|
Post by dogless on Nov 1, 2023 15:20:13 GMT
But you NEED a licence.
You don't NEED a mooring.
Do you see the difference ?
Anyway it appears C&RT are happy to set boater against boater, so we have to accept their unfair increases.
I still maintain a large increase on licence fees for EVERY boat owner would have been the fairest way.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 1, 2023 15:32:17 GMT
But you NEED a licence. You don't NEED a mooring. Do you see the difference ? Anyway it appears C&RT are happy to set boater against boater, so we have to accept their unfair increases. I still maintain a large increase on licence fees for EVERY boat owner would have been the fairest way. Rog The vast majority of boaters need a mooring, there would-be no room on the cut if they didn't have one. Now,that would make the grumblers happy, lots to grumble about.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Nov 1, 2023 15:36:58 GMT
But you NEED a licence. You don't NEED a mooring. Do you see the difference ? Anyway it appears C&RT are happy to set boater against boater, so we have to accept their unfair increases. I still maintain a large increase on licence fees for EVERY boat owner would have been the fairest way. Rog The vast majority of boaters need a mooring, to here would-be no room on the cut if they didn't. Now,that would make the grumblers happy, lots to grumble about. No. The majority CHOOSE a mooring. Many who don't have available time CHOOSE to hire, or share etc. Why blame others for your choices? Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2023 15:38:21 GMT
But you NEED a licence. You don't NEED a mooring. Do you see the difference ? Anyway it appears C&RT are happy to set boater against boater, so we have to accept their unfair increases. I still maintain a large increase on licence fees for EVERY boat owner would have been the fairest way. Rog Yes it is a choice of course, and one I think more and more people are not taking (ie electing to CC rather than have a home mooring) and that is reducing CRTβs income. IMO you and Kris are looking at it only from your own perspectives, whereas CRT are looking at it from theirβs. The proliferation of CCers is reducing their income, and thatβs all they care about. In my opinion the fairest way for CRT to levy charges is such that all boaters pay them the same (with variations for boat size etc) and currently that is not what happens.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Nov 1, 2023 15:51:36 GMT
I agree ... that way every licence holder carries a share of the increase.
Sadly that's not the decision C&RT made.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2023 15:56:48 GMT
Probably a better solution would be do do away with the network access fee and add more onto the licence fee.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 1, 2023 16:27:22 GMT
I agree ... that way every licence holder carries a share of the increase. Sadly that's not the decision C&RT made. Rog Even though 60% of people who responded to the consultation said this is what should happen. Personally I think the legal challenges will be successful. Crt will end up looking worse than they already do over this.
|
|
|
Post by β on Nov 1, 2023 21:06:37 GMT
Anyone using a boat on canals needs a mooring.
I suppose one could just not tie the boat up and drift about but in windy weather it could be awkward.
There are laws about obstruction.
What the CRT need to do is charge a daily mooring fee for every square inch of land they are in charge of and enforce it.
It isn't complicated.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Nov 1, 2023 21:34:20 GMT
I agree ... that way every licence holder carries a share of the increase. Sadly that's not the decision C&RT made. Rog Even though 60% of people who responded to the consultation said this is what should happen. Personally I think the legal challenges will be successful. Crt will end up looking worse than they already do over this. What is the basis of the legal challenges? Please.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 1, 2023 21:44:34 GMT
Even though 60% of people who responded to the consultation said this is what should happen. Personally I think the legal challenges will be successful. Crt will end up looking worse than they already do over this. What is the basis of the legal challenges? Please. you would have to ask the solicitors involved and Iβm not sure they would tell you as they might not want to reveal that until the papers are served.
|
|
|
Post by β on Nov 1, 2023 22:02:52 GMT
Continuous cruisers are the porn of the devil.
They are almost as bad as the Jews.
(not as bad).
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 1, 2023 22:04:54 GMT
Even though 60% of people who responded to the consultation said this is what should happen. Personally I think the legal challenges will be successful. Crt will end up looking worse than they already do over this. What is the basis of the legal challenges? Please. CRT can only make charges that are specifically allowed under law. They cannot make up new charges. Itβs the old contrast between an individual and a pubic body. An individual can do anything unless it is disallowed in law. A public body can only do what is specifically allowed in law, it canβt do anything else. The law describes a licence and a fee. Note the βaβ which is singular. The law does not seem to allow for different scales of licences according to circumstance. Well that is my opinion, but of course only a court of law can rule authoritatively on such things.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Nov 1, 2023 22:25:31 GMT
What we need here is a canal expert to insist on what the truth is. In bold if neccersary.
|
|
|
Post by β on Nov 1, 2023 22:27:11 GMT
What is the basis of the legal challenges? Please. CRT can only make charges that are specifically allowed under law. They cannot make up new charges. Itβs the old contrast between an individual and a pubic body. An individual can do anything unless it is disallowed in law. A public body can only do what is specifically allowed in law, it canβt do anything else. The law describes a licence and a fee. Note the βaβ which is singular. The law does not seem to allow for different scales of licences according to circumstance. Well that is my opinion, but of course only a court of law can rule authoritatively on such things. This is true to an extent but they do have powers to charge for services as they see fit. At times I do wonder if the proposal to introduce tiered licence fees, which is rather obviously a flawed idea, is a deliberate introduction to the future. Mud wrestling must be nice enough but there will be something more organised behind it all. Legal challenges to very mild increases will help to drive much needed change.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 2, 2023 9:04:23 GMT
CRT can only make charges that are specifically allowed under law. They cannot make up new charges. Itβs the old contrast between an individual and a pubic body. An individual can do anything unless it is disallowed in law. A public body can only do what is specifically allowed in law, it canβt do anything else. The law describes a licence and a fee. Note the βaβ which is singular. The law does not seem to allow for different scales of licences according to circumstance. Well that is my opinion, but of course only a court of law can rule authoritatively on such things. This is true to an extent but they do have powers to charge for services as they see fit. At times I do wonder if the proposal to introduce tiered licence fees, which is rather obviously a flawed idea, is a deliberate introduction to the future. Mud wrestling must be nice enough but there will be something more organised behind it all. Legal challenges to very mild increases will help to drive much needed change. They do have the power to charge for services, but the licence is not a service and is detailed in another part of the legislation. So for example they could charge extra for the use of rubbish disposal, water, elsan etc but itβs hard to see how this could be administered.
|
|