Jump to content

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


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

Trying to be objective about this:

 

Yes all liveaboards should be able to claim the fuel allowance, subject to the same caveats applying to house dwellers.

 

But, all liveaboards are benefitting from the proceeds of council tax, whether they like it or not.  Bleating about not benefitting from bin collection is frankly ridiculous.

 

The fairest thing to do here is to find a way to pay all liveaboards the fuel allowance but also to have a mechanism by which continuous cruisers and people living on leisure moorings can contribute to council tax.  It does feel a bit like boaters are wanting the best of both worlds here.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

but also to have a mechanism by which continuous cruisers and people living on leisure moorings can contribute to council tax.

I suppose the latter might be possible, but it would be a significant change to the system for identifying and valuing relevant property to include leisure moorings, and then to establish which are being used residentially. And accepting that for moorings without redidential planning permission might stick in the throat for local authorities.

But monitoring CCers who actually move, identifying them as they enter and leave each local authority area and then billing them (and chasing up late and non payment) would be a logistical nightmare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I suppose the latter might be possible, but it would be a significant change to the system for identifying and valuing relevant property to include leisure moorings, and then to establish which are being used residentially. And accepting that for moorings without redidential planning permission might stick in the throat for local authorities.

But monitoring CCers who actually move, identifying them as they enter and leave each local authority area and then billing them (and chasing up late and non payment) would be a logistical nightmare!

I don’t believe I'm saying this but maybe a levy on the licence fee, divided between the councils that have canals in their areas of control

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I suppose the latter might be possible, but it would be a significant change to the system for identifying and valuing relevant property to include leisure moorings, and then to establish which are being used residentially. And accepting that for moorings without redidential planning permission might stick in the throat for local authorities.

But monitoring CCers who actually move, identifying them as they enter and leave each local authority area and then billing them (and chasing up late and non payment) would be a logistical nightmare!

Basing Local Authority funding on house and business premises prices in that area is an idiotic idea anyway.  There are countless reasons why it makes no sense, but here's a starter:  Local Authorities where property is expensive end up with more revenue coming through council tax than do areas with cheap housing.  I'm not sure who would think that areas with expensive housing would need more money going to that council, when the evidence points to the opposite being true.

 

If I had my way, I'd scrap it and increase income tax.  Then Local Authorities would receive funding from central government according to a clearly defined formula.  To some extent, this already happens, it would just formalise the arrangements and ensure that funding local services would fall on individuals according to their ability to pay.  If the government is serious about levelling up, then this is what they should do.  Of course, they're not remotely serious, and every time a general election comes round, nobody wants to mention raising income tax.

8 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I don’t believe I'm saying this but maybe a levy on the licence fee, divided between the councils that have canals in their areas of control

That would only work for liveaboards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Basing Local Authority funding on house and business premises prices in that area is an idiotic idea anyway.  There are countless reasons why it makes no sense, but here's a starter:  Local Authorities where property is expensive end up with more revenue coming through council tax than do areas with cheap housing.  I'm not sure who would think that areas with expensive housing would need more money going to that council, when the evidence points to the opposite being true.

 

If I had my way, I'd scrap it and increase income tax.  Then Local Authorities would receive funding from central government according to a clearly defined formula.  To some extent, this already happens, it would just formalise the arrangements and ensure that funding local services would fall on individuals according to their ability to pay.  If the government is serious about levelling up, then this is what they should do.  Of course, they're not remotely serious, and every time a general election comes round, nobody wants to mention raising income tax.

That would only work for liveaboards.

All licences 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transfer ownership and management of towpaths to local authorities to be managed as a local amenity. 

 

Including mooring rights. Lock structures to belong to the nav authority. 

 

You want to moor you pay. 

 

 

Some councils would offer free short term moorings but one doubts many would tolerate squatters with piles of junk on the towpaths. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

So leisure moorers would pay twice potentially?  I can't see that being popular.

Is any of it popular, is does sort of resolve the council tax issue and avoids overly complex collection systems.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

So leisure moorers would pay twice potentially?  I can't see that being popular.

 

Second/holiday homes do, at an increased rate in some areas.

 

If it's a floating cottage in the same area there's an argument to be made in favour.

 

Combined with the above inflation licence fee hikes coming towards us I can foresee a sudden glut of boats on the market!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

It does feel a bit like boaters are wanting the best of both worlds here.

I've never seen why one shouldn't try to get the best of all worlds!

Boaters don't pay council tax, but they also don't have the security that bricks and mortar give, and I would suggest that cancels out the financial advantage. We have other expenses householders don't have. Logically, council tax should be scrapped and replaced with a local income tax - it no longer performs its original function of funding councils which rely increasingly on central government.

There is no reason I can see why moorings should differentiate between leisure or residential - it's purely the landlord's decision. It makes no difference to the water level or towpath use. If CT should be applied, boats that remain within one county's boundaries for an extended period without a permanent mooring could be identified by CRT who would have to act as agent to collect council tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones that seam to be complaining they’re not getting the allowance are the likes highlighted in the article, basically continuous Moorers, like these living in Hebden bridge and working local. Leisure Livaboards in Marina’s know they can’t claim it as they’re not on a residential berth. So they aren’t moaning to the press like @LadyG and the likes.

Edited by PD1964
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

I don’t believe I'm saying this but maybe a levy on the licence fee, divided between the councils that have canals in their areas of control

I did read somewhere that this was already the case, but it was easy to do something like that when BW were in charge because it was all the same pot of money and no money actually changed hands, it was just words, but now that CRT are a semi separate entity its more complicated.

Although I sort of support this idea, logically it should be extended to caravans, campervans, and even people with a tent who take extended holidays in the countryside etc.

The real bottom line is that the council tax is a very bad tax, invented by Mrs T in an attemp to make people vote Tory rather than to raise money in a fair and logical way.

7 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

The ones that seam to be complaining they’re not getting the allowance are the likes highlighted in the article, basically continuous Moorers, like these living in Hebden bridge and working local. Leisure Livaboards in Marina’s know they can’t claim it as they’re not on a residential berth. So they aren’t moaning to the press like @LadyG and the likes.

 

The accepted defibnition of a CMer who is somebody who has a CC "licence" but stays mostly in one or two spots.  Are there any CM'ers in Hebden????  There are many boats on proper long term moorings, and I believe that some pay council tax, though some don't, which is odd.  It is of course possible that the mooring owner is paying tax via a bussiness rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2023 at 20:50, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Yes. On a residential mooring for which council tax is being paid and an official postal address, so about the most likely to get over the hurdles.

I take it the ones living residential unofficially on the leisure moorings aren’t happy and it’s their main discussion point over a coffee😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Transfer ownership and management of towpaths to local authorities to be managed as a local amenity. 

 

Including mooring rights. Lock structures to belong to the nav authority. 

 

You want to moor you pay. 

 

 

Some councils would offer free short term moorings but one doubts many would tolerate squatters with piles of junk on the towpaths. 

 

No no no 😀 Traffic wardens patrolling the towpath and taking all the pleasure away from boating? Also councils are very often very bad at understanding and managing canals.  Some would decide that boats are more trouble (cost) than they are worth and just ban boats totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, dmr said:

  The accepted defibnition of a CMer who is somebody who has a CC "licence" but stays mostly in one or two spots.  Are there any CM'ers in Hebden????  There are many boats on proper long term moorings, and I believe that some pay council tax, though some don't, which is odd.  It is of course possible that the mooring owner is paying tax via a bussiness rate?

  If the ones in the article are paying council tax then they should have no problems claiming it as it should be a residential mooring. But it looks like they can’t claim it, so what moorings are they on, one’s in the town centre, the others say just outside the centre? This is one of the arguments on here, they are probably using services provided by local council without paying Council tax and want the same fuel allowance as people paying Council tax in the town.

 The allowance works out at less then £8 a week, I would say if people need £8 or it makes a massive difference, then how are they going to cope with increases in the future with License and food? I’m not rich but neither poor, but an extra £8 a week would make little difference and if it did I would be living a miserable life on the canal.
  

Edited by PD1964
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hands up, all of those that don't use energy. Then we could sort out all those that haven't had any extra fuel costs. What the fk has it got to do with paying CT? By the way, I'm not claiming anything. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also where is the post going ? 

 

I know one can be NFA and use services for this but I would wager that a lot of people on boats do have land addresses of one sort or another. 

 

If they do then attempting to claim for the boat as well is presumably fraud. 

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Hands up, all of those that don't use energy. Then we could sort out all those that haven't had any extra fuel costs. What the fk has it got to do with paying CT? By the way, I'm not claiming anything. 

 

 

 

There must be a way of identifying people otherwise multiple claims would happen. Its obvious. There isn't enough admin time to interview everyone for ID so something which indicates citizenship like payment of local services tax seems quite sensible. 

 

Claims should be based on the household so if you happened to have 159 people using your address for convenience as a way of them avoiding contributing to local taxation then there would only be one claim.

 

It is incredibly obvious. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've never seen why one shouldn't try to get the best of all worlds!

Boaters don't pay council tax, but they also don't have the security that bricks and mortar give, and I would suggest that cancels out the financial advantage. We have other expenses householders don't have. Logically, council tax should be scrapped and replaced with a local income tax - it no longer performs its original function of funding councils which rely increasingly on central government.

There is no reason I can see why moorings should differentiate between leisure or residential - it's purely the landlord's decision. It makes no difference to the water level or towpath use. If CT should be applied, boats that remain within one county's boundaries for an extended period without a permanent mooring could be identified by CRT who would have to act as agent to collect council tax.

 

Actually Arthur there is a legal reason, residential moorings are required to have Planning Consent, conversely leisure moorings do not, hence the differentiation. When I was involved with our local Parish Council,  we were consulted over the years, by the Planning Authority on a number of different planning applications for residential moorings. Each one failed when it went to the Planning Authority because, amongst other things, it was felt that they would remove leisure moorings in a very busy and popular tourist area, and there was no consideration given in the applications for the parking of resident's vehicles.

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

There must be a way of identifying people otherwise multiple claims would happen. Its obvious. There isn't enough admin time to interview everyone for ID so something which indicates citizenship like payment of local services tax seems quite sensible. 

 

How it is shared still has nothing to do with a discussion on how to get people to pay CT, that at present don't. The basic principle for the payment is if fuel is being used for living purposes. Cost of living.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Higgs said:

 

How it is shared still has nothing to do with a discussion on how to get people to pay CT, that at present don't. The basic principle for the payment is if fuel is being used for living purposes. Cost of living.

 

 

One could argue that the basic principle is that if you opt out of the system then you don't get looked after by the system.

 

Save the taxes and spend the money on coal. Council tax can be a grand a year. You'd have to have a pretty big boat to need that much to pay for your heating and electric. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnetman said:

One could argue that the basic principle is that if you opt out of the system then you don't get looked after by the system.

 

As a CC'er, I haven't opted out of the system. I pay my way, as is required. Does anyone need to ask what kind of a life they should lead. People are people, they use fuel. I never griped, in all the years I paid my taxes. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PD1964 said:

  If the ones in the article are paying council tax then they should have no problems claiming it as it should be a residential mooring. But it looks like they can’t claim it, so what moorings are they on, one’s in the town centre, the others say just outside the centre? This is one of the arguments on here, they are probably using services provided by local council without paying Council tax and want the same fuel allowance as people paying Council tax in the town.

 The allowance works out at less then £8 a week, I would say if people need £8 or it makes a massive difference, then how are they going to cope with increases in the future with License and food? I’m not rich but neither poor, but an extra £8 a week would make little difference and if it did I would be living a miserable life on the canal.
  

I've certainly been in places where £8 a week makes a hell of a difference, and so are a lot of other people.

The cost of living rise was largely generated by a government run by idiots. That's why it's trying to help out a bit. Council tax has nothing to do with it, it's just the register the government have used to identify households, and, as it doesn't do that, other means are looked at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

As a CC'er, I haven't opted out of the system. I pay my way, as is required. Does anyone need to ask what kind of a life they should lead. People are people, they use fuel. I never griped, in all the years I paid my taxes. 

 

 

 

A friend of mine cruised continuousy around the system for most of the year, but based himself for a few months in the winter on an official winter mooring. He went to the Local Council in which the winter mooring was based, offering to pay Concil Tax, but they said there was no proceedure for him to pay, so he payed nothing despite attmpting to pay!!

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Actually Arthur there is a legal reason, residential moorings are required to have Planning Consent, conversely leisure moorings do not, hence the differentiation. When I was involved with our local Parish Council,  we were consulted over the years, by the Planning Authority on a number of different planning applications for residential moorings. Each one failed when it went to the Planning Authority because, amongst other things, it was felt that they would remove leisure moorings in a very busy and popular tourist area, and there was no consideration given in the applications for the parking of resident's vehicles.

I know there's a legal reason, as you say. But there's no practical reason, especially when a stack of folk are doing it anyway. A bad law remains that, and should be changed to take into account reality. Laws being justifiably broken, or broken with impunity, bring the legal system (further) into disrepute.

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.