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

[magnetman]

How could the system avoid multiple fraudulent claims if the payments were available to people who do not pay council tax?

What other sensible option is there which would not involve excessive amounts of admin?

 

Are we talking about people who never receive any mail? If you do receive mail then guess what - the premises where this arrives will be paying council tax. 

 

Shocking isn't it. 

[Machpoint005]

3 hours 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.

 

People who rent their homes have no security!

 

 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

>> Are we talking about people who never receive any mail? If you do receive mail then guess what - the premises where this arrives will be paying council tax. 

 

Shocking isn't it. 

 

Erm, PO Boxes don't pay Council Tax. The post office probably pays business rates, though.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Machpoint005 said:

 

People who rent their homes have no security!

 

 

I pay council tax on a rented mooring and have a hell of a lot more security than a tenant in a private rented flat.

 

If I have to leave due to problems or arduous financial circumstances I have a boat. The person in the flat is out on the street with suitcases. 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

How could the system avoid multiple fraudulent claims if the payments were available to people who do not pay council tax?

What other sensible option is there which would not involve excessive amounts of admin?

 

Are we talking about people who never receive any mail? If you do receive mail then guess what - the premises where this arrives will be paying council tax. 

 

Shocking isn't it. 

 

I'm not arguing about the practicality of locating, in order to pay equally and only once, but don't bring liability for council tax into it. 

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

I'm not arguing about the practicality of locating, in order to pay equally and only once, but don't bring liability for council tax into it. 

 

 

Do you receive paper mail / post? 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Erm, PO Boxes don't pay Council Tax. The post office probably pays business rates, though.

 

I've not checked but I was under the impression banks would not allow you to maintain an account with a PO box as your address. 

 

Could be wrong. 

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Do you receive paper mail / post? 

 

Yes.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

Yes.

 

 

OK. The address you use for this is not subject to council tax. 

 

(sorry but for the purposes of this argument I assume you feel you are not subject to paying council tax - correct me if I am wrong)

 

I could accept the post for 100 other people to my address so would this mean all of them could be allocated the £400? I can see a nice little commission here. 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Yes.

 

 

 

Do you ever walk on the pavement ?
Do you ever go out in the dark and are grateful for street lighting ?

Do you feel safer because the Police and Fire sevices are out there ?

Did you or your children ever go to school ?

 

If you are not paying CT then you are getting these 'for free' - why should you ?

Edited March 6, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

OK. The address you use for this is not subject to council tax. 

 

(sorry but for the purposes of this argument I assume you feel you are not subject to paying council tax - correct me if I am wrong)

 

It is subject to council tax.

 

(I am not subject to paying council tax)

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Higgs said:

 

It is subject to council tax.

 

(I am not subject to paying council tax)

 

 

 

OK. So it is a care of address. 

 

Asssuming you have an account is the bank happy with using Care Of on the first line of your address? 

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I pay council tax on a rented mooring and have a hell of a lot more security than a tenant in a private rented flat.

 

If I have to leave due to problems or arduous financial circumstances I have a boat. The person in the flat is out on the street with suitcases. 

 

True. I withdraw my comment re security - been a long time since I rented and it was back when proper council tenancies existed. My daughter was one of those who suffered as your last sentence.

[Higgs]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you ever walk on the pavement ?
Do you ever go out in the dark and are greateful for street lighting ?

Do you feel safer because the Police and Fire sevices are out there ?

Did you or your children ever go to school ?

 

I walk down the road, I have a vehicle. I pretend I'm driving. Where I am is pitch black at night, no police or fire station handy. I use the rubbish facilities as part of my licence fee payment.

 

 

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

OK. So it is a care of address. 

 

Asssuming you have an account is the bank happy with using Care Of on the first line of your address? 

 

Affirmative, in all counts.

 

 

[magnetman]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

True. I withdraw my comment re security - been a long time since I rented and it was back when proper council tenancies existed. My daughter was one of those who suffered as your last sentence.

 

My children and their mother live in a council owned property. She has a long term tenancy the property belongs to the council has never been sold since it was built in 1948 and no housing association. 

 

This is the only way to proceed unless one has the cash to buy something. 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Do you ever walk on the pavement ?
Do you ever go out in the dark and are grateful for street lighting ?

Do you feel safer because the Police and Fire sevices are out there ?

Did you or your children ever go to school ?

 

If you are not paying CT then you are getting these 'for free' - why should you ?

Why shouldn't you? If there's no facility to pay, it's because it cheaper all round not to try to collect it. Not much point clawing in money that cost more in collection (see CRTs chuggers, maybe!). These things are a benefit to society as a whole - everybody contributes somehow. We all pay tax.

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

My children and their mother live in a council owned property. She has a long term tenancy the property belongs to the council has never been sold since it was built in 1948 and no housing association. 

 

This is the only way to proceed unless one has the cash to buy something. 

Agreed.

[magnetman]

If no mechanism is in place to charge people council tax then why would such a mechanism be in place to pay those people £400 as a "cost of living payment"? Council tax is part of the "cost of living" for a lot of people so would it not make sense to simply apply a discount to this? A benefit of doing this is it could be graded on the banding and one could avoid allocating payments to people who are just greedy.

I also think that rubbish and sewerage provided under the canal licence fee is something the CRT are going to need to look at as the licence fee is not intended to provide for residential services.

[Higgs]

I don't claim for cost of living finance. I'm saving too much by not living in a marina, and chopping down a rain forest every day, to heat the boat. Or picking up dead wood, if a rain forest isn't available. Marinas have probably cost me in the region of £40,000, so, I'm saying, stuff any extra expense, now.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Higgs

[IanD]

3 hours 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.
  

 

The article mentions continuous cruising and the 14 day moving requirement several times, and implies that all the boaters in the article are CCers, since long-term or home moorings are not mentioned once. The description of how/where the boaters live pretty much says they move very little, if at all. The obvious conclusion is that everyone mentioned is a CCer who is ignoring the CC rules (and not paying for a mooring or council tax) while complaining about not getting the fuel payment -- a requirement for which is having a residential address, which means paying CT, and having a residential/long-term/home mooring if you're a boater. That to me looks like wanting to have your cake and eat it...

[dmr]

29 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The article mentions continuous cruising and the 14 day moving requirement several times, and implies that all the boaters in the article are CCers, since long-term or home moorings are not mentioned once. The description of how/where the boaters live pretty much says they move very little, if at all. The obvious conclusion is that everyone mentioned is a CCer who is ignoring the CC rules (and not paying for a mooring or council tax) while complaining about not getting the fuel payment -- a requirement for which is having a residential address, which means paying CT, and having a residential/long-term/home mooring if you're a boater. That to me looks like wanting to have your cake and eat it...

 

Don't believe everything written by a newspaper jounalist, especially where boats are concerned, and the article does not actually say that these boats are CC'ers. 😀  I suspect that all three of those boats are on long term moorings and so are not "rule breaking CC'ers". The middle one looks to be on the offside because I can see the towpath opposite.   They might be moaning about not getting the cost of living money whilst also not paying council tax which is wrong and foolish, but thats another matter.

[David Mack]

I think all three are on permanent moorings. There are acknowledged liveaboard moorings in Hebden Bridge and Tod, but I have no idea whether they have residential planning permission.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

The article mentions continuous cruising and the 14 day moving requirement several times, and implies that all the boaters in the article are CCers, since long-term or home moorings are not mentioned once. The description of how/where the boaters live pretty much says they move very little, if at all. The obvious conclusion is that everyone mentioned is a CCer who is ignoring the CC rules (and not paying for a mooring or council tax) while complaining about not getting the fuel payment -- a requirement for which is having a residential address, which means paying CT, and having a residential/long-term/home mooring if you're a boater. That to me looks like wanting to have your cake and eat it...

The implication to me was that they were CC and not moving much, or living on leisure moorings of some kind. Also that they were pretty broke and, like everyone who is skint and scraping by, finding the surge in the cost of living hard to cope with. I don't think that's really wanting to have and eat cake, probably just wanting to eat.

I'm not sure that a lot of people on here know what it's like to simply not have enough money to get through a week, but there are a lot of people currently in that position and, having spent quite a lot of time there,  I sympathise. You try to live to your means, but when costs double, what you've got doesn't.

[PD1964]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

The implication to me was that they were CC and not moving much, or living on leisure moorings of some kind. Also that they were pretty broke and, like everyone who is skint and scraping by, finding the surge in the cost of living hard to cope with. I don't think that's really wanting to have and eat cake, probably just wanting to eat.

I'm not sure that a lot of people on here know what it's like to simply not have enough money to get through a week, but there are a lot of people currently in that position and, having spent quite a lot of time there,  I sympathise. You try to live to your means, but when costs double, what you've got doesn't.

  Maybe like a lot of people who have moved onto the canals over the last few years, they may of thought it’s cheap living. We all know it can be a cheap way of life but it’s not cheap living anymore on a boat, especially if you haven’t got  finances in the first place, and it’s only going to get more expensive to be on the canals in the upcoming years

 

[Paul C]

28 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

 ..........Also that they were pretty broke and, like everyone who is skint and scraping by,...............

 

But they won't be "as" broke as someone who has the additional £1000+ Council Tax bill to pay. Also, a boat is somewhat smaller in volumetric size and the fuels used to heat it are different, so comparing the increase in fuel bills as an amount more, rather than saying "doubled" or "increased 50%" or whatever, is required.

 

I know its been done to death but its a pretty simple concept:

 

* Certain residential boaters are not charged council tax (£1000 or more) because the administrative burden of doing so, outweighs the amount.
* They won't be getting the £400 because the administrative burden of keeping track of it, in some kind of (yet to be suggested how it would actually work in the real world) scheme is simply sky high; its going to be at least the above cost.

[dmr]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

I think all three are on permanent moorings. There are acknowledged liveaboard moorings in Hebden Bridge and Tod, but I have no idea whether they have residential planning permission.

 

Isn't this just another one of canal life conudrums?  The council is quite happy to have the boats there, some of them are making a contribution to the character of Hebden. The council does not want to grant residential status, it would probably like the council tax but its more trouble than its worth?? I believe that some of the boats have been there a while.

 

When we had a mooring in Newbury the owner said he was approached for council tax, he produced a list of his requirement...a proper surface of the council owned track leading to his mooring, plus street lighting etc etc.....he never heard back. Dunno if its true but a good story.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Bloody disgrace ain’t it. 
Folk asking for summat for nothing even if the rest of the folk are getting it. 
Not offering to  pay council tax, unbelievable !

And what gets me is them that moor for free!!!

They don’t even have an address. 
Ship ‘em of to Rwanda with all the other undesirables, for they don’t even read the daily Mail!

 

[magnetman]

Torpedoes are on warm-up.