Jump to content

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


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

32 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Some don’t have a mooring at all and council tax has no relevance 

Which are the ones that are going to give the council a headache, as someone has to decide which council pays the money out, and how to stop someone claiming a dollop of cash from every council they pass through. Anyone who stays in a marina on a leisure mooring should at least have a c\o address to quote. The marina will deny that the boater is resident but is in fact itinerant so that should knock council tax on the head.

Alternatively, everything's going to get terribly bureaucratic.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Alternatively, everything's going to get terribly bureaucratic.

I think it has to .

Otherwise  every boat becomes the source of a potential claim?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Which are the ones that are going to give the council a headache, as someone has to decide which council pays the money out, and how to stop someone claiming a dollop of cash from every council they pass through. Anyone who stays in a marina on a leisure mooring should at least have a c\o address to quote. The marina will deny that the boater is resident but is in fact itinerant so that should knock council tax on the head.

Alternatively, everything's going to get terribly bureaucratic.


have you read any of the suggested links ?

if ever there is a claim it’ll be one claim only, and claimed from which ever county the boat is in at the time
 

don’t we pay government bureaucrats to work this out ? and save us the headache

53 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Like some Gypsies.

 

well yeah, that’s what we’ve been on about, itinerant boaters making a claim, unless I’ve missed something?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Goliath said:


have you read any of the suggested links ?

if ever there is a claim it’ll be one claim only, and claimed from which ever county the boat is in at the time
 

don’t we pay government bureaucrats to work this out ? and save us the headache

 

well yeah, that’s what we’ve been on about, itinerant boaters making a claim, unless I’ve missed something?

 

 

Yes, I know the link says one claim only. But how can you police that?  Two or more people living on a boat each claim. Why not? There's no workable ID. They can't check against people who have already had it, because they don't know who has as it was paid via a reduction in bills, not to individuals. Anyone with a boat could claim. Or who says they've got one.

Presumably the government wonks have been working on this for months and obviously haven't yet found a solution that limits it to one liveaboard per boat. Bearing in mind they'll know nothing about the difference between boaters I'll be surprised if they invent anything rational. They've struggled to find a solution for static parks and aren't even sure that will work. It's an open gate for fraud  and while the government appears to have no problem with that at cabinet level, it doesn't like it lower down the food chain!

The idea that you claim, get rejected and then claim for the councils emergency fund is, I suspect, a nonstarter. The council, if it has any money left in the fund,  which even the NBTA admit is unlikely, will want to give it to their residents, not noncontributing itinerants, or as has been pointed out, technically illegal leisure mooring or marina dwellers who they will regard as CT dodgers. Most councils can't even afford to fulfill their legal obligations,  let alone hand out money to those for whom they have no responsibility.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Yes, I know the link says one claim only. But how can you police that?  Two or more people living on a boat each claim. Why not? There's no workable ID. They can't check against people who have already had it, because they don't know who has as it was paid via a reduction in bills, not to individuals. Anyone with a boat could claim. Or who says they've got one.

Presumably the government wonks have been working on this for months and obviously haven't yet found a solution that limits it to one liveaboard per boat. Bearing in mind they'll know nothing about the difference between boaters I'll be surprised if they invent anything rational. They've struggled to find a solution for static parks and aren't even sure that will work. It's an open gate for fraud  and while the government appears to have no problem with that at cabinet level, it doesn't like it lower down the food chain!

The idea that you claim, get rejected and then claim for the councils emergency fund is, I suspect, a nonstarter. The council, if it has any money left in the fund,  which even the NBTA admit is unlikely, will want to give it to their residents, not noncontributing itinerants, or as has been pointed out, technically illegal leisure mooring or marina dwellers who they will regard as CT dodgers. Most councils can't even afford to fulfill their legal obligations,  let alone hand out money to those for whom they have no responsibility.

 

 

Spot on.

 

Effectively, they need some kind of unique reference/identifier to clearly indicate "household" or the boat equivalent - the only one I can think of is boat index number. You would initially think this should be sufficient for anti-fraud, BUT they have to weed out the possibility of a leisure boater, who has someone living with them (at home) who isn't on the CT bill, making a fraudulent claim. And let's not even start on singles or couples who own 2 boats, one of which might not be lived on...

 

Its not a simple 1:1 check any more, it requires a complex cross reference with CRT's licence records, names and c/o addresses.

 

The wider public want to see an appropriate balance between fairness in those receiving payments and low/no fraudulent payouts. I don't think the NBTA have considered that aspect at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 from the NBTA email I’ve just had we can be pretty sure that itinerants will not get a grant.


Is it because it’s simply not ‘doable’ or the Government are reluctant to help out those that aren’t quite in the system? 
I think it’s the latter. 

 

hey ho 

 

I hope those with residential moorings get a better deal.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

 from the NBTA email I’ve just had we can be pretty sure that itinerants will not get a grant.


Is it because it’s simply not ‘doable’ or the Government are reluctant to help out those that aren’t quite in the system? 
I think it’s the latter. 

 

hey ho 

 

I hope those with residential moorings get a better deal.

 

 

 

You're probably right, in that the govt aren't going to bother much about such a small number of people, most of whom, if they are able to vote at all, aren't going to vote for them. Factor in the almost infinite capacity for fraud in any system they come up with, plus the ignorance of any boffins working on it of the itinerant lifestyle, and they just won't try. I'm surprised the gypsy council, or whatever it's called now,  hasn't got stuck in though.

Without the fuss the NBTA have made,  though, they wouldn't even have pretended to look for a solution.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You're probably right, in that the govt aren't going to bother much about such a small number of people, most of whom, if they are able to vote at all, aren't going to vote for them. Factor in the almost infinite capacity for fraud in any system they come up with, plus the ignorance of any boffins working on it of the itinerant lifestyle, and they just won't try. I'm surprised the gypsy council, or whatever it's called now,  hasn't got stuck in though.

Without the fuss the NBTA have made,  though, they wouldn't even have pretended to look for a solution.


I was thinking exactly that regards the voter 👍

Especially when considering how the second home owners have been rewarded with extra grants for each property.

 

Im not so sure it’d be the fraud element that puts off the Government giving further grants, although they may use it as a reason. I’m sure they factor fraud in and if it suited them they would carry on regardless if it captures the vote.

There was a huge amount of money lost to fraud during COVID when 10s and 100s of thousands of £s were given out to businesses. 
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are now a portion of house holders committing fraud for these energy grants.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

Is it because it’s simply not ‘doable’ or the Government are reluctant to help out those that aren’t quite in the system? 
I think it’s the latter. 

I don't think it's because of any specific government animosity towards itinerants. I think it's just the practicalities. For those with a mains connection and a domestic supply contract it is simple and cheap for the energy companies to operate the scheme, and the cost of providing the benefit to second home owners, who don't meet the objectives of the scheme, but who would be relatively difficult to identify and filter out, has been factored in.  Those without a domestic supply contract but with a fixed address are invited to apply, and verification is relatively straightforward. But for itinerants it is more difficult to identify those involved and almost impossible to distinguish the genuine claimants from boat or motor home or caravan owners who also have a house where perhaps another household member has received the benefit. The numbers involved are relatively small, the costs of sorting out the grant for them are disproportionate.So after exploring options with NBTA and the like, government has concluded there is no cost-effective way of doing it. And probably mindful of the hoo-hah surrounding covid loan fraud too, so not wanting to open another can of worms.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Really? 

 

I think you made that up.

 

How do I claim?

Doesn't each house connected to the electricity system get the payment? That was certainly the impression given in the news. So owners with a holiday home get the grant for both, even though they only use one house at a time. You don't have to apply, it's given automatically by the power companies.

"The government’s Energy Bills Support Scheme will see every household in the UK receive at least £400 to help them pay their bills, regardless of wealth or income, meaning second home owners will receive the grant for every property they own."

Fancy you not knowing that.

 

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Goliath said:

 

Im not so sure it’d be the fraud element that puts off the Government giving further grants, although they may use it as a reason. I’m sure they factor fraud in and if it suited them they would carry on regardless if it captures the vote.

 

 

I think where a fraud risk exists, they would err on the side of caution and not give grants out, leaving some people who are entitled to it, to not receive. Rather than the alternative of giving grants out like smarties. Look at the benefits system, there's plenty of people who are entitled who don't get their full amount due to administrative roadblocks, vs the number of fraudulent money paid out.

 

The Covid grants were a different situation because it was a hastily drawn up scheme with political pressure to see it through. There is no political pressure on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Fancy you not knowing that.

 

Goliath said we get "EXTRA" grants for owning more than one property.

 

That sounds to me as though we get something extra in addition to the grant per house. 

 

Are you saying he is wrong? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, David Mack said:

government animosity towards itinerants


Through history governments and society have always shown an animosity and a distrust for itinerants.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Goliath said we get "EXTRA" grants for owning more than one property.

 

That sounds to me as though we get something extra in addition to the grant per house. 

 

Are you saying he is wrong? 

 

 

 

 

 

 


yes I used the word extra, I could have said additional instead, the implication being grants above and beyond what is required.

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Goliath said we get "EXTRA" grants for owning more than one property.

 

That sounds to me as though we get something extra in addition to the grant per house. 

 

Are you saying he is wrong? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The grants were supposed to be one per household. They wound up as being one per house, presumably because it was easier to waste money on rich people rather than making sure people who really needed it got it.

I'm sure their policy will be popular in certain circles.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The grants were supposed to be one per household. They wound up as being one per house, presumably because it was easier to waste money on rich people rather than making sure people who really needed it got it.

I'm sure their policy will be popular in certain circles.

 

 

Ok thanks. So Goliath's "extra" grants are made up twaddle, just as I thought. 

 

 

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The grants were supposed to be one per household. They wound up as being one per house, presumably because it was easier to waste money on rich people rather than making sure people who really needed it got it.

I'm sure their policy will be popular in certain circles.

 

It was easier, but only because some robust scheme for getting it to those with no fixed address living under the radar, or CCing, on boats, is an order of magnitude more difficult/expensive to develop a robust system which has acceptable anti-fraud measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Ok thanks. So Goliath's "extra" grants are made up twaddle, just as I thought. 

 

 

which ever way you wish,

Im sure you’ve done well out of it either way, I’m sure you deserve every extra penny you can skrimp  👍

Edited by Goliath
Changed skimp to skrimp,
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

It was easier, but only because some robust scheme for getting it to those with no fixed address living under the radar, or CCing, on boats, is an order of magnitude more difficult/expensive to develop a robust system which has acceptable anti-fraud measures.


so ‘sod ‘em’ basically,


happy days
 

Edited by Athy
To remove obscene language.
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.