Jump to content

Housing benefit will pay liveaboard's boat licence. Judge announces.


Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

If you can rent a flat in London for less than a boat licence fee you must have superpowers.

 

To be clearer, you'd be doing very well to rent a flat for a month for the price of an annual boat licence.

My central London residential (CRT) mooring is £9500 per annum. I own the boat which cost me £80k 9 years ago. 

 

Decent flats in the area are basically £20k a year so after ten years on this mooring the value of the boat has been reduced to around £0 if you are looking at spending the same money. 

 

The boat is still worth something...

 

The savings available by using the CC license option are astronomical. £15k+ per year.  In other words assuming you actually like living on a boat,which some people do, a £15k narrow boat will pay for itself in a year in London. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Not sure why you said "going the other way" as this is exactly what I am referring to. 

 

The subject of this topic seems to me to be promoting this outcome.  

 

My reference to councils "losing" people to the waterways was a short term reference with negative implications in the longer term for people who actually do want to live on boats. 

 

It is obviously not sustainable as a housing solution in a country with a rapidly expanding population so discussions will take place and changes will be made, most probably involving making it more expensive and / or less legally manageable to live on boats without paying for moorings.

 

 

Exactly. 

I understand you to mean;

it’s cheaper for the benefit office to support someone living on a boat than living on land in a house, flat of apartment. You mentioned displacing people on to the waterways as a cost effective way of losing people. 
 

I’m suggesting in the future it won’t be cost effective. And to live on the waterways will be prohibitively expensive. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jerra said:

I agree with the chance of it being noticeable on a taxpayers bill.   However given years of tory misrule austerity councils are strapped for cash and are likely to be looking tat raising any from anywhere they can.  I  doubt after the necessary borrowing for Covid things will get any easier.

 

I suspect when councils start getting claims, particularly from marinas they are going to start wondering why if people live there there is no income from council tax.  The obvious target will be liveaboards who aren't claiming benefits.  Choice of two ways forward, either charge  council tax or ensure nobody lives aboard in the marina.

 

Pessimistic I know but I strongly suspect it will happen, the question is how many councils.

 

A final thought have you ever seen a vote anywhere that adds abstentions to the majority vote?

Your behind the times, some councils have aready classed boats moored in Marinas as second homes for council tax even if the marina is non- residential. And have being billing moorers for council tax for some years.

Edited by nbfiresprite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I understand you to mean;

it’s cheaper for the benefit office to support someone living on a boat than living on land in a house, flat of apartment. You mentioned displacing people on to the waterways as a cost effective way of losing people. 
 

I’m suggesting in the future it won’t be cost effective. And to live on the waterways will be prohibitively expensive. 
 

It obviously is cheaper for the benefit office to pay just for a "no home mooring" CRT license than a land dwelling. This is an indisputable fact. 

 

Or are you suggesting that CRT licenses will suddenly be £10k a year? This seems improbable to me. 

 

I was suggesting that if this is seen as a solution then other discussions will take place and ensure that the door gets closed. Maybe that door is already moving. 

 

We basically agree on where things are heading but I tend to think that certain inputs will make it happen quicker. 

 

 

ETA if you were referring to benefits office paying for licenses AND residential moorings with pp then it's obviously a completely different subject and in some areas is indeed a valid housing solution.

 

 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It obviously is cheaper for the benefit office to pay just for a "no home mooring" CRT license than a land dwelling. This is an indisputable fact. 

 

Or are you suggesting that CRT licenses will suddenly be £10k a year? This seems improbable to me. 

 

I was suggesting that if this is seen as a solution then other discussions will take place and ensure that the door gets closed. Maybe that door is already moving. 

 

We basically agree on where things are heading but I tend to think that certain inputs will make it happen quicker. 

 

 

ETA if you were referring to benefits office paying for licenses and residential moorings with pp then it's obviously a completely different subject. 

 

 

Yes, I was referring to the benefit office paying for licenses, moorings and also insurance. 
These had already been mentioned in the thread

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

There are plenty who will continue to argue that black is white, even when the facts are clear, i.e. black is not white, and white is not black, under any circumstances

Well, that's not strictly true... in the absence of any light then white will most certainly be black.  Black is, after all, only the absence of light...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ruling will not go down well with the clueless pen pushers and desk jockeys at the DWP as it will mean more work. For the Universal Credit software is unable to process claims for mooring fees, all claims for mooring fees has to process by hand, the same will apply to a navagation licence. Which will be paid monthy in arrears. Putting in a claim will be a uphill task when dealing with either the call centre or the staff in the Job centre. The stock reply will be 'not to do with us try the council'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CLAN1 said:

Exactly, we just been wondering about that, waiting for answer to that one?

 

13 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

How can a local Council pay a years license fee for a ‘Continuous’ Cruiser, who must surely leave the area during the year. Does this not just apply to a liveaboard on a residential mooring within the council’s jurisdiction?

The payment of Housing Benefit is administered by local authorities but funded by national government via the Department of Work and Pensions.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I first read through this judgment in some dismay at the unquestioning swallowing of the Boat Licence “contractual” nature, alert to any knock-on effects in relation to other current issues plaguing yet another sector of boaters, with offside moorings that CaRT refuse to recognise. The refusal of the Appeal Court to consider my marshalled arguments on that topic (in the interests of focussing on a single issue), meant that the EoG situation has remained since then, where Stoner & Co had left it at County Court levels – that the boat licence did NOT confer any right for the boat to occupy “land covered by water”, this being (on Stoner's argument) a 'right to keep' a boat on the water, rather than a 'right to use' a boat on the water, both rights having been abolished by the TA 1968.

 

I have always maintained the nonsense of that argument, by reference to the wording of the 1976 byelaws, which provide that the PB licence confers – very specifically – the right to bring onto, let for hire, keep AND use the licensed boat on the Board's canals. The effect being that no further consent on CaRT's part is needed to avoid any trespass action simply for floating over the canal bed.

 

Since those 'simpler' times, of course, CaRT have finessed their whole boat licensing scheme theory into the realm of contract law, instead of the truth that it is bound by the terms of the relevant statutes. This has 'allowed' them (in practical reality, however illegally) to give or withhold the licence at will; limit what the licence does and does not permit, and render it all subject to their agreement, based on the boat owner's enforced submission to an agreement to the arbitrary (and ultra vires) T&C's.

 

Now, however, this recent judgment has – in at least ostensibly accepting and wholeheartedly endorsing the contractual nature of the boat licence – determined the effect of that to be a grant of consent to occupy the land beneath the water on which the boat floats. Further, that this applies across the board, whether on a CC 14 day basis or in a home mooring situation.

 

The further unexpected serendipitous effect of this judgment therefore, is to hoist CaRT firmly by their own petard, and remove their long-held false rationale for giving or withholding consent for boat owners to moor to their own property.

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Now, however, this recent judgment has – in at least ostensibly accepting and wholeheartedly endorsing the contractual nature of the boat licence – determined the effect of that to be a grant of consent to occupy the land beneath the water on which the boat floats. Further, that this applies across the board, whether on a CC 14 day basis or in a home mooring situation.

 

Are you suggesting this ruling could be used to challenge the End of Garden mooring fees then Nigel?

 

I'd expect to see CRT quite concerned about that interpretation - there's quite a revenue stream tied up in the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Are you suggesting this ruling could be used to challenge the End of Garden mooring fees then Nigel?

 

I'd expect to see CRT quite concerned about that interpretation - there's quite a revenue stream tied up in the current system.

Or, even more interesting, could this mean that the licence allows you to occupy a piece of water and the land beneath it, so you no longer need a mooring ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Are you suggesting this ruling could be used to challenge the End of Garden mooring fees then Nigel?

 

I'd expect to see CRT quite concerned about that interpretation - there's quite a revenue stream tied up in the current system.

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting, because it uses the very language relied upon by CaRT when claiming what is NOT being granted by the boat licence.

 

Of course, although I believe that the outcome was the right decision to have made in the strict terms of this appeal, my views on the entirely false argumentative construct of the nature of licences would necessitate a rejection of any conclusion based thereon - but that is hardly open to CaRT; the judge has made his decision based solely on how THEY represent "the contract".

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Or, even more interesting, could this mean that the licence allows you to occupy a piece of water and the land beneath it, so you no longer need a mooring ?

 

That's already available as a boat without a home mooring - the so called CCers - but you have to move "places".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Or, even more interesting, could this mean that the licence allows you to occupy a piece of water and the land beneath it, so you no longer need a mooring ?

Hardly. If you were not under way, then absent some attachment to land (whether fundus or ripa) you would be drifting out of contol contrary to byelaws. Any mooring right comprises 2 essential elements: a right to float on the water, and a right to attach to a fixed point of land. The boat licence allows only one element, the gift of the other lies with the appropriate land owner.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Hardly. If you were not under way, then absent some attachment to land (whether fundus or ripa) you would be drifting out of contol contrary to byelaws. Any mooring right comprises 2 essential elements: a right to float on the water, and a right to attach to a fixed point of land. The boat licence allows only one element, the gift of the other lies with the appropriate land owner.

If you are already 'renting' the piece of land below your boat then would not the use of mud-weights obviate the need to attach to the bank ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you are already 'renting' the piece of land below your boat then would not the use of mud-weights obviate the need to attach to the bank ?

Perhaps in this sense "land" includes the river- or canal-bed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Perhaps in this sense "land" includes the river- or canal-bed?

 

 

 

(from the court case)

 

3. Existing authority in the form of a Social Security Commissioner’s decision holds that a payment made in exchange for a continuous cruiser licence is not a payment in respect of a licence to occupy a dwelling. On that basis, the payment cannot be ‘rent’ under regulation 12(1)(b) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (2006 Regulations). I decide that existing authority is incorrect and decline to follow the Commissioner’s decision. I decide that Mr B’s continuous cruiser licence payments were rent for the purposes of regulation 12(1).  The Commissioner’s decision did not take account of the fact that, for housing benefit purposes, a dwelling in the form of a houseboat is comprised of not only the boat but also the land used for mooring it. A licence to use land for mooring is therefore a licence to occupy a dwelling. It does not matter that the houseboat itself is owned by a claimant (or someone other than the person who owns or manages the mooring land). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If you are already 'renting' the piece of land below your boat then would not the use of mud-weights obviate the need to attach to the bank ?

You are still conflating the 2 distinct elements, which only serves to confuse the relevant issues. Attachment/touching, however temporary, remains a distinct act of potential trespass depending on what relevant rights either public or private attend the situation. US  case law in this area is more comprehensive than here in the UK, but even so, the extent of permissible temporary (even accidental) contact with land over which one may legitmately float, has been the subject of judicial examination over centuries.

 

A land owner may grant a right of 'occupation' that still requires an extra right enabling a less transient occupation. Where a boat can be kept stationary by means of attachment to the ripa rather than to a 3rd party's fundus, then the elements are satisfied - but the fundus owner in granting an occupation right over the fundus is not thereby obligated to also grant an attachment right to enable mooring TO the fundus in the absence of an adjacent riparian owner's consent.

 

So far as I can see in this particular decision, the judge has been very careful to keep the distinct elements separate.

 

 

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Perhaps in this sense "land" includes the river- or canal-bed?

It very specifically does.

  • Greenie 1
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2020 at 10:06, Athy said:

I am one. I've expressed my opinion. Just because I'm (touch wood) comfortably off doesn't mean that I think that people who aren't shouldn't receive help. I would guess that I'm in the majority here.

Virtual greenie.

I have been both sides of the fence.

To quote Michael Cain

"I've been rich and I've been poor , rich is better" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dynamic positioning is the way ahead. 

 

Electric 360 pods at each end of the boat GPS controlled to keep it in exactly the same spot full time. Small diesel generator as a power source. 

 

They do it at sea in gales so it's hardly rocket science to do it on a ditch ;)

Edited by magnetman
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/07/2020 at 10:10, George and Dragon said:

That's a triple negative. .

I don't believe it is.

Surely a triple negative must include three negatives which relate to the same verb. I was thinking of James Brown's song title 'I Don't Want Nobody To Give Me Nothing' as an example, but it probably isn't, as it contains two verbs.

   There was a character in a very old comedy series (The Army Game?) whose catch phrase was "Not nohow never". That would be closer.

Edited by Athy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My cousin, who has been living on a CRT "leisure" towpath mooring for about 10 years told me that one of the moorings came up at auction and someone acquired it on housing benefit. The effect was that he could outbid others because the amount of money the housing office would provide was fixed. So he got the mooring and it was far more expensive than previous auctions because of demand at that moment. 

Seems a bit dodgy. The mooring in question is a site where CRT have previously asked the council for PP to install several residential towpath side moorings but were refused. 

This might not be entirely accurate as it is second hand news but I reckon it's probably true..


I know the mooring site as I used to live there years ago and it was blatantly obvious that the first few moorings should be converted to residential with services.

 

Possibly another slightly odd and unexpected side effect of the benefits system supporting people living on boats who don't actually have the full legal framework for residential use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

Your behind the times, some councils have aready classed boats moored in Marinas as second homes for council tax even if the marina is non- residential. And have being billing moorers for council tax for some years.

I have heard the rumour but I don't believe it can be true, can you give any exapmles. As stated elsewere a boat is a chatel and therefor not liable for council tax (like a car), but the location may be. If there is residential planning permission then council tax is payable, if it is a leisure mooring council tax is payed by the agregated tax on the marina. To tax again would be double taxation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Detling said:

I have heard the rumour but I don't believe it can be true, can you give any exapmles. As stated elsewere a boat is a chatel and therefor not liable for council tax (like a car), but the location may be. If there is residential planning permission then council tax is payable, if it is a leisure mooring council tax is payed by the agregated tax on the marina. To tax again would be double taxation.

 

I seem to remember this was discussed a week or two ago and a Local Authority in the Fens was cited as charging CT on all boats in a marina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Detling said:

I have heard the rumour but I don't believe it can be true, can you give any exapmles. As stated elsewere a boat is a chatel and therefor not liable for council tax (like a car), but the location may be. If there is residential planning permission then council tax is payable, if it is a leisure mooring council tax is payed by the agregated tax on the marina. To tax again would be double taxation.

No rumour, it's a fact. Since 2017 The Anglia Revenues Partnership a private company acting on behalf of Fenland District Council for collection of council tax, has classed boats moored in Marinas as second homes for council tax and has sent out bills addressed to the moorers primary residence.

 

Both Floods Ferry and Foxes are non-residential. Which is in the mooring agreement, furthermore in Foxes case on the 23rd March, the marina went into lockdown, all moorers in the marina at the time were ordered to leave amd go to their Primary Residence.  Foxes don't permit moorings to be used as a Primary Residence. Infact we can only stay overnight on the moorings for 44 weeks of the year. The marina did not reopen until 18th May for day visits to check on boats. These visits which had to be prebooked until 22nd June. Not until the 4th July can you stay overnight.

 

Dealing with the private company (Anglia Revenues Partnership) who are only interested in profit is long and drawnout, Where the timescace for a reply is not days ,or weeks, but months. My mooring agreement clearly states non-residential which I sent copies. The marina moorings are zoned for business rates, a percentage of which is added to my mooring bill.  I even sent a copy of the 1978 planning permission for the building of the marina which clearly states non-residential use. Some winter moorers were billed for simple not being able to produce a Council Tax bill in their name. Many spend the winter in Spain.

 

The only method of contact is through e-mail or online form, which then requires that you wait 10 to 12 weeks for a reply. As for being moved around the marina, this happens 4 or 5 times a year. I yet to get the reason as to why the boat is classed as a second home, more worrying is that the address on the council tax listing is not even the marina address but at a house at the other end of the road. I taken this matter up with the Valuation Office Agency who claim that it is not their problem and that it is the Council who have to correct the address,  Which the Anglia Revenues Partnership don't do. I'm not able to take it to the Ombudsman until I have gone through the long winded complaint proess. Which is clearly designed to make people give up.  

 

The local councillor Jan French supports the classing of boats as second homes and the charging of council tax on them and was the one who pushed for it to be done.

 

 

 

council tax banding.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.