Is The BA Prepared?

[floydraser]

Apologies if this upsets but how many of us are using 14 year old computers and if we were, how would we expect them to handle modern software? 

If the next system lasts as long that's just over £8,500 a year. Without it, how many more employees to operate a file card system?

That is of course in complete ignorance of the size of the system etc, but just saying.

[ExSurveyor]

£35k to pursue 35 untolled boats, probably only recouping £400 per boat because most aren't tolled as the owners have limited funds.

Lets spend £35k, plus fees to recover £15k. Only in a quango, never in the real world.

[grendel]

perhaps they anticipate a higher than normal amount of people not accepting the rise in the toll thus the need for the post.

I wonder if anyone has the comparison figures for the rise in road tax over the same period Griff mentions.

[grendel]

intrigued, i went and looked up the figures, selecting an older car above 1600cc, in 2007 the cost was £175, the current road tax for the same vehicle is £270 or a rise to 155% of the original value over 13 years

the  equivalent rise for a boat is 204% over the same period.

[MauriceMynah]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

intrigued, i went and looked up the figures, selecting an older car above 1600cc, in 2007 the cost was £175, the current road tax for the same vehicle is £270 or a rise to 155% of the original value over 13 years

the  equivalent rise for a boat is 204% over the same period.

I just knew there'd be a good reason all the potholes down the sides of the river Ant hadn't been repaired this season.

[JennyMorgan]

6 hours ago, floydraser said:

That is of course in complete ignorance of the size of the system etc, but just saying.

I probably know even less than Floyd about the ability of the BA's present system but my understanding is that it is an HMG sponsored one. I do know people in the IT industry & apparently it was not a good buy, not up to the job, and through personal experience it was clearly not without its glitches, especially within the planning portal. Personally I'm happy with the prospect of a new system at Yare House, despite the projected costs. It does show that the existing system was probably not a good nor suitable buy in the first place but being wise after the event is a meritorious attribute! A better system has to be to everyone's advantage.

What we mustn't forget is that approx 50% of our toll is hived off for so called 'overheads'. The more that he demands for and spends on navigation the more he can spend elsewhere. 

[JennyMorgan]

6 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

Lets spend £35k, plus fees to recover £15k. Only in a quango, never in the real world.

I suspect that the justification will be that it is a deterrent, illogical as it appears. What worries me is the continual and determined effort to grow the 'empire'. 

[Oddfellow]

1 hour ago, grendel said:

perhaps they anticipate a higher than normal amount of people not accepting the rise in the toll thus the need for the post.

I wonder if anyone has the comparison figures for the rise in road tax over the same period Griff mentions.

Whilst I am sure this suits your argument against rises, it's hardly the same thing. In fact, there really is little comparison to make with any other system, whether nautical or not because no other tolls system is like the Broads. And, as I have pointed out many times before, the Broads is cheaper than any other navigation system in the UK. I will also point out that having a boat is a luxury and it's very easy for many of us to forget this, especially at a time when mass unemployment is chasing the country down the Covid Highway. 

 

10 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I suspect that the justification will be that it is a deterrent, illogical as it appears. What worries me is the continual and determined effort to grow the 'empire'. 

Spot on, Peter. 

[rightsaidfred]

I am sure I will probably upset some people here for which I make no apology as I think it necessary to look at this within its context and an open mind given what a lot of us keep asking for.

Firstly this is still just a proposal and subject to further discussion including a meeting with the hire boat federation next month regarding improved hand over and safety instruction including additional training for staff unfamiliar with the lower tidal conditions and pre visit instruction for hirers towards which the BA would include a grant of 20K towards the cost.

Secondly the proposed toll increase of 4% is across the board not just private owners, this is to cover the cost of additional rangers and the above grant plus a shortfall in the number of boats tolled, it is still subject to agreement with Defra regarding use of NP monies without which the increase would have been 7.5%, if agreement cannot be reached the whole scheme will be revisited, this will cover 1 full time ranger dedicated to preparing prosecution material for any offences worthy of prosecution not just tolls and this ranger would also be qualified to undertake patrol duties as well there would also be 4 seasonal rangers on an annual contract and this is for a trial period of 2 years after which it will be reviewed.

The upgrade for the IT system is a separate issue from the tolls increase, the original system was funded by the government and like all systems needs upgrading it will be developed to include suggestions from us toll payers and the hire fleet as well as internal requirements and the BA will be looking for some government assistance in funding this.

Considering that most of this increase is partly or largely in response to what many of us have constantly asked for and recent experiences ie better patrolling  and improved hand overs and safety education I think that we should step back and consider this in its context rather than just an increase in tolls and while I know some will continue to bemoan what they are paying for most owners it will be the cost of a couple of pints and for the likes of me with a larger boat less than a pub lunch, just my take but I know what I consider more important, I would also add for those who dont pay their toll or those who withheld it when it was due should look at themselves for their contribution to the additional costs incurred by others.

Fred

[Vaughan]

5 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I would also add for those who dont pay their toll or those who withheld it when it was due should look at themselves for their contribution to the additional costs incurred by others.

Well said Fred!

[Poppy]

17 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

 I would also add for those who dont pay their toll or those who withheld it when it was due should look at themselves for their contribution to the additional costs incurred by others.

Fred

Most do. My toll is not due until the boat is launched . That's when I pay .

[Bytheriver]

7 hours ago, psychicsurveyor said:

£35k to pursue 35 untolled boats, probably only recouping £400 per boat because most aren't tolled as the owners have limited funds.

Lets spend £35k, plus fees to recover £15k. Only in a quango, never in the real world.

Chasing unpaid tolls was not mentioned & these would not go to the Crown Prosecution Service as they would be civil not criminal prosecutions

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Most do. My toll is not due until the boat is launched . That's when I pay .

Thats fair enough and not what I was reffering to.

Fred

[rightsaidfred]

I should have added that the additional rangers were to provide 7 day patrolling in all areas and late evening something we all ask for.

Fred

[JennyMorgan]

22 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Considering that most of this increase is partly or largely in response to what many of us have constantly asked for . . . . . . . 

Such as the infernal electrification of the Broads that few of us need nor want. We also have the apparent need for two moorings per boat, one to go from and one to go to. There does need to be a revision of thinking on that one although I don't know the answer. 

[JennyMorgan]

7 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

I should have added that the additional rangers were to provide 7 day patrolling in all areas and late evening something we all ask for.

As regards late evening patrolling, why should that cost more? A simple case of later start and variable shifts.

[Vaughan]

Just now, JennyMorgan said:

There does need to be a revision of thinking on that one although I don't know the answer. 

That used to be the whole idea of the hire boat agencies, so that in theory, wherever you went, there would be a mooring for you on another yard.  There aren't enough boatyards left now though.

There could be a system of "mooring sharing" but that would have to be a private association of private owners, prepared to offer their own mooring to other association members when cruising.  But how would you know which moorings would be free, when you got there?

[rightsaidfred]

3 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

As regards late evening patrolling, why should that cost more? A simple case of later start and variable shifts.

That happens now in a limited manner but one person cannot be in two places at once, the additional man power allows for increased presence much the same as we keep asking for more coppers on the beat.

Fred

[NorfolkNog]

I do get a sense that speeding offences, particularly serious ones, tend to be later in the day, rather than say in the mornings. 

[JennyMorgan]

20 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

But how would you know which moorings would be free, when you got there?

On the coast it's common practice to inform the relevant harbour master or boatman responsible for the moorings. Probably a case of 'where there is a will there will be a way'. A Broads version of the Cruising Association perhaps?

In my own neck of the woods I see the same boats on the same 24hr moorings, arriving every weekend without fail. In principle no problem with that, their right. I used to see the same when I worked in Chichester Harbour, people would rush from their marina mooring and two miles later drop anchor at East Head. If all they want to do is to moor up then why not stay put?  Perhaps more mooring operators should do what the WRC has done, have a pub on site. 

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

That used to be the whole idea of the hire boat agencies, so that in theory, wherever you went, there would be a mooring for you on another yard.  There aren't enough boatyards left now though.

There could be a system of "mooring sharing" but that would have to be a private association of private owners, prepared to offer their own mooring to other association members when cruising.  But how would you know which moorings would be free, when you got there?

There is then also the question of insurance etc plus we tend to come and go on the spur of the moment or necessity.

Fred

 

[OldBerkshireBoy]

Regarding the ranger preparing paperwork for outstanding cases, this wasn`t his only job and the 35 cases is the current back log. At other times he would be out of the office on the waters and if we want people caught and taken to court for offences then the paperwork has to be correct to the last dot or cases fall apart in courts. As said the impact of the other new rangers would be reviewed after two years and allow the waters to be covered for longer hours which I thought was what people wanted.

Looking in, the 7.4% increase proposed would cover what was claimed to be the shortfall and knowing that this would not be well received BA then looked at other ways of funding. If these other ways are accepted then the shortfall figure comes in at around 4%. 

The "Less than a tenner" marketing ploy was only a light hearted comment thrown in by somebody and wasn`t disussed or voted on to be followed up.

Next time I will pay more attention - Sorry.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

PS.

The matter of stuck boats under bridges and dredging was briefly mentioned, there is a party looking into this and at present the view is that the model shows that going deeper alone would make little difference.

[OldBerkshireBoy]

2 hours ago, Bytheriver said:

Chasing unpaid tolls was not mentioned & these would not go to the Crown Prosecution Service as they would be civil not criminal prosecutions

Can you remember what the back log of cases were? I don`t recall if the details were mentioned but it might of been during my snooze time out. 

[rightsaidfred]

14 minutes ago, OldBerkshireBoy said:

Can you remember what the back log of cases were? I don`t recall if the details were mentioned but it might of been during my snooze time out. 

No mention of backlog as such just the annual amount of man hours spent which equates to hours spent not patrolling on the water.

Fred