Tacet

Actually, I quite agree about the iniquities of the Poll Tax - but you said "Everyone uses a number of these public services and its only right we should all contribute towards the costs" - which is surely advocating something similar rather than a tax on occupation (or sometimes ownership) of types of land/property. To say that liveaboards do not pay their fair share that the rest of us are obliged to do, is a bit of a generalisation - although possibly true! It largely depends on what other taxes they are paying and partly on one's definition of "fair". I might agree that the tax system is not entirely fair - but simply making a land/property tax mandatory for all (including those who have no land/property) but leaving the remainder of the tax system as contingent is not going to straighten it out. It would also still mean that various services that we all benefit e.g. Health were not being directly financed by everyone. Tax is a levy on various types of income, asset etc to pay for the various types of public service - but it is not based on an individual's expected consumption of those services but generally according to an ability to pay. The unpopularity of the Poll Tax was essentially that it required all to pay the same - which was widely considered unfair.

Whether or not it is fair that everyone who benefits from public services should contribute is a matter of politics, but if so, it would be more sensible to levy the tax on persons rather than their residences. Even if accepted, there are numerous taxes so just because someone is not liable for one tax(Council Tax) does not mean they are failing to contribute towards public services; very few people pay each and every tax. Council Tax comprises a minority of local authority income, so it is not even true of Council services.

Council Tax is errr.. a tax, essentially on the occupation of land. It provides a smaller part of local authority revenue; there are lots of other taxes, the income from which goes towards local and national services. Why draw the line at Council Tax? Why not make everyone pay income tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, landfill tax, duty on tobacco, petrol, alcohol - regardless of whether we have an income, capital gain, buy petrol etc? The Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) required an equal payment from all; it was rather unpopular.

Convince me. It might depend on what you mean by "not residential" but unless the mooring was previously liable for CT or vacant and available for residential use I can't see it at the moment. Up to a point, but the necessary period for immunity from enforcement action would also have to have passed. CT can be levied from day 1 Yes - but to be clear, this does not mean that the boat cannot form part of the (valuation) assessment.

I appreciate you don't mind a drive, but give some thought to the South Oxford which is not far away either. Two main centres are Oxford (no surprises there) and Banbury. Good scenery and the option of making a small loop onto the Thames at the southern end.

Needless to say, this can be a very complicated area but the following may assist: Summary of Policy The policy that the legislation is intended to achieve can be summarised as follows. Although this specifically refers to boats and moorings the same principles apply to caravans and their pitches. a) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored “permanently” at a mooring, then the mooring is domestic property, and both the mooring and the boat are subject to Council Tax. If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence stops at a mooring and moves away for a sufficiently long period (see 6.2), and it seems that when next in use that mooring will be used by that same boat or another boat which is someone’s sole or main residence, then the mooring is domestic but the mooring only is subject to Council Tax. c) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored at a mooring and moves away, and it seems that when next in use the mooring will be used by a non-sole or main residence boat, then the mooring is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates. d) If there is a mooring with no way of telling what sort of craft will be moored at it, then it is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates. Whether the value of the boat or caravan can be included with the pitch is a matter of fact and degree. As a general rule, where a dwelling boat or caravan occupies a mooring or pitch for a substantial period of time - such duration would usually be for 12 months or more - it should be included in the band value, even if it moves away for brief periods of say 2 to 4 weeks, provided it then returns to its original mooring or pitch. The question to be asked is whether the occupation can be characterised as that of a 'settler' or a 'wayfarer'. If the latter, then only the mooring or pitch should be valued. To be clear, this paragraph refers only to the treatment of the chattel value, not to establish whether a dwelling exists – that is the established mooring or pitch. A caravan does not have to be in place on a recognised pitch for 12 months to establish the pitch as a dwelling, nor does a boat have to be moored on a recognised mooring for 12 months to establish the mooring as a dwelling. Even if the sole or main resident of a caravan or boat does not have exclusive rights to a particular pitch or mooring if, in practice, the caravan or boat occupies the land with sufficient permanence it will be included with the mooring as domestic property, and the value included in the Council Tax banding. Planning permission (or lack of) for residential use may be a relevant factor - but is not the be-all and end-all. In fact, both rather pedantically and off-topic, one does not usually require planning permission to change a use or even build something, nor is it unlawful; however such development would not be immune from enforcement action so mostly it is not too wise to take the chance. A hereditament (magic, mainly "rating" word) ought not be assessed for both Council Tax and Business Rates (special rules for "composite") so, if Council Tax is levied on the occupiers (CT is a tax on occupation, in the first instance at least) then the marina owner ought to see its business rates liability reduced. Assuming the charge for the mooring includes an element for business rates, then it would be logical to pay a reduced fee; persuading the owner might be a different matter. Ian ps even if the boat as well as the mooring is also assessed as liable to CT, most inland waterway craft are likely to be in the lowest Council Tax band anyway. So whilst this might be a matter of principle, a long dispute might not help much. I suspect the Valuation Office may not be that bothered for the same reason.

It somehow suggests that the thoughtful designer was aware that buyer would need to spend much time working on the engine.

I did the roof of my boat earlier this year. I had hoped to hire a scabbler like this from here Brandon Hire and had researched branches near the rivers/canals. When I came to do the deed (on the Rive Wey) the nearest branch that had one for hire was in Weymouth! I then tried paint stripper - admittedly not Nitromors - but to no real effect. Knotted wire brushes in an angle grinder were ok, but messy, wore out quickly (estimate 10 to 20 required) and not that fast. In the end the most effective thing for me was one of these hit with one of these It took about 20 hours of hard work and rather longer for the swollen tendons to recover. Ian

Larch has a tug deck as well as traditional controls. Ian

Yes - very clever. But is there not a part of the process not shown? When collecting the boat from the dry-side, is it not necessary to reposition the chocks in order to get the trailer under the boat sufficiently? Ian

It rather depends on what the OP actually does. If he connects (only) a new towel rad into the engine circuit, then it will not have any effect on the existing, remaining CH system. I agree connecting several rads into the engine circuit is probably not too smart - not least because it would tend to make adding any conventional boiler more difficult. If it is desired to have the whole CH working off the engine, then a proper heat exchanger (plate exchangers are cheap) will work a lot better than using both coils and the intervening hot water in the cylinder to make the transfer - but it will need a circulation pump. Rather obviously, the towel heater/rads will only get hot when the engine is running. Ian

Well, we can confirm the above having today made the trip up from the Wey to just short of Brookwood. No real problems, but it is a bit of a faff having to book the rangers to open up 24 hours in advance, a 9.30 only start and rather laborious ways in which the locks must be worked and left. Also, whilst the water level is as high as it can get, there is not much depth in many places. Still, it had to be done. Ian

All may not be as it seems! Sunday afternoon we went down through the barrier on the last of the ebb and returned to Limehouse on the start of the flood; we had to kill a little time to provide enough water over the lock cill on the way back. On Monday morning, we set off around 07:30 with the latter part of the flood and came in at Brentford, before dashing up to Bull's Bridge and returning to Brentford Basin overnight. We set off Tuesday for Teddington. Limehouse - Thames Barrier - Brentford/Teddington on one tide (without stopping somewhere) is not so easy; assuming you wish to avoid punching the tide too much, leaving the barrier at low tide is likely to result in arriving at Brentford/Richmond/Teddington before there is sufficient depth of water, I think. Ian

Thanks very much. Ian

Yes - it was us (but not G & S Cole though!). We only ran down through the Thames Barrier and turned before the Woolwich Ferry. Tim, is there any chance of a copy of that photo in a reasonable resolution, please. One disadvantage of going alone is the difficulties of including your own boat in the photos. Ian

I should reclaim it then. Walk along any towpath and you'll be bound to find it before very long.

What is the thinking behind the "not next to the front steps" edict? Is it to reduce the chance of stumbling and scalding or is it a means-of-escape issue? Or is it something else?

Well, I can tell you it was found in a flight of wide locks, but nowhere near Little Venice. Is this the one?

It may not. The absence of boat movements means the water is so clear (unless it's) ice such that that whilst walking yesterday, we spotted an ali windlass and subsequently retrieved it with a boathook. Also found a mooring stake. Tell me exactly where you lost it on the GU, and you can have it back. Actually, you can have it anyway as they are 'orrible things. This is my windlass of choice.

My local scrap dealer was willing to sell me lead; in fact I took in a quantity of copper and the cash that I would have otherwise received was discounted by the "buying" price of the lead. This generous loss-of-margin may have been tempered by the purchase of the copper going through the books but possibly the sale of lead did not.. In my case, I wished to correct a list to port without taking up the floor - which meant that there was only a restricted space readily available. The advantage of lead is that it can be cast into a convenient shape - I used some box section steel.

I guess few of us were aware just how good a job Dusty does; 20,000 tonnes per winter is a lot of coal. It's an average of over 65 tonnes per boat, for the 300 served. Still, it must be true, I read it in.... Daily Mail Song

The basic scam is universal - you send the money and never see the boat. The slight twist is that following your expressed interest in the Boats & Outboards ad, the nice seller lists it as a "buy it now" on ebay because he/she assures you, that this way you will be protected by its policies - but you're not. The lesson, which is not a difficult one, is not to pass large sums of money to strangers without ensuring that you will actually get what your buying.

Is it likely that that the locks were dualled more to reduce congestion than save water? It is a by-product that on some, but not all, occasions water can be saved - disregarding leaky gates. I've never been a great believer in the suggestion that lockage is the prime culprit in taking water from the summit/pound. Inevitably it depends on the circumstances but evaporation and soakage losses can be substantial. I guess it is easier to limit the use of locks than address the alternatives. Your thought about the boatman doing what they wanted could well be near the mark. In the 1970s (when there seemed to be more side ponds in use - is that true?)they seemed to be viewed by most as an aid to speeding up the process; the side pond paddle would be drawn first, then a gentle stroll to the end of the lock to draw all available paddles, before returning to the side pond to drop its paddle when it was perceived the flow to the pond was about to reverse. It seemed to keep most people happy then.

I have no info at all - but that would be my guess too. Much easier to put a culvert in during construction (although it must have caused some disruption to the older lock) than subsequently and it might just prove useful somewhen.