|
Post by peterboat on Mar 9, 2018 9:54:50 GMT
I have two fat boats as you know, and am quite frankly disgusted at the review. All its aims have been false, it is clear now that the only aim was to raise revenue at any cost and to set boat owner against boat owner, where are the give backs to make this a revenue neutral review? Myself I am taking the Bathtub to the Norfolk broads when its finished, my current boat will be sold whilst it is worth good money [5 years of phasing in the rises should give me time]. If we are going to complain against the review it needs to be coordinated to achieve a better result, I dont want negative remarks on here but a positive plan to make CRT realise that they just cant walk all over us without a second thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 10:04:00 GMT
I know you didn't want negative remarks, and I apologise up front.
But I think we (mostly) all agreed when the 'review' was announced, that C&RT were window dressing their intention to increase fees.
I can see no justification for singling out wide beams for increases, other than their fairly recent popularity and consequent increase in their number. I believe C&RT see the new wide beams as a soft target.
I will be happy to support any protest, but honestly think we're stuck with C&RT's decisions.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the next 'fund raising initiative' as payment for booked passage for widebeams through Blissworth and Braunston.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 9, 2018 10:18:08 GMT
I agree with everything you have said Peter. I think Crt have been very "clever" with this review. They have just picked on wideboats this time, next time it will be boats without home moorings. Splitting any opposition to the changes, I'm sure 20% extra for widebeams is only the start as well. If they had come straight in with a 100% surcharge there would have been more opposition. I'm not saying I don't think it's worth doing something, just that I think there's more chance of getting them to spend the surcharge on things for widebeams, cutting back off side vegetation, dredging visitor moorings etc, than there is getting it scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 9, 2018 10:27:46 GMT
I have two fat boats as you know, and am quite frankly disgusted at the review. All its aims have been false, it is clear now that the only aim was to raise revenue at any cost and to set boat owner against boat owner, where are the give backs to make this a revenue neutral review? Myself I am taking the Bathtub to the Norfolk broads when its finished, my current boat will be sold whilst it is worth good money [5 years of phasing in the rises should give me time]. If we are going to complain against the review it needs to be coordinated to achieve a better result, I dont want negative remarks on here but a positive plan to make CRT realise that they just cant walk all over us without a second thought. Oh well I was going to suggest a diet but I’m not sure if that would be a positive or negative remark! Anyway, your problem is that narrowboats owners far outnumber fat boat owners and by and large, are not particularly enamoured of fat boats. They see the precident of the Thames and can see the logic. For me personally, I can see both sides of the coin. There is not “right answer” and whilst I do sympathise with what is a substantial rise in cost for no gain and with no way of avoiding except selling up or relocating (and what will be the effect on second hand fat boat values I wonder?), I’m not sure I could bring myself to vehemently oppose it. I suspect most narrowboaters may be in a similar position. I am sorry for your loss but I can’t see it being overturned.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 9, 2018 10:31:57 GMT
Not that I would discourage anybody from registering protest at this stage, but the cold hard fact is that the time to effectively do so was during the ‘consultation’ period. These things are a numbers game. Naturally, it was difficult to achieve that via the box-ticking format – always designed to funnel responses in a certain direction – but people could always have added responses expressing views which the format did not allow for. I rather think there were several aims that CaRT were keen to achieve, amongst them a rationale to increase charges for those without a home mooring. I suspect that the latter failed only by reason of vigorous campaigning by NBTA members, which shows that mass representation can affect the outcome of such polls. Certainly, the NBTA are proposing to protest the wide-beam increases also, perhaps you would do well to participate in that? The links provided are obscure to me, but you could always approach them directly for enlightenment as how to proceed. For those of you on CRT waterways, CRT has announced the outcome of the Licence Review resulting in fee increases: • Licence fees for wide-beams will go up • The Prompt Payment Discount will be reduced to 5% or 2.5% depending on how you pay When CRT announced the Licence Review it said that changes would be "cost neutral" including at the last stage. The NBTA has declared that it will do all it can to defend the boaters affected by these increases. We have sent an on-line poll asking Members what you think the NBTA should do now.
CRT's "cost neutral" review has resulted in prices going up.
The NBTA poll is accessible by a link in the e-mail you have received from vote@romamandate.org. Please look for this e-mail and complete the poll urgently if at all possible.
Election N.12 by nin@nkli.net
The National Bargee Travellers Association - Urgent Poll
Link to vote: vote.romamandate.org/init/default/vote/12/voter-E9F2D10E78BA406BB1CD0E590CEFD82D Link to ballots: vote.romamandate.org/init/default/ballots/12 Link to results: vote.romamandate.org/init/default/results/12
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Mar 9, 2018 10:35:51 GMT
It’s certainly hard to see how the outcome of the review could be considered cost-neutral! If that was their original premis, maybe that is the best line of attack?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 10:44:13 GMT
I agree with everything you have said Peter. I think Crt have been very "clever" with this review. They have just picked on wideboats this time, next time it will be boats without home moorings. Splitting any opposition to the changes, I'm sure 20% extra for widebeams is only the start as well. If they had come straight in with a 100% surcharge there would have been more opposition. I'm not saying I don't think it's worth doing something, just that I think there's more chance of getting them to spend the surcharge on things for widebeams, cutting back off side vegetation, dredging visitor moorings etc, than there is getting it scrapped. Agree with all this...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 9, 2018 11:19:22 GMT
I want to change what I've said three narrowboat owners are agreeing with me I can't have that. Peter it looks like nbta are going to contest the surcharges so it might be worth joining them of your not already a member.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 11:34:56 GMT
I wonder how protests will unfold ? Maybe this Wrapped round lock gate guard rails? That could get interesting. Hopefully not as I like boating and would hate agro . Seems to be very easy to cause significant disruption with very little organising. Like the go-slows you get on roads sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 9, 2018 11:39:10 GMT
The chain would be far to easy to deal with. Oh except I forget Crt don't have any power tools any more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 11:40:50 GMT
I can think of forms of protest, but not methods to make them happen.
If the majority of boaters paid their exiting licence fees but no increase, would it be possible for C&RT to pursue everyone through the courts?
Perhaps a more realistic possibility is to get the majority of the 20,000 'Friends' to threaten to cancel all donations from a given date.
But the truth is I suspect, it is what it is. Our choice is to pay or don't.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by kris on Mar 9, 2018 11:47:59 GMT
I can think of forms of protest, but not methods to make them happen. If the majority of boaters paid their exiting licence fees but no increase, would it be possible for C&RT to pursue everyone through the courts? Perhaps a more realistic possibility is to get the majority of the 20,000 'Friends' to threaten to cancel all donations from a given date. But the truth is I suspect, it is what it is. Our choice is to pay or don't. Rog They wouldn't have to persue everyone through the courts, just one or two. Remember people's liscences become due at different times. They would just refuse to liscence you, then take you to court for not having a liscence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 11:48:33 GMT
But the truth is I suspect, it is what it is. Our choice is to pay or don't. Probably true in this instance, but the more people CRT piss off the bigger chance that all boaters/canal lovers will put the past behind them and come together and form a coherent 'pressure group'. From what I gather that seems a long way off yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 11:54:43 GMT
That's why the 'Friends' idea came to mind, as there'd be no direct consequences.
But getting the contributers to act as one would be almost impossible without details.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 9, 2018 12:00:27 GMT
That's why the 'Friends' idea came to mind, as there'd be no direct consequences. But getting the contributers to act as one would be almost impossible without details. Rog I doubt most Friends are boaters too, so would they be bovvered?
|
|