Mike Todd

No it is not a usage charge - if it were then that usage would have to appear contractually in your licence documentation from CaRT. It was an argument batted around in the debate but in the end all that the surcharge does is allow a boater to cruise (within movement rules) the network and not have to declare a home mooring.

We had our first boat in 1968 and paid a fee to BW to moor just above Bishops Meadow Lock where Jack Monk lived at the time and wd received a disc with a large M on it.

Not as much of a difference as many would imagine. I think the major additions are Rochdale and Huddersfield (funded Millennially so not much chance of any immediate repeat!), Ribble Link and Liverpool Link. All very welcome but there was certainly plenty available in 1971 (even if almost all towpaths were impassable) - enough anyway to get us hooked in 1967.

As has been found elsewhere, filling in canals to be suitable for housing is not as easy as it might seem . . . A succession of politicians (and others) have had to have the facts put straight to them by their civil servants.

L:ast summer we had a couple of nights moored in Paddington and the hire boats seemed to be quite busy. It was nice to see folk enjoying themselves and seeing some value in the preservation of navigable water. Generally no behavioural issues but on a good summer evening the whole area is busy. I could see no reason why the boats should not be there.

That kind of argument led to the Poll Tax - everyone pays the same as everyone has access to the same services (irrespective of amount used) And that turned out well, didn't it? Surely you pay the same as everyone else for the licence to navigate? Mooring is a separate matter.

For me, I'd want to advocate somewhere between you and MtB: neither a fully public utility, free at the point of use, nor a fully commercial operation is really going to work. In the first case, there are just too many areas where sustained reductions in public maintenance have led to situations of near collapse (OK I'm biased having just has a pothole damaged tyre to replace) with canals rather lower down the priority scale, compared with hospitals, schools and roads all in dire need. In the second case, a fully commercial operation would need to find ways of monetising all the non-boating users, including walkers and cyclists, with a real problem over controlling access and monitoring payments/permits or w.h.y. As with most of these challenges, a real problem is a complete lack of a political philosophy that can give a principled underpinning yo the separate decisions. At one extreme we do have the Corbynist approach that really only values publicly owned activities - and is principled in doing so - and at the other we have the 'tax is wrong' brigade of Farage and Rees-Mogg. Until we can find a way that says that the mixed economy - some things are best done for the public good and some better for those who need/can afford it, we will struggle to do anything better than ad hoc decision making that generally quickly fails because it is a fine balance of opinion which changes with the daily winds. But I still lie in hoe that we can find a way of doing this with the canals!

I may have the thread tangled up but I thought the post was about marina moorings and I also thought that they are generally subject to CT on the business, although there is, I think, an option to charge it on individual moorings. However, from Wikipedia for Council Tax: Each dwelling is allocated to one of eight bands coded by letters A to H (A to I in Wales) on the basis of its assumed capital value (as at 1 April 1991 in England and Scotland, 1 April 2003 in Wales). Newly constructed properties are also assigned a nominal 1991 (2003 for Wales) value. Same point, though, it is based on a value at a fixed point in time.

I doubt that find a way to do it is the hard bit - find the money to enforce it, is

Popular misunderstanding. From Gloucestershire website (as an example) Business Rates are worked out based on your property’s rateable value. A property's rateable value is an assessment of the annual amount the property would rent for if it were available to let on the open market at a fixed valuation date. The estimate is made by the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). Until 31 March 2023, the rateable value will be based on a valuation date of 1 April 2015 From 1 April 2023, the rateable value is based on the valuation date of 1 April 2021 What is my rateable value?

A really useful couple of posts - great!

But remember that inflationary increases are on top of the 25% over 5 years IIRC the formal wording indicates that (a) a licence is for a boat and owner combination ie it is not transferable when it changes ownership and (b) the surcharge is on a licence for a boat for which the licensee does not have a place where it can be left (in practice for periods longer than 14 days although I think it just says not having a mooring at all) With reference to distinctions, in some quarters saying that a boater has a 'shiny boat' is as much a term of conscious bias as is 'tupperware boat' for others! We all have our prejudices but the real point is whether we can control and moderate them.

No VM's there now, is that not so?

Ye4ah! They are all way too recent for me . . .

As I understand it (which is not a lot to go on!) the issue is not about sending money in error but retaining money (or indeed any asset) to which you are not entitled. This does not specify how the asset was originally accessed - it could be under a variety of circumstances. For instance, there have been benefit recipients who received more than they were entitled as a result of 'administrative' error which was then clawed back. Unlike some debt situations it does seem that offset was permitted in this case (ie using one payment to cover an unrelated debt). But IANAL

See (as the first example that came up on Google) https://www.hardingevans.com/news/2022/02/17/accidental-payments-into-your-account-a-dream-come-true-or-a-legal-nightmare/#:~:text=' but unfortunately%2C the answer is,you must pay it back. I have long thought that it was called Theft

Are you sure of this legal advice?

There is rarely any 'normal' level that could be used in this way. Esp in HN as the pounds are so short and the level always changes noticeably just by taking or adding a lockful It is not the depth in the loc k that matters but that over the sill! Apart from flood conditions, I don't think I know of any lock that - in this sense - is ever full. There is always some amount of freeboard when ascending and its normal amount can vary between locks even on the same flight. Remember that the original engineers were an idiosyncratic lot with elastic measuring tapes . . . But also remember the old boatman's trick of 'humping' over a sill by using engine power, firstly to push the stern down/bow up and then the other way. Works far more frequently than the HN problem.

Do let us know how you get on - feedback on experience is very helpful to those who may be asked for advice!

Me too - but I think in a different lock on that canal

Mostly the former but also issues over 'official' address. (Remember that, as some have found out to their dismay, using someone else's address can cause issues such as with car insurance) IIRC you do not have to have any other (more permanent?) address to apply for benefits. Again, remember the context of many folk who apply. (BTW that is not a value judgement)

I do not believe that to be the the official position now -not to say that some DWP staff may not be up to date. Residential planning status legitimises being in that place without ever moving from it. However, many recipients of housing related benefits are always on the move from one flat or sofa to another and DWP have to cope with this. Such clients may well be those in greater needs in any event. Coping with the constraints of being on a non-res mooring are likely to be greater than getting DWP to pay.

. . . and one having to be made very quickly, often with limited or no prior experience of a similar situation and none of the repeat training that professionals would (these days) do to prepare for an emergency. Just think how much worse the Key Bridge disaster would have been if the traffic controllers had had to have a five minute conference to decide how to react to the May Day. All too often there is no second chance to try something different if the first choice does not work.

Could equally be a piece of debris just below the surface that jams in (DAMHIK! - it's scary)) but that does not tell us why it sank.

Best start point for detailed help is Citizens Advice - they have the best database of info anywhere. If not available in your area, try Waterways Chaplains - most of us can offer help, though if you are in my area (K&A) I'd direct you to CA (in Devizes at least). I have reason to believe that you should be OK but one snag to watch out for: at one time, even making an enquiry at DWP could reset existing benefits - so check with local advisor first, or do so 'for a friend'. There should be no question that the mooring and licence and insurance costs are allowable. I am not sure about claiming retrospective costs - again check with CA, they will have chapter and verse. Already having the mooring should not invalidate the claim but you should take care not to get into a situation of being committed to a cost which, because of some quirk in the system (there are plenty!) you cannot afford it.