Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Momac]

35 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

So what's the difference? What stops them fibbing about the length now?

(I've often wondered this.)

Nothing much.

But once the boat has its C&RT registration number it might be difficult to persuade the C&RT that it has changed.

[widebeamboy]

15 hours ago, MartynG said:

Nothing much.

But once the boat has its C&RT registration number it might be difficult to persuade the C&RT that it has changed.

not sure what you need to go through to put a new boat into the system, however not entirely impossible to "remove" a vessel from the waterway, rename it and launch as a new vessel with new dimensions......... :-)

[Momac]

5 hours ago, widebeamboy said:

not sure what you need to go through to put a new boat into the system, however not entirely impossible to "remove" a vessel from the waterway, rename it and launch as a new vessel with new dimensions......... :-)

I completed a paper license license application when I must have given boat dimensions. The dimensions are shown in my boat details on the C&RT site. But the dims cannot be edited (by me). In fact they have my draft wrong (by a metre). But I don't mind as long as the license fee isn't changed to being based on draft !!

Yes it would be possible to re-register under a new boat name and  input whatever dimensions you like .

I hope people don't think I am suggesting dishonesty. Just pointing out flaws in the system. 

 

[alan_fincher]

My latest on-line licence renewal would not even allow me to amend the power of the engine fitted.

On the modify screen it looked like it should be possible, but any attempt to remove or type over the current value was not possiible.

Whether that is their intent, or an error, I have no idea.

[Steilsteven]

On 04/03/2017 at 21:56, Wanderer Vagabond said:

That was nothing like anything I was saying except in your mind, but moving on.........

So if there is no material advantage in having a broad beam boat, could you tell me why you have one? Bit more space perhaps??

 

I will answer your question after you have answered mine.

Keith

[Wanderer Vagabond]

46 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

I will answer your question after you have answered mine.

Keith

You don't need to answer the question, the answer was already given with the question (in case you didn't notice)

[Steilsteven]

On 05/03/2017 at 09:22, alan_fincher said:

I'm far from convinced this is the case.

You overlook the fact that CRT regularly put forward some proposal or another, often employing third party consultants, and using large amounts of time and money for surveys and open meetings.

In several of these I have been involved in the proposal either gets completely ditched, or at least 80% to 90% ditched, with very little of the original intent left in the end result.

I actually think there is a great deal of support for the "by area" model of charging, (though I concede if I owned a wide-beam I might not support it!)

Do i actually think "by area" charging will be an unwatered down outcome of this review?  Probably not, based on past experiences.

Do I think it will actively discourage people from filling up canals with boats to which they are ill suited?  Almost certainly not.  If you can afford £80K to £150K of boat to make your home, you will almost certainly not be deterred by licence costs maybe 50% higher than for an equivalent length narrow boat.

Would I support it as a fairer system regardless?  Probably, though my mind is far from fixed on the subject, and I will follow any reasoned debate on the topic, before taking a firmer view.

Alan,

Is the object of the exercise to discourage people from buying wide beam boats?

Is the object to penalise those who actually have the nerve to buy wide beam boats?

Is the object of the exercise to make licenses cheaper for narrow boat owners ( over time that would be the true effect ) ?

Wide beam boats can only fit on wide beam waterways and can only access approximately 50% of them ( much less in my case through being made to feel unwelcome by narrow boat owners on the Grand Union )  but charging length x beam  would impose a 75% levy ( in the case of my barge at least ) resulting in having to pay almost twice as much as the same length narrow boat for a small cruising area.

Maybe you are correct in your assumption about someone not being deterred from paying 50% more for their licence if their boat costs £80-150K but 1. Why should they? 2. Some narrow boats cost that much but no one is saying they should pay more, why not? 3. Not all wide beams are in the price range you've suggested, my barge cost me considerably less than £80K I can assure you! 4. As I've said above it would be considerably more than a 50% increase.

This idea appears to be no more than narrow boat owners bashing wide beam owners for no other reason than they can.

Keith

 

[Steilsteven]

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

You don't need to answer the question, the answer was already given with the question (in case you didn't notice)

OK, so you are unable to answer my question, I rest my case.

Keith

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Just now, Steilsteven said:

OK, so you are unable to answer my question, I rest my case.

Keith

I already have but you clearly can't read

[Steilsteven]

20 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I already have but you clearly can't read

Please try to maintain some decorum .

You haven't answered my question, what you said bore no relevance whatsoever,  perhaps you could try reading it again.

Keith

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Please try to maintain some decorum .

You haven't answered my question, what you said bore no relevance whatsoever,  perhaps you could try reading it again.

Keith

OK for the hard of thinking I am assuming that your 'question' was,".... Please tell me what advantages, over and above the owner of the narrow boat,that I shall receive from Canal and Rivers Trust that represent value for money for the additional cost?....." to which my perfectly clear reply was ".... Bit more space perhaps??

Does that help????

[MtB]

On 07/03/2017 at 18:39, Steilsteven said:

Is the object of the exercise to discourage people from buying wide beam boats?

 

Although I'm not Alan, I'd say the object of the exercise is to make people with boats twice the size pay twice the licence fee.

What is wrong with that?

[Jerra]

28 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Although I'm not Alan, I'd say the object of the exercise is to make people with boats twice the size pay twice the licence fee.

What is wrong with that?

I suspect nothing unless you own one of the boats which is going to pay more.   It is IMO a bit like when they brought in variable "Road Tax" (yes I know that is probably not the name some people use) they designed it to target vehicles with higher emissions.  In this case CRT want to target boats according to area i.e. larger boats.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

46 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Although I'm not Alan, I'd say the object of the exercise is to make people with boats twice the size pay twice the licence fee.

What is wrong with that?

There seems to be a certain amount of 'aeration' here about nothing since this is just consultation so there has been no real attempt to address exactly what the object of the exercise actually is. What is needed is for one of the consultation groups to get a definitive answer from CRT to the question,"Is the object of the exercise to increase revenue?". If that is the case then at least we have some idea of the aims. If that is not the case then these ideas of charging larger boats more will be a zero sum equation meaning that smaller boats will be charged less so if we are going down the pathway of charging by area (and as far as I'm aware the principal source of this suggestion is this thread) it will mean that for all those who are going to be charged more there will be an equivalent number who will be charged less. Oddly enough I am quite content with what I am charged, it is what I have budgeted for so any reduction is just a free gift to me, there is no more justification for that than for charging larger boats more. The only slight crib I have is that for this year's license it has been increased in anticipation of an increase in inflation rather than as a result of it, but other than that I'd keep the current system.

[MtB]

On 07/03/2017 at 22:30, Wanderer Vagabond said:

What is needed is for one of the consultation groups to get a definitive answer from CRT to the question,"Is the object of the exercise to increase revenue?". 

 

I'm staggered you need to ask. 

Have a guess.

[Tuscan]

10 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

There seems to be a certain amount of 'aeration' here about nothing since this is just consultation so there has been no real attempt to address exactly what the object of the exercise actually is. What is needed is for one of the consultation groups to get a definitive answer from CRT to the question,"Is the object of the exercise to increase revenue?". If that is the case then at least we have some idea of the aims. If that is not the case then these ideas of charging larger boats more will be a zero sum equation meaning that smaller boats will be charged less so if we are going down the pathway of charging by area (and as far as I'm aware the principal source of this suggestion is this thread) it will mean that for all those who are going to be charged more there will be an equivalent number who will be charged less. Oddly enough I am quite content with what I am charged, it is what I have budgeted for so any reduction is just a free gift to me, there is no more justification for that than for charging larger boats more. The only slight crib I have is that for this year's license it has been increased in anticipation of

 What is needed is for one of the consultation groups to get a definitive answer from CRT to the question,"Is the object of the exercise to increase revenue?"

 

i asked exactly this question to Mike Grimes and the head of licensing. The aim is to review the basis of licensing on a revenue neutral basis. So I assume there will be winners or losers . Of course once whatever is put in place is settled I'm sure there will then be across the board % increases as normal.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'm staggered you need to ask. 

Have a guess.

I don't really want to play a guessing game, like I said what we need is a definitive answer from the question by one of the consultation groups "Is the object to increase revenue" with a follow up if you like, "The current income from boat licensing is £34.9 million, what is the target income?" Once the facts have been established then we can start on the arguments of who pays what

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, Tuscan said:

 What is needed is for one of the consultation groups to get a definitive answer from CRT to the question,"Is the object of the exercise to increase revenue?"

 

i asked exactly this question to Mike Grimes and the head of licensing. The aim is to review the basis of licensing on a revenue neutral basis. So I assume there will be winners or losers . Of course once whatever is put in place is settled I'm sure there will then be across the board % increases as normal.

Our posts seemed to have appeared at the same moment so didn't see yours until mine was posted. At least the question has been asked, what is needed is to incorporate the answer that you go into the consultation process, so that we know where we stand with the intention being revenue neutral. I'm unsurprised at % increases across the board as normal since nothing gets cheaper so I expect an annual increase of some sort.

[MtB]

On 07/03/2017 at 22:46, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I don't really want to play a guessing game,

 

Feck moi, you must be younger and more naive than i first thought.

Clue:

The answer is bound to be YES. Are you really thinking it might be 'no'??!!

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

 

not sure what the trust is permitted by law to change as regards licences, I know they are free to charge what they like, but the idea that they are going to change the whole statutory licencing system without first changing the statute is ridiculous. Under the present law if they created a widebeam licence it would have to be the same price as a narrow beam licence.

 

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

 if they created a widebeam licence it would have to be the same price as a narrow beam licence.

 

Surely it wouldn't be a wide beam licence it would just be a licence for a boat of X area just as currently there are licences for boats of differing lengths.  If it is legal to charge different fees for different lengths why should it be illegal to charge for different areas?

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Although I'm not Alan, I'd say the object of the exercise is to make people with boats twice the size pay twice the licence fee.

What is wrong with that?

Thats fine as long as they then discount widebeam licenses by 50% for where they cant go or more likely increase narrowboat licenses by 50% because they have that much a bigger cruising area! Their will be no winners here only losers Mike you should know that by now

[widebeamboy]

13 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Alan,

Is the object of the exercise to discourage people from buying wide beam boats?

Keith

 

I'd suggest the object of the exercise is to quite simply raise more revenue for adjusting some parameters without providing any additional services or benefits.  I would be absolutely amazed to see the licences remain the same for the largest boats and then to be discounted for smaller boats , quite simply that isn't going to happen.  Maybe there will be an M25 London congestion zone increase in the charge to try and stop all the craziness apparently going on down here.  

[alan_fincher]

14 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Wide beam boats can only fit on wide beam waterways

This rather depends on both your definition of "fit" and "wide beam waterways", though doesn't it?

The Grand Union north of Berkhamsted was not built with the intent it could accommodate barge size boats, it was built for narrow beam craft, despite the broad locks as far as Braunston.   The improvements from Braunston to Birmingham in the 1930s may have doubled lock sizes, but did very little to otherwise modify a channel designed for narrow boats.

Barge sized boats are, of course, fine on waterways designed for their use, but it is an undeniable fact that the explosion of wide beams on the GU is now having considerable impacts on the ability to enjoy that canal in the way one used to be able to.

Admittedly this situation is not aided by many wide beam owners who show little regard for people wanting to navigate, and who choose mooring places close to bridges or on narrow stretches where the offside is unusable because of vegetation.  It is of course unfair to tar all wide beam owners with the same brush, but of course if large numbers behave in unhelpful ways, it is probably going to do no favours to those who try to be more responsible.

All that said, although you have quoted my post, I have already said I am far from convinced that wide beams paying more would go a long way to solve the issues of the large numbers now on the GU.  I don't think pricing by area would suddenly change the situation where virtually every new boat being craned in is a wide beam, and the marina staff are saying they haven't put a new narrow boat in the water for very many months.

Finally, although people are using emotive language like "twice the size" or "paying double" it is not quite like that is it?  Few are more than 12 feet wide, and probably far more only say 10' 6", or so.  Charged by area, my 72' x 7' boat would still cost nearly as much as a 50' x 10.6" wide beam.  That doesn't sound like outright discrimination against the wide beam to me, particularly given that I can share locks and they can't.

[Phoenix_V]

8 hours ago, peterboat said:

Thats fine as long as they then discount widebeam licenses by 50% for where they cant go or more likely increase narrowboat licenses by 50% because they have that much a bigger cruising area! Their will be no winners here only losers Mike you should know that by now

Problem is there are more leisure narrowboat owners than any other category and it appears their representatives are going flat out to persuade the crt to adopt  area charging purely to reduce the cost of their member's licences. When they have got that I expect they will go for people who use the system more i.e. continuos cruisers. Then those who moor in hotspot areas like London. Then canal and river licence fees.

Technically it is known as divide and rule.

Initially the new systems may be revenue neutral but do you trust them to keep to that.

The current system is not broke it does not need fixing.

First they came for the came for the ccers and I did not speak out because I was not a ccer

Then they came for those who moor in London and I did not speak out because I live outside London

Then they came for the wide beam boats and I did not speak out because I was a not a wide beamer

Then they came for the river only people and I did not speak out because I was  a canal person

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me

with apologies to Niemoller

 

The