second home council tax surcharge

[Bargebuilder]

If you live on your boat in a marina that has no council consent for liveaboards, will the council ignore the fact that you shouldn't be there and charge you council tax? This seems to be happening.

 

If this is the case, it would be better to not apply for planning consent for residential status and risk being refused, just move in and wait for your council tax bill.

[Alan de Enfield]

13 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

 

I find that in bold is ambiguous. The boat could be used anywhere, and not necessarily that mooring all the time. Planning permission is required to create a residential mooring place.

 

 

 

 

Read the sentence again ...................

 

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

a) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored “permanently” at a mooring, then the mooring is domestic property, and both the mooring and the boat are subject to Council Tax.

 

[Peanut]

From my reading the requirement to pay Council Tax, is independent of the status of the mooring. It is that you are living on the boat at that mooring, though there may be a breach of the planning rules, that is a separate matter.

I would be wary of creating a president, which you might well lose and create problems for everyone, not the least to yourself as the marina will evict you to avoid their liability.

Beaten to it by Tacet

[Higgs]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Read the sentence again ...................

 

a) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored “permanently” at a mooring, then the mooring is domestic property, and both the mooring and the boat are subject to Council Tax.

 

I saw that. In essence, a car that someone sleeps in permanently could be due council tax, by that rating. Isn't council tax linked to a residential place, that has residential planning permission as the main criteria. 

 

 

[Peanut]

I doubt if a car would be considered a residence, while a motor home might be, as it is adapted for living. That car might be camping.

[Higgs]

5 minutes ago, Peanut said:

I doubt if a car would be considered a residence, while a motor home might be, as it is adapted for living. That car might be camping.

 

I think nowhere a boat moors is residential, unless it has be rated as residential. It therefore is not permitted to be an official residential place. Permanent camping? The whole towpath classed as residential? 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Higgs

[Bargebuilder]

On 31/07/2023 at 08:55, Phoenix_V said:

There is currently a mandatory 50% council tax discount for dwellings that consist of a pitch occupied by a caravan, or a mooring occupied by a boat where they are not a person’s sole or main residence

 

Does that mean a main residence boat can attract council tax if it's not on a residential mooring and a boat that is not a main residence (purely leisure use) can be charged 50% council tax if it's on a residential mooring?

 

So a leisure boat that uses almost no council provided services has to pay 50% council tax, whilst continuous cruisers who enjoy many council provided services pay nothing.

 

 

[Peanut]

Rating and planning are two different issues. If you reside on a lesure mooring then both the boat and the mooring become liable for Council Tax. The status of the mooring doesn't matter for tax purposes. Of course the Council might be interested in the planning aspect,  hold the marina in breach, and who might then decide to evict you.

 

Camping has nothing to do with it and is a diversion.

 

In the marina I know of a boat which was paying Council Tax changed hands and the new owner has to continue payment. As mentioned above it is difficult to get the tax status changed. As it happens the new owner lives aboard and just pays up. Were he a Lesure boater he may not have bought the boat.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Peanut
punctuation, was two replies

[Higgs]

24 minutes ago, Peanut said:

Rating and planning are two different issues. If you reside on a lesure mooring then both the boat and the mooring become liable for Council Tax. The status of the mooring doesn't matter for tax purposes. Of course the Council might be interested in the planning aspect,  hold the marina in breach, and who might then decide to evict you.

Camping has nothing to do with it and is a diversion.

 

Something must qualify the rating. Your post, and the section from the regulation, suggests an either/or situation. Does the boat, in being a qualifier, also qualify the the mooring as residential. It's an ambiguous situation. Planning permission, it seems, isn't entirely necessary to serve as a qualifying condition for residential status. Therefore, is any rule that does not permit a mooring being used as residential a sound reason for disqualifying a mooring's use as residential, if the boat is there - it is residential by default. ?? Especially where live-aboards are concerned.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Higgs

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Bargebuilder said:

 

Does that mean a main residence boat can attract council tax if it's not on a residential mooring and a boat that is not a main residence (purely leisure use) can be charged 50% council tax if it's on a residential mooring?

 

So a leisure boat that uses almost no council provided services has to pay 50% council tax, whilst continuous cruisers who enjoy many council provided services pay nothing.

 

 

 

Generally (it depends on the permanance of the attachement) the boat (or vaiue of the boat) is NOT included in the councl tax which is purely based on the value of the mooring. A boat is a chattel (depending on the permanance of the attachement) and is not itself subject to CT.

 

See 6:8 below

 

. 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.

[Higgs]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Generally (it depends on the permanance of the attachement) the boat (or vaiue of the boat) is NOT included in the councl tax which is purely based on the value of the mooring. A boat is a chattel (depending on the permanance of the attachement) and is not itself subject to CT.

 

See 6:8 below

 

. 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.

 

 

All of the qualifying seems to be relatable to the land, in the first place. And a boat, given that is at the place on a nearly permanent or permanent basis, adds value to the whole for valuation., which gives a CT rating? Not really a residential issue.. 

 

In a marina full of boats that are not lived on, but are permanently there, does ownership of the "chattel" have any bearing on the interpretation of valuation? CT is not a customary charge for those boats. And where CT becomes relevant, planning permission comes first, for residency. A marina doesn't own the boat, the moorer doesn't own the land, and the only thing that makes a difference is the planning permission that allows residency, which in turn incurs CT. In which case, permanence is a state qualified by official rights to reside. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Higgs

[Mike Todd]

On 31/07/2023 at 17:20, ditchcrawler said:

Unlike most of the marinas on the system where the only plus is a mail address, most pontoons these days have water and electricity regardless, few have a phone connection.

If anything it might be wifi. Almost all boaters will be on mobile

On 01/08/2023 at 08:30, MtB said:

 

 

This always loops back to the difficulty in defining "where you live". This chap probably still "lived" officially in his house as that is where all his stuff is, where his GP is, where his bank statements are sent, is the address on his driving licence and on his employer's records as his 'address'. 

 

Yet at the same time the marina owner was sufficiently worried that he had "moved" into his boat in the marina as to tell he to shove off back "home". 

 

 

The phrase is 'sole or main residence'. If the boaters stays there long enough it risks being deemed a main residence, even if not sole.

[Tacet]

4 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

All of the qualifying seems to be relatable to the land, in the first place. And a boat, given that is at the place on a nearly permanent or permanent basis, adds value to the whole for valuation., which gives a CT rating? Not really a residential issue.. 

 

In a marina full of boats that are not lived on, but are permanently there, does ownership of the "chattel" have any bearing on the interpretation of valuation? CT is not a customary charge for those boats. And where CT becomes relevant, planning permission comes first, for residency. A marina doesn't own the boat, the moorer doesn't own the land, and the only thing that makes a difference is the planning permission that allows residency, which in turn incurs CT. In which case, permanence is a state qualified by official rights to reside. 

 

 

 

 

 

Council tax is, at its purest, a tax on the occupation of domestic land.  The amount paid is a function of the value of that land.  Land includes buildings in this context.

 

A boat (or a car) is typically a chattel and therefore not liable to Council tax in itself.

If the boat (or car) has a sufficient degree of permanence it becomes part of the  land/mooring (hereditament in rating speak) such that they are valued as one entity for the purposes of calculating a single Council Tax band.

 

Whether there is planning permission is another question.  Many, many houses do not have an explicit planning permission - most commonly if they were built pre-1948.  Even if your house/mooring is capable of being subject to enforcement action, you don't dodge Council Tax.  It wouldn't work terribly well if you could avoid paying tax by saying you were doing something you shouldn't!

[David Mack]

9 hours ago, Higgs said:

In a marina full of boats that are not lived on, but are permanently there, does ownership of the "chattel" have any bearing on the interpretation of valuation?

No.

9 hours ago, Higgs said:

And where CT becomes relevant, planning permission comes first, for residency. A marina doesn't own the boat, the moorer doesn't own the land, and the only thing that makes a difference is the planning permission that allows residency, which in turn incurs CT. In which case, permanence is a state qualified by official rights to reside. 

Since people can and do live on moorings without residential planning permission, planning permission does not necessarily come first. But where a mooring has residential permission then it is very likely that the local authority will then deem that mooring liable to council tax. If that mooring is occupied by the same boat for a period of 12 months (perhaps with short absences) then the boat is regarded as permanent and the council tax is assessed on the combined value of mooring and boat. If it is occupied by a succession of different boats then CT is assessed on the value of the mooring alone.

'Permanence is not affected by a right to reside on a mooring - that right to residential use is specific to the mooring, but any boat could moor there and be occupied residentially, short or long term, and still comply with the planning permission.

[Higgs]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Since people can and do live on moorings without residential planning permission, planning permission does not necessarily come first. But where a mooring has residential permission then it is very likely that the local authority will then deem that mooring liable to council tax. If that mooring is occupied by the same boat for a period of 12 months (perhaps with short absences) then the boat is regarded as permanent and the council tax is assessed on the combined value of mooring and boat. If it is occupied by a succession of different boats then CT is assessed on the value of the mooring alone.

'Permanence is not affected by a right to reside on a mooring - that right to residential use is specific to the mooring, but any boat could moor there and be occupied residentially, short or long term, and still comply with the planning permission.

 

A boat could be a permanent fixture in a marina, on the same mooring, without it becoming a CT issue. It would be classed as a leisure mooring.  The word permanent was focused on in the regulation for valuation, for CT. Any boat could occupy a residential mooring that becomes vacant in a marina, and become subject to CT. No residential mooring can be permanently occupied by any one boat, unless it pays CT at full whack. The usual form is to move to a different mooring twice in a year. 

 

Permanence, when applied to the valuation regulation for CT, in a marina, is applied to residentially used moorings. Leisure moorings do not require the valuation, do not incur CT, although a boat could be permanent. Planning permission for residential use is first granted, before CT becomes a levy.

 

Obviously, in a marina, the residential boat could not be classed as a chattel belonging to the marina, and the land is not owned by the moorer. But CT in a marina is first a matter of planning permission, gaining a classification of residential. Rather than a boat being permanent, it was the residential use that created the CT levy.

 

In terms of second homes, that are not the permanent first homes of the owner, CT was not initially being charged. It's anyone's guess how the regulations are used. These second homes would not be that much different to leisure-moored boats. I'm sure the CT valuation regulations could find a way to accommodate such things - in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Higgs

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, Higgs said:

 

A boat could be a permanent fixture in a marina, on the same mooring, without it becoming a CT issue. It would be classed as a leisure mooring.  The word permanent was focused on in the regulation for valuation, for CT. Any boat could occupy a residential mooring that becomes vacant in a marina, and become subject to CT. No residential mooring can be permanently occupied by any one boat, unless it pays CT at full whack. The usual form is to move to a different mooring twice in a year. 

 

Permanence, when applied to the valuation regulation for CT, in a marina, is applied to residentially used moorings. Leisure moorings do not require the valuation, do not incur CT, although a boat could be permanent. Planning permission for residential use is first granted, before CT becomes a levy.

 

Obviously, in a marina, the residential boat could not be classed as a chattel belonging to the marina, and the land is not owned by the moorer. But CT in a marina is first a matter of planning permission, gaining a classification of residential. Rather than a boat being permanent, it was the residential use that created the CT levy.

 

In terms of second homes, that are not the permanent first homes of the owner, CT was not initially being charged. It's anyone's guess how the regulations are used. These second homes would not be that much different to leisure-moored boats. I'm sure the CT valuation regulations could find a way to accommodate such things - in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this the way you think it is?  Or is it the way that you think it should be?

[Higgs]

12 minutes ago, Tacet said:

Is this the way you think it is?  Or is it the way that you think it should be?

 

Without you being more specific, I don't know what you might be referring to. I mean - what is "this" and "it". ??

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Higgs

[Tacet]

52 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Without you being more specific, I don't know what you might be referring to. I mean - what is "this" and "it". ??

 

 

 

 

I was referring to your post, which was quoted.  If you need it to be broken down into parts, that implies that your claims are a mix of how you think it works, and how you would like it to work, without being clear which is which.

 

Your post makes several references to marinas, which are neither here nor there directly in the context of this discussion.  So I fear we may be heading towards the very deep groove.  Probably best to leave it here.

[Higgs]

Just now, Tacet said:

I was referring to your post, which was quoted.  If you need it to be broken down into parts, that implies that your claims are a mix of how you think it works, and how you would like it to work, without being clear which is which.

 

Your post makes several references to marinas, which are neither here nor there directly in the context of this discussion.  So I fear we may be heading towards the very deep groove.  Probably best to leave it here.

 

I realise you were referring to my post. But I'm not going to second-guess what your specific disagreements are. 

 

You could explain, by focusing on what your disagreements are and correcting what I said in a way that would support you own understanding. I could then challenge that or be educated.

 

 

[Tacet]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I realise you were referring to my post. But I'm not going to second-guess what your specific disagreements are. 

 

You could explain, by focusing on what your disagreements are and correcting what I said in a way that would support you own understanding. I could then challenge that or be educated.

 

 

If your post is meaning to set out facts, then I can properly seek to correct parts of it.

 

But if it is intended as fiction (e.g. how you would like to see Council Tax work), I cannot correct it other than to say how I consider it should operate in an ideal world, which is not of much use to anyone.

 

And it is unclear whether you are putting it forward as fact or fiction.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Tacet