applying to identified adjoining waterways at the time of the relevant Acts. They would all have been exercised long since [and BW owning all the relevant canals anyway, would, if the power continued in force, be paying themselves for one of their canals to join another of their canals], and being so specific they could never be used by way of a precedent for any future connection.

 

As to whether they had power to impose a charge on the construction of mooring facilities alongside the canal, that would depend upon the relevant local enactment, most of which in fact specifically provided that powers to charge in respect of such facilities vested solely in the riparian owner/occupier.

 

HOWEVER – the canal companies were usually enabled to purchase their own offside premises, in order to offer the same facilities as the ordinary riparian owners, and were entitled to levy their own charges for those [with limitations back then, as to levels of charge and conditions, all of which were abolished under the 1962 Act s.43].

 

So then, in the Pillings case, where a facility was built on/through BW’s own property, BW would almost certainly have been entitled to charge for that - irrespective of the nomenclature employed. If, on the other hand, Pillings had cut through their own riparian property [as they could have done], then it could have been a different story.

 

That leaves the question of whether BW had been entitled to charge connection fees with respect to other marinas, on the basis only of contractual entitlement outwith the legislative empowerment. I’ll leave that for another post.

[John V]

I might be totally wrong but I understood that the canal company owned the first 12" of the riverbank on both sides of the waterway (I was investigating some land on the Stort at the time).

I had assumed this applied to all but from what I have been reading here, this is not correct..

[NigelMoore]

I might be totally wrong but I understood that the canal company owned the first 12" of the riverbank on both sides of the waterway (I was investigating some land on the Stort at the time).

I had assumed this applied to all but from what I have been reading here, this is not correct..

 

Correct - the assumption is incorrect.

[John V]

Ta !

The particular case was a nb kept in an un-navigable tributary stream, occasionally when there was a change of staff it used to get a "No licence" notification and we used to then refer them to the map department and point out that they had been trespassing when they had put the note on the boat.

[Jerra]

 

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

You surely aren't suggesting the CRT should try to break agreements that were made back in time. That would be dishonest and wrong. The marina has a choice I can make a profit or I can't. If they can't they don't go ahead. Its a bit like the choice a land based business makes can I make a profit on the high street. If they answer if no because the rates are too high they look at other possibilities, an industrial estate or the internet or not trading. If a marina can't live with the NAA they look at other waterways not controlled by CRT and they exist as you know.

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

Again it is a matter of choice. When you buy from a land based business you look at the price and what you get for your money. If you don't like it you buy from somewhere else. No body forces marina moorers to choose a marina on CRT waters they could go else where. Incidentally if they never go on a canal what the black blue blazes are they doing with a boat buy a caravan.

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

Ah just like business rates on land. You take on the fixed cost and if your business plan isn't good enough you have problems. Are you campaigning for a change in those as well. After all you will spend more on land in a year than you would/do on a mooring.

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

Of course the marina gets something. It gets the ability to trade. They knew what was required when they made their business plan, if they didn't like it they could have invested in something else or gone to other waters which weren't CRT. It isn't a tax it is a way of raising money for the canal system which the trade body has recently said its members "overwhelmingly support". Do you really want the canal system to grind to a halt for lack of money? Because over the coming years I suspect you will see many other schemes which you don't like being introduced. I suggest you either get used to it or think about moving away from CRT waters.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

CRT does not have a monopoly there are plenty of other waterways people can use. Incidentally how do you suggest the canals could be controlled by more than one organisation. One organisation control the left bank and one the right? You can't mean having say the Shroppie controlled by one organisation and the Trent and Mersey another, because that is in effect what we have now with the other organisations such as the EA which control waters.

 

Why hasn't the price fallen to near zero already as people rush away from CRT to the other waters? How would YOU suggest CRT raise the money they would lose? Perhaps a system of tolls charging by the mile, or many by the lock. Oh no can't charge by the lock that wouldn't be a level playing field e.g. Foxton versus the Lancaster.

 

May I respectfully suggest you need a good dose of realism.

[George94]

 

 

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

You surely aren't suggesting the CRT should try to break agreements that were made back in time. That would be dishonest and wrong. The marina has a choice I can make a profit or I can't. If they can't they don't go ahead. Its a bit like the choice a land based business makes can I make a profit on the high street. If they answer if no because the rates are too high they look at other possibilities, an industrial estate or the internet or not trading. If a marina can't live with the NAA they look at other waterways not controlled by CRT and they exist as you know.

 

No. I am suggesting they scrap the NAA and put up licence fees for all.

 

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

Again it is a matter of choice. When you buy from a land based business you look at the price and what you get for your money. If you don't like it you buy from somewhere else. No body forces marina moorers to choose a marina on CRT waters they could go else where. Incidentally if they never go on a canal what the black blue blazes are they doing with a boat buy a caravan.

 

Whether or not it's a matter of choice, the fact is that the person whose boat is always on the canal is paying less than someone whose boat is usually off it.

 

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

Ah just like business rates on land. You take on the fixed cost and if your business plan isn't good enough you have problems. Are you campaigning for a change in those as well. After all you will spend more on land in a year than you would/do on a mooring.

 

Yes, and like other fixed costs, they can bring a business down in lean times.

 

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

Of course the marina gets something. It gets the ability to trade. They knew what was required when they made their business plan, if they didn't like it they could have invested in something else or gone to other waters which weren't CRT. It isn't a tax it is a way of raising money for the canal system which the trade body has recently said its members "overwhelmingly support". Do you really want the canal system to grind to a halt for lack of money? Because over the coming years I suspect you will see many other schemes which you don't like being introduced. I suggest you either get used to it or think about moving away from CRT waters.

 

I want to see CART prosper and the waterways thrive. These aims will be furthered by rational methods of charging. The NAA charge ultimately falls on the marina-dweller who is already paying for a licence to be on the canal, as well as a hefty mooring fee to the marina. This distorts the market, and makes marinas more expensive than they need be, and CCing less expensive because the marina-dwellers are subsidising the CCers.

 

If CART is serious about encouraging off-line mooring, it should act to lower the cost of marina berths, and charge more for on-line mooring.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

CRT does not have a monopoly there are plenty of other waterways people can use. Incidentally how do you suggest the canals could be controlled by more than one organisation. One organisation control the left bank and one the right? You can't mean having say the Shroppie controlled by one organisation and the Trent and Mersey another, because that is in effect what we have now with the other organisations such as the EA which control waters.

 

Why hasn't the price fallen to near zero already as people rush away from CRT to the other waters? How would YOU suggest CRT raise the money they would lose? Perhaps a system of tolls charging by the mile, or many by the lock. Oh no can't charge by the lock that wouldn't be a level playing field e.g. Foxton versus the Lancaster.

 

Every waterway authority has a monopoly on its own waters. The fact that people haven't rushed away to other waterways shows that the monopoly is effective. All monopolies tend to be abused, which is why we have watchdogs (usually fairly toothless, unfortunately) to keep them in line.

 

May I respectfully suggest you need a good dose of realism.

 

May I respectfully suggest that you look at the arguments dispassionately and consider them on their merits. Like the other people who are arguing against me, you are swayed partly by antipathy towards Pillings (which I don't say isn't fully deserved), and partly by a laudable desire to see CART's revenues maximised. These two things are clouding your judgment, as they have clouded the judgments of a number of others.

 

[Chris Hills]

No. I am suggesting they scrap the NAA and put up licence fees for all.

 

Is that not like suggesting that the country scraps business rates and collects the shortfall by increasing Council Tax?

[Jerra]

 

 

 

1 It applies to some marinas, not others, which creates an unlevel playing field.

You surely aren't suggesting the CRT should try to break agreements that were made back in time. That would be dishonest and wrong. The marina has a choice I can make a profit or I can't. If they can't they don't go ahead. Its a bit like the choice a land based business makes can I make a profit on the high street. If they answer if no because the rates are too high they look at other possibilities, an industrial estate or the internet or not trading. If a marina can't live with the NAA they look at other waterways not controlled by CRT and they exist as you know.

 

No. I am suggesting they scrap the NAA and put up licence fees for all.

 

2 it falls on marina-dwellers even if they never venture onto the canal, whilst CCers are not subject to it.

Again it is a matter of choice. When you buy from a land based business you look at the price and what you get for your money. If you don't like it you buy from somewhere else. No body forces marina moorers to choose a marina on CRT waters they could go else where. Incidentally if they never go on a canal what the black blue blazes are they doing with a boat buy a caravan.

 

Whether or not it's a matter of choice, the fact is that the person whose boat is always on the canal is paying less than someone whose boat is usually off it.

 

3 It is not related to a marina's actual sales, so in bad times it creates an unreasonable burden.

Ah just like business rates on land. You take on the fixed cost and if your business plan isn't good enough you have problems. Are you campaigning for a change in those as well. After all you will spend more on land in a year than you would/do on a mooring.

 

Yes, and like other fixed costs, they can bring a business down in lean times.

 

4 The marina gets nothing for it. It's effectively a tax.

Of course the marina gets something. It gets the ability to trade. They knew what was required when they made their business plan, if they didn't like it they could have invested in something else or gone to other waters which weren't CRT. It isn't a tax it is a way of raising money for the canal system which the trade body has recently said its members "overwhelmingly support". Do you really want the canal system to grind to a halt for lack of money? Because over the coming years I suspect you will see many other schemes which you don't like being introduced. I suggest you either get used to it or think about moving away from CRT waters.

 

I want to see CART prosper and the waterways thrive. These aims will be furthered by rational methods of charging. The NAA charge ultimately falls on the marina-dweller who is already paying for a licence to be on the canal, as well as a hefty mooring fee to the marina. This distorts the market, and makes marinas more expensive than they need be, and CCing less expensive because the marina-dwellers are subsidising the CCers.

 

If CART is serious about encouraging off-line mooring, it should act to lower the cost of marina berths, and charge more for on-line mooring.

 

It only exists because CART have a monopoly. If there were competition for this, the price would fall to near zero because it costs CART nothing.

CRT does not have a monopoly there are plenty of other waterways people can use. Incidentally how do you suggest the canals could be controlled by more than one organisation. One organisation control the left bank and one the right? You can't mean having say the Shroppie controlled by one organisation and the Trent and Mersey another, because that is in effect what we have now with the other organisations such as the EA which control waters.

 

Why hasn't the price fallen to near zero already as people rush away from CRT to the other waters? How would YOU suggest CRT raise the money they would lose? Perhaps a system of tolls charging by the mile, or many by the lock. Oh no can't charge by the lock that wouldn't be a level playing field e.g. Foxton versus the Lancaster.

 

Every waterway authority has a monopoly on its own waters. The fact that people haven't rushed away to other waterways shows that the monopoly is effective. All monopolies tend to be abused, which is why we have watchdogs (usually fairly toothless, unfortunately) to keep them in line.

 

May I respectfully suggest you need a good dose of realism.

 

May I respectfully suggest that you look at the arguments dispassionately and consider them on their merits. Like the other people who are arguing against me, you are swayed partly by antipathy towards Pillings (which I don't say isn't fully deserved), and partly by a laudable desire to see CART's revenues maximised. These two things are clouding your judgment, as they have clouded the judgments of a number of others.

 

 

Answering this is going to be difficult to avoid yet another quote within a quote.

 

Let's start at the bottom and work up. I wasn't aware you were a mind reader! If you are you are a poor one. Pillings has nothing to do with the argument this just happens to be in that thread. The reason I started to discuss with you was the fact I read the trade organisation was "overwhelmingly supporting" the NAA. As they know more about running marinas than I ever will (and I suspect more than you) it seemed sensible to think about the NAA so I did, looking at things dispassionately -then I answered you.

 

I note with interest that despite your aversion to monopolies you make no suggestion as to how that monopoly can be broken. Why not?

 

The NAA is a rational method of charging, like many service industries it is a standing charge to use their facility line telephone line rental.

 

All businesses in all fields have different charges and fixed costs to expect otherwise is I feel naive. The customer has the choice buy or not. Going by the number of people who use marinas they seem happy with the way things are. Marina dwellers aren't subsidising CCers they are choosing a method of mooring. Are anglers subsidising boaters by the fees the clubs pay no they are merely helping to fund the canals. Different users pay different amounts. There is no proof that all boats declared as no home mooring use the canal more than those with. A CC can stay in a place 114 days move a couple of hours and stay for another 14 days and so on round the country. I know many people with a home mooring who will cruise more than that.

 

CRT can't lower off line berth prices they could take away a fixed cost but I am fairly sure businesses would say fine people were happy to pay what we charged lets just increase the profit. To give a non boating example we have 6 petrol stations in a very small town all charging the same price. The sixth was a supermarket station. Great said everybody we will get lower prices due to in dependant competition. Oh no they charge just the same price as all the others. They will have probably a fixed cost less than the others in the way of no lease.

 

Bringing businesses down in lean times is not the fault of the person who produced the fixed cost it is the problem of the business not having prepared for lean times, at least it was when we had businesses before we retired.

 

What proof have you that a boat "being off" the canal makes any less costs to CRT than a boat spending most of its time moored in the canal? However the charge is for the business to be allowed access to a facility belonging to somebody else CRT. What is wrong with that?

 

Why scrap the NAA and put even more money into the pockets of marina owners and make the cost of boating greater. Marina owners will charge (as all businesses do) what the market can take and the market has shown it will stand the current charges, so they are unlikely to change. As I have said before if a business doesn't like the NAA they have a choice invest in something else also remember the Trade Body is overwhelmingly in support.