Light dues (No Charge)

bigmart

bigmart

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Jan 2002
Messages
1,953
Location
Hampshire
Visit site
I was most gratified to read in YM that Trinity House Etc. only propose to levy the Light Dues charge on vessels over 8 Metres(26ft 2ins.) As my poor little job is only 26 ft I am now feeling quite smug. Secure in the knowledge that the money grabbing control freaks of Trinity House & other institutions that, I previously thought, had designs on my hard earned cash are only going to bleed those rich types who can afford leviathons of 26 ft 2 in & above.

We are told that the average size of new boat build has been rising over the past few decades. Are we now going to see a resurgence in the popularity of the smaller boat as people clamour to save their £100 a year & presumable avoid the need for licensing?. Seems to me that this amount will barely cover the cost of collection. I wonder how fast charges will rise after inception?

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
When I saw the article in YM, my second reaction was to wonder whether this was a piece of "divide & conquer" Looks like it was.

Martin, if you decide to sit back & feel gratified now, don't expect any sympathy when either:
a. the lower limit is reduced to say 6 mtrs, or
b. you decide to move on to a 27 footer.

The real danger in this proposal is the registration & licensing requirement.

Once we are all neatly listed, how long before government feels the need to impose another tax on all us millionaires.

We have probably the best yachting safety record in the world. I would suggest this is because training is undertaken through a desire to aquire skills and knowledge, rather than through a desire to obtain a piece of paper. "I've got my yottie licence, therefore I know it all" will become the popular attitude if compulsion is introduced.

Licensing is dangerous. It will kill people.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Damn, 8.49 metres! Wonder if I should hack a couple of feet off the bow to make the boat shorter, maybe do it so that it can bolt back on again when the Trinity House inspector has gone.

Most new boat owners are already paying many thousands in marina fees, so an extra hundred quid isn't going to make them clamour for a smaller boat. So no, I doubt that this is going to cause a resurgance in the popularity of smaller boats. People will just moan and pay up, same as do with all the other taxes and charges!

Chris

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
OK, but dont leave your anchor stowed on the bow roller - I guarantee thats more than 2inches extra length. And you know what the taxman is like for squeezing the last inch out of things to get you rated for tax!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I fully agree with your thoughts .this will be the thin end of the bureaucratic wedge.

The other thing it will do is encourage boat designers to produce boats just under the statutory length but with excessive beam and superstructure to cram in the accomodation of a larger craft.At the expense of performance and sea worthiness.

Also it will make a lot of 28 footers difficult to sell therebye stifling the whole marine economy as owners find it difficult to move up to larger craft.

If Trinity house is strapped for cash they could seriously consider discontinuing a lot of buoys.Every area seems to have buoys that dont do much other than become targets for ships to run down in fog.





<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Interesting that of the three articles on that page two are about taxation?!?!

RYA Fight for Red Diesel! So those lovely people that want us to fly that silly cluster of stars on our lovely red dusters want us to pay more tax on our diesel!!!

Am I the only one seeing a trend here! Look out here comes congestion charging within the Solent next!!!!!


<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by SteveB_Sigma33 on 13/02/2004 14:43 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
Interesting that Commodore Peter Melson, Diector of Operations, Trinity House has a letter in PBO stating that as a yachtsman he relies on Trinity House Aids to Navigation to get to Morbihan, Brittany every summer and therefor he thinks this is money well spent ... well really Peter ... if thats the case how much are you going to pay the US military for the use of GPS. As far as I'm concerned this bouyage is primarily used by 1)large ships and 2) inexperienced yachtsmen and I for one would seriously resent paying this amount. If it were £10 or so no problem but £100 .. get on yer bike!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
I completely agree with you Jimi, I have no real interest in paying these dues when the items are used by large ships only. The main expenses for trinity house after all is in the mainetenance of the bouys, and they have no relevance to us. Where they do, they are normally the financial responsibility of the local authorities. The cost of collection will undoubtedly swallow up most of the collected charges and thus initiate further rises in order to collect sufficient money.
I am afraid that the chaps at the top of trinity house have no idea about the financial problems of the majority of us lesser mortals.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I hadn't heard about this, and can't afford it for my 27 footer. Very little buoyage up this way anyway.

If I pay this I'll have to give up something - eg new flares - so I won't pay it . . . how will it be enforced anyway?

- Nick



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>
 
Re: The problem is

that Trinity House claim that a major part of their desire to charge the poor old yachtie is that they(Trinity house) are getting constant requests from yachties for more buoyage. Personally I find this hard to believe. Most of the buoyage that I use is laid by the Harbours that I visit & I am already being fleeced royally by the harbour boards for the privelege of visting them.

The comment regarding the popularity of smaller boats is based on the implication that As lighting dues would only be required for boats over 8metres the licensing would be the same. Therefore the popularty of smaller boats that do not require any form of qualification would propably increase.

The collection cost for this new "taxation" must mean that we would soon see a rapid rise in the price of light dues. I suspect that prices would soon settle in the region of £400-£500 so those that think £100 is manageable think again.

Add this to the Crown Estates charging "market prices" for moorings & the EEC demanding full taxation on Marine Diesel not to mention the cost of a "Boat driving Licence" that they'vefailed to price so far. Its not a pretty picture!

At the end of the day we must ask ourselves "What benefit is there to us for all this extra cost? Is there an increase in safety? Are our stress levels reduced with the new ease of navigation? Do we really need any more regulation?" I can't think of a single question where the answer is "Yeah charge me more!" I am afraid my feelings are more along the lines of " You do nothing for me so clear off and annoy someone else!" the trouble is that I don't think they will!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I suspect that you've been warned about using those Chad Valley measuring tapes from you junior Bob The Builder set before.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The problem is

My feeling is that there ought to be a rationalisation of these bodies Admiralty,MCA,Trinity House, RNLI so that an integrated service is available with consequent cost savings, I have no desire to pay for half the cost of the 10 course dinner for one of the Elder Brethren.

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
Which ones are run by Trinity House, and which by local authorities. How do you tell them apart?

There are plenty round where I sail that are not particularly near harbours, and to where very few ships ever come near, but I still appreciate their existence.

<hr width=100% size=1>One day, I want to be a real sailor. In the mean time I'll just keep trying.
 
I haven't yet read the YM article (too busy!!) but this old chestnut makes a regular appearance about once every 5-7 years, and each time it eventually gets squashed. Then along comes a new Director of Ops at TH and off we go again. He either has to pacify the owners of commercial vessels that have to pay (anybody know any fisherman who actually uses the lighthouses, buoys etc?) and who feel hurt because leisure craft don't, or he his trying to make a name for himself.
Might I respectfully suggest that we all sit quietly and await developments, after all it is only a proposal.
Oh, and BTW somebody ought to tell that nice D Ops at TH that the buoys etc on the coast of Brittany are not his responsibility.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The problem is

I don't think the RNLI would like that idea. You don't HAVE to pay a penny for them. You already pay for the Admiralty and the MCA even if you live miles from the sea and never see it from one year's end to the next.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The problem is

OK leave the RNLI out of it .. but if TH start on this trail then its only fair that they operate in the most efficient fashion for the taxpayer and therefore the Admiralty,TH and MCA should operate as oon integrated unit. BTW the same argument goes for the Army,Navy and RAF... slash defence costs and end up with a more effective and efficient service!

<hr width=100% size=1>.. whit way roon should it be again ..
 
. . . how will it be enforced anyway?

Article indicated that they would use the SSR as the basis for charging. No mention of Part 1, or those who aren't registered. A voluntary tax?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top