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

[ditchcrawler]

12 hours ago, matty40s said:

 There isnt an energy crisis. The has prices are now the lowest they have been for three years.

 

That is quite a statemen, by energy do you mean oil, not as high as it has been but no where near a 3 year low

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

That is quite a statemen, by energy do you mean oil, not as high as it has been but no where near a 3 year low

Gas is similar

[Puffling]

13 hours ago, Paul C said:

Do we give NBTA a few more weeks, just in case their convoluted process yields something?

Instead of waiting on the sidelines, you might join the meeting on Wednesday:

 

Please come to our online campaign meeting. It is at 7pm on Wednesday 25th January 2023, online or by phone:

https://8x8.vc/nbta/nbta

Alternatively, you can phone in using these details:

Dial-in: 0330 808 1706

PIN: 45925961#

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

54 minutes ago, peterboat said:

There isn't! When DVLA remove your entitlement it's a nightmare to get it back! I lost my motorbike license, even though I could prove I had it with a producer from the Police, they still refused to return it

 
so what was final result? Did you get it back?

 

 DVLA have mine at the moment. 
And was/is this fault particular to motorbikes? 
I’ve a bike licence too.  

[pearley]

13 hours ago, MartynG said:

When, if ever,  is it expected energy costs to fall to reflect the current lower price of gas and oil?

 

I've given up on M & S pants, if you mean it in the American way. Found the zip  length too small.

Edited January 23, 2023 by pearley

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

 

[Momac]

13 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 household with two houses gets an extra grant. 

 .

In the case of a  second house that is let to tenants it is usual for the tenants to pay the utility bill .  So in that case the tenants will have received the subsidy.

In the case of a second home that is not occupied the owner will indeed receive the subsidy for that second home.  However  the subsidy isn't means tested. I think this is your complaint. 

 

There is obviously a case for genuine boat dwellers to receive the subsidy. However it is very clear that this could be very easily open to abuse in the sense that thousands of claims could be made by anyone who owns a boat. It is even conceivable that people could fraudulently claim they own and live on a boat. If everyone was 100% honest there would be no issue. But unfortunately that is not the reality.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

22 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 .

In the case of a  second house that is let to tenants it is usual for the tenants to pay the utility bill .  So in that case the tenants will have received the subsidy.

In the case of a second home that is not occupied the owner will indeed receive the subsidy for that second home.  However  the subsidy isn't means tested. I think this is your complaint. 

 

There is obviously a case for genuine boat dwellers to receive the subsidy. However it is very clear that this could be very easily open to abuse in the sense that thousands of claims could be made by anyone who owns a boat. It is even conceivable that people could fraudulently claim they own and live on a boat. If everyone was 100% honest there would be no issue. But unfortunately that is not the reality.

 

 

It's not a complaint, just a statement of fact. Means testing is expensive and rarely justified economically - same as the pensioners winter heating payments.

In the light of this perfectly legal scam, there's no reason really why all boaters registered as continuous cruisers shouldn't have got the grant. Yes, genuine liveaboards are outnumbered by dumpers, and the latter will get it twice, but the logic is no different from that of second home owners getting the payment, and the numbers are probably considerably less.

Maybe the NBTA ought to team up with CRT to provide the details.

[Momac]

In my mind anything that is perfectly  legal can't be a scam .

Nor is there any requirement for a continuous cruiser to not own a house or indeed several houses .

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 

Maybe the NBTA ought to team up with CRT to provide the details.

Isn't there a law  against that ?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I don’t think we should forget that itinerant boaters are also just a small number amongst a much much bigger group of itinerants. Whether they’re gypsies, travellers, living in vans or whatever. 
It’s really a much bigger headache for the government than a mere few boaters. 
And if they include any sub group they’ll have to include the lot. 
Easier to ignore the whole lot. 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Goliath

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

In my mind anything that is perfectly  legal can't be a scam .

Nor is there any requirement for a continuous cruiser to not own a house or indeed several houses .

Isn't there a law  against that ?

Fair enough, I was using the word scam to mean blatantly unfair rather than illegal, as it has been used about much of the government's actions over PPE, for example. And of course continuous cruiser can own six houses, if they like, though if they spend the bulk of the year in them then I can't see how they can be said to be a continuous cruiser in any but the most legalistic of terms, certainly not in a grammatical one.

Which, as I was suggesting that all of them should get the grant, makes your comment a bit pernickety?

Though the dumpers do seem to be a sensitive lot when the merits if it are discussed, but it's not relevant to this thread.

[Alan de Enfield]

15 hours ago, matty40s said:

There isnt an energy crisis. The has prices are now the lowest they have been for three years.

 

Well all I can say is that Kerosene (heating oil) prices are at the highest I've seen them in 20 years.

 

These are the actual prices (pence per litre exc VAT) I have paid for deliveries of 1500 litres.

 

June '05 = 34.95 ppl

May '06 = 36.20

Nov '07 = 39.00

Feb '08 = 40.40

July '08 = 58.45

June '09 = 37.08

May '10 = 44.43

 

March '13 = 59.00

Feb '14 = 53.50

Oct '15 = 31.60

Jan '16 = 23.90

April '16 = 27.25

Dec '16 = 37.50

Feb '17 = 38.63

Oct '17 = 38.23

 

No '19 = 44.20

Feb '20 = 40.11

Feb '21 = 38.45

Oct '21 = 51.90

June '22 = 95.46

Jan '23 = 82.50

 

 

 

 

[Momac]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Fair enough, I was using the word scam to mean blatantly unfair rather than illegal, as it has been used about much of the government's actions over PPE, for example. And of course continuous cruiser can own six houses, if they like, though if they spend the bulk of the year in them then I can't see how they can be said to be a continuous cruiser in any but the most legalistic of terms, certainly not in a grammatical one.

Which, as I was suggesting that all of them should get the grant, makes your comment a bit pernickety?

Though the dumpers do seem to be a sensitive lot when the merits if it are discussed, but it's not relevant to this thread.

 

 

A continuous cruiser is a term referring to a boat with no declared home mooring .

You can live in a house and be  a continuous cruiser providing you move the boat every two weeks (providing areas with restricted mooring are avoided).

 

In any case C&RT should not be revealing any personal data to any other party.

 

 

[peterboat]

4 hours ago, Ange said:

I read about this happening years ago - one example was a chap who drove for a living and lost his car driving letters when he sent his licence off. I can't remember the outcome but it was a nightmare experience. Since then I always photocopy my licence before I send it to the DVLA. 

 

4 hours ago, rusty69 said:

When I read about this a few years ago, I kept my old license at renewal time just in case (I may have told them I lost the original). Thankfully it came back with motorcycle entitlement still intact. 

The problem for me is I hit a cyclist who came out of a road junction wearing earphones, I hit him at 20 mph and broke his back! He lost the use of his legs, this was in front of 30 plus witnesses, it was on a military road so in reality it was all down to RMPs. However civiy Bill were involved which was the saviour for me. I was a WO11 and the 2 RMP Cpls got funny but the Bill turned up because of the 999 call. I explained to the coppers at the station they phoned up York had a cop faxed down and told the RMP it was all sorted,  however DVLA wouldn't return my license to me! They are a bunch of cowboys to say the least!

[Alan de Enfield]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I explained to the coppers at the station they phoned up York had a cop faxed down and told the RMP it was all sorted,....................

 

I guess thats one way of improving response times - do you think they could do that with Ambulances as well ?

Edited January 23, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

 

 

A continuous cruiser is a term referring to a boat with no declared home mooring .

You can live in a house and be  a continuous cruiser providing you move the boat every two weeks (providing areas with restricted mooring are avoided).

 

In any case C&RT should not be revealing any personal data to any other party.

 

 

A dishonest scheme and a fraud need not be illegal, just immoral. Legality isn't really a very good way of deciding what's right and wrong - like the man said about patriotism, it's the last refuge of the scoundrel.

I would have thought the chance of getting some money would encourage people to let CRT pass on information - and buried somewhere in the t&cs is probably some small print allowing them to share it with validly interested parties anyway. I can't see any other way of identifying itinerant boaters - so rather than concentrating on my opinion of those who think moving a few miles a dozen times a year is a continuous cruise, see if you can suggest any other way of identifying deserving candidates?

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

and buried somewhere in the t&cs is probably some small print allowing them to share it with validly interested parties anyway

 

There is.

 

You have signed the application form saying they can pass your details onto anyone / organisation that C&RT feel has a reasonable reason for having the information.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is.

 

You have signed the application form saying they can pass your details onto anyone / organisation that C&RT feel has a reasonable reason for having the information.

 

 

Isn't there a principle that you can't sign away your statutory rights in a consumer contract? 

 

 

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is.

 

You have signed the application form saying they can pass your details onto anyone / organisation that C&RT feel has a reasonable reason for having the information.

What clause do you refer to please ?

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

What clause do you refer to please ?

 

 

 

The one that NABO tried to take them to task over when thyy first proposed to put it into the T&Cs

[Momac]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The one that NABO tried to take them to task over when thyy first proposed to put it into the T&Cs

This clause ?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

This clause ?

 

 

No - did you read the T&Cs before agreeing to them ?

 

 

10.12. You agree that We may provide Your relevant personal details including Your contact details such as Your name and address to anyone (or their insurer) who We believe has a legitimate interest to have the details

Edited January 23, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

This clause ?

That would limit it to noncompliers. CRT would still need permission to pass info on, except aren't they entitled to check your insurance status, which would involve passing info to a third party?

Crosed with Alan's post.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

No - did you read the T&Cs before agreeing to them ?

 

 

10.12. You agree that We may provide Your relevant personal details including Your contact details such as Your name and address to anyone (or their insurer) who We believe has a legitimate interest to have the details

 

There has to be  a legitimate interest and not a reasonable reason which you  stated earlier .

You have misquoted the clause in your earlier post

 

A legitimate interest  doesn't mean they can share your details with  anyone who has a reasonable reason

 

 

 

 

[Paul C]

CRT could get in touch with all CCers and ask if its okay to share their data with the local council, for the purposes of maybe getting the £400 grant.

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

There has to be  a legitimate interest and not a reasonable reason which you  stated earlier .

You have misquoted the clause in your earlier post

 

A legitimate interest  doesn't mean they can share your details with  anyone who has a reasonable reason

 

 

 

 

 

That was NABOs argument - that the clause was in contravention od the GDPR.

 

C&RT (solicitors) said it wasn't and they could give the information to 'anyone they believe has a legitimate interest' - in the example under discussion does the LA have a 'legitimate interest' re Council Tax,?

 

Does the Government have a legitimate interest re anyone applying for the fuel grants ?