Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just use the windfall to contribute to the additional CC licence cost (shortly to be announced)

IF, a big IF, the £600 ever turns up it’ll buy me more solar.

[Arthur Marshall]

19 minutes ago, Paul C said:

There is also a check that they haven't received anything before.

I hadn't spotted that. If so, that would cut the dumpers out. And, presumably, any genuine claimants who use a land dweller's postal address.

[Rob-M]

27 minutes ago, Goliath said:

IF, a big IF, the £600 ever turns up it’ll buy me more solar.

How sensible 😀

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

note: any CCer who sold their boat during the period February to May this year can claim the £600,

 

1 hour ago, Rob-M said:

How sensible 😀

Sometimes I surprise myself. 😀

Edited August 18, 2023 by Goliath
May not march

[caty]

 so this is email is trustworthy or a scam? Because i did the survey? Can someone help me please

Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding

Hello,

You are receiving this email because you have a Canal & River Trust licence and you are a continuous cruiser without a home mooring.  

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is testing with Canal & River Trust continuous cruisers how best to support you with your energy bills as part of the Energy Bills Support Scheme Alternative Funding.  

You will be sent more information about the details of this support this week. You do not need to do anything until then. 

They have asked us to send you this survey from their partner research company, People for Research. It will take about 15 minutes to complete.  

The survey is to identify people who would like to be considered to take part in an 80 minute paid online research session with the department. Your answers will help to inform their work. 

During the research session, you would be shown some potential designs for how to support you and asked how well you think they will work.  

If you would like to be considered to take part in a research session, please fill in the survey by 24 August. If you are invited for a research session and still want to take part, People for Research will contact you by phone to arrange a time. This may be before 24 August. You can choose to opt out at any point.

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

@caty I’m sure this Thread is about this email, start the thread from the beginning. Others have received similar and seams legit.

[caty]

Ah ok. Thanks so much. Years ago I been scaming they took all my money from bank. I always carefully but sometimes they trick us. Really appreciate for your comment.

[wandering snail]

From the government: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/energy-bill-support-if-you-do-not-get-it-automatically-continuous-cruisers

[Tonka]

On 16/08/2023 at 10:07, LadyG said:

I've tried that, it's option 1!

They will get back to me end of August, not long to go.

I'm quite excited about it, will I get it backdated, ie 2x£400!!!!

Yes, I've seen plenty of boats that look as though the move every fourteen days all year round, I thought  the reason that we never got the £400, was that its open to fraud.

Was there some mention of a trial rather than a pilot?

But you also have a house. So if you get 2x£400 you will have committed fraud

[magnetman]

 

 

Its getting interesting now that 'continuous cruiser licence' exists in reality according to .gov websites and people are being invited to confirm they live on the boat without a "home mooring"

 

Some useful data available here I think. 

 

One wonders how many people will be clever about it and recognise this is not a good thing to be getting into. 

 

 

 

 

Will the cash be too tempting? 

 

This really is playing into the hands of the CRT and don't they know it. 

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/government-energy-support-now-available-to-continuous-cruisers

 

 

Love the picture of boats on moorings with electric hookup. 

 

 

[Puffling]

9 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Its getting interesting now that 'continuous cruiser licence' exists in reality according to .gov websites and people are being invited to confirm they live on the boat without a "home mooring"

 

Some useful data available here I think. 

 

One wonders how many people will be clever about it and recognise this is not a good thing to be getting into. 

 

 

 

 

Will the cash be too tempting? 

 

This really is playing into the hands of the CRT and don't they know it. 

 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/government-energy-support-now-available-to-continuous-cruisers

 

 

Love the picture of boats on moorings with electric hookup. 

 

 

But when I first obtained my licence I had to select whether I had a home mooring or not. Following that, I seem to recall, I was sent information regarding my obligations as a continuous cruiser.

 

So the information is hardly hidden deep. According to this same CRT web page, they have been sharing this info and "boater demographics" with the government for the past 18 months.

 

Odd choice of photo, I agree. Isn't one of the boats a Black Prince hire boat?

[magnetman]

Yes but that is just saying you have a mooring or you don't. Neither of these is an indicator of whether you live on the boat.

 

I was thinking more of the residential status of the boat. You can have a cc licence whether you live on the boat or not and same with a home mooring. There is no realistic way for the CRT to know if you actually are living on the boat. I know its possible to tell and they do know quite a lot but claiming this support payment removes any doubt instantly. 

 

So anyone flying under the radar and living off grid who then claims the payment is telling 'the system' that they live on the boat. 

 

 

 

 

 

With regards to the continuous cruiser licence the basic point is that it does not exist. There is only one canal licence and it is called a Pleasure Boat Licence (commercial licences excepted). There is not a 'continuous cruiser' version of the PBL. It doesn't exist. Its just a tick box on a form. 

 

However over time the term 'continuous cruiser', which is not written down in law anywhere, has become accepted and is now on .gov websites. 

 

It seems to me that this changes the game.

 

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

11 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

 

Its getting interesting now that 'continuous cruiser licence' exists in reality according to .gov websites and people are being invited to confirm they live on the boat without a "home mooring"

 

Some useful data available here I think. 

 

One wonders how many people will be clever about it and recognise this is not a good thing to be getting into. 

 

Will the cash be too tempting? 

 

This really is playing into the hands of the CRT and don't they know it. 

 

 

 

Now there seems to be a general acknowledgement in guvvermint that people live on boats, the next step is to start regulating them instead of letting them fly under the radar. And once there are some regulations governing "Continuous Cruisers" the next step is to tax them, to pay for the regulating, obviously. Oh and Council Tax them too, no doubt. 

 

And all this is a result of hundreds of CCers screaming 'foul' because they missed out on the energy grant given to householders because mains gas and electricity price tripled overnight! 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I don’t think it’s worth over thinking this,

simply a group of boaters are finally entitled to some support,

Edited August 21, 2023 by Goliath

[magnetman]

The NBTA claim that they are trying to protect a 'lifestyle'. I think what they are actually doing is wanting that 'lifestyle' to become more regimented and subject to scrutiny. 

 

It seems odd in a way to be so shouty about something which actually doesn't need to change. Being loud about is what will cause the changes. 

 

So many similarities here with squatting which was eventually banned. 

 

Sshhh!

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I don’t think it’s worth over thinking this,

simply a group of boaters are finally entitled to some support,

 

I just saw the energy allowance as a partial council tax rebate. That is all it is. If you don't pay council tax then it is just beer money. 

 

 

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

So many similarities here with squatting which was eventually banned. 

 

You're right. I can imagine it going one of two ways. 

 

Either living on boats gets legitimised, regulated and taxed appropriately to fund the upkeep of the canals, or it will be banned and enforced. 

 

I'm leaning towards the former coming to pass.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

You're right. I can imagine it going one of two ways. 

 

Either living on boats gets legitimised, regulated and taxed appropriately to fund the upkeep of the canals, or it will be banned and enforced. 

 

I'm leaning towards the former coming to pass.

Surely either would be better than the current situation?

Edited August 21, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

It seems inevitable that at some stage people are going to have to pay more. If this doesn't happen there is an artificial incentive to live on a boat and over time if too many people do it there will be social problems around old people and housing and increasing development of slum areas. 

 

Raising the costs would protect people who might otherwise make unwise choices based on financial incentive, it would help reduce the slum problem and would help fund the waterways. 

 

There is potential for parasite problems and as the Ward case has shown it can get very expensive. He probably should never have been on a boat in the first place as seemed ill equipped to deal with the 'lifestyle' if he needed to pile all sorts of junk on the towpath. 

 

Not that many people would choose to live on a boat if it were no cheaper than houses. Some but not many. 

 

It probably does need sorting out one way or another. Endlessly increasing population puts pressure on land and resources. This country is changing. 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It seems inevitable that at some stage people are going to have to pay more. If this doesn't happen there is an artificial incentive to live on a boat and over time if too many people do it there will be social problems around old people and housing and increasing development of slum areas. 

 

Raising the costs would protect people who might otherwise make unwise choices based on financial incentive, it would help reduce the slum problem and would help fund the waterways. 

 

There is potential for parasite problems and as the Ward case has shown it can get very expensive. He probably should never have been on a boat in the first place as seemed ill equipped to deal with the 'lifestyle' if he needed to pile all sorts of junk on the towpath. 

 

Not that many people would choose to live on a boat if it were no cheaper than houses. Some but not many. 

 

It probably does need sorting out one way or another. Endlessly increasing population puts pressure on land and resources. This country is changing. 

 

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the slum boat problem" then I agree.

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the UK slum housing problem" then I disagree -- as has been pointed out many times, the canals are far too small in area/length to make anything other than a miniscule dent in the UKs housing problem... 😞

 

Most of the UK population increase is no longer due to immigration, it's due to people who already live here having children and then living longer. I hope "this country is changing" wasn't a thinly disguised Farageism... 😉

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim

Edited August 21, 2023 by IanD

[CanalRetentive]

Living on a boat is akin to living in a car. Judging by the state of some boats a car would be the better option for them. Should they hunt down everyone living in their cars and try to charge them council tax? Put them on ze register? There seems to be a misconception that everyone on boats is living better than those in houses and getting away with it on the cheap! Hardly.. looks like I'm missing out on the payment as I didn't realise after returning a CRT mooring I then had to update the online account to say so, so apparently I wasn't a continuous cruiser. Could I have still moored at the mooring then? Who knows, but if they increase the price for continuous cruisers it seems you can avoid being one by not having a mooring at a CRT mooring site... anyway, seems to be a lot of people in these threads wishing for those living in chattels to pay more, most likely posted from their freehold properties with all the securities that come with it. Maybe they're annoyed people are finding a way to escape giving 80% of their wages in rent to fund their 5th holiday this year. Anyway... rant over.

[magnetman]

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the slum boat problem" then I agree.

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the UK slum housing problem" then I disagree -- as has been pointed out many times, the canals are far too small in area/length to make anything other than a miniscule dent in the UKs housing problem... 😞

 

Most of the UK population increase is no longer due to immigration, it's due to people who already live here having children and then living longer. I hope "this country is changing" wasn't a thinly disguised Farageism... 😉

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2020basedinterim

 

It wasn't a Farridgeism. 

10 minutes ago, CanalRetentive said:

Living on a boat is akin to living in a car. Judging by the state of some boats a car would be the better option for them. Should they hunt down everyone living in their cars and try to charge them council tax? Put them on ze register? There seems to be a misconception that everyone on boats is living better than those in houses and getting away with it on the cheap! Hardly.. 

What a bizarre comparison. 

 

I can think of very few boats which are similar to 'living in a car'. Yes some of the t

iny GRP boats may be but it is stretching a point. 

 

There are lots of very luxurious canal boats around. People even have washing machines and microwaves! 

 

Both my boats are fairly small (12 square metres living space and 8 square metres living space but luxurious living. Well a luxurious shed I suppose but still everything that I need and more. 

 

I've seen boats with central heating !!! And fridges ! 

 

And gold taps. 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by magnetman

[CanalRetentive]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

It wasn't a Farridgeism. 

What a bizarre comparison. 

 

I can think of very few boats which are similar to 'living in a car'. Yes some of the t

iny GRP boats may be but it is stretching a point. 

 

There are lots of very luxurious canal boats around. People even have washing machines and microwaves! 

 

Both my boats are fairly small but luxurious living. Well a luxurious shed I suppose but still everything that I need and more. 

 

 

 

It's hardly bizarre. A van with a washing machine in the back should pay council tax too? How about an estate with a porta potty and a camping stove in the back? Is it about luxury then? Should the tramp houses on the council estate not pay council tax then? What's bizarre is your lack of consistency for those essentially living in vehicles because the housing market has been used as a source of greed and easy money instead of housing the next generations

[magnetman]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the slum boat problem" then I agree.

 

If you mean "it would help reduce the UK slum housing problem" then I disagree -- as has been pointed out many times, the canals are far too small in area/length to make anything other than a miniscule dent in the UKs housing problem... 😞

 

 

I meant slums which is very low quality housing. This is what some areas of canals have turned into and part of the reason for it is because it is so cheap to live on a boat. 

 

I know that boats are a tiny fraction of housing but the point is nobody wants to have slums in what is in fact a linear public amenity/country park. 

 

You just don't want that. 

 

The CRT are attempting to market the canals to a wider audience which means that a spotlight will inevitably fall on the problematic situation which is occurring in some areas. 

 

I know you are familiar with the Paddington arm of the GU. Its bad isn't it. 

 

 

1 minute ago, CanalRetentive said:

 

It's hardly bizarre. A van with a washing machine in the back should pay council tax too? How about an estate with a porta potty and a camping stove in the back? Is it about luxury then? Should the tramp houses on the council estate not pay council tax then? What's bizarre is your lack of consistency for those essentially living in vehicles because the housing market has been used as a source of greed and easy money instead of housing the next generations

You did write 'car' not 'van'. 

 

As to your last sentence I don't believe that canals are full of people who are priced out of the housing market. OK there are plenty of people in that position but there are also plenty of people who will be renting out the house and 'slumming it' on a boat. 

 

I'm not one of these people. I've lived on boats since 1994 with no other accomodation available and intend to do so until they carry me off. 

 

For the record yes I think people living in vehicles should probably be on council tax registers. One advantage to this system is that you are entitled to claim benefits and, as ageing happens and possibly mobility problems kick in you may be eligible for state housing. 

 

Living in a car or a van or a tiny boat is basically not satisfactory for most people. It is a compromise position. 

 

If you don't have the money to pay council tax it is paid for you. If you do have the money to pay then you should be paying it. 

 

Complicated?

 

 

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I meant slums which is very low quality housing. This is what some areas of canals have turned into and part of the reason for it is because it is so cheap to live on a boat. 

 

I know that boats are a tiny fraction of housing but the point is nobody wants to have slums in what is in fact a linear public amenity/country park. 

 

You just don't want that. 

 

The CRT are attempting to market the canals to a wider audience which means that a spotlight will inevitably fall on the problematic situation which is occurring in some areas. 

 

I know you are familiar with the Paddington arm of the GU. Its bad isn't it. 

 

 

I agree that parts of the canals have acquired a lot of "slum boats", and the Paddington arm is one of them, and that this isn't good for the public image of the canals -- but also does almost nothing to solve the UK housing problem... 😞

 

Extracting more money from boaters to try and fix this seems like a good idea, but the question is whether the "slum boaters" will pay up (or move away) or just do a George Ward and tie CART up in legal knots for years -- CARTs problem is they simply don't have a quick cheap legal way to get rid of such boats/boaters, S8 enforcement is slow expensive and toothless... 😞

 

And just to be clear, "real CCers" (or boats with home moorings) with licenses and who follow the rules aren't the problem, CMers and "slum boaters" who don't are the real problem.

Edited August 21, 2023 by IanD

[CanalRetentive]

9 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I meant slums which is very low quality housing. This is what some areas of canals have turned into and part of the reason for it is because it is so cheap to live on a boat. 

 

I know that boats are a tiny fraction of housing but the point is nobody wants to have slums in what is in fact a linear public amenity/country park. 

 

You just don't want that. 

 

The CRT are attempting to market the canals to a wider audience which means that a spotlight will inevitably fall on the problematic situation which is occurring in some areas. 

 

I know you are familiar with the Paddington arm of the GU. Its bad isn't it. 

 

 

You did write 'car' not 'van'. 

 

As to your last sentence I don't believe that canals are full of people who are priced out of the housing market. OK there are plenty of people in that position but there are also plenty of people who will be renting out the house and 'slumming it' on a boat. 

 

I'm not one of these people. I've lived on boats since 1994 with no other accomodation available and intend to do so until they carry me off. 

 

For the record yes I think people living in vehicles should probably be on council tax registers. One advantage to this system is that you are entitled to claim benefits and, as ageing happens and possibly mobility problems kick in you may be eligible for state housing. 

 

Living in a car or a van or a tiny boat is basically not satisfactory for most people. It is a compromise position. 

 

If you don't have the money to pay council tax it is paid for you. If you do have the money to pay then you should be paying it. 

 

Complicated?

 

 

 

So you want to charge them council tax so they don't have to pay council tax as they are exempt. Unless you're either mad or trying to waste government resources I don't see how you've come to that being a sane position.