bigcol Posted October 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Reading through the post The point is whatever is decided at the end, whether or not it was what boaters think is fair or not. they will have figures and plans for the network come what may who sees all these boaters consultations?. Who reads them or even looks at them. how many are sent in? In the end dosent mater, like any business they are looking at raising revenue. why is it getting rid of their workforce to pay private plc companies that require to make vast profits the best way to go for the trust. why is it all houses property land and plant is sold off, only for CRT to hire the same plant at growsly inflated prices. like the national health, sooner than later, doctors hospitals nurses will be run and owned privately. so many big companies have disappeared this way. CRT WILL DO WHAT CRT NEED OR WANT, which has to be raising revenue thats it in a nut shell rant over Edited October 24, 2017 by bigcol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steilsteven Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 At stage 1 the chairman of DBA The barge association asked if the object was to increase revenue, he was told that it is intended to be revenue neutral. He then asked, in that case if there is a change to charging by area would the owners of narrow boats be likely to see a reduction in fees? Answer, no. Make of that what you will but it seems to me that the answers are incompatible. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 Revenue neutral will be defined with careful playing with words. For example it looks like they want to reduce the prompt payment discount. If they reduce from 10% to 5% I would consider that as a 5% increase in what I must pay. CRT will no doubt argue that as the base price is unchanged it is revenue neutral, though the 'discount budget' will show a good benefit. As the existing system is simple and works fine, then I can only assume the motivation is one of the following - 1) Increase revenue 2) Discourage wide beam boats 3) Increase the cost to boats without a home mooring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 If the pre-payment discount is reduced to <negligible>, I will find myself incentivised* to delay buying a licence until the last possible minute. Probably about 12 months in arrears. * Is that actually a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty40s Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) The stupid thing is, CRT can't get it into their heads that even charging £2k a year for a widebeam isn't going to stop the flood of these floating flats onto the network. An extra 1k a year on a boat licence as opposed to a £1k a week rent in a lot of central London area is an easy decision to make. The fact that it is going to pi €€ off a lot of longterm boaters who own large and historic boats is irrelevant, they have had their management think tank meeting, have agreed the way forward and the consultation questions....it will work won't it???? Edited October 24, 2017 by matty40s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland al Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 10 hours ago, bigcol said: Reading through the post The point is whatever is decided at the end, whether or not it was what boaters think is fair or not. they will have figures and plans for the network come what may who sees all these boaters consultations?. Who reads them or even looks at them. how many are sent in? In the end dosent mater, like any business they are looking at raising revenue. why is it getting rid of their workforce to pay private plc companies that require to make vast profits the best way to go for the trust. why is it all houses property land and plant is sold off, only for CRT to hire the same plant at growsly inflated prices. like the national health, sooner than later, doctors hospitals nurses will be run and owned privately. so many big companies have disappeared this way. CRT WILL DO WHAT CRT NEED OR WANT, which has to be raising revenue thats it in a nut shell rant over That's much of the problem. People let off steam on an Internet forum but do nothing about it in reality. Some of us do get involved in reality, go to meetings and try to make a difference. By the way, the reality is that C&RT's empire is getting bigger every year, the system is becoming more in disrepair. What are you going to do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty40s Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, rowland al said: That's much of the problem. People let off steam on an Internet forum but do nothing about it in reality. Some of us do get involved in reality, go to meetings and try to make a difference. By the way, the reality is that C&RT's empire is getting bigger every year, the system is becoming more in disrepair. What are you going to do about it? I went to meetings , told a reality, got sneered at by an IWA chairperson who knew more than me, oh yes, Leicester still had a water point, even though CRT confirmed my assertion that it was removed 2 years earlier. I went to other meetings, said my piece, corrected others, made contacts( which remain useful) but see CRT as pretty much the same as BW without any .Gov accountability now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland al Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, matty40s said: I went to meetings , told a reality, got sneered at by an IWA chairperson who knew more than me, oh yes, Leicester still had a water point, even though CRT confirmed my assertion that it was removed 2 years earlier. I went to other meetings, said my piece, corrected others, made contacts( which remain useful) but see CRT as pretty much the same as BW without any .Gov accountability now. Yes. It's frustrating isn't it? However, it's still more constructive than whinging on here. The only way anyone has a chance of changing things for the better is to get into people's faces. Obviously in a nice way. Don't give up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WotEver Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said: * Is that actually a word? In America it is. Athy is best placed to inform as to whether or not it is in real English. Im not a fan of verbizing nouns or adjectives but the Yanks love doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtB Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 18 minutes ago, WotEver said: Im not a fan of verbizing nouns or adjectives but the Yanks love doing it. "Tasked with" is my pet hate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Bob Posted October 24, 2017 Report Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said: If the pre-payment discount is reduced to <negligible>, I will find myself incentivised* to delay buying a licence until the last possible minute. Probably about 12 months in arrears. * Is that actually a word? Probably get a good low score on Pointless. 26 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said: "Tasked with" is my pet hate! "Outwith" or is it "Out with" is my pet hate. A good (no bad) Scottish expression I had to live with while living in the frozen north for 20 years. ......sorry, forgot what this thread is about. 161 posts, it must be important Edited October 24, 2017 by Dr Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steilsteven Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 22 hours ago, Chewbacka said: Revenue neutral will be defined with careful playing with words. For example it looks like they want to reduce the prompt payment discount. If they reduce from 10% to 5% I would consider that as a 5% increase in what I must pay. CRT will no doubt argue that as the base price is unchanged it is revenue neutral, though the 'discount budget' will show a good benefit. As the existing system is simple and works fine, then I can only assume the motivation is one of the following - 1) Increase revenue 2) Discourage wide beam boats 3) Increase the cost to boats without a home mooring. 1) As I've already said is being denied. 2) Why on earth would CRT want to discourage wide beams? It doesn't matter a toss to them what size of boat you may have. 3) Can't legally be done as far as I can see, it would most likely breach the 1995 Act. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0atman Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 reply to post 162 1 seeing is believing 2 wide beams will pay more money so a win 3 not sure about this as being on a canal i pay double the River licence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steilsteven Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, b0atman said: reply to post 162 1 seeing is believing 2 wide beams will pay more money so a win 3 not sure about this as being on a canal i pay double the River licence 1) Cynicism is pointless. 2) If wide beams are to pay more, and it is to be revenue neutral, it would follow that smaller boats would pay less than they do now, that's not going to happen apparently. 3) What has that got to do with not having a mooring? Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 30 minutes ago, b0atman said: 3 not sure about this as being on a canal i pay double the River licence No you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said: No you don't. Not that far off though - only 10% out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 56 minutes ago, b0atman said: reply to post 162 3 not sure about this as being on a canal i pay double the River licence The fact that river-only users pay only 60% of the all-waterways licence is fixed in law, so that issue is not an argument for questioning the legality of differential charges for the same boat. However - responding to Steilsteven as to the legality of creating different classes of licence for charging purposes, that is a very messy area. The 1971 Act allowed for sub-classes of pleasure boat to be created; by implication of the 60% rule, that would have to apply to licences also. The twist is that sub-classes cannot be charged more than the standard fee if that implication is followed through. Not that CaRT could not get around that with a little creative verbal juggling. 17 hours ago, Dr Bob said: "Outwith" or is it "Out with" is my pet hate. A good (no bad) Scottish expression I had to live with while living in the frozen north for 20 years. It is also a much used term in legal-speak, so has fairly high credentials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: Not that far off though - only 10% out. Say the Canal & River licence is £1000. River Only 60% is £600 (the remaining) 40% is £400 I cannot see where how the difference is 10% Boatman suggested that he was paying twice the rate ie £1200 he would not be, he would be paying £1000. 67% increase - NOT 'double' Edited October 25, 2017 by Alan de Enfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NigelMoore Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said: Say the Canal & River licence is £1000. 60% is £600 40% is£400 I cannot see where how the difference is 10% Apologies for lack of clarity. If the PBC was 50% of the PBL, then he would be paying double for the PBL; the PBC is 60% of the PBL, so he is not paying double, he pays less than double. I was referring to the difference between 50% and 60%. He was not so far out, in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: Apologies for lack of clarity. If the PBC was 50% of the PBL, then he would be paying double for the PBL; the PBC is 60% of the PBL, so he is not paying double, he pays less than double. I was referring to the difference between 50% and 60%. He was not so far out, in other words. He is paying a 67% ’uplift’ which means he is actually paying 33% less than he stated (not 10%) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steilsteven Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: The fact that river-only users pay only 60% of the all-waterways licence is fixed in law, so that issue is not an argument for questioning the legality of differential charges for the same boat. However - responding to Steilsteven as to the legality of creating different classes of licence for charging purposes, that is a very messy area. The 1971 Act allowed for sub-classes of pleasure boat to be created; by implication of the 60% rule, that would have to apply to licences also. The twist is that sub-classes cannot be charged more than the standard fee if that implication is followed through. Not that CaRT could not get around that with a little creative verbal juggling. It is also a much used term in legal-speak, so has fairly high credentials. I wasn't disputing CRT's ability to create different classes of licence for charging as such, I was referring specifically to the 1995 Act which made provision for boats without a home mooring. If a boat is charged at a higher rate for not having a home mooring then IMHO it could be construed as using a '' back door'' approach to get around the law. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted October 25, 2017 Report Share Posted October 25, 2017 26 minutes ago, NigelMoore said: The fact that river-only users pay only 60% of the all-waterways licence is fixed in law, so that issue is not an argument for questioning the legality of differential charges for the same boat. However - responding to Steilsteven as to the legality of creating different classes of licence for charging purposes, that is a very messy area. The 1971 Act allowed for sub-classes of pleasure boat to be created; by implication of the 60% rule, that would have to apply to licences also. The twist is that sub-classes cannot be charged more than the standard fee if that implication is followed through. Not that CaRT could not get around that with a little creative verbal juggling. ‘Juggling’ Increase the standard licence fee by 100% All boats are now charged this higher ’standard rate’ Boats with ‘C&RT recognised & approved Home Mooring’ get a 50% discount So, what was (say) a £1000 licence, now becomes £2000 Boats without a Home Mooring pay £2000 Boats with a Home Mooring get 50% discount and pay £1000 River Only ‘licence’ is 60% and (as I imagine all/ most river only users have a mooring) will continue to pay £600. There may be the ‘odd’ River Only licence holder who CCs on the Rivers who would be hit with paying £1200 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave123 Posted November 27, 2017 Report Share Posted November 27, 2017 Finally got around to filling this out... I'm not sure I agree with the idea that cc'ers make more use of the system. Having recently switched from being holiday boaters with a home mooring - going for cruises of 2 or so weeks several times a year to being a liveaboard cc'er the mileage covered is much less as we are (thankfully) not charging around doing 9 hour days all week to get as much boating into our holiday! I do make more use of water and sanitary facilities etc but much less use of locks and the consequent wear and tear and water resources from reservoirs. I confess I don't know which of these costs more overall to CRT? I would guess that boats with a home mooring but in shared ownership tend to be out cruising a lot more than most 'types' of boat. And as has been mentioned there are non-liveaboars without a home mooring that will presumably make much less use of facilities. And what about washing machines in boats!! I think CRT should have just said 'look, we need more money, everyone has to pay a bit more in proportion but we will use (some of) the money to make these improvements (dredging, repairs etc) that have been highlighted as urgent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Arthur Marshall Posted November 27, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted November 27, 2017 The whole idea of who uses the system more is a bit daft. We all use it as much as we want to, or can. There's no point in feeling envious of those who potter round it more - it's the boat owner's choice what they do with their time. I go boating a few weeks in Spring and Autumn and a longer time in summer, but the thing's there whenever i want to go and sit in the peace and quiet and watch other people's boats go by. What we need is the system in working order whenever we want to use it, and that means all the time for all of us, liveaboards or leisure boaters. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steilsteven Posted November 29, 2017 Report Share Posted November 29, 2017 Use of sanitary facilities and water points varies from boat to boat. How many people are on board will make a huge amount of difference to this. Also the type of equipment such as toilet systems some of which use an enormous amount of water whereas a composting one uses none. Yes washing machines tend to use a lot of water but one person might use theirs daily where someone else will use theirs weekly or monthly. Rubbish disposal is available to everyone all year round so it makes no difference to cost if the bins are full upon collection or empty, the bin men have to turn up just the same. Therefore to charge more for cc'ing on this basis is a non starter. You could possibly introduce a coin operated water supply I suppose. That would certainly cut down on water wastage, which must cost CRT thousands over a year, I've quite often seen tanks overflowing for long periods and unnecessary multiple rinsing of sewage holding tanks. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now