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

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

They have doing so since 2013

 

Their twitter prpfile clear states that

 

 

I don’t Twitter, 

So thanks for pointing that out

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Goliath

[blackrose]

I'm still slightly confused by this thread but this is what I read on the e.on website.

 

The government has confirmed (21 Sept) that the £400 Energy Bill Support Scheme (EBSS) will be extended to cover people such as park home or house boat residents and those tenants whose landlords pay for their energy via a commercial contract. 

 

https://www.eonnext.com/energy-bill-support-scheme#:~:text=The government has confirmed (21,energy via a commercial contract.

 

However, it's still not clear to me whether those living on non residential moorings would qualify and if so how one would actually get it?

Edited December 27, 2022 by blackrose

[Paul C]

2 minutes ago, blackrose said:

.........

 

However, it's still not clear to me 

 

Its still not January. Not long now though.

[Peanut]

If in a marina, and the marina claims under the Business Energy Support Scheme, I wonder if that  would preclude a resident boat owner from claiming support as well. The marina may not like to talk about their financial arrangements either.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Peanut said:

If in a marina, and the marina claims under the Business Energy Support Scheme, I wonder if that  would preclude a resident boat owner from claiming support as well. The marina may not like to talk about their financial arrangements either.

If the marina gets a subsidy for 'business energy  they would need to pass on the saving to  customers regardless of residential or not.

This would not be the same subsidy as the £400 which the residential  boat owner should  be able to claim.

 

A residential boat owner  in a marina can easily be identified  as they pay council tax.

So they should receive the £400 without question. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BEngo]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

A residential boat owner  in a marina can easily be identified  as they pay council tax.

So they should receive the £400 without question. 

 

Not always.   In older marinas, possibly, depending on if there ever were any official residential moorings created, and on whether the marina pre- or post- dates Council Tax and Business Rates.  In newer ones it depends on how the marina  rating assessment was  set up by the Valuation Office (part of HMRC).   The modern approach is to rate (value) the whole marina as a mixed use development, if it includes anything except moorings, i.e. slipway  docks, cafes, chandlers etc.

The rates valuation then includes an element in lieu of Council Tax for the number of residential moorings which were approved as well as a rate valuation for the number of moorings and the rest of the business.

 

  The owner pays all the business rates bill, the resident boaters do not pay CT directly and officialdom is happy.  Of course,  the CT element of the rates bill can be recovered  from the residential boaters by the marina operator, either as a specific charge or it is included in the mooring fee.   Thus ensuring that resident  boaters make a contribution to the things CT pays for.  Even better, it is continuous, regardless of whether the mooring is occupied or not.

 

 Somewhere there is a VOA book of rules on how rating is to be worked and that apparently includes all the details.

 

N

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, BEngo said:

Not always. 

Noted

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, BEngo said:

 Somewhere there is a VOA book of rules on how rating is to be worked and that apparently includes all the details.

 

Scroll down to practice note 7 and there are pages of examples and workings showing if a boat should be individually CT rated, the mooring rated or the Marina classed as a composite hereditament.

 

Council Tax Manual - Council Tax: practice notes - Guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[Peanut]

Thank you for that, it applies to formal residential moorings, but not to the many informal ones. They may pay the marina for their extra usage, and also be on the local Electoral Register, but with no right to reside there.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Peanut said:

Thank you for that, it applies to formal residential moorings, but not to the many informal ones. They may pay the marina for their extra usage, and also be on the local Electoral Register, but with no right to reside there.

 

You can be anywhere in the country and be on the electoral register and vote where you have claimed a 'connection' to the area.

 

Well, yes -- if it's not a residential mooring then the boat has no rights to be used for residential, purposes and it cannot be charged CT on a leisure mooring.

[BEngo]

A boat is a chattel.  Council Tax is never payable on chattels.  Council Tax may be payable if a mooring  (which is not a chattel, but real estate) is being used for residential purposes. 

 

N

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, BEngo said:

A boat is a chattel.  Council Tax is never payable on chattels.  Council Tax may be payable if a mooring  (which is not a chattel, but real estate) is being used for residential purposes. 

 

N

 

Unless the boat is of sufficient permanacy to the mooring, in which case the boats value is added to the value of the mooring to determine the combined value on which to base the CT.

 

I think it is all explained in the VOA document I linked to.

 

Edit :

 

Found it :

 

Example 1

Purpose built living accommodation based on a flat bottomed barge. The structure is moored to the bank by mooring lines and provided with affixed water, electricity and sewage connections. It may or may not have its own propulsion or engine.

At intervals commonly but not exclusively every 2 - 3 years the structure is moved away for condition surveys and general maintenance. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. This provides rateable occupation. The mooring is also domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence.

The flat bottomed barge together with its living accommodation is a chattel. As the boat is permanently located on the mooring and only moves away every 2-3 years for maintenance, it can be considered to be enjoyed with the land. The value of the boat should therefore be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

 

Example 2

A family lives on a barge and pay rent to the riparian (‘of river bank’) owner for a mooring on the river bank. Water is supplied to the river bank. At times during the year, the barge goes cruising leaving the mooring vacant until its return. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is used exclusively by one boat during the year. When the barge is present, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence. When the barge is absent, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(5) because it appears that when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently annexed to the land to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band

 

Example 3

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

The presence of a composite hereditament may be indicated by identifying the following features;

• Where boats that are occupied as an individual’s sole or main residence do not have a permanent right to any specific mooring
• Evidence that boats which are an individual’s sole or main residence are actually physically moved on at least two occasions a year.
• The boat that is an individual’s sole or main residence must be moved to a different berth not merely out and shortly afterwards returning to the same berth.

The presence of separate domestic dwellings within the boundary of the marina but not included in the composite hereditament would be indicated by ;

• A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.
• If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.
• Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

It is possible on the facts to find both a composite hereditament and one or more separate domestic hereditaments in the same marina. The final decision to find a composite or not must rest with the specific facts of each case.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Momac]

18 minutes ago, BEngo said:

A boat is a chattel. 

Does that mean it cannot be a ''household''?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Does that mean it cannot be a ''household''?

 

 

Read the VOA document I posted earlier, you can then make your own conclusions.

[MtB]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Read the VOA document I posted earlier, you can then make your own conclusions.

 

 

I doubt the VOA would accept Martyn's conclusion as definitive, no matter how many times he reads your gobbet of text copied and pasted.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I doubt the VOA would accept Martyn's conclusion as definitive, no matter how many times he reads your gobbet of text copied and pasted.

 

 

 

You obviously didn't read it (again)

 

I posted the Link to the full document so he could make his own conclusions, - not just based on the gobbet of text I postet in response to a different question.

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You obviously didn't read it (again)

 

I posted the Link to the full document so he could make his own conclusions, - not just based on the gobbet of text I postet in response to a different question.

 

Still missing the point, which is that Martyn was hoping for a definitive and authoritative conclusion (I think!), not one he arrives at himself. 

[peterboat]

I only read the affixed water and decided it didn't mean a hosepipe?

[Peanut]

Thank you Allen, your replies have been very helpful. I have been away celebrating a birthday, and haden't got to the examples.

[nbfiresprite]

The Anglia Revenues Partnership (ARP) which collects Council Tax for some councils in the East of England have their own rules as to moorings.

 

The ARP will only accept a Council Tax bill with your name on it from another council to prove the mooring is non-residential. 

 

Even if it is clearly stated in the mooring agreement that the mooring is non-residential. The mooring has no post address, any post addressed

to a mooring is return to sender. The planning permission states non-residential use only. These are not accepted by the ARP as prove that the

mooring was non-residential.

 

The clear prove that the marina was non-residential was in lockdown, when the marina was closed to all and boaters were ordered to go home. 

 

Anyone who has had the misforture to deal with the ARP, will know what a pain they are to deal, only two ways to contact them, by phone at one of the rare

times that call centre is open or by the contact form on their website followed by a 8 to 10 weeks for a reply thats if you get one and have to send a follow up..  

 

[TheBiscuits]

7 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

The clear [proof] that the marina was non-residential was in lockdown, when the marina was closed to all and boaters were ordered to go home. 

 

That's fairly conclusive proof I'd say.  "Look Giv, ain't nobody here!"

 

Do you think that was a good thing or a bad thing?

[nbfiresprite]

They still refused to accept that as prove, and still charge the tax for the period while the marina was in lockdown. One couple was taken to court and lost to the ARP's £900 an hour lawyer. They ended up having to sell the boat to pay the court costs and fines.

Edited December 28, 2022 by nbfiresprite

[TheBiscuits]

33 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

They still refused to accept that as prove, and still charge the tax for the period while the marina was in lockdown. One couple was taken to court and lost to the ARP's £900 an hour lawyer. They ended up having to sell the boat to pay the court costs and fines.

 

What tax?

 

Are you saying ARP were charging council tax on a non-residential mooring that nobody was living on?

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by TheBiscuits
clarity

[MtB]

54 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

They still refused to accept that as prove, and still charge the tax for the period while the marina was in lockdown. One couple was taken to court and lost to the ARP's £900 an hour lawyer. They ended up having to sell the boat to pay the court costs and fines.

 

It's hard to imagine how the council came to win, when presumably this couple were able to produce their actual council tax bill for their actual residential address to the court. I suspect the situation must be more complex than presented.

[nbfiresprite]

The Council tax bill was not in their name, but the

36 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

What tax?

 

Are you saying ARP were charging council tax on a non-residential mooring that nobody was living on?

 

 

They charge me and others council tax in the lockdowns on the moorings when no one was there.

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It's hard to imagine how the council came to win, when presumably this couple were able to produce their actual council tax bill for their actual residential address to the court. I suspect the situation must be more complex than presented.

The residential address council tax bill was in their son's name not theirs.