Paul wrote: > If that figure is correct then BW should be able to get over a 7% > increase in increase in licence revenue just by getting every one to > pay. That's nearly the increase in license fee for this year.
I converted the 7% figure obtained from BW's 2006/7 annual report into my 1 in 14 figure to illustrate the point that if you travelled on an imaginary journey (nightmare journey, admittedly) where all the boats on the system were lined down the cut, then every 14th boat you passed would be unlicensed. IMO that brings home the situation more vividly than if you just say 7% are unlicensed. The actual figure that BW admit to is 7.1%, down from 8.6% during 2006/7 due to action on unlicensed boats. I somehow doubt that BW will be able to maintain this rate of recovery (1.5% per annum) because as fast as they recover one licence, the boats that they enforced during the year are coming up for renewal and some default again, requiring action, all over again. We have just this situation outside my town where a long-term defaulter was eventually persuaded/enforced to buy a licence which he kept for one year before not bothering to renew, despite remaining moored in exactly the same, unauthorised, location on the outskirts. BW are starting, according to local information, the lengthy and costly enforcement legal- process all over again. While BW are kept tied up with these repeat offenders it is unlikely that they will have the time, manpower or resources to expand the actions to other defaulters in sufficient numbers to make a real difference. I sometimes wonder if they have the real will to enforce if it is easier and less hassle to recover lost revenue by increasing the licences of the willing and co-operative. BW would deny this, of course. They claim that trial, zero tolerance, experiments are working at certain locations around the network and will be expanded around the system. We shall see. Roger
