Jump to content

Court rules : A floating caravan is not a boat so you cannot be evicted.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

48 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

A boat with an engine is a boat. No legal definition is needed for something so blindingly obvious. 

 

 

 

 

 

There is something in that.  But this case concerned what the tribunal called a statutory caravan because it was not merely a question of what is commonly understood to be a caravan.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

The engines must be removed or made inoperable before it can be classed as a (HMRC) houseboat.

 

C&RTs own 'Houseboat' definition is their own 'internal' definition (and nothing to do with the Government definition) & is very different in that it does allow for a houseboat to have  its own propulsion and, to be allowed to (infrequently) move.

 

So are you saying that a boat with a motor in it can't be zero rated for vat? 

 

It is my understanding that you can get zero rating for a boat with a motor in it if it fulfils certain criteria. 

 

I may be wrong on this and am happy to be corrected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions can be purpose-specific, as is the HMRC definition of a boat/ship which qualified for VAT at a zero-rate.  It was determined at Colin Stone's VAT Tribunal Hearing that the prime determinant is the vessel's size >15 tonnes as calculated by a formula set by them. Additionally is its use as a primary residence, but a secondary use for pleasure did not prevent a vessel from being a qualifying ship.

 

So an ex-commercial vessel converted in accordance with that definition can be a qualifying ship. A houseboat comes under a totaly separate clause, and without looking it up it is something like a floating object which has no engine and for which an engine cannot be readily installed.

 

Tam

Edited by Tam & Di
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So are you saying that a boat with a motor in it can't be zero rated for vat? 

 

Are you being intentionally vexatious ?

 

That is the exact opposire of what was said earlier.

 

We discussed this and you said you were fully aware of the Zero VAT rules for RESIDENTIAL boat (NOT HOUSEBOATS) - maybe you are not ?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was on our local news this evening, it seem the caravan/boat use to be classed as holiday accommodation but a previous owner lived on board for 10 years and applied to the council to change the designation to a residential primary residence ( I may have that wording slight wrong) which they agreed to, so its unlike the some of the others on site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The primary purpose of a residential caravan or residential boat is to be a residence - this is why Nigel Moore argued that legally a Livaboard can NEVER be a CCer. as their primary reason is to use the boat to live in, whilst a CCers primary (bona fide) use MUST be to 'navigate'.

 

The Davies case :

.......... but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing - Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was clearly living on the boat, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

 

But what is the position when someone living aboard goes cruising after being moored for a couple of days? The journey is not necessary: the boat is being used  bona fide for navigation, and it could be argued that the reason for living on a boat is to navigate, and that living on it is a secondary use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

But what is the position when someone living aboard goes cruising after being moored for a couple of days? The journey is not necessary: the boat is being used  bona fide for navigation, and it could be argued that the reason for living on a boat is to navigate, and that living on it is a secondary use.

 

I can only repeat Nigels argument, that if the boat is your only residence then that is its 'purpose', not the fact that you can navigate.

If you only move because you need to comply with the law, then you are not bona fide navigating.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I can only repeat Nigels argument, that if the boat is your only residence then that is its 'purpose', not the fact that you can navigate.

If you only move because you need to comply with the law, then you are not bona fide navigating.

 

I wouldn't hang too closely onto Nigel's argument(s), whilst I appreciate he's not here to defend himself, he did have a spectacular defeat in court.

 

Something can be dual purpose.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I can only repeat Nigels argument, that if the boat is your only residence then that is its 'purpose', not the fact that you can navigate.

If you only move because you need to comply with the law, then you are not bona fide navigating.

 

That doesn't seem rational. The two purposes can be combined. And if you comply with the law, who's to say that isn't enough. And wouldn't the people who dispute that be relying on the law for their defence. 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The judge in the Davies case.

 

I'm not saying the law can't be an ass. I think I would probably use the examples of vehicles pulling into bus lanes, out of the way of emergency vehicles, and being prosecuted. I know in that situation, now, I would hold my ground, and force the emergency vehicle to use the bus lane. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

I wouldn't hang too closely onto Nigel's argument(s), whilst I appreciate he's not here to defend himself, he did have a spectacular defeat in court.

 

Something can be dual purpose.

 

It wasn't just Nigel, the Davies court case revolved around this  (Judges statement) :

 

I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing.

 

 

From Nigel :

 

Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

From Nigel :

 

Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

 

I still find that highly irrational. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It wasn't just Nigel, the Davies court case revolved around this  (Judges statement) :

 

I think it is right to say however that my decision is not to be taken as fully endorsing the board's guidance. It is possible to envisage use of a vessel which fell short of the Board's concept of continuous cruising but which still qualified the vessel for a licence under section 17(3)( c )(ii).”), but that he was committing a criminal act because he only complied in order to comply – hence was not 'bona fide' in what he was doing.

 

 

From Nigel :

 

Mr Davies' downfall, in the eyes of the judge, was that he was “clearly living on the boat”, hence that his purpose with the boat was therefore not for navigating.

 

I am familiar with that. There is a danger in trying to interpret one particular case to cover ALL CCers, particularly obviously county court cases (which don’t set a precedent in law).

 

So I don’t agree that CCers can’t, by definition, also live aboard and fully comply with the law. Plenty go about it quite happily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paul C said:

So I don’t agree that CCers can’t, by definition, also live aboard and fully comply with the law. Plenty go about it quite happily.

 

Nigels' summary pretty much sums up the actual situation, in that C&RT won't care about 'the law' as long as CCers meet C&RTs CC requirements

 

 

On that argument, it could never have made any difference no matter what his movement pattern was. Every permanent live-aboard embarked on a progressive journey around the system in their retirement would be unlawful, simply because they had made the boat their sole and permanent home. Not that CaRT would take exception to them of course; but the principle applies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

But it comes back to the same thing: you think that just because a boat is used for living on, it can’t also be used for something else, eg ‘bona fide navigating’.

 

I disagree, it can.

 

And boaters are not allowed to make the rules, so, someone's rule has to be followed, and there is only the CRT guidelines. The rules are the same for any boat user, leisure or liveaboard. If CRT wish to extend the rule beyond what the law states the rule is, then we come down to satisfying the board. It would seem, a law unto themselves. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paul C said:

But it comes back to the same thing: you think that just because a boat is used for living on, it can’t also be used for something else, eg ‘bona fide navigating’.

 

I disagree, it can.

 

It is not "I" that think this, it is a Judge (and Nigel)

 

In principle I agree with you - but, there can only be one 'primary use'.

 

You need a car to travel 50 miles to work, (primary use) but you also use it to nip 1 mile to the Co-Op to do your shopping (secondary use)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It is not "I" that think this, it is a Judge (and Nigel)

 

In principle I agree with you - but, there can only be one 'primary use'.

 

You need a car to travel 50 miles to work, (primary use) but you also use it to nip 1 mile to the Co-Op to do your shopping (secondary use)


Where did ‘primary use’ come from?

 

Tge law just says “…..will be used…..”, check it if you need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You need a car to travel 50 miles to work, (primary use) but you also use it to nip 1 mile to the Co-Op to do your shopping (secondary use)

 

When all said and done, it's a conveyance, and a utility,  whether is does 50x1 mile hops or a single 1 mile hop. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You missed out the next couple of (important) words "Bona Fide"

 

As I said - it is not my interpetation, it is that of a Judge.

 

Is bona fide what the board says is bona fide, and from that perspective, the law follows what the board says is law. ?? And, does this create another legislature. 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Is bona fide what the board says is bona fide, and from that perspective, the law follows what the board says is law. ?? And, does this create another legislature body. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It can be challenged by judicial review.

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.