Housing Benefit for Boaters

[Smelly]

I just bumped into a decision that some out there might find useful, although most advisers would be able to put their finger on it I'd reckon that it'd be useful for us boaters to know about it as well.

 

note number 1, this does Not overlap with the "dwelling" question for Council Tax purposes; the Council Tax Act uses a different statutory definition than that at S137 SSCBA.

 

number 2, it does provide useful precedent for a question i've heard bandied about for years.

 

3 it's useful to note that i've seen some local authorities that accept the "licence" comment at reg 10(1) HB(gen)'87 as referring to BW's licence, however this is erroneous; it refers to the contractual arrangement between owner and tenant. If you tried to take advantage of this loophole you would generate a recoverable overpayment if you got found out and would possibly be committing an offence under the Social Security Fraud Act of 2000.

 

As a benefit adviser it's useful to get it out there. If anyone wants to ask anything here's a good start, if anyone wants to rant about "blagging boaters" i'd remind them that there are a good few people out there who thought that they could afford their costs when they bought the boat but for whatever reason can't, so information like this should be openly debated in the public realm without unneccesary interference.

 

 

So, this is a decision of the Social Security Commissioner, fear not the jargon, he does get to the point!

 

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j18...8%202005-00.doc

[Mr Baites]

a yuwsda gerit befor a wont loto thn thi curit off

[Orphiel]

Hmm, cannot seem to open the file, keeps saying it can't find it or open it, something about file type. I'd be very interested as a debt adviser, and can also pass the news on to our benefits advisers at work. Any chance of another link or some file copy?

 

Cheers for it anyway, if you can't get another copy will give it a search in the SSC decisions when back at work next week.

 

Meg

[reg]

Hmm, cannot seem to open the file, keeps saying it can't find it or open it, something about file type. I'd be very interested as a debt adviser, and can also pass the news on to our benefits advisers at work. Any chance of another link or some file copy?

 

Cheers for it anyway, if you can't get another copy will give it a search in the SSC decisions when back at work next week.

 

Meg

 

It's a Microsoft Word Document so needs to be saved and then be opened using Microsoft Word or a compatible word processor.

If you still have problems then try a Google using the phrase "housing benefit narrowboat" this should list it as the first listed item and, if you are still having problems opening it as a Word document, gives you the option to "View as HTML"

 

Hope this helps

Keep up the good work

[Supermalc]

I would hate to read one that didn't come to the point.

 

Didn't understand a word. Why not just say I've awarded housing benefit because I've accepted the narrowboat is his home.

 

That's coming to the point.......

 

Anyway for anyone who can't get to read it, I've copied it below.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

 

1. My decision is given under paragraph 8(4) and (5)( of Schedule 7 to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. It is:

 

I SET ASIDE the decision of the Stratford appeal tribunal, held on 20 August 2004 under reference U/42/249/2004/00720, because it is erroneous in point of law.

 

I make findings of fact and give the decision appropriate in the light of them.

 

I FIND as facts that the narrow boat occupied by the claimant was his dwelling and that this boat was situated within the area of the local authority.

 

My DECISION is that the claimant's claim for housing benefit must be decided on the basis of my findings above.

 

2. I abridge the time for applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to one month from the date when this decision is issued by the Commissioners' Office (regulation 5(2)(a) of the Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999).

 

The issues

 

3. The issue in this case is whether the claimant is entitled to housing benefit in respect of a narrow boat on which he lived with his children. I say 'lived', because by the time of the hearings before me the claimant had been accepted as homeless and was living in temporary accommodation on dry land. This issue divides up into two. First, was the narrow boat the claimant's dwelling for the purposes of the housing benefit scheme? Second, was it situated within the area of the local authority from whom he claimed housing benefit?

The history of the case

 

4. The local authority refused the claimant's claim for benefit. He exercised his right of appeal to an appeal tribunal. The tribunal decided in his favour that the boat was his dwelling, but against him that the dwelling was not situated within the area of the local authority. I gave the claimant leave to appeal to a Commissioner and directed an oral hearing of his appeal. I also invited the Secretary of State to consider joining as a party to the proceedings; my invitation was accepted.

 

5. The oral hearing was first listed for 13 April 2005. It was adjourned on that day and resumed at the Commissioners' Court on 23 May 2005. All the parties were represented by counsel: the claimant by Ms Marina Sergides, the local authority by Ms Siân Davies and the Secretary of State by Mr Julian Kenny. I am grateful to all counsel for their interesting arguments and for taking me into areas of law that are outside the usual remit of a Social Security Commissioner. Despite their fascination, I have not found these other areas of law helpful in making my decision. For the most part I have not referred to them. The one exception is the homeless legislation on which both Ms Davies and Mr Kenny relied.

 

The facts of the case

 

6. The claimant lived on a narrow boat with his two daughters. He had a form of agreement that was called an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, but the correct legal analysis is that he had a licence to occupy the boat. The living occupation on the boat consisted of a 'balcony' at the front, a double bedroom occupied by the children, a toilet/shower, and a kitchen/dining area in which the claimant also slept.

 

7. The boat was kept on a canal that passes through the area of the local authority. The claimant has a licence to be on the canal, the terms of which are in the papers. There was a discussion at the oral hearing of the precise terms of that licence and the extent to which some of the provisions were merely guidance. I have not found it necessary to resolve the issues discussed. It is sufficient to say this. I am sure that the claimant is in breach of his licence, whether the provisions are all contractual terms or a mixture of terms supplemented by guidance notes on their application. At the most, he is entitled to be in the area of the local authority for 14 days out of 42. But even on the least favourable interpretation from the claimant's point of view, I am satisfied that he is nonetheless potentially entitled to housing benefit.

 

8. The claimant stays for the overwhelming majority of the time within the area of the local authority from which he claimed housing benefit. He seldom moves from the same mooring. If he does, he does not go vary far. The most he travels is every couple of weeks when he takes the boat a few miles along the canal and then returns.

 

The relevant legislation

 

Statutes

 

9. There are two relevant provisions in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Section 130(1)(a) provides that

 

'(1) A person is entitled to housing benefit if-

(a) he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home'.

And section 137(1) provides a definition of 'dwelling':

 

'(1) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

"dwelling" means any residential accommodation, whether or not consisting of the whole or part of a building and whether or not comprising separate and self-contained premises'.

 

10. Section 134(1A) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides for housing benefit to take the form of a rent rebate if the claimant is liable to a housing authority. Section 134(1B) then provides:

 

'(1B) In any other case housing benefit shall take the form of a rent allowance funded and administered by the local authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated or by such other local authority as is specified by an order made by the Secretary of State.'

 

Regulations

 

11. I was also referred to two provisions in the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. Regulation 2(4) extends the meaning of 'dwelling':

 

'(4) For the purposes of these Regulations, the following shall be treated as included in a dwelling-

© where the dwelling is a houseboat, the land used for the purposes of mooring it'.

And regulation 10(1) deals with payments in respect of which housing benefit is payable:

 

'(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, the payments in respect of which housing benefit is payable in the form of a rent rebate or allowance are the following periodical payments which a person is liable to make in respect of the dwelling which he occupies as his home-

 

( payments in respect of a licence or permission to occupy the dwelling;

 

(f) mooring charges payable for a houseboat'.

 

12. I have not found these provisions helpful in deciding on the issues raised by the appeal. Both provisions either make clear what might otherwise be in doubt or extend the usual meaning of the statutory language. I have not found it necessary to define 'houseboat' or to decide whether the narrow boat was a houseboat.

 

The 'dwelling' issue

 

13. The tribunal decided that the narrow boat was the claimant's dwelling for the purposes of entitlement to housing benefit. Both the Secretary of State and the local authority argued that this aspect of the tribunal's decision was wrong. For convenience, I take their arguments together. Mr Kenny and Ms Davies made four points: a language point, an absurdity point, an anomaly point and an address point.

 

The language point

 

14. Mr Kenny separated this into two: the ordinary meaning of the word and its meaning in the statutory context. I deal with them together, because I can see no difference between them. Mr Kenny argued that 'dwelling' in section 130(1)(a) and 'residential accommodation' in section 137 conveyed fixity of location. I reject that argument.

 

15. I accept that dwellings and residential accommodation almost always have a fixed location. However, that is a matter of practice and convenience. It is not a matter of definition. To my mind, 'dwelling' and 'accommodation' both convey a relationship between a person and that person's base. They do not convey a relationship between that base and a particular location or piece of land where it may happen to be. 'Residential' merely serves to emphasis that the base is for domestic and social purposes, not for a business, trade or profession.

 

16. Mr Kenny quoted a dictionary definition. It can be helpful to consult dictionaries. I have consulted several while considering this point. However, there is a limit to the possibility of conveying every nuance of meaning in a definition. And given the likelihood that a person's dwelling or accommodation will have a fixed location, it is not surprising that definitions contain this as an element. However, that does not mean that fixity is always necessary.

 

17. Part of the discussion of this point at the oral hearing involved accommodation that might be temporary or merely transitory. I can see no reason why this should affect a claimant's entitlement to housing benefit. The fact that a claimant's occupation is limited in duration or uncertain in its tenure may be relevant to the issue whether it is that claimant's home. But if that condition is satisfied, I can see no reason within the scheme why these factors should bar the claimant's entitlement to housing benefit.

 

The absurdity point

 

18. Mr Kenny argued that if the claimant were to succeed in this case, it would mean that claimants could obtain housing benefit in respect of camper vans kept on parking meters and tents pitched in public parks. I accept that they would be the potential consequences of a decision in the claimant's favour. To obtain housing benefit in such circumstances would be unusual and, therefore, perhaps surprising. But I do not consider that it would be an absurdity to award housing benefit in such circumstances. The purpose of the housing benefit scheme is to provide financial support for those who cannot meet their housing costs in the rented sector. If claimants can satisfy the conditions of entitlement in those circumstances, why should they be denied benefit because their housing arrangements are unusual?

 

19. If there is an anomaly, it would lie (on the argument of the Secretary of State and the local authority) in there being a difference between someone who had a few square inches of land on which to moor a boat and one who had no such place.

 

The anomaly point

 

20. The anomaly suggested arises from the relationship between the housing benefit legislation and the homelessness legislation. The latter is presently in the Housing Act 1996. While living on the narrow boat, the claimant was homeless within the meaning of that legislation. Mr Kenny and Ms Davies both argued that it was anomalous if he were both homeless there and yet entitled to housing benefit. I reject this argument for two reasons.

 

21. The first reason is that it is simply wrong as a matter of law that there can be no overlap between the legislation. Just to take one example, a person who is subject to domestic violence is homeless, but may nonetheless be entitled to housing benefit pending rehousing. The obvious counter to this point is that this and other examples are merely exceptions that do not affect the basic point. That leads me to the second reason.

 

22. This is that I can see no justification for assuming that the housing benefit and homeless schemes are mutually exclusive in law. It may be that in practice the circumstances in which a person is homeless will be circumstances in which the person could not show entitlement to housing benefit. But that is practice, not law. There is no provision expressly establishing a boundary between the two legislative schemes and I see no reason to imply or create one. They deal with different matters. Housing benefit provides financial support for those whose income is insufficient to meet their housing costs, while the homeless provisions ensure that no one is left without access to accommodation. If a claimant is prepared to live in circumstances that come within the homeless legislation, I see no reason in the legislation why public financial support should not be available.

 

23. I suggested to Mr Kenny that if he wanted to use the homeless legislation as a context for the interpretation of the housing benefit legislation, he should rely on the earlier scheme in the legislation in force when the housing benefit scheme was created. He disagreed. I record his argument, but as I have rejected the anomaly point as he put it to me, I do not need to resolve it.

 

The address point

 

24. Ms Davies introduced the need for the claimant to have an address and Mr Kenny took this up in his response to the arguments of the other parties. In so far as this is related to fixity of location, I have already dealt with it. But I do need to deal with it in so far as it concerns the possibility of communication with the claimant. The case as presented to the tribunal did not show any difficulty in communicating with the claimant. He was eventually given by the Post Office an address and a postcode. Ms Davies objected that this was just the address of the local sorting office. However, this is what the claimant was given and it proved effective for communication purposes.

 

The claimant's argument

 

25. Ms Sergides' basic argument was that there was no merit in the arguments put by Mr Kenny and Ms Davies. For the reasons I have given, I agree.

 

The 'situated' issue

 

26. The tribunal decided that the claimant's narrow boat was not situated within the area of the local authority, with the result that he was not entitled to housing benefit. The claimant argued that this aspect of the tribunal's decision was wrong.

 

27. The tribunal's reasoning was this:

 

'I consider that the only permission that [the claimant] has is to cruise, putting down ancillary to that cruising. The visitors' mooring areas are just that: there is a 14 day maximum stay and the area is for visiting. [The claimant] cannot sensibly be said to be visiting. He intends to reside in [the area of the local authority] but his licence does not allow residence. He is accordingly obliged to duck and dive. I find equally unattractive Ms Sergides' argument that he could claim housing benefit in several areas. As housing benefit is a weekly benefit, he could replicate entitlement many time over by virtue of the fact that he is freely mobile. This cannot have been intended by Parliament.'

 

28. Ms Sergides argued that it was sufficient for the claimant to be within the area of the local authority. No greater precision or permanence was required. She argued that section 134(1B) did not deal with entitlement; it only dealt with payment. I do not consider that it is necessary to determine this last point. My conclusion is the same whether section 134(1B) deals with payment or entitlement. On my reading, the issue raised by section 134(1B) is purely a factual one: where was the claimant's dwelling situated? That question depends, of course, on what 'situated' means.

 

29. Both the Secretary of State and the local authority argued that the tribunal was correct to find that the narrow boat was not situated within the area of the local authority. The more extensive argument was provided by Ms Davies. For convenience, I take their arguments together.

 

30. The tribunal's reasons raise the issue of lawfulness. This issue arose at various points in the argument. Examples were given of circumstances in which claimants were not lawfully occupying their accommodation. And both Mr Kenny and Ms Davies argued that the claimant's use of the canal through the local authority's area was in breach of his licence. However, when pressed on the point Mr Kenny refrained from putting his argument on the ground that lawfulness of occupation was decisive. In her final written submissions, Ms Davies was not so reticent.

 

31. I reject the argument that only lawful residence is within the housing benefit scheme. Regulation 10 expressly provides that housing benefit is payable in respect of what are in effect damages for trespass. The housing benefit scheme expressly accepts the possibility that the claimant's presence in the accommodation may not be lawful. I therefore reject any argument in so far as it is based on the fact that the claimant was not entitled to be where he was.

 

32. Referring to the trips outside the area of the local authority, Ms Davies argued that they would on the claimant's argument entitle him to housing benefit from the other local authority as well. That may or may not be so. I doubt whether mere passage along a canal within a local authority's area is sufficient for a dwelling to be situated there. The claimant's argument is different. He argues that he is, these short trips apart, permanently based as a matter of fact within the area of the same local authority.

 

33. Ms Davies argued this was not sufficient. She argued that 'situated' meant residence plus permanence and that a transient presence was not sufficient to be permanent. On questioning, she argued that the key issue was whether the claimant was always able to return to the same mooring or merely had to take his chance with other users of the canal.

 

34. Ms Davies also relied on the legislation that governs the assessment of an appropriate rent for the dwelling: the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, as amended. She argued that it was impossible in the claimant's circumstances to assess a rent in accordance with that legislation.

 

35. My analysis of 'situated' is this. The word conveys connotations of a location. The precision with which that location is delimited will depend on the context. In section 134(1B), the degree of precision is expressly set out. It is the area of the local authority. The claimant's dwelling must be situated with that area if housing benefit is to be available. (I use 'available' as a neutral word sufficient to cover entitlement and payment.) Usually a dwelling will be permanently situated in one place. In the case of a dwelling that moves, it is a matter of fact and degree whether it is situated within a local authority's area. Take two extreme examples. A claimant who lives in a camper van which passes through a local authority's area on a motorway stopping only at a service area would not be situated in that area. But a claimant who lives in a camper van which stays permanently on the same camp site leaving only to visit a supermarket elsewhere would be situated in that area.

 

36. I apply that analysis to the facts like this. The evidence shows that the narrow boat was on the stretch of the canal that passed through the area of the local authority. On my reading of his oral evidence to the tribunal, he moved out of the area for the sake of form every so often, travelling a few miles and returning without stopping. He told me at the hearing that he was almost always able to return to the same spot and that he never failed to find a mooring. On that evidence, which neither the Secretary of State nor the local authority challenged before me, the narrow boat was situated within the area of the local authority continuously, except for a few hours every couple of weeks when it left and returned.

 

37. I have no doubt that claimants who live as the claimant did cause practical problems for local authorities. There are questions of proof as to the claimant's living arrangements. And there are the difficulties of assessing a rent. But there is no reason in principle why these practicalities should deny the claimant entitlement. Suppose a claimant was allowed to pitch a tent in an isolated field in the countryside where there were no other dwellings for miles around. Or suppose that homeowners in this local authority's area allowed the claimant to live in a tent pitched in their garden. Both those examples would satisfy Ms Davies' test for 'situated', but both would cause problems for a rent officer who was required to assess a rent.

 

38. For these reasons, the tribunal was wrong to find that the claimant's narrow boat was not situated in the area of the local authority. The tribunal either misdirected itself on the meaning of 'situated' or came to a conclusion of fact that was not open to it on the evidence.

 

Disposal

 

39. I reject the arguments of the local authority and the Secretary of State. The tribunal was correct to decide that the narrow boat occupied by the claimant was his dwelling for housing benefit purposes, but it was wrong to decide that it was not situated within the area of the local authority. I set aside the tribunal's decision and substitute the decision that it should have given. The local authority will now decide the claimant's entitlement to housing benefit in respect of the narrow boat.

 

Signed on original

on 10 June 2005

Edward Jacobs

Commissioner

[reg]

(cool.gif payments in respect of a licence or permission to occupy the dwelling;

 

I have looked into this and the reply I have had back is as follows

 

"I have looked at the regulation that mentions licences and I would read this regulation as a licence to occupy the property or in your case a boat. However as you already own this boat the licence you are referring to is a licence to travel on the canals and not to actually occupy your boat"

 

This is an important issue as the steep increase in licence fees over the next few years is going to have a significant impact on those with low income and the official housing benefit line appears to be be that housing assistance is not payable on the licence element.

[Smelly]

I'vew been thinking about this over the weekend in the light of the '95 waterways act but have come to no firm conclusions.

 

The "dwelling" for the purposes of S137 SSCBA is the "residential accomodation... whether or not comprising separate and self contained premises"

 

I've not got a copy of the act, but from memory the licene forms payment for the water your're on and the structure's paid for by the mooring fee.

 

It seems perverse that the occupancy aspect of the dwelling; i.e. the boat and it's licence, isn't covered by the mooring fee whereas the premises are. However "whether or not" seems to shut out the licence aspect and it feels like ther might be an unappealable discretion created here.

 

I'd be interested no know of anyone out there who's needed to appeal these decisions so's I can have a look at any precedent. I might be barking up the wrong tree but it's worth a thought.

 

Reg states it the licene to travel on the canals, but isn't a licence a pre-requisite for the mooring?

 

I'll think about this some more anyone with any ideas? or a copy of the '95 Act they could link me to... I had a nightmare finging it last time I tried

 

I don't know whether John Zebedee ever watches this site but if you're out there John, we discussed this in Preston many moons ago but not in so much detail. Your input would be useful

[Chris Pink]

The confusion over the word "licence" is caused by the fact it is used to mean 2 different things in this judgement.The tenancy agreement is, in law, a licence because the term 'short-hold tenancy" doesn't apply to boats. so the tenant has a licence issued by the owner of the boat to live on it. Squats in the 80s used to have licences rather than tenancy agreements because there is no protection under the landload and tenants legislation.The commissioner states the belief that the tenant is in breach of BW's licence (the type we know and love) because of the small degree of movement. Not really his/her place to say in my opinion.

or a copy of the '95 Act they could link me to...

http://opsi.gov.uk/acts/localact1995/Ukla_19950001_en_1.htm

This is an important issue as the steep increase in licence fees over the next few years is going to have a significant impact on those with low income and the official housing benefit line appears to be be that housing assistance is not payable on the licence element.

It is my understanding that it has always been the case that you can claim housing benefit only if you rent a boat from someone and not in respect of loans or licence fees. It has always been a bit moot whether you can claim mooring fees. I think the test is probably whether you are made homeless by not paying the mooring fees - mostly not. Edited December 3, 2007 by Chris Pink

[Sir Nibble]

I have to say, going to court to prove that you are permanently moored with a CC license is a bit of a risky strategy.

I say 'lived', because by the time of the hearings before me the claimant had been accepted as homeless and was living in temporary accommodation on dry land.

I'll bet he is! Just as well write to BW and say "Can I have a section 8 please".

[Smelly]

Snib, by the reading of the decision and teh subs before teh tribunal, no-one really thought about the implications of a bridge hopper challenging, in a public forum, a decision like this one, especially as teh evidence actually states they were in breach of their licence. Unless they were doing the appropriate mileage within Stratford LA's area...

 

Chris, cheers for the link, not much time to surf at home as power's at a premium at mo'.

 

I'll take it home to look over teh cross over between S137, reg 10 an dthe BWA

[Sir Nibble]

Snib, by the reading of the decision and teh subs before teh tribunal, no-one really thought about the implications of a bridge hopper challenging, in a public forum, a decision like this one, especially as teh evidence actually states they were in breach of their licence. Unless they were doing the appropriate mileage within Stratford LA's area...

 

Chris, cheers for the link, not much time to surf at home as power's at a premium at mo'.

 

I'll take it home to look over teh cross over between S137, reg 10 an dthe BWA

I'm sorry, I have my stupid head on and don't understand that.

[EcoTort]

Hi (+:

 

I have recently bought a fire-damaged narrow-boat to renovate and live aboard. She is on hard standing in a boatyard where I am paying £50 a week rent. On first phone contact to apply for Housing Benefit, the council supervisor at the local office says that HB is only payable if the boat is in the water.

 

Having read the judgement you kindly posted, it would not seem relevant whether the boat is in or out of the water as long as it is my residence (which it is), and the residence is situated within the council boundaries (which it is).

 

Please can you suggest a line of minimal resistance to achieve my aim ?

 

Many thanks,

 

Nick.

 

EcoTort Theatre

LONDON.

[Smelly]

Hi (+:

 

I have recently bought a fire-damaged narrow-boat to renovate and live aboard. She is on hard standing in a boatyard where I am paying £50 a week rent. On first phone contact to apply for Housing Benefit, the council supervisor at the local office says that HB is only payable if the boat is in the water.

 

Having read the judgement you kindly posted, it would not seem relevant whether the boat is in or out of the water as long as it is my residence (which it is), and the residence is situated within the council boundaries (which it is).

 

Please can you suggest a line of minimal resistance to achieve my aim ?

 

Many thanks,

 

Nick.

 

EcoTort Theatre

LONDON.

 

 

 

It's astonishing how you make friends on this board. (maybe I should try managing them; they're a burly mob though )

 

Presumption aside...

 

Your answer lies in the definitions at the beginning of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. You need to expand on the definition of "rent". If you look at the thinking regarding "such sums payable in respect of licence to use the occupancy" or whatever the definition is, the fees you're paying should fall within that paragraph. Further down the regs a bit "mooring charges for a houseboat" are mentioned and there was years of bother about whether licence fees counted, but one of the decisions I've cited somewhere accept that licence fees fell within the "sums payable..." aspect of the scheme.

 

The "mooring fees" issue has been a red herring for years but it's pretty much sorted now.

 

This is a really old thread; there's discussion of R(H)9/08 somewhere and I'd use that as an analogy.

 

As to process...

 

If the LA have said "no" already I hope you've appealed. If there is a real risk your occupancy could be at risk for want of fees paid then, when you receive the Local Authorities submission and the enquiry form from the Courts & Tribunals Service (if you haven't already) then write to the clerk to the Tribunal and seek direction that the hearing is expedited explaining the immediate risk. Otherwise, if Brum's anything to go by you'll be waiting a year or more.

 

If you're past the one month deadline to appeal we need a PM conversation; start posting; you need 4 more posts to use the PM facility.

 

It's a good idea to title such an application Directions Request because the clerks otherwise miss the application and it gets put in a long queue

 

I may edit some links in later but I've some washing to do first.

 

Dan

 

Edited to swap machines because the keyoard on the other one has developed an intermittent fault

Edited September 21, 2011 by Smelly

[EcoTort]

Cheers (+:

 

Have you seen my video on U-Tube yet?

 

My link

[Smelly]

I'm sorry, I have my stupid head on and don't understand that.

 

Sorry, this got left by the wayside... The decision focussed on the "sums payable" and the controversial fees were separate fees by way of occupancy.

 

I don't think; reading between the lines of the decision, that anyone focussed on the existing veracity of the licence and in that particular jurisdiction no-one really needed to. The Judge (was it Mr Jacobs?) only needed to look at the Social Security question.

 

Cheers (+:

 

Have you seen my video on U-Tube yet?

 

 

 

It's 13 minutes long; my FUP will not love me...

[Rich]

Whilst on the subject of housing benefit for boaters, does anyone know how the benefit for a boat mooring is calculated? The amount is worked out by a Rent Officer at the Valuation Office Agency, part of HMRC but the method of calculation is a secret.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Rich

[EcoTort]

- have you tried a FOI request ?

[Smelly]

Whilst on the subject of housing benefit for boaters, does anyone know how the benefit for a boat mooring is calculated? The amount is worked out by a Rent Officer at the Valuation Office Agency, part of HMRC but the method of calculation is a secret.

 

Well first thing's first is to ring the council and ask them what the Local Reference Rent is. If it's someone who doesn't know the ins and outs they'll tell you the Local Housing Allowance, then ask to speak to someone who knows about LRR's as moorings are covered by the old rules still. You might end up ringing the rent officer's office.

 

The LRR is decided by the Rent Officer but the amount is calculated by the Local Authority.

 

If you take your applicable amount (current rates are widely available a healthy single person is £67.15 per week atm IIRC); then subtract that from your weekly income, multiply by 65% then deduct that figure from the sum of your moorings and licence OR the LRR, whichever is lower; you'll get the amount of HB payable.

 

Easy (?)

[reg]

Well first thing's first is to ring the council and ask them what the Local Reference Rent is. If it's someone who doesn't know the ins and outs they'll tell you the Local Housing Allowance, then ask to speak to someone who knows about LRR's as moorings are covered by the old rules still. You might end up ringing the rent officer's office.

 

The LRR is decided by the Rent Officer but the amount is calculated by the Local Authority.

 

If you take your applicable amount (current rates are widely available a healthy single person is £67.15 per week atm IIRC); then subtract that from your weekly income, multiply by 65% then deduct that figure from the sum of your moorings and licence OR the LRR, whichever is lower; you'll get the amount of HB payable.

 

Easy (?)

 

 

Many thanks for the work you do Smelly. I don't know if this has been shown befor but I have found a link for uptodate Local Refernce rates. Now all I have to do is the calculation.

 

Link Local Reference Rates

 

Question: Do you happen to know what they mean by the number of Rooms. Does this refer to total number of rooms or the number of bedrooms?

 

 

N.B The link is for November 2011. I suspect you may need to do a site search each month for later updates

[reg]

Whilst looking around the site referred to in my previous link above I came across this, which appears to be fairly definitive.

 

Licence fees

 

In certain areas of the country occupants of houseboats are also required to pay a separate additional licence fee to British Waterways for keeping and using the boat on canals and rivers that they own. These licence fees are eligible for HB, and may be included in the referred rent. They are sometimes known as boat or craft licence fees. Local authorities will normally give a breakdown of the mooring charge, and the licence fee (where these are payable) elements that make up the total referred rent.

 

When considering if the rent is significantly high RO’s/RDO’s should look at market evidence for both mooring charges and licence fees where both are referred. But, where only a mooring charge is referred they should look at market evidence for mooring charges alone.

 

The full text can be found here

VOA Link

 

Hope this is of use to someone

[bigste]

I would suggest the licence fee is as in 1a below. Therefore it should not matter if you own the NB. Same goes for the mooring fee. You must pay the fees if the boat is on the water. It is not a fee for cruising, it is for being on the water. Seems straight forward enough to me. Cannot see legal grounds for being refused on those points.

 

(1) A person is entitled to housing benefit if-

(a) he is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling in Great Britain which he occupies as his home'.
And section 137(1) provides a definition of 'dwelling':

'(1) In this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-
"dwelling" means any residential accommodation, whether or not consisting of the whole or part of a building and whether or not comprising separate and self-contained premises'.

[Beaker]

What kept you?

[Grace and Favour]

He was in a queue at the Housing Office?

[carlt]

If a family of four lives on a boat that has two cabins, one with a double berth and one with two singles, but also has a drop-down dinette/bed in the saloon...will they get hit with the "bedroom tax"?

[Ssscrudddy]

I think you will find the 'bedroom tax' applies to people in 'social housing', in orther words a council house (& possibly a housing association house), but not private houses.

& seeing as the issue is about mooring & licence fees, & I'm willing to bet the council or housing association isnt providing the boat, then the bedroom tax wont apply.

On another note, assuming HB covers mooring & licence fee, what about a gold licence? Let say the licence fee for an EA river that is right next to a CaRT canal, is £825 pa. But you might want the option of going on to the canal occasionally (maybe that's the closest diesel point), so you chose to pay the extra £361 to get a gold licence (£1186 for the same boat) instead. I would assume that the HB wont cover that extra £361 on the grounds that it isnt a neccessary fee to be there (on your EA mooring), but presumably presenting the whole bill they should pay up for the EA £825 part of it?