Boat dwellers to be able to claim the £400 energy allowance.

[nbfiresprite]

19 hours ago, IanD said:

I never thought I'd say this...

 

Well done the NBTA for doing something which is genuinely to the benefit of *all* boaters 🙂

Taking the credit for the actions of others, nothing new there. 

 

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

 Can't you see the fraud potential???

Yes of course I  can.

 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

Taking the credit for the actions of others, nothing new there. 

 

It's not clear what the NBTA have actually done, whether they've really persuaded the government to change its mind to the benefit of boaters in general, or only boaters (perhaps including NBTA members) whose boat has a registered address, or haven't done anything except claim the credit.

 

Their press release makes it sound like the first one and credit to them if  this was the case; if the second one it's "I'm all right Jack" so business as usual, if the third one -- well, it wouldn't be the first misleading press release, would it?

Edited December 23, 2022 by IanD

[Tacet]

11 hours ago, Ianws said:

I agree. I made a mistake splitting points over a couple of posts. I was basically saying everyone should pay council tax, at homeaddress if a leisure boater, at the mooring if a residential or leisure (under the radar) liveaboard, or via CRT, if a boat without a mooring. Just one council tax per household somewhere in the system.

You need to decide whether everyone should pay council tax or whether it is should be paid per household.  And if the latter, you will need a tight definition of household.

Council tax is a (clever) misnomer as it is not a tax on Council's.  It is collected by the local authority and only loosely connected to its funding.  It is, in fact, a domestic property tax.  If you have domestic property, you are essentially liable for the the tax.  If you don't, you're not. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 hours ago, Ianws said:

. I was basically saying everyone should pay council tax, at homeaddress if a leisure boater, at the mooring if a residential or leisure (under the radar) liveaboard, or via CRT, if a boat without a mooring.

I can’t see how that’d work because it’d turn CRT into government tax collectors, which ain’t their job. 
 

I wonder how much revenue is being missed out on?

The value of boats are not comparable to the value of houses or bricks and mortar and they’d likely fall at the bottom end of the tax scale, a big proportion would be single occupants or old enough to get the discounted rate. And take in to account people/boats are moving from place to place/county to county I can’t see it being worth the effort, it may cost more to administer, and wouldn’t it have to go through Parliament to amend the laws involved.?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Goliath said:

I can’t see how that’d work because it’d turn CRT into government tax collectors, which ain’t their job. 

 

But .......... But ............. But

 

C&RT are already tax collectors for the HMRC, and are even incorrectly charging VAT (when it is not required, and they know its not required, and have sent internal emails around about it) but it makes for a 'simple life' if they just charge VAT.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

It's not clear what the NBTA have actually done, whether they've really persuaded the government to change its mind to the benefit of boaters in general, or only boaters (perhaps including NBTA members) whose boat has a registered address, or haven't done anything except claim the credit.

 

Their press release makes it sound like the first one and credit to them if  this was the case; if the second one it's "I'm all right Jack" so business as usual, if the third one -- well, it wouldn't be the first misleading press release, would it?

don’t take this as a dig or a snipe;

we will all just have to wait and see in January what takes shape, I’m really not holding my breath 

 

I’m a little unsure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying NBTA have possibly changed things only for it’s members? that’d be wrong they are encouraging all itinerants to make a claim, regardless of their support for NBTA. The term ‘members’ is a bit misleading even though NBTA use it themselves. There isn’t a formal membership with a subscription as far as I’m aware. 

The big question here for the NBTA is about claimants without a registered address. 
 

“The NBTA encourages everyone who lives on a boat without a permanent mooring or a fixed address to apply to the scheme once it goes live” NBTA 

Edited December 23, 2022 by Goliath

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

16 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

But .......... But ............. But

 

C&RT are already tax collectors for the HMRC, and are even incorrectly charging VAT (when it is not required, and they know its not required, and have sent internal emails around about it) but it makes for a 'simple life' if they just charge VAT.

but…that’s quite a different tax and all

completely different  

 

and….and…and…

 

what you’ve wrote just goes to show CRT can’t be trusted. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

... what you’ve wrote just goes to show CRT can’t be trusted. 

 

Many of us learnt than 10 years ago !

[peterboat]

On 19/12/2022 at 19:07, MtB said:

 

Yes, but it is the result of sloppy semantics by the politicians who promised it to all "off grid" households, thinking "off grid" meant off the gas grid and running on oil.

 

Even so, despite recent price shocks oil remains the cheapest fuel per kWr of all by far, save for wood and coal. 

Anthracite has doubled in price! Calor gas nearly doubled in price and diesel fluctuates but is higher than before so 400 squids will cover it nicely 

4 hours ago, IanD said:

It's not clear what the NBTA have actually done, whether they've really persuaded the government to change its mind to the benefit of boaters in general, or only boaters (perhaps including NBTA members) whose boat has a registered address, or haven't done anything except claim the credit.

 

Their press release makes it sound like the first one and credit to them if  this was the case; if the second one it's "I'm all right Jack" so business as usual, if the third one -- well, it wouldn't be the first misleading press release, would it?

They have been actively pursuing this money I have been reading about it on Facebook  meetings zoom calls etc. Last month they said it was going through and it looks like it is

[LadyG]

19 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Anthracite has doubled in price! Calor gas nearly doubled in price and diesel fluctuates but is higher than before so 400 squids will cover it nicely 

They have been actively pursuing this money I have been reading about it on Facebook  meetings zoom calls etc. Last month they said it was going through and it looks like it is

I lost the plot about post three.

Do I, as a cc

1) do nothing

2) do something

 

 

[Momac]

9 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I lost the plot about post three.

Do I, as a cc

1) do nothing

2) do something

 

 

Wait until January when a means to make a claim is allegedly due to become available.

[Arthur Marshall]

17 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I lost the plot about post three.

Do I, as a cc

1) do nothing

2) do something

 

 

Apply in January online as and when it becomes possible. It will then become obvious whether you are entitled to anything and how to get it. Everything else is currently just speculation.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

don’t take this as a dig or a snipe;

we will all just have to wait and see in January what takes shape, I’m really not holding my breath 

 

I’m a little unsure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying NBTA have possibly changed things only for it’s members? that’d be wrong they are encouraging all itinerants to make a claim, regardless of their support for NBTA. The term ‘members’ is a bit misleading even though NBTA use it themselves. There isn’t a formal membership with a subscription as far as I’m aware. 

The big question here for the NBTA is about claimants without a registered address. 
 

“The NBTA encourages everyone who lives on a boat without a permanent mooring or a fixed address to apply to the scheme once it goes live” NBTA 

I'm not taking that as a snipe -- I meant it's currently unclear what is actually happening and what the NBTA have actually done to improve things for boaters, because it's not exactly uncommon for organisations of all types (CART and NBTA included) to put a positive (for themselves) spin on press announcements.

 

*If* the scheme is indeed open to everyone whether they are resident in one place or not -- officially or otherwise -- so CCers can apply as well as those with home moorings, this is indeed good news.

 

And *if* the NBTA really did contribute to making this happen they deserve credit for it -- which is what my first post said... 😉

Edited December 23, 2022 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

And *if* the NBTA really did contribute to making this happen they deserve credit for it -- which is what my first post said... 😉

yes, it were they who got the petition together. If I remember correctly it got more online signatures than initially sought for, and not just with the signatures of NBTA supporters. 
I’ll try and find the numbers. 
 

The NBTA also advised it’s supporters how to contact a local MP with a written ‘protest’ (my word not theirs) regards the omission of itinerant boaters from the government’s list of those eligible to make a claim.  
 

Plus the NBTA have kind of paired up with FFT on many shared issues such as this. Hence;

“Both the NBTA and Friends, Families and Travellers (FFT) have had intensive discussions with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to ensure that all off-grid households, including itinerant boat, caravan and vehicle dwellers without a fixed address, will be included.” NBTA 

But as we keep saying, “we will have to wait and see how it pans out’.

 

The proof will be in the pudding. (Hopefully better than my Yorkshires!)

 

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

yes, it were they who got the petition together. If I remember correctly it got more online signatures than initially sought for, and not just with the signatures of NBTA supporters. 
I’ll try and find the numbers. 
 

The NBTA also advised it’s supporters how to contact a local MP with a written ‘protest’ (my word not theirs) regards the omission of itinerant boaters from the government’s list of those eligible to make a claim.  

 

The point is there is a big difference between getting a petition together, & lobbying your MP and actually getting the Government to change their plans.

 

The tone of their presss release suggests they have been successful in getting 'itinerant boaters' included, but there is no evidence of this on any of the Government (current) press releases / websites.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The point is there is a big difference between getting a petition together, & lobbying your MP and actually getting the Government to change their plans.

 

The tone of their presss release suggests they have been successful in getting 'itinerant boaters' included, but there is no evidence of this on any of the Government (current) press releases / websites.

I would expect itinerant boaters to come under the ‘travellers’ bracket wouldn’t you?

 

The government website has included travellers as eligible to claim, so why not itinerant boaters?

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

21 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I would expect itinerant boaters to come under the ‘travellers’ bracket wouldn’t you?

 

The government website has included travellers as eligible to claim, so why not itinerant boaters?

 

 

 

The Government has a very strict definition of travellers - here is an example from the requirements to get a school place :

 

Before anyone gets excited about boaters / Bargees being mentioned in section "A", note that both Section "A" and section "B" requirements must be met

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The Government has a very strict definition of travellers - here is an example from the requirements to get a school place :

 

Before anyone gets excited about boaters / Bargees being mentioned in section "A", note that both Section "A" and section "B" requirements must be met

 

 

 

Are you sure both A and b have to apply? B looks like an additional class to me, or it denies a single, nonworking parent the definition.

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Are you sure both A and b have to apply? B looks like an additional class to me, or it denies a single, nonworking parent the definition.

 

I think the penulitimate paragraph is relevant :

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The Government has a very strict definition of travellers - here is an example from the requirements to get a school place :

 

Before anyone gets excited about boaters / Bargees being mentioned in section "A", note that both Section "A" and section "B" requirements must be met

 

 

 

But I’m not after a school place 🤷‍♀️
 

section A is possibly pertinent as it describes what the government considers a traveller 

 

and section B is on about the carer of a child having to be a traveller too

 

and the last little bit says a traveller is not someone on holiday. 

And it’s all a bit woolly anyway, using words like ‘ideas’ and ‘advice’. 

Come on you can do better 😃

You’re muddying the waters. 
 

Why wouldn’t you, or why can’t you take the tack of being inclusive to  the fact there are some folk out there in need of a little help too?

Why try and find technicalities to exclude ?🤷‍♀️
 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

Indeed, it does explicitly  say that the definition is "for the purposes of this advice only", I.e. it only definitely applies to school attendance and does not necessarily apply to other purposes.

[Alan de Enfield]

29 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

Indeed, it does explicitly  say that the definition is "for the purposes of this advice only", I.e. it only definitely applies to school attendance and does not necessarily apply to other purposes.

 

Indeed there are similar definitions for various aspects of 'traveller life' - for example the definition under 'Planning Permission for travellers' - it states that the elderly or ill cannot be 'moved on' and are allowed to stay in one loaction indefinitely - Watch out C&RT !!!

[Arthur Marshall]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think the penulitimate paragraph is relevant :

 

 

 

My fault - I missed that bit!

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The point is there is a big difference between getting a petition together, & lobbying your MP and actually getting the Government to change their plans.

 

The tone of their presss release suggests they have been successful in getting 'itinerant boaters' included, but there is no evidence of this on any of the Government (current) press releases / websites.

That was exactly my point too -- as Goliath said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

Let's hope that the NBTA are correct and not just trying to claim kudos they don't deserve...