Residential moorings in a marina

[haggis]

Just caught sight of a post on FB saying that a marina "up north" had been found by the Local Authority to have residential moorings without planning permission and the boaters were being asked to pay 3 years Council tax. Anyone heard anything about this?  Is it true? Which marina?

Unfortunately I can't now find the post to ask questions there.

I suppose with LAs short of cash more will be looking at ways to gather more Council tax. 

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, haggis said:

Just caught sight of a post on FB saying that a marina "up north" had been found by the Local Authority to have residential moorings without planning permission and the boaters were being asked to pay 3 years Council tax. Anyone heard anything about this?  Is it true? Which marina?

Unfortunately I can't now find the post to ask questions there.

I suppose with LAs short of cash more will be looking at ways to gather more Council tax. 

 

Something similar happend a few years ago to a static caravan site that had 'sold' leisure plots as Residential to OAPs 'getting out of the property market'. They were all evicted and had to pay backdated council tax and the site owner was given huge fines.

[magnetman]

I wonder how the LA found out people were actually living there. 

 

 

How would they establish this in each individual case? Or were the moorings let as residential by the operator? 

[Rob-M]

I think it is fairly obvious who lives permanently onboard in our marina which, as far as I am aware, has no official residential moorings and offers leisure moorings only.

[magnetman]

It is obvious to other people who have boats but I was thinking of how a council would be able to work it out and/or prove it. 

 

Maybe they just asked the marina operator. 

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder how the LA found out people were actually living there. 

 

Some disgruntled moorer, perhaps. 

 

 

[Hudds Lad]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

Some disgruntled moorer, perhaps. 

 

 

Was just thinking the same, or disgruntled staff

[Alan de Enfield]

Maybe a 'secret shopper' asking if they could bring their boat in and be a liveaboard ?

 

The 'forum' always suggests that anyone wanting to liveaboard should ask boaters already there rather than the 'management'

[doratheexplorer]

I know of one which is a very likely candidate.

[magnetman]

Disgruntled is a good word. I wonder if one can be gruntled. 

 

 

[BilgePump]

17 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Disgruntled is a good word. I wonder if one can be gruntled. 

 

 

You can. It means to be in good humour, happy.

[ditchcrawler]

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I wonder how the LA found out people were actually living there. 

 

 

How would they establish this in each individual case? Or were the moorings let as residential by the operator? 

Maybe they all applied for the £400 heating allowance

[MtB]

42 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe they all applied for the £400 heating allowance

 

Lol, this seems a probability! 

 

 

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

I think it is fairly obvious who lives permanently onboard in our marina which, as far as I am aware, has no official residential moorings and offers leisure moorings only.

 

It may look obvious, but where is the line drawn between "living aboard" and "spending a lot of time enjoying my boat"? 

 

 

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

Some disgruntled moorer, perhaps. 

 

 

More than likely. Happened to a friend of mine. Sour grapes 

[magnetman]

Or maybe someone who was very keen to get a mooring there as a leisure user but discovered they were pushed out by people using the leisure moorings as residential. 

 

 

[Nightwatch]

Am I correct in thinking that if you leave a Marina for, say, a month or two, it isn’t considered residential. 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Am I correct in thinking that if you leave a Marina for, say, a month or two, it isn’t considered residential. 

 

No - it is complicated and depends if you retrun to the same mooring. See example 2

 

I've been thru all this when in a marina as the residents were offered different ways of paying CT, either individually or as part of a composite

 

I'll dig out the regs.

 

 

 

3.2 The Rating (Caravan and Boats) Act 1996 amends Section 66(3) & (4) with effect from 1 April 1990 so as to clarify when a caravan pitch or a boat mooring comprises domestic property. A copy of the relevant sections of the Act is attached to this Practice Note as Appendix 1.

Broadly, a caravan pitch or boat mooring is domestic property when either:

is occupied by a caravan or boat that is a sole or main residence of an individual, and therefore treated as a dwelling; or

is an appurtenance enjoyed with other living accommodation (which is itself a dwelling) and is not a separate hereditament.

a constructed or established pitch or mooring becomes occupied by a boat or caravan used as a sole or main residence, then the pitch or mooring will constitute domestic property ie a dwelling from that date.

 

3.3 Caravan pitches and boat moorings which when next in use will be domestic property

S.66(5) of the LGFA 1988 provides that, “Property not in use is domestic if it appears that when next in use it will be domestic” Therefore a pitch or mooring which has no caravan or boat situated on it will not constitute domestic property, unless:

it forms part of a larger hereditament which itself is domestic property i.e. house and grounds

it is clear that when next in use this will be as the pitch for a caravan, or mooring for a boat, which is a sole or main residence.

The most obvious instances when this is likely to occur are in the cases of marina and canal bank moorings occupied by mobile residential boats, a showman’s winter quarters or a gypsy caravan site.

 

6. Whether the value of the caravan or boat is to be included with the mooring in the Council Tax Valuation for Banding Purposes

6.1 Technically the boat or caravan is a chattel which will only become part of the hereditament if its presence has a sufficient degree of permanence to the land.

6.2 In London County Council v Wilkins (VO) 1954 (HL) the question of whether a chattel was rateable was considered. Lord Kilmur said that the test of rateability was whether there is evidence that the structures were enjoyed with the land and enhanced its value. He concluded that, “A chattel to be rateable must be rateable with the land on which it rests”.

6.3 The rateability of a caravan was specifically considered in Field Place Caravan Park Ltd v Harding (VO) 1966 (CA) when Lord Denning said,

“Although a chattel is not a rateable hereditament by itself, nevertheless it may become rateable together with land, if it is placed on a piece of land and enjoyed with it in such circumstances and with such a degree of permanence that the chattel with the land can together be regarded as one unit of occupation.”

The Court of Appeal held that the caravan and its pitch were rateable as a separate hereditament notwithstanding the fact that the caravan was a chattel on wheels (and could be moved within half an hour) because it was placed on and enjoyed with land and with such a degree of permanence that the two could together be regarded as one unit of occupation.

6.4 The boat or caravan does not have to be annexed to the land, it is sufficient for either to rest on the land or water by its own weight (see Ryan Industrial Fuels Ltd v Morgan (VO) 1965 RA 327). Nor is it essential for a boat to be attached vertically to the land under the water on which it rests.

6.5 There have been a number of cases in recent years which have considered whether floating hereditaments used for commercial purposes should be assessed (notably Woodbury (VO) v The Yard Arm Club Ltd LT 1989 RA 381 and Westminster City Council v Woodbury (VO) and The Yard Arm Club Ltd CA 1992 RA 1), but the main issues in these cases have focused on the adequacy of the description/exemption rather than rateability of the vessel.

6.6 For a chattel to be part of the hereditament it must be enjoyed together with the land. Land can include water eg above a river bed, canal or dock basin or a lake as in Thomas (VO) v Witney Aquatic Co Ltd 1972 RA 493.

6.7 Whether a boat has its own means of propulsion or has to be towed into position does not affect whether it forms part of the hereditament and is to be included in the Council Tax valuation banding.

6.8 Accordingly where a caravan or boat is enjoyed with the land, and this enjoyment is of a non-transitory nature, the two together form a single hereditament (as defined in Section 115 of the General Rate Act 1967).

6.9 Other Case law on transience

• LCC v Wilkins [1957] AC 362 [1956] IRRC 88

• Four builders huts, three in position for 18 months and the fourth for 20 months were rateable.

• Bradshaw v Davey [1952] 1 All ER 350. Mooring for a yacht put down in summer and taken up in winter was not rateable.

• Tavell and Sons v Buckingham (V)) (1963) 10 RRC 123 LT. 1 year was sufficiently permanent for the rating of a caravan site.

• Moore v Williamson (VO) [1973] RA 172 LT. 4/5 months too transient for the occupier of the caravan to be rated in respect of his occupation - owner in paramount and permanent occupation.

 

 

The following circumstances help to identify the council tax implications for the boat and its mooring where a boat is the sole or main residence of an individual.

Example 1

Purpose built living accommodation based on a flat bottomed barge. The structure is moored to the bank by mooring lines and provided with affixed water, electricity and sewage connections. It may or may not have its own propulsion or engine.

At intervals commonly but not exclusively every 2 - 3 years the structure is moved away for condition surveys and general maintenance. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. This provides rateable occupation. The mooring is also domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence.

The flat bottomed barge together with its living accommodation is a chattel. As the boat is permanently located on the mooring and only moves away every 2-3 years for maintenance, it can be considered to be enjoyed with the land. The value of the boat should therefore be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

Example 2

A family lives on a barge and pay rent to the riparian (‘of river bank’) owner for a mooring on the river bank. Water is supplied to the river bank. At times during the year, the barge goes cruising leaving the mooring vacant until its return. The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is used exclusively by one boat during the year. When the barge is present, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) because it is occupied by a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence. When the barge is absent, the mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(5) because it appears that when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently annexed to the land to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band

 

Example 3

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

The presence of a composite hereditament may be indicated by identifying the following features;

Where boats that are occupied as an individual’s sole or main residence do not have a permanent right to any specific mooring

Evidence that boats which are an individual’s sole or main residence are actually physically moved on at least two occasions a year.

The boat that is an individual’s sole or main residence must be moved to a different berth not merely out and shortly afterwards returning to the same berth.

The presence of separate domestic dwellings within the boundary of the marina but not included in the composite hereditament would be indicated by ;

A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.

If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.

Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

It is possible on the facts to find both a composite hereditament and one or more separate domestic hereditaments in the same marina. The final decision to find a composite or not must rest with the specific facts of each case.

 

Example 4

A boat is beached on a high tide onto an estuary bank. The boat is the sole or main residence of an individual so satisfying the requirements of both a hereditament and domestic. The access to the boat is by way of a raised walkway on stilts which are driven into the mud. The walkway is physically fixed to the boat. To support the boat timber has been driven into the mud which forms a cradle which is attached to the boat and used to support the boat. The extent of attachment to the ground is such that the boat can be said to be enjoyed with the hereditament and forms part of it. For the valuation both the boat and the mooring are considered in the value.

 

Example 5 - Central List

In the case of waterways where Canal & River Trust are the occupier and a composite assessment is appropriate, the NDR entry will be made in the non-domestic rating list. Canal & River Trust are assessed in the Central NDR List. If the waterway is in their occupation, and thus included in the Central List, any composite assessment will form part of that entry.

In the case of waterways occupied by a different body, a composite assessment would need to be made as appropriate.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Rob-M]

48 minutes ago, MtB said:

It may look obvious, but where is the line drawn between "living aboard" and "spending a lot of time enjoying my boat"? 

Exactly what we do, spend extended periods of time on the boat and then return to our house for a while.  When on the boat we mix between time in the marina and time out moored elsewhere.  The ones in the marina that never go anywhere and have post c\o the office are the obvious ones.  Some are very happy to sit and have a chat and give you their life stories so doesn't take much to work out who is full time living on board.

[Nightwatch]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No - it is complicated and depends if you retrun to the same mooring.

 

I'll dig out the regs.

Thank you. It’s all a little confusing, well it is to me. I don’t live in a Marina by the way.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Thank you. It’s all a little confusing, well it is to me. I don’t live in a Marina by the way.

 

Basically it identifies if the mooring itself is subject to council tax and / or if the boat is sufficiently permanently attached to the mooring for the value of the boat to be included along with the value of the mooring to get the basis for the CT band.

[MtB]

33 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

Exactly what we do, spend extended periods of time on the boat and then return to our house for a while.  When on the boat we mix between time in the marina and time out moored elsewhere.  The ones in the marina that never go anywhere and have post c\o the office are the obvious ones.  Some are very happy to sit and have a chat and give you their life stories so doesn't take much to work out who is full time living on board.

 

Its obvious to you and me, but your method is not available to the council official trying to prove they are liable for council tax for "living aboard".  How does the council (and the law) differentiate between living aboard and using the boat a lot? 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Its obvious to you and me, but your method is not available to the council official trying to prove they are liable for council tax for "living aboard".  How does the council (and the law) differentiate between living aboard and using the boat a lot? 

 

 

See example 2

 

 

 

[LadyG]

I would have thought that if a person pays CT on a house that should be enough.

[Higgs]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Its obvious to you and me, but your method is not available to the council official trying to prove they are liable for council tax for "living aboard".  How does the council (and the law) differentiate between living aboard and using the boat a lot? 

 

 

Why should the law come into it? Isn't it the right of every marina to state what the law is, in the marina, and for people to agree that the marina's terms and conditions should stand as the law. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I would have thought that if a person pays CT on a house that should be enough.

 

Why would you think that ?

 

If you have two houses then you pay CT on both.

 

If you own a boat on a residentail mooring, and a house, then you pay CT on both,