Cost offsets between wide and narrow

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

I can't answer that but it won't be an additional band it will be charging all boats by area rather than length I expect.

Keith 

But within various Acts there are 'bands' / other categories allowed such as :

Business use

Leisure use

Powered

UnPowered

Also 'discounts' are allowed such as ;

Powered 

Unpowered

Veteran

Electric powered

Prompt payment

etc

 

It should be easy to set the licence fee at a higher level than current ( the fees are already far in excess of those listed in the 1971 Act)

Set the Licence fee at (say) £2000 and offer a 50% reduction for boats with a beam of less than 7' 2" (other numbers could be used)

 

[Steilsteven]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But within various Acts there are 'bands' / other categories allowed such as :

Business use

Leisure use

Powered

UnPowered

Also 'discounts' are allowed such as ;

Powered 

Unpowered

Veteran

Electric powered

Prompt payment

etc

 

It should be easy to set the licence fee at a higher level than current ( the fees are already far in excess of those listed in the 1971 Act)

Set the Licence fee at (say) £2000 and offer a 50% reduction for boats with a beam of less than 7' 2" (other numbers could be used)

 

Except the ones that don't open both lock gates when entering/leaving causing premature wear.

Keith

[NigelMoore]

38 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 . . . the 1971 BW act would have to be changed . . .

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

[Steilsteven]

5 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

The object of the consultation as stated was to find a simpler and fairer system of licensing. If people's suspicions are correct they will fail badly at least with the first part.

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

The 1971 Act has already been ‘changed’ twice: first in 1974 and then in 1983. The charging schedules of the 1971 Act, which specified charges for categories according to length, were eventually abolished, so that charges for a PBC are now merely pegged at 60% of whatever fees [according to whatever category] CaRT choose to charge for a PBL for the same vessel.

Hence my asking the question - I am of the same mind.

 

1 hour ago, Steilsteven said:

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

As a 'simple boater' that is also my understanding of the situation.

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Alan de Enfield]

Just playing about with numbers - much 'pencil sharpening' and thought to be given to the various percentage discounts - but to give an example for discussion purposes :

Standard Pleasure Boat Licence Fee to become £5000.

Cost to be discounted by considering, boat width, boat length, and mileage undertaken.

The proposal also takes into account the reduction in available moorings when used by 'longer boats'. eg 150 feet of mooring can be used by 3x boats up to 50 feet but only two boats in excess of 65 feet. 'pay by space taken'.

( A further discount consideration to be given to boats with a declared home mooring, - maybe boats with a declared home mooring are credited at £2 per mile travelled ? - but the proposal will ensure there is a great reduction in CMers and pretend CCers.)

Discounts as follows :

Beam

50% reduction for boats up to 7' 2""

33% reduction for boats above 7' 2" and below 9' 0"

25% reduction for boats above 9' 0" and below 12' 0"

0% reduction for boats above 12' 0"

 

Once the Base rate by beam adjustment has been applied, the Length adjustments comes into effect :

Length

50% reduction up to 30' 0"

40% reduction above 30' 0" and below 40' 0"

30% reduction above 40' 0" and below 50' 0"

20% reduction above 50' 0" and below 70' 0"

0% reduction above 70' 0"

 

Once the Length discounts have been applied the remaining sum becomes the amount payable for the licence.

All boats will be fitted with a tracker that will record / transmit a record of the boats movements during the year (maybe on a monthly basis ?) and at the end of the licence period a refund (in the case of leaving the waterways) or a contribution of £1 per mile travelled will be awarded towards the next licence.

 

Examples :

57 Narrowboat travelling 1000 miles per annum

Base Licence fee £5000

50% discount for being under 7'2" beam = £2500, balance payable = £2500

20% discount for length of 57' = a further £500

Balance £2000 (£2500 - £500)

£1 per mile annual rebate = 1000 x £1 = £1000

Annual licence fee payable = £1000 which compares with existing (2017/18) of £957

Examples :

A 40' long x 10' widebeam travelling 200 miles per annum

Base Licence fee £5000

25% discount for being 9' to 11' 11" beam = £1250, balance payable = £3750

40% discount for length of 40' = a further 30% = £1125,

Balance £2625 (£3750 - £1125)

£1 per mile annual rebate = 200 x £1 = £200

Annual licence fee payable = £2425 which compares with existing (2017/18) of £774

 

And for anyone unsure of which side of the fence I am on - my boat has a 14 foot beam.

Edited January 6, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Except the ones that don't open both lock gates when entering/leaving causing premature wear.

Keith

Only if they rub them and I would also like to know who has a 3' 6" boat that has been wearing all the gates on the south Oxford

[Dr Bob]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just playing about with numbers - much 'pencil sharpening' and thought to be given to the various percentage discounts - but to give an example for discussion purposes :

Standard Pleasure Boat Licence Fee to become £5000.

..........snip..........
Examples :

57 Narrowboat travelling 1000 miles per annum

....snip....

Annual licence fee payable = £1000 which compares with existing (2017/18) of £957

 

I'll sign up to that Alan.

[Steilsteven]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just playing about with numbers - much 'pencil sharpening' and thought to be given to the various percentage discounts - but to give an example for discussion purposes :

Standard Pleasure Boat Licence Fee to become £5000.

Cost to be discounted by considering, boat width, boat length, and mileage undertaken.

The proposal also takes into account the reduction in available moorings when used by 'longer boats'. eg 150 feet of mooring can be used by 3x boats up to 50 feet but only two boats in excess of 65 feet. 'pay by space taken'.

( A further discount consideration to be given to boats with a declared home mooring, - maybe boats with a declared home mooring are credited at £2 per mile travelled ? - but the proposal will ensure there is a great reduction in CMers and pretend CCers.)

Discounts as follows :

Beam

50% reduction for boats up to 7' 2""

33% reduction for boats above 7' 2" and below 9' 0"

25% reduction for boats above 9' 0" and below 12' 0"

0% reduction for boats above 12' 0"

 

Once the Base rate by beam adjustment has been applied, the Length adjustments comes into effect :

Length

50% reduction up to 30' 0"

40% reduction above 30' 0" and below 40' 0"

30% reduction above 40' 0" and below 50' 0"

20% reduction above 50' 0" and below 70' 0"

0% reduction above 70' 0"

 

Once the Length discounts have been applied the remaining sum becomes the amount payable for the licence.

All boats will be fitted with a tracker that will record / transmit a record of the boats movements during the year (maybe on a monthly basis ?) and at the end of the licence period a refund (in the case of leaving the waterways) or a contribution of £1 per mile travelled will be awarded towards the next licence.

 

Examples :

57 Narrowboat travelling 1000 miles per annum

Base Licence fee £5000

50% discount for being under 7'2" beam = £2500, balance payable = £2500

20% discount for length of 57' = a further £500

Balance £2000 (£2500 - £500)

£1 per mile annual rebate = 1000 x £1 = £1000

Annual licence fee payable = £1000 which compares with existing (2017/18) of £957

Examples :

A 40' long x 10' widebeam travelling 200 miles per annum

Base Licence fee £5000

25% discount for being 9' to 11' 11" beam = £1250, balance payable = £3750

40% discount for length of 40' = a further 30% = £1125,

Balance £2625 (£3750 - £1125)

£1 per mile annual rebate = 200 x £1 = £200

Annual licence fee payable = £2425 which compares with existing (2017/18) of £774

 

And for anyone unsure of which side of the fence I am on - my boat has a 14 foot beam.

Nothing good on telly then?

20% of 5000 is 1000 btw.

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Only if they rub them and I would also like to know who has a 3' 6" boat that has been wearing all the gates on the south Oxford

If one does it then ( for licensing purposes ) it has to be assumed that everyone does it.

Keith

Edited January 6, 2018 by Steilsteven

[Steilsteven]

Hmm I would have to do 1440 miles to get near to the current cost of a Gold licence and you haven't said that it includes that. So how many round trips from Brentford to Brum will I have to complete? How much diesel at 3 litres per hour will that consume and how will it affect my carbon footprint?

Keith 

[Alan de Enfield]

49 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Nothing good on telly then?

20% of 5000 is 1000 btw.

Didn't bother to read it properly then ?

Each discount is taken from the remaining amount.

£5000 less 50% leaves £2500.

20% of £2500 = £500

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Didn't bother to read it properly then ?

Each discount is taken from the remaining amount.

£5000 less 50% leaves £2500.

20% of £2500 = £500

Ah yes, I beg your pardon.

Even more trips to Brum for me then.

About 11 grand in fuel a year and a new engine every two. Yes makes total sense!

Keith

Edited January 6, 2018 by Steilsteven

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Steilsteven said:

Ah yes, I beg your pardon.

Even more trips to Brum for me then.

About 11 grand in fuel a year and a new engine every two. Yes makes total sense!

Keith

 

Whopping big boat turns out to be more expensive to run than small boat. 

Shock horror...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Steilsteven said:

About 11 grand in fuel a year and a new engine every two. Yes makes total sense!

If you are looking at the 1000 miles per annum :-

What engine(s) do you have that cost £11 per mile in fuel ? ( I have twin 6 litre, 6 cylinder engines and at 5 knots they only use (combined) 10 litres per hour - say £2 per mile)

What engine(s) do you have that need replacing every 2000 miles ?

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Whopping big boat turns out to be more expensive to run than small boat. 

Shock horror...

Isn't that the whole principle behind this licencing review ( bigger pays more) ?

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Isn't that the whole principle behind this licencing review ( bigger pays more) ?

 

Well hopefully yes. 

But Keith, owner of a whopping big boat, holds that all boats should pay the same licence regardless of size. I can't possibly begin to imagine why...!

[peterboat]

I thought it was supposed to be revenue neutral and simpler? none of the above is, in fact it couldnt get much simpler than the current system could it really? Also Alan you have missed the two thirds discount that wide beams would get for only being able to use one third of the system without ecpensive lifts out

[MtB]

33 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I thought it was supposed to be revenue neutral and simpler? none of the above is, in fact it couldnt get much simpler than the current system could it really? Also Alan you have missed the two thirds discount that wide beams would get for only being able to use one third of the system without ecpensive lifts out

 

Translation:

I'm rich enough for a really BIG boat, too big for the system, so I should get a cheaper license!

Edited January 7, 2018 by Mike the Boilerman

[peterboat]

40 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Translation:

I'm rich enough for a really BIG boat, too big for the system, so I should get a cheaper license!

Or the system where I am is a proper size for proper boats and I an happy for my license fee to be spent here and not wasted on toy canals for toy boats

[Steilsteven]

On 06/01/2018 at 22:08, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Whopping big boat turns out to be more expensive to run than small boat. 

Shock horror...

Good at missing the point eh Mike.

On 06/01/2018 at 22:14, Alan de Enfield said:

If you are looking at the 1000 miles per annum :-

What engine(s) do you have that cost £11 per mile in fuel ? ( I have twin 6 litre, 6 cylinder engines and at 5 knots they only use (combined) 10 litres per hour - say £2 per mile)

What engine(s) do you have that need replacing every 2000 miles ?

Isn't that the whole principle behind this licencing review ( bigger pays more) ?

What 1000 miles per annum? You  suggested that figure in your example, you didn't say it was a fixed amount.

No it was a gross exaggeration of course but nonetheless your scheme would, for me at least, remove any incentive for me to move at all.I might as well pay £3000 a year and stay still rather then flog up and down a canal to get a discount that is less than the cost per mile. 

The stated object of the consultation was to find a fairer and SIMPLER way of charging for licences. It wasn't about penalising anyone or about making people do more mileage.

The cost of the licence has to be based on the boat not moving anywhere because that is the only possible common denominator. No two boats have the same cruising pattern ( apart from motors and butties perhaps ), not all boats use visitor moorings ( I rarely do ) and not all boats cruise during busy periods.

The license fee is to produce income for CRT at minimal cost.Ideally this would mean it being administered by one person, all boats being one size and not ever going anywhere.

So you are expected to make a contribution towards this income just because you want to sit your boat in water that is owned by CRT.

We are only talking about one boat here, your boat, my boat or one of MoB's fleet it makes no difference but how much should be charged?

Keith 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

The stated object of the consultation was to find a fairer and SIMPLER way of charging for licences.

Indeed - that has been said.

However, having completed the questionnaire, I am of the opinion that C&RT are looking for ways to increase their income ( and not, as has been stated, for it to be 'income neutral'), I am also of the opinion (based on the number of questions regarding 'fat-boats' and 'period of notice / graduated introduction of price increases') that they intend to penalise (make fatties 'pay their way') with higher increases that Nb's

12 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

We are only talking about one boat here, your boat, my boat or one of MoB's fleet it makes no difference but how much should be charged?

£5000 per annum less discounts.

[mrsmelly]

" A fairer and simpler way " is pure bunkum PC waffle. Prices will go up for if not everybody for more people than not to ensure more revenue. I am paid up till feb 2019 but expect to pay more again then. I am in next to highest bracket at moment and even though its narrow beam it aint gonna drop.

Edited January 8, 2018 by mrsmelly
numpty

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Indeed - that has been said.

However, having completed the questionnaire, I am of the opinion that C&RT are looking for ways to increase their income ( and not, as has been stated, for it to be 'income neutral'), I am also of the opinion (based on the number of questions regarding 'fat-boats' and 'period of notice / graduated introduction of price increases') that they intend to penalise (make fatties 'pay their way') with higher increases that Nb's

£5000 per annum less discounts.

But why?

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

" A fairer and simpler way " is pure bunkum PC waffle. Prices will go up for if not everybody for more people than not to ensure more revenue. I am paid up till feb 2019 but expect to pay more again then. I am in next to highest bracket at moment and even though its narrow beam it aint gonna drop.

If that was the object they only need to raise fees, no need for changing anything.

All the things that Alan mentions above were as a result of stage 1 of the consultation where boating ( and non boating ) organisations were asked for their ideas.

Whatever our cynical opinions may be is irrelevant and usually wrong in life in my experience.

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Whatever our cynical opinions may be is irrelevant and usually wrong in life in my experience.

I think we will just have to disagree and wait & see.

When it comes to C&RT, cynical opinions tend to turn out to be correct.

[Steilsteven]

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think we will just have to disagree and wait & see.

When it comes to C&RT, cynical opinions tend to turn out to be correct.

Indeed that is all we are doing, it's too late to influence the outcome anyway. This is merely conversation and nothing to get upset about.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even you Alan.