Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 14:21:25 GMT
Would probably have to be based on existing data i would have thought. Getting all boats measured to include fenders etc would be too complex. A marina can do this with individual boats to maximise their income but I can't really see how crt could do it.
Eta
Unless they introduced a requirement for every boat to be measured by a surveyor, which would be possible I suppose but fairly awkward and unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 22, 2017 14:35:05 GMT
What is to prevent them making the top level of standard PBL a certain figure based on a maximum length X breadth [maybe draught as well], then diminishing charges in a sliding scale for categories that embrace smaller vessels, according to whatever formula both provides extra income overall and satisfies a majority of smaller boat owners? All perfectly legal; you would just have a cheaper narrow beam licence category. If the top level of PBL or PBC does emerge as a charge directly proportional to the waterplane area, or the displacement [if draught is included in the reckoning] of the largest vessel that can, or could, use any of C&RT's navigations, then they will be obliged to ensure that the waterways are maintained to a standard which permits passage of those maximum size vessels. In effect, they will be going a long way towards reimposing upon themselves the pre-1968 maintenance standards that C&RT wriggled out from under, courtesy of the Transfer of Powers legislation that brought it into the world. Making the cost of a PBL dependent on waterplane area, or 'waterspace' as C&RT call it, and therefore a charge specifically for occupying a defined 'waterspace' would also make quite a mess of the specious argument used in attempting to justify the EoG Mooring charge. I doubt that the first of your points would follow, Tony. The licence permits ANY of the things listed in the byelaw, it does not mandate that ALL of those things need be done by the boat, or be possible for the boat anywhere let alone everywhere. As an example – supposing for the sake of it that licences were required for the tidal Brent - the licence granted to the Luxemotor “Courage” would not entail any responsibility for CaRT to demolish and rebuild the existing historic bridges in order to allow it access to the Gauging Locks a few hundred metres further upstream – which it could never get through anyway. All that boat can ever do by way of enjoying any benefit of a licence is to be “kept” at her mooring. But if the licence scheme applied, it would still be necessary to maintain a licence to “keep” the boat on the water despite being unable to “use” it more than to get access – and that would not place any responsibility on CaRT to maintain the waterway in a state fit for such a boat to navigate. There is nothing to prevent boats larger and deeper than the 1968 standards cater for, from attempting passages along any length of waterway, but the strict liability of CaRT cannot be made greater than the relevant dimensions of the main navigable channel; the dimensions of those being calculated on the sizes of vessel that used any stretch in the 9 months to December 1967. The argument against CaRT being able to bypass statute with unilateral policies cuts both ways; nothing they do, whether legally or illegally, could ever make a difference to the statutory obligations, whether that works for them or against them. Your second point, on the other hand, is more interesting – not that the current situation affects anything, but such a new pricing policy would most certainly, as you say, emphasise the point about the licence embracing the right to keep boats on the waterways, whatever waterspace they occupy.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Feb 22, 2017 14:35:24 GMT
Have you noticed how boats seem to stretch a little when their owners are in the pub ........ but shrink a bit when in the marina's office
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2017 14:52:09 GMT
I would have though including vessel draught would be rather daft but I can definitely see that charging by surface area makes sense. Interested to see that nigelmoore believes regional licensing is a non-starter. I for one certainly hope it is not an option ! Leaving any other considerations aside, any regional licensing scheme would be defeating at least one of the implied objectives in Monday's press release, ie. eliminating complexity, although if the top level waterplane area charges for were made directly proportional to the length and beam of vessels of the maximum size for C&RT's bigger navigations [Aire & Calder, Sheffield & South Yorkshire to Rotheram, and the Gloucester & Sharpness] then that in effect would be a sort of regional scheme in itself. There is, of course, another way for C&RT to make more of the income from PBL's and PBC's available for them to to spend on maintenance, . . . sack the superfluous and, to all intents and purposes, redundant 'in house' legal team, or cease handing over something in the order of about half a million pounds to Shoosmiths every year for doing work the 'in house' lawyers can and should be doing, put more effort into reducing Licence evasion below the 4%(+) that it's been stuck on ever since C&RT took over from BW, and sack all the pointless 'Heads of ' and 'Managers' who don't have any real function or meaningful and useful work to do. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I would guess that a cull along the lines described above would yield up a good few millions every year which could be spent on improving maintenance standards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 15:01:33 GMT
You forgot get rid of twat garner. he will save cart money lol not sure how many boats he's robbed and how many cases he's brought to court. through his lies and not doing a professional job
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2017 15:25:26 GMT
If the top level of PBL or PBC does emerge as a charge directly proportional to the waterplane area, or the displacement [if draught is included in the reckoning] of the largest vessel that can, or could, use any of C&RT's navigations, then they will be obliged to ensure that the waterways are maintained to a standard which permits passage of those maximum size vessels. In effect, they will be going a long way towards reimposing upon themselves the pre-1968 maintenance standards that C&RT wriggled out from under, courtesy of the Transfer of Powers legislation that brought it into the world. Making the cost of a PBL dependent on waterplane area, or 'waterspace' as C&RT call it, and therefore a charge specifically for occupying a defined 'waterspace' would also make quite a mess of the specious argument used in attempting to justify the EoG Mooring charge. I doubt that the first of your points would follow, Tony. The licence permits ANY of the things listed in the byelaw, it does not mandate that ALL of those things need be done by the boat, or be possible for the boat anywhere let alone everywhere. As an example – supposing for the sake of it that licences were required for the tidal Brent - the licence granted to the Luxemotor “Courage” would not entail any responsibility for CaRT to demolish and rebuild the existing historic bridges in order to allow it access to the Gauging Locks a few hundred metres further upstream – which it could never get through anyway. All that boat can ever do by way of enjoying any benefit of a licence is to be “kept” at her mooring. But if the licence scheme applied, it would still be necessary to maintain a licence to “keep” the boat on the water despite being unable to “use” it more than to get access – and that would not place any responsibility on CaRT to maintain the waterway in a state fit for such a boat to navigate. There is nothing to prevent boats larger and deeper than the 1968 standards cater for, from attempting passages along any length of waterway, but the strict liability of CaRT cannot be made greater than the relevant dimensions of the main navigable channel; the dimensions of those being calculated on the sizes of vessel that used any stretch in the 9 months to December 1967. It's maintenance to standards that permit navigation by vessels of the maximum size that the relevant dimensions of locks and bridgeholes dictate, rather than just the MNC dimensions, that I'm thinking of, Nigel. The current neglect of offside tree-cutting and rubbish filled lock chambers with fouled gates that won't open fully back into the recesses, makes passage by boats of a size the locks and bridgeholes can accommodate at the very least difficult, and sometimes impossible on most if not all of C&RT's broad canals. There are also, of course, the difficulties that would arise with two maximum size vessels passing where the MNC is less than the specified width.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 22, 2017 15:35:00 GMT
I doubt that the first of your points would follow, Tony. The licence permits ANY of the things listed in the byelaw, it does not mandate that ALL of those things need be done by the boat, or be possible for the boat anywhere let alone everywhere. As an example – supposing for the sake of it that licences were required for the tidal Brent - the licence granted to the Luxemotor “Courage” would not entail any responsibility for CaRT to demolish and rebuild the existing historic bridges in order to allow it access to the Gauging Locks a few hundred metres further upstream – which it could never get through anyway. All that boat can ever do by way of enjoying any benefit of a licence is to be “kept” at her mooring. But if the licence scheme applied, it would still be necessary to maintain a licence to “keep” the boat on the water despite being unable to “use” it more than to get access – and that would not place any responsibility on CaRT to maintain the waterway in a state fit for such a boat to navigate. There is nothing to prevent boats larger and deeper than the 1968 standards cater for, from attempting passages along any length of waterway, but the strict liability of CaRT cannot be made greater than the relevant dimensions of the main navigable channel; the dimensions of those being calculated on the sizes of vessel that used any stretch in the 9 months to December 1967. It's maintenance to standards that permit navigation by vessels of the maximum size that the relevant dimensions of locks and bridgeholes dictate, rather than just the MNC dimensions, that I'm thinking of, Nigel. The current neglect of offside tree-cutting and rubbish filled lock chambers with fouled gates that won't open fully back into the recesses, makes passage by boats of a size the locks and bridgeholes can accommodate at the very least difficult, and sometimes impossible on most if not all of C&RT's broad canals. There are also, of course, the difficulties that would arise with two maximum size vessels passing where the MNC is less than the specified width. the lack of kebbing out behind lock gates, directly effects my cruising on the L&L. On average when I approach a lock I have to spend 30-40 mins clearing the rubbish from behind the gates. This isn't the fault of the bank staff. they are spread so thin, they don't have time to do this most basic of maintenance tasks. In fact they don't carry full length kebs anymore, just half length ones for clearing by washes not behind gates. They now want to charge me extra for doing their job for them.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2017 15:35:44 GMT
You forgot get rid of twat garner. he will save cart money lol not sure how many boats he's robbed and how many cases he's brought to court. through his lies and not doing a professional job That's a good point, Andy, . . . it would be very interesting indeed to tot up the total cost of Court cases, including how much Shoosmiths have made out of them, for every S.8 that's arisen as a direct result of Garner's actions. I'm sure any sort of league table of 'costly to employ EO's' would have him very near the top of it !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 15:57:45 GMT
That's three cases I know of. me .. Tony dunkley. Leighs all was garners work
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 22, 2017 16:21:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Feb 22, 2017 16:24:07 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 16:38:33 GMT
I wonder if cart/mr parry and garner will be apologising to Leigh after his court case.(saying sorry not good enough).only time will tell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 17:29:35 GMT
I would have though including vessel draught would be rather daft but I can definitely see that charging by surface area makes sense. Interested to see that nigelmoore believes regional licensing is a non-starter. I for one certainly hope it is not an option ! Leaving any other considerations aside, any regional licensing scheme would be defeating at least one of the implied objectives in Monday's press release, ie. eliminating complexity, although if the top level waterplane area charges for were made directly proportional to the length and beam of vessels of the maximum size for C&RT's bigger navigations [Aire & Calder, Sheffield & South Yorkshire to Rotheram, and the Gloucester & Sharpness] then that in effect would be a sort of regional scheme in itself. There is, of course, another way for C&RT to make more of the income from PBL's and PBC's available for them to to spend on maintenance, . . . sack the superfluous and, to all intents and purposes, redundant 'in house' legal team, or cease handing over something in the order of about half a million pounds to Shoosmiths every year for doing work the 'in house' lawyers can and should be doing, put more effort into reducing Licence evasion below the 4%(+) that it's been stuck on ever since C&RT took over from BW, and sack all the pointless 'Heads of ' and 'Managers' who don't have any real function or meaningful and useful work to do. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I would guess that a cull along the lines described above would yield up a good few millions every year which could be spent on improving maintenance standards. I'm intrigued by the 4% license evasion. Seems so much easier to not have a bss, no insurance and not pay for a license. I wonder how many of the unlicensed are old wrecks with disorganised owners and how many are people playing perfectly able to organise and pay for it but choosing to play a particular strategy. I don't really understand why the rate can not be reduced. Last I heard it was 6% in London region.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2017 18:10:02 GMT
Or, on the other hand, a sure fire way to piss residents off is to pitch up and spark your Genny into life. They must have a shit electrical system if they need a Genny immediately after cruising. I've seen several dickheads running their gennys on Ely riverside - just the face of boating the general public need to see! We only use ours out in the sticks and away from others.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Feb 22, 2017 18:25:15 GMT
Leaving any other considerations aside, any regional licensing scheme would be defeating at least one of the implied objectives in Monday's press release, ie. eliminating complexity, although if the top level waterplane area charges for were made directly proportional to the length and beam of vessels of the maximum size for C&RT's bigger navigations [Aire & Calder, Sheffield & South Yorkshire to Rotheram, and the Gloucester & Sharpness] then that in effect would be a sort of regional scheme in itself. There is, of course, another way for C&RT to make more of the income from PBL's and PBC's available for them to to spend on maintenance, . . . sack the superfluous and, to all intents and purposes, redundant 'in house' legal team, or cease handing over something in the order of about half a million pounds to Shoosmiths every year for doing work the 'in house' lawyers can and should be doing, put more effort into reducing Licence evasion below the 4%(+) that it's been stuck on ever since C&RT took over from BW, and sack all the pointless 'Heads of ' and 'Managers' who don't have any real function or meaningful and useful work to do. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I would guess that a cull along the lines described above would yield up a good few millions every year which could be spent on improving maintenance standards. I'm intrigued by the 4% license evasion. Seems so much easier to not have a bss, no insurance and not pay for a license. I wonder how many of the unlicensed are old wrecks with disorganised owners and how many are people playing perfectly able to organise and pay for it but choosing to play a particular strategy. I don't really understand why the rate can not be reduced. Last I heard it was 6% in London region. Based on C&RT's figures for the total number of boats on their waterways in 2014, their admitted figure of just over 4% Licence evasion equated to approximately one unlicensed boat for every nautical mile of waterway. Given that the total boat population isn't moored evenly distributed along the whole 2000 miles or so of C&RT's waters, but concentrated in largish groups in relatively small areas and therefore not particularly difficult to find and check, that 4% figure is something they should be ashamed of rather than be bragging about in the Licensing and Enforcement pages of their nauseating website. I don't know how much extra income they anticipate from this forthcoming review and restructuring of boat Licensing, but I doubt it will come anywhere near to the sum that could be collected from this, apparently, consistently elusive 4% by concentrating on locating and prosecuting them instead of putting so much time and effort into the pointless micro-managing of the movements of licensed boats, be they CC'ers or HM'ers using their boats away from their own home mooring.
|
|