If BW can drop theirs, why not EA??

[apollo]

Quote from http://www.narrowboatworld.com :-

<span style="colorurple">
THE results of the three months consultation into boat licence fees were released yesterday with boat licences increasing 8.3% but British Waterways have succumbed to pressure from boaters and the 10% prompt payment discount that was to be scrapped will be retained.

British Waterways have acknowledged there is a downturn in the wider economy, so will introduce lower than anticipated licence fee increases for 2008. And the 10% prompt payment discount which was also intended to be scrapped which is of benefit to many fully paid-up boaters will be kept.

Down from 12.4%
Instead of a licence increase from April of the proposed 12.4%, the increase will be 8.3% increase for private boat licences.

</span>

If BW can recognise a downturn and act accordingly, why cannot EA do the same??

 

[DWT]

Ah, but it is of course a well known fact that narrowboaters all have a tight budget to keep to, especially the liveaboards. Us Thames boaters with our gin palaces have oodles of cash to throw around.

 

[apollo]

Plenty of retirees on the Thames on fixed budgets too.....at least there was! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[boatone]

Actually, this is serious stuff.
How the hell can two departments within DEFRA be permitted to exercise such different policies with regard to similar licensing schemes?

Who the hell do we get to wake up/listen/kick up hell?

 

[DogsBody]

No don't want price reductions! Not yet anyway as I've got a 3 year licence until the end of 2009.

Now a BIG discount come 2010 would be much appreciated...If they keep up the increases until then I'll have the river all to myself!

 

[TrueBlue]

It\'s all due to market forces

- and who shouts loudest.

Narrowboaters have NABO and IWA to look after their interests
AND don't get distracted about "my type of boat is better than yours"

Thames boaters have no effective voice, and spend too much time bitching about what is the correct sort of boat. The RUGs are more concerned with Towpaths and Trees.

BW only has to look after its canals and rivers.

For DEFRA and EA it's dead chickens, farm payments, flooding, tipping, waste management and much, much more. Si if a tiny minority on a small bit of wider ditch make a fuss - then they can easily be ignored.

Unless of course boaters get united and make an enormous fuss

 

[boatone]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course boaters get united and make an enormous fuss

[/ QUOTE ]

So heres an opportunity for the IWA to come out fighting on our behalf and show that it really is an INLAND WATERS organisation and not just a canals body.

Get united??? Make a fuss???? Youre 'avin' a larf aintcha??? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[apollo]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

I did PM email AngelaQ for a response, but unsurprisingly no PR opportunity here so nothing!

 

[apollo]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

Tone

Have emailed the IWA to comment on our discussion, and got this back......
<span style="colorurple">
Thanks for your email. I have forwarded a copy on to the Chairman of IWA's Navigation Committee, Roger Squires, whose remit it is to consider issues such as these. I have asked him to respond to you direct.

Regards
Matt Duncan
Operations Manager
The Inland Waterways Association

</span>

All are welcome here!!

 

[Brayman]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

Well done Mike, I never have understood why the IWA ignore the Thames.

 

[apollo]

From IWA

Mike,
Thanks for enquiry regarding the extent of the IWA's involvement with the EA
Let me reassure you that we are working hard behind the scenes, through the EA National Inland Navigation Forum, and direct regular contact with EA officers, to both get them to recognose that their recent very high Registration Fee increases are a retrograde step. On the Thames alone boat registrations were down 8% last year. People are being 'priced off'.
We equally are fighting DEFRA to get them to increase EA's budget to both cover the £12m shortfall in maintenance expenditure as well as to provide greater compensatory funding to EA for the huge amount of damage caused to their structures by last years floods.
We have members on the Thames Alliance and various safety and allied committees etc.
Please rest assured that equal IWA resource goes into pressing the EA to provide boaters and customers with a better deal as it does to BW.. The trouble is that the 'hard slog' with EA is not always headline catching!
Regards
Roger Squires

 

[boatone]

Re: From IWA

[ QUOTE ]
On the Thames alone boat registrations were down 8% last year. People are being 'priced off'.


[/ QUOTE ]

So who's telling porkies???
The EA claimed registrations were up last year /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[DogsBody]

Re: From IWA

The EA always claim registrations are up. Thing is the river is getting emptier (is that even a word?) every year. I remember when queuing for a lock was what you did at every lock not just when the keeper had gone to lunch.

 

[No Regrets]

Re: From IWA

It's worth a few quid not to queue actually /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[ians]

Good Evening All
Can I ask what do you pay for a years licence, is it by boat lenght etc.
We came down to the Thames last year, and only spent 3 nights above Teddington Lock and it cost us £105.

Ian

 

[Brayman]

It's based on square footage. My 37' by 11'6" cruiser costs about £560 this year.

 

[ians]

Wow.
We pay BW about 260 a year for simular size boat , but then again there is bugger all up here on the Ouse

Thanks for reply

ians

 

[apollo]

£600

 

[MiskinDriver]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

To go back to the issue of why there is so little apparent activity from IWA regarding the Thames - could it be related to the fact that very few Thames boaters are actually IWA members? For instance, how many people on here are members?

 

[Brayman]

Re: It\'s all due to market forces

When I had my first boat on the Thames I joined the IWA and was a member for several years but left it because they basically ignored the Thames as an inland waterway.