Jump to content

Residential moorings in a marina


haggis

Featured Posts

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes.

OK. Is it still an empty property if someone is paying for the right to be there but the dwelling unit is not actually there ? 

 

It is quite interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Why have you chosen to quote derelict houses council tax :

 

In fact not only do you have to pay CT on empty properties, if it is empty for 2 years you have to pay a higher rate of CT

 

How Council Tax works: Second homes and empty properties - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

Empty properties

You’ll usually have to pay Council Tax on an empty home, but your council can decide to give you a discount - the amount is up to them. Contact your council to ask about a discount.

 

Some homes do not get a Council Tax bill for as long as they stay empty. They include homes:

  • of someone in prison (except for not paying a fine or Council Tax)
  • of someone who’s moved into a care home or hospital
  • that have been repossessed
  • that cannot be lived in by law, for example if they’re derelict
  • that are empty because they’ve been compulsory purchased and will be demolished

The issue isn't whether or not a property is empty, the issue is whether it is habitable.  A derelict property is not liable for CT because it is not habitable.  Likewise, a mooring with no boat is equally uninhabitable.

 

Look at it this way:  a residential CRT mooring comes up because the former moorer has left.  It takes a while for CRT to find a new moorer.  Do you really think CRT (or anyone else are paying council tax during the interim?  Of course not, because the mooring and the boat are together both necessary for it to qualify for council tax.

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Yes.

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

OK. Is it still an empty property if someone is paying for the right to be there but the dwelling unit is not actually there ? 

 

It is quite interesting. 

 

The planning permission is not on the 'dwelling unit' it is to permit a change of use from a bit of land with no permission, to being granted permision to have a 'dwelling unit' tied up to it.

The PP is on the mooring, not the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that. 

 

I'm just interested in the theory that if you go away for a few months on the boat while retaining the contract for the mooring you may not be liable for the Council Tax. 

 

This was the gist of the earlier part of the thread. I think it is incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Of course not, because the mooring and the boat are together both necessary for it to qualify for council tax.

 

I disagree - it is the mooring that is subject to CT, not the combined boat and mooring.

 

Go back and see the VOA details I posted earlier - the boat is only taken into account for qualifying for CT if it is sufficiently permanently attached to the mooring.

At that point the value of the boat and the value of the moorings are added to allow the correct CT to be paid.

A boat is a chattel and is not subject to CT unless it is a permanent fixture when it becomed domestic property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

OK. Is it still an empty property if someone is paying for the right to be there but the dwelling unit is not actually there ? 

 

It is quite interesting. 

The empty property thing is a red herring, as is the discussion of planning permission.  The relevant thing here is that a mooring with no boat is uninhabitable, and an uninhabitable property is not liable for council tax.  The property (mooring) only becomes habitable when it has a boat on it.  Now this leaves a rather odd situation when a boat regularly comes and goes to a residential mooring (this is because back in 1992 when the regs were drawn up, moorings and boats weren't really considered).  In practice, when a boat comes and goes regularly, a court would likely find that CT was payable.  But if a resi mooring existed with no associated boat and no immediate prospect of being moored on, then no CT would be payable, because, as I've been saying, the mooring alone isn't liable for council tax, despite what some on here have been saying.

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I disagree - it is the mooring that is subject to CT, not the combined boat and mooring.

 

Go back and see the VOA details I posted earlier - the boat is only taken into account for qualifying for CT if it is sufficiently permanently attached to the mooring.

At that point the value of the boat and the value of the moorings are added to allow the correct CT to be paid.

A boat is a chattel and is not subject to CT unless it is a permanent fixture when it becomed domestic property.

Point missed entirely there.

 

I'm quite familiar with the law on this one. Just because the VOA have put a mooring into a band, does not mean CT is payable.

 

Yes a boat is a chattel.

 

Yes a mooring can be liable for CT.  But on its own, a mooring is simply some water and wood/metal/concrete, and therefore uninhabitable.  Something more is required in order to make it necessary to pay CT.

 

I'll ask again, a resi mooring which is between tenants... who pays the council tax?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The empty property thing is a red herring, as is the discussion of planning permission.  The relevant thing here is that a mooring with no boat is uninhabitable, and an uninhabitable property is not liable for council tax.  The property (mooring) only becomes habitable when it has a boat on it.  Now this leaves a rather odd situation when a boat regularly comes and goes to a residential mooring (this is because back in 1992 when the regs were drawn up, moorings and boats weren't really considered).  In practice, when a boat comes and goes regularly, a court would likely find that CT was payable.  But if a resi mooring existed with no associated boat and no immediate prospect of being moored on, then no CT would be payable, because, as I've been saying, the mooring alone isn't liable for council tax, despite what some on here have been saying.

 

I'm afraid the VOA do not agree with you.

From the VOA website re CT for boat moorings and caravans pitches

 

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

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm afraid the VOA do not agree with you.

From the VOA website re CT for boat moorings and caravans pitches

 

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

I suggest you read what I wrote again.

 

I'll help you:

 

"In practice, when a boat comes and goes regularly, a court would likely find that CT was payable"

 

What I wrote was entirely consistent with the VOA example.  What you're saying isn't, even if you think it is.

Edited by doratheexplorer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

I suggest you read what I wrote again.

 

I'll help you:

 

"In practice, when a boat comes and goes regularly, a court would likely find that CT was payable"

 

What I wrote was entirely consistent with the VOA example.  What you're saying isn't, even if you think it is.

 

 

So I have a residential mooring and I pay CT which I pay to the marina and they pay the LA.

I leave the marina for my normal 3-4-5- month Summer cruise.

 

I may be wrong, but you appear to be saying that whilst my mooring is empty I should not pay CT on it, but when I return I should start paying CT again.

 

That appears to fly in the face of the VOA saying, which is that even when the boat is absent it is still 'domestic property' because its next use is that the boat will be moored up again.

 

The mooring does not lose its domestic property classification and CT liability when the boat is not moored there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

So I have a residential mooring and I pay CT which I pay to the marina and they pay the LA.

I leave the marina for my normal 3-4-5- month Summer cruise.

 

I may be wrong, but you appear to be saying that whilst my mooring is empty I should not pay CT on it, but when I return I should start paying CT again.

 

I think that is correct from what I have heard, but I am not an expert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'll ask again, a resi mooring which is between tenants... who pays the council tax?

 

With a house between tenants, the owner/landlord pays the council tax...... I'd have an educated guess that the same applies to a mooring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

I think that is correct from what I have heard, but I am not an expert 

 

It is certainly not what we found in a BWML marina when they started changing all the requirements for liveaboard boats. I did a lot of work with the VOA, BWML and the boater committe to get it sorted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any sensible operator of desirable residential moorings will advertise the berth before the end of the notice period of the existing occupier. This means the mooring does not remain empty between tenancies. 

 

I suppose in other places this is not the case but if there is demand and it is known that someone will take the mooring it makes a lot of sense. 

 

This is what has happened over the yars at the CRT residential mooring I occupy when other people moored here have departed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

With a house between tenants, the owner/landlord pays the council tax...... I'd have an educated guess that the same applies to a mooring?

But only if the house is habitual. a mooring between tenants isn't habitual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JemShaun said:

No its a dwelling, a dwelling is charged CT

 

👍

I never said house, I said home

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/809/809m19.htm

 

A boat is legally a chattel. You can elect for a boat to be your main residence for income tax and, when mortgage relief was available, you could claim tax relief on the interest for a loan to buy a boat if it was your home. However, you can be made homeless if you have legal costs awarded against you because it is houses that are protected, not homes that happen to be chattels. We won't bore you with the fun and games boat dwellers have with welfare benefits as we are sure you have the imagination to envisage the difficulties when a complex system is faced with an unanticipated set of circumstances.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JemShaun said:

I was always lead to believe that if you pay CT on a property, then have a holiday home ( which a boat is) the you have to pay CT for both, all Beit at a reduced rate for the holiday home. 

No.

Once upon a time you paid full CT on your main residence  and 50% on your holiday home.  This then went up to 75% then some years later it went up to 100%. There are now pressure to increase this further . 

Death and taxes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

But only if the house is habitual. a mooring between tenants isn't habitual.

 

Never heard of that, (habitual), and am now wondering what it actually means, and whether a house could be made "not habitual" between tenancies?

 

What makes a residential mooring between tenants "not habitual"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, magnetman said:

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. 

In our case, it was local boater hating councillor who demanded that boats should pay council tax, the same as Holiday homes. Hence the marina was ordered to hand over the details of every moorer, who were sent a letter requiring them to produce a council tax bill in their name or pay council tax on the boat and mooring. As no post is allowed I don't know where they get the PO Box number from.

 

 

tax bill.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

Never heard of that, (habitual), and am now wondering what it actually means, and whether a house could be made "not habitual" between tenancies?

 

What makes a residential mooring between tenants "not habitual"?

 

If the previous tenant trashed the place, smashed the windows etc. not just decorating. then you don't have to pay until its fit to live in again. That is how I understand the situation. If you have a residential mooring but there is no boat moored there how can anyone be expected to live there.

Only my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

In our case, it was local boater hating councillor who demanded that boats should pay council tax, the same as Holiday homes. Hence the marina was ordered to hand over the details of every moorer, who were sent a letter requiring them to produce a council tax bill in their name or pay council tax on the boat and mooring. As no post is allowed I don't know where they get the PO Box number from.

 

 

tax bill.jpg

Interesting they put the boat name. 

 

Tower Hamlets are currently calling my mooring "Residential mooring x" for the purposes of my CT but in other correspondence they use the name of a boat which was previously moored here. I imagine the occupier of that other boat was probably claiming Housing Benefit at some stage which required the boat name to be logged. 

 

Interesting situation with all this residential mooring lark. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

So I have a residential mooring and I pay CT which I pay to the marina and they pay the LA.

I leave the marina for my normal 3-4-5- month Summer cruise.

 

I may be wrong, but you appear to be saying that whilst my mooring is empty I should not pay CT on it, but when I return I should start paying CT again.

No.  Read what I wrote.

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That appears to fly in the face of the VOA saying, which is that even when the boat is absent it is still 'domestic property' because its next use is that the boat will be moored up again.

 

The mooring does not lose its domestic property classification and CT liability when the boat is not moored there.

 

48 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

With a house between tenants, the owner/landlord pays the council tax...... I'd have an educated guess that the same applies to a mooring?

Except it doesn't.  Feel free to ask CRT or any marina with resi moorings whether they pay when a mooring is between tenants.  I assure you, they don't, for the reasons I've already explained.

45 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Any sensible operator of desirable residential moorings will advertise the berth before the end of the notice period of the existing occupier. This means the mooring does not remain empty between tenancies. 

 

I suppose in other places this is not the case but if there is demand and it is known that someone will take the mooring it makes a lot of sense. 

 

This is what has happened over the yars at the CRT residential mooring I occupy when other people moored here have departed. 

I remember passing Clarence Dock a few years back.  Of the entire resi section, only one mooring was taken, because that section has distinct disadvantages.  According to a leisure moorer I spoke to, it had been like that for years.

22 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

Never heard of that, (habitual), and am now wondering what it actually means, and whether a house could be made "not habitual" between tenancies?

 

What makes a residential mooring between tenants "not habitual"?

 

I think he means 'habitable'.

20 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

In our case, it was local boater hating councillor who demanded that boats should pay council tax, the same as Holiday homes. Hence the marina was ordered to hand over the details of every moorer, who were sent a letter requiring them to produce a council tax bill in their name or pay council tax on the boat and mooring. As no post is allowed I don't know where they get the PO Box number from.

 

 

tax bill.jpg

The moorers should have fought it.  There are many, many adults in the UK who don't pay Council Tax in their name.  Council Tax is levied on property, not people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The moorers should have fought it.

 

Ok you've beaten me down, I have provided documentary evidence (from both the Government website and the VOA) to support my assertion, so far you have simply stated 'facts according to Dora' 

Would you please quote some official documentation or sources supporting your 'facts'.

And yes, C&RT (thru BWML) did pay CT on all residential moorings even when not rented out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Lol, this seems a probability! 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Not straightforward as the legal context is unclear (despite the attempt to clarify cited by Alan). Some marinas are liable for council tax and some are paid by individual moorers. Many marinas write their T&C in order to attempt to fly under the radar and enforcement by the local council is difficult if the boat goes off for an annual holiday once a year (as required by their marina) and returns to a different pontoon.

 

The LA may also be shooting themselves in the foot as a group discovered a few years back when challenged by several marinas, led I believe by BWML (at the time). I think, in essence, the marinas said, fine, evict them but they will hen be homeless and you, LA, will be liable for housing them! They backed down and came to an agreement over residential moorings. There is probably a thread about this somewhere back in this forum's annals.

 

That case also showed that there are inconsistencies between planning rules and those for council tax! (ie having to get PP is not the same as liability for CT)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

No.  Read what I wrote.

 

Except it doesn't.  Feel free to ask CRT or any marina with resi moorings whether they pay when a mooring is between tenants.  I assure you, they don't, for the reasons I've already explained.

I remember passing Clarence Dock a few years back.  Of the entire resi section, only one mooring was taken, because that section has distinct disadvantages.  According to a leisure moorer I spoke to, it had been like that for years.

I think he means 'habitable'.

The moorers should have fought it.  There are many, many adults in the UK who don't pay Council Tax in their name.  Council Tax is levied on property, not people.

I been fighting this for last few years, No sooner do I get it removed it is reinstated on the list within a week. Two refused to pay and were taken to the cleaners by the council, they had to sell up to pay the fines or go to the cells and still pay.

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.