CRT Commission

[magnetman]

I'm sure the cost of removal is mentioned in section 8. 

BW Act 1983. 

[Alan de Enfield]

The VOA (People who visit and decide on the CT value of a property) have kindly given some guidance and examples of the types of CT payable by boats in various circumstances :

 

Normally the boat is a chattel and its value is not included in the CT Band valuation for the mooring, but, in some circumstances it can be :

 

The alternative is that the marina / mooring operator can opt for a composite hereditament which can then be divided by the number of boats and tends to give a much lower charge per boat than an individual Band A charge.

 

The boaters commitee at a marina where we were moored told the boaters that 'it was a con' and the marina wanted to make money out of the CT, they told each boater to take the band A charge - it took a lot of explaining and examples before they actually grasped the concept and changed their advice.

It saved each boater something like £500 per annum.

 

 

From the VOA :

The following examples illustrate circumstances where boats used wholly as living accommodation may or may not be regarded as part of the hereditament together with the mooring, and therefore to be included in the Council Tax banding valuation.

 

Example 1

A couple lives in a purpose-built houseboat comprising a timber-clad building on a pontoon. They pay rent for a mooring on the river bank with its own anchor points, access way, water supply and drainage connections. The houseboat has been moored in that location for several years, although it is moved every 2 or 3 years to carry out maintenance to the pontoon.

 

The mooring is a separate hereditament because it is occupied exclusively by one boat for a period of more than 12 months. 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. Although a chattel, the houseboat can be regarded as enjoyed with the land with such permanence as to enhance its value, and should be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

Example 2

A family lives in a barge which has been converted to provide living accommodation. They pay rent to the riparian owner for a mooring on a river bank with its own water supply and sewage connection. During the year, the barge moves away at weekends and holidays of more than 2-4 weeks duration 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 when next in use the mooring will be domestic. However, the barge is insufficiently permanent to be regarded as part of the hereditament, and the mooring only should be valued to determine the appropriate band.

 

Example 3

A man lives on a motor cruiser with living accommodation on board. He rents a berth in a marina comprising a finger pontoon at right angles to the bank with water supply and sewage pump-out. The marina operator controls access to the site and reserves a continual right to move the boat from its mooring. When the boat is absent, as it frequently is for weekends and holidays, and even though the boat owner pays rent continuously in order to reserve a berth at the site, the marina operator allows other boats to use the mooring.

 

Although the mooring is virtually in permanent use and affords self-containment to any boat with living accommodation, the cruiser owner's occupation of the mooring is non-exclusive and insufficiently permanent for him to be liable for Council Tax. The marina operator is in paramount occupation of the mooring for the purposes of his business of running a marina. If the other boats which use the mooring are also someone's sole or main residence, only the mooring would be domestic property and subject to banding. The boat itself would not be included in the valuation.

 

If the other boats which use the mooring are not someone's sole or main residence or there is no way of knowing what their use would be, the mooring will be non-domestic. If there are two or more such moorings in the marina, all the moorings and land under the control of the marina operator should be treated as one hereditament by virtue of the Multiple Moorings Regulations. The marina operator will be in permanent occupation.

 

Example 4

A couple live on a narrow boat as their sole or main residence. They pay a mooring fee to the British Waterways Board for one of several moorings along the towing path and a licence fee to be on the canal. They share a water tap with the other boats, but the nearest sewage disposal facility is some distance away. Periodically, they move the boat to dispose of sewage; and every few years the boat is taken into dry dock for essential maintenance. British Waterways Board reserves a continual right to allocate a different mooring, for example, in order to accommodate boats of different length at the site, but in practice the boat returns to the same mooring, which is not used by other boats in its absence It has a postal address and post is delivered direct to the boat.

 

The mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) and sufficiently defined as to form a separate hereditament. The boat is moored with a sufficient degree of permanence as to be enjoyed with the mooring and therefore should be regarded as part of the hereditament and be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

If however the separate moorings along the canal bank are not easily identified, either in the agreement with BWB or on the ground, and can vary each time a boat is moored, as the boat always returns to a different position, then the hereditament will comprise of the whole length of moorings along that part of the canal, and the rateable occupier will be the BWB. The boat will not form part of the hereditament because it lacks sufficient permanence to be enjoyed with the land.

 

If the moorings are solely occupied by boats which are the sole or residence of an individual, then there will be a single Council Tax banding of all the moorings. However, should pleasure boats also use the moorings, the moorings should be treated as a composite hereditament. In many cases a common sense view will need to be taken of the extent of the domestic and non-domestic parts, and regulation 7(1) of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 requires a band to be ascribed which reflects the value which would reasonably attributed to the domestic use. The distribution between domestic and non domestic use will therefore reflect how the market would view the use of the hereditament, if it were made available with vacant possession. The actual use of the moorings at compilation date, or a notional distribution based on the prevailing pattern of use along moorings in that locality can be adopted.

 

Where a single composite hereditament is appropriate, the non domestic part in this example will be included in the Central List assessment for BWB, and a single Council Tax band will be entered in the valuation list for the residential moorings.

 

 

[magnetman]

It seems pretty clear and I believe it is 1983 Act which the CRT refer to when processing S8 removals of craft from their waterways. 

[Gybe Ho]

5 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Are you sure about that last point? I thought that they could reclaim the cost of the removal but not any other debts. But I could be mistaken.

 

Rather than incurring court costs and employing bailiffs would it not be cheaper and more humane to relocate reluctant cruisers on the K&A via HGV to the north end of the Lancaster Canal. Once relaunched the CRT could say "welcome aboard and enjoy the cruise back home".

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

If I had posted that you would be having a right go at me and asking for evidence

Yes -- because going by history you would have said it definitely happened, with no caveats... 😉

 

Which is why I was careful to say "I believe that..." and added the comment about it possibly being an urban myth -- because that's what you should do with possibly dodgy stories from t'Internet... 🙂 

 

(and why there's little point trying to track it down, because I'm pretty sure it'll just lead to somebody saying "This definitely happened!" with no way to verify it)

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes -- because going by history you would have said it definitely happened, with no caveats... 😉

 

Which is why I was careful to say "I believe that..." and added the comment about it possibly being an urban myth -- because that's what you should do with possibly dodgy stories from t'Internet... 🙂 

 

(and why there's little point trying to track it down, because I'm pretty sure it'll just lead to somebody saying "This definitely happened!" with no way to verify it)

 

I think it is a myth. If I remember rightly, the guy who owned the lightship in Liverpool tried something similar, claiming it had been sold to someone who had been employed on the boat, or something like that. Didn't work, obviously. I suspect it would be  regarded as fraud, trying to avoid a debt.

In any case, CRT would just refuse to grant a licence and take the boat anyway, relying on the courts to see through the subterfuge.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think it is a myth. If I remember rightly, the guy who owned the lightship in Liverpool tried something similar, claiming it had been sold to someone who had been employed on the boat, or something like that. Didn't work, obviously. I suspect it would be  regarded as fraud, trying to avoid a debt.

In any case, CRT would just refuse to grant a licence and take the boat anyway, relying on the courts to see through the subterfuge.

Like I said, it could well be a myth. However the tale was pretty detailed, and IIRC the legal side of it looked plausible -- if CART bring a case against the boat owner to remove the boat but when they turn up are shown documents showing that they're (apparently) no longer the legal owner of the boat but somebody else not named in the court order is, what do you think they could do? They can't sue a boat, only a person... 😞 

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by IanD

[Paul C]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, it could well be a myth. However the tale was pretty detailed, and IIRC the legal side of it looked plausible -- if CART bring a case against the boat owner to remove the boat but when they turn up are shown documents showing that they're (apparently) no longer the legal owner of the boat but somebody else not named in the court order is, what do you think they could do? They can't sue a boat, only a person... 😞 

 

 

There is a danger that the couple who do this "stunt" could well find themselves up for fraud charges, or possibly perverting the course of justice, which carry a higher penalty than the original. Of course, someone would have to bring those charges to court etc (private prosecution by CRT?) 

 

It happens all the time with speeding offences (which can be minor), when people start being clever and trying to play games to get off it, or transfer the points to eg a partner. All the way up to perjury and jail time.

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, it could well be a myth. However the tale was pretty detailed, and IIRC the legal side of it looked plausible -- if CART bring a case against the boat owner to remove the boat but when they turn up are shown documents showing that they're (apparently) no longer the legal owner of the boat but somebody else not named in the court order is, what do you think they could do? They can't sue a boat, only a person... 😞 

 

 

Surely the Section 8 order would name the boat to be removed, not a person.

 

You can't Section 8 a person, I wouldn't have thought.

 

 

[Gybe Ho]

21 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You've managed to combine a bit of racist snide

 

 

What was the "racist snide".

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Surely the Section 8 order would name the boat to be removed, not a person.

 

You can't Section 8 a person, I wouldn't have thought.

 

 

There's one poster on here who should be Section 80'd but as he hasn't even got a boat I suppose we're out of luck.

[ditchcrawler]

39 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

There is a danger that the couple who do this "stunt" could well find themselves up for fraud charges, or possibly perverting the course of justice, which carry a higher penalty than the original. Of course, someone would have to bring those charges to court etc (private prosecution by CRT?) 

 

It happens all the time with speeding offences (which can be minor), when people start being clever and trying to play games to get off it, or transfer the points to eg a partner. All the way up to perjury and jail time.

It all got discussed in this thread when Nigel was about 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I said, it could well be a myth. However the tale was pretty detailed, and IIRC the legal side of it looked plausible -- if CART bring a case against the boat owner to remove the boat but when they turn up are shown documents showing that they're (apparently) no longer the legal owner of the boat but somebody else not named in the court order is, what do you think they could do? They can't sue a boat, only a person... 😞 

 

 

Being a boat owner with a licence I'm sure you are aware that the C&RT T&Cs say that if you do not notify C&RT of the change of ownership then you remain legally liable until the new owner notified them (if ever) of the purchase.

 

 

 

 

It it the same with car V5s.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Being a boat owner with a licence I'm sure you are aware that the C&RT T&Cs say that if you do not notify C&RT of the change of ownership then you remain legally liable until the new owner notified them (if ever) of the purchase.

 

 

 

 

It it the same with car V5s.

 

 

 

You'd have to be a weapons-grade idiot to try and avoid enforcement action by changing ownership, and overlook the fact that the ownership change needs to be notified to CRT. 

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

You'd have to be a weapons-grade idiot to try and avoid enforcement action by changing ownership, and overlook the fact that the ownership change needs to be notified to CRT. 

Perhaps so. Or maybe said idiot managed to overstay by more than ten years by doing this, which IIRC is what was claimed.

 

It's all speculation unless anyone can track down the actual facts about whether this happened or not... 😉

Edited December 18, 2024 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, IanD said:

Perhaps so. Or maybe said idiot managed to overstay by more than ten years by doing this, which IIRC is what was claimed

 

Mr Ward managed over 10 years from the commencement of enforcement to them actually removing his boat

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Mr Ward managed over 10 years from the commencement of enforcement to them actually removing his boat

 

Yes its breathtaking just how much being-dicked-about CRT will tolerate when done well, isn't it!! 

 

 

[Ronaldo47]

T&C terms cannot normally take precedence over statutes.

 

I note that the definition of "owner" in the BW Act 1983 Section 8 (1) " ... includes a person letting a vessel for hire, whether or not that person owns the vessel." 

 

It is a nice legal point whether "includes" is an exclusive exception, meaning that the "person letting" is the only person, other than the actual owner, who can be treated as the owner, or whether others, such as someone who occupies with permission of the owner, could be included.  That would be for the courts to decide.

[Alan de Enfield]

45 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I note that the definition of "owner" in the BW Act 1983 Section 8 (1) " ... includes a person letting a vessel for hire, whether or not that person owns the vessel." 

 

And in the Bye-Laws it states :

 

“owner” includes :

(a) in relation to any vessel the master or
hirer, and
(b) in relation to any goods a consignor, consignee, shipper,
broker or agent

 

So, if someone is renting the boat (ABNB etc ?) are they responsible for ensuring the boat is kept licenced ?

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And in the Bye-Laws it states :

 

“owner” includes :

(a) in relation to any vessel the master or
hirer, and
(b) in relation to any goods a consignor, consignee, shipper,
broker or agent

 

So, if someone is renting the boat (ABNB etc ?) are they responsible for ensuring the boat is kept licenced ?

I suppose it depends on the unquoted context. I doubt someone taking a hire boat out for a week would ever be legally regarded as the owner. It's always dodgy quoting bits of acts or bylaws out of context though,  as we know , there is accounting for what twaddle a judge might mutter through his or her wig.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suppose it depends on the unquoted context. I doubt someone taking a hire boat out for a week would ever be legally regarded as the owner. It's always dodgy quoting bits of acts or bylaws out of context though,  as we know , there is accounting for what twaddle a judge might mutter through his or her wig.

 

Very true.

The 'definition' I quoted is in the introduction .................... 

 

Interpretation Definition of Terms
2. In these Bye-laws, except so far as the context otherwise
requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby
respectively assigned to them, that is to say –

“day” means the period between sunrise and sunset

“master” means the person having for the time being the
command, charge or management of a vessel

“night” means the period between sunset and sunrise

“owner” includes

(a) in relation to any vessel the master or
hirer, and
(b) in relation to any goods a consignor, consignee, shipper,
broker or agent

[Tonka]

What happens when your declared home mooring is on the Thames I.e non CRT

[Bod]

5 minutes ago, Tonka said:

What happens when your declared home mooring is on the Thames I.e non CRT

You apply to the Thames Authority, for the area you wish to be in, nothing to do with C&RT.

Buy a Gold licence, and abide by the T&C's  for the area you wish to be in.

 

Bod

Edited December 19, 2024 by Bod

[Tonka]

Just now, Bod said:

You apply to the Thames Authority, for the area you wish to be in, nothing to do with C&RT.

 

Bod

Yes I know that, but do you qualify for the reduced CRT licence as you have a home mooring

[Paul C]

Just now, Tonka said:

Yes I know that, but do you qualify for the reduced CRT licence as you have a home mooring

 

Yes