|
Post by IainS on Aug 2, 2017 12:16:43 GMT
In fact our licence has become cheaper since July 2016. The £ requires just 1.1183 € to buy it today. It was 1.40 before June 2017. A Brexit winner
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 2, 2017 12:43:31 GMT
If a fair system of charging for boat Licences was a goal in anyone's sights, there is in fact only one basis for fee differentials that is entirely fair - boat's length multiplied by the percentage of the total mileage of waterway that the boat can use, starting from the waterway it's based on. Boat area, surely, rather than just length. But still a more complicated system than we have at the moment .... One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 2, 2017 15:50:24 GMT
Boat area, surely, rather than just length. But still a more complicated system than we have at the moment .... One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. So Nigel if I get your gist CRT would have to have a new act passed to alter from length to overall dimensions? If that is the case they are once again wasting money on something they cant do, maybe they need reminding of this when it comes to phase 3, it might provide an interest squirm or two from the management might it
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 2, 2017 17:25:52 GMT
One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. So Nigel if I get your gist CRT would have to have a new act passed to alter from length to overall dimensions? If that is the case they are once again wasting money on something they cant do, maybe they need reminding of this when it comes to phase 3, it might provide an interest squirm or two from the management might it I believe it is certainly arguable at the least, though I will not take a firm view on it just now. It is definitely a factor that ought to have been at least considered. I have nothing in principle against the length X breadth formula, but the fairness or otherwise is irrelevant if the statutory methodology applies. Only a primary Act of Parliament could alter that, whether a majority of boaters agreed with any new formula or not. The present "consultation" could form a basis for suggesting to Parliament that a revised scheme should be promoted by government, though CaRT itself cannot promote an Act of any sort at all, under the terms of the Transfer Order.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 2, 2017 18:38:38 GMT
One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. So Nigel if I get your gist CRT would have to have a new act passed to alter from length to overall dimensions? If that is the case they are once again wasting money on something they cant do, maybe they need reminding of this when it comes to phase 3, it might provide an interest squirm or two from the management might it They can do anything they want, whether its lawful or not, they have no accountability.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 2, 2017 23:12:15 GMT
I read the act and it does say just length for boats so how enforceable this is in law I dont know but for me they should have to go to parliament to pass a new law to change the license system
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 5:06:56 GMT
I read the act and it does say just length for boats so how enforceable this is in law I dont know but for me they should have to go to parliament to pass a new law to change the license system As has been mentioned though, CRT do not seem accountable for anything they do, so I'm not sure it will make any difference anyway. The law also makes it clear that you can't moor up for longer than 14 days (tow path). Yet CRT have been taking money off boaters for years to 'allow us' to do exactly that. They even put up signs threatening to charge us £25 per night for complying with the law (24h 48h moorings overstay). I know that some will feel that these exceptions are reasonable as we do need a way to stop boaters hogging popular moorings and there aren't enough off line moorings to accommodate all boaters. My point is that if the vast majority aren't bothered about these exceptions, CRT will do it anyway. Over time, as these things are accepted as the norm, it will be easier for them to change the law in any future act. The 1995 act was brought about by a number of boaters getting together and protesting. I wonder if that is still the way forward? The only organisation I see doing that is the NBTA, and CRT do seem to take notice.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 3, 2017 11:10:36 GMT
Boat area, surely, rather than just length. But still a more complicated system than we have at the moment .... One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. I hadn't considered that aspect! I suppose that one way round it, should CaRT be so minded, would be to set the licence at "wide beam" level, and give a discount for a narrowboat. Getting complicated, though, and charging by length only as at present is a lot simpler
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 3, 2017 11:17:53 GMT
The problem is that ignoring CaRT breaking the law when it seems reasonable then leads to the situation where the rules don't suit you, and you have already colluded with them to go off piste with the law.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Aug 3, 2017 11:26:52 GMT
One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. I hadn't considered that aspect! I suppose that one way round it, should CaRT be so minded, would be to set the licence at "wide beam" level, and give a discount for a narrowboat. Getting complicated, though, and charging by length only as at present is a lot simpler Not really at no point in the act does it mention width, it just says length so come what may however wide the boat is doesnt matter its the length that counts both in practice and in law
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 3, 2017 11:38:10 GMT
I hadn't considered that aspect! I suppose that one way round it, should CaRT be so minded, would be to set the licence at "wide beam" level, and give a discount for a narrowboat. Getting complicated, though, and charging by length only as at present is a lot simpler Not really at no point in the act does it mention width, it just says length so come what may however wide the boat is doesnt matter its the length that counts both in practice and in law They can add a surcharge based on their false interpretation of sect 43 1962 TA ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 3, 2017 12:32:49 GMT
One small problem with all the alternative schemes for charging, regardless of fairness: fee structures were effectively fixed under the terms of the 1971 Act, in the course of which BW undertook to apply the same criteria "across the board", so that the legislative demand for comparability between certificates and licences could be maintained. This was even more imperative following the 1983 Act, when the proportion for the certificate was pegged at 60% of the licence for the same vessel. Originally, the charges were fixed according to a rigid scheme relating to boat lengths only [apart from minor distinctions for tenders and unpowered craft]. So, the question nobody has raised hitherto, is how far CaRT are entitled to change the set length criteria fixed by the 1971 Act. I appreciate that this may be arguable either way, but the fact that the matter has never [to my knowledge anyway] been raised - by boaters or CaRT - is certainly curious. I hadn't considered that aspect! I suppose that one way round it, should CaRT be so minded, would be to set the licence at "wide beam" level, and give a discount for a narrowboat. Getting complicated, though, and charging by length only as at present is a lot simpler I believe your postulated way around this is workable; they are entitled to set the pleasure boat licence fees at whatever level they wish [according to the length categories as fixed], and to create sub-sets of the pleasure boat category at different charges so long as those are no more than the standard pleasure boat fee. As they already have to peg pleasure boat certificates at 60% of the regular licence, I see no increased difficulty in applying a similar discount for the permitted sub categories as you suggest. That methodology is implicit in the ability to create sub-divisions after all.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Aug 3, 2017 17:05:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 3, 2017 17:15:41 GMT
if it's just the length of boat ........ can I register Shapfell as 6'3" long ........ and 25'6" wide
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2017 17:30:44 GMT
if it's just the length of boat ........ can I register Shapfell as 6'3" long ........ and 25'6" wide Have you got a couple of girly buttons? If so I see no reason why not.
|
|