Do CRT Volunteers get away with not CC'ing?

[DaveMiles]

Hi all, just after some clarification on the below situation....

 

There's a CRT volunteer who lives locally and who owns a boat.  They volunteer every Wednesday with other non-boating volunteers.

 

Their boat has been moored/stored at this location for about a year (a 48 hour mooring spot currently). They have used their boat twice to access an embankment that has no pedestrian access, to do some weeding about 2½ months ago.

 

Would CRT grant them what looks like 'a free mooring' in return for their volunteer work?

 

The only time they have moved, is either overnight or short periods - usually around clocking day.

 

For those that CC, this just comes across that if you volunteer for CRT one day a week, then you don't have to move your boat!

 

 

[Ewan123]

I doubt it. Maybe CRT should consider it though - "Volunteer for X days per month and gain Preferential Moorer Status for the given month". Might save CRT some money. (Apologies for the subsequent argument I've probably started).

[BEngo]

BW tried something similar with designated mooring wardens at long term and casual mooring sites.   HMRC took a dim view, declared these folk to be BW employees, receiving a (taxable)  benefit in kind and needing such things as employers NI contributions.  BW dropped the plan, smartly.

 

N

[NB Saturn]

16 minutes ago, BEngo said:

BW tried something similar with designated mooring wardens at long term and casual mooring sites.   HMRC took a dim view, declared these folk to be BW employees, receiving a (taxable)  benefit in kind and needing such things as employers NI contributions.  BW dropped the plan, smartly.

 

N

 

Don’t see why - if you have to live on-site to do a job then it isn’t taxable. e.g. a full time caretaker.  Any competent accountant would be able to sort that out. Maybe BW changed their minds and used that as an excuse?

[Rob-M]

A lockie at Watford used to permanently moor at the end of the lower lock mooring, not sure if he ever went cruising.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, BEngo said:

BW tried something similar with designated mooring wardens at long term and casual mooring sites.   HMRC took a dim view, declared these folk to be BW employees, receiving a (taxable)  benefit in kind and needing such things as employers NI contributions.  BW dropped the plan, smartly.

 

N

I don't think a few cases of looking after mates helped from what I heard

2 hours ago, DaveMiles said:

Hi all, just after some clarification on the below situation....

 

There's a CRT volunteer who lives locally and who owns a boat.  They volunteer every Wednesday with other non-boating volunteers.

 

Their boat has been moored/stored at this location for about a year (a 48 hour mooring spot currently). They have used their boat twice to access an embankment that has no pedestrian access, to do some weeding about 2½ months ago.

 

Would CRT grant them what looks like 'a free mooring' in return for their volunteer work?

 

The only time they have moved, is either overnight or short periods - usually around clocking day.

 

For those that CC, this just comes across that if you volunteer for CRT one day a week, then you don't have to move your boat!

 

 

I doubt anyone here knows the answer to that one, welcome to the forum 

[Barneyp]

4 hours ago, NB Saturn said:

 

Don’t see why - if you have to live on-site to do a job then it isn’t taxable. e.g. a full time caretaker.  Any competent accountant would be able to sort that out. Maybe BW changed their minds and used that as an excuse?

There is a difference between having to be on site to carry out all or part of the job, and giving someone a free mooring in return for them carrying out "work" - the fact other people can and do volunteer without the need for a mooring demonstrates that the mooring is not needed and therefore a benefit in kind.

[Ianws]

I'd say no to one of the original questions -Would CRT grant them what looks like 'a free mooring' in return for their volunteer work?

 

Charities work with volunteers but they have to work in a professional way. They may have voluntary elements but it doesn't excuse amateur practices. CRT will have rigorous policies and procedures that should cover this sort of situation. It sounds like a CRT employee possibly not wanting to implement the rules to avoid confrontation by addressing the issue, or worried about losing a volunteer. 

[MtB]

19 hours ago, DaveMiles said:

The only time they have moved, is either overnight or short periods - usually around clocking day.

 

I'd have thought ^^^this^^^ specifically, excludes the possibility that CRT are giving them special treatment and a free mooring as a volunteer.

 

They know they need to move the boat away on clocking day in order to avoid getting caught up in the enforcement procedure.

 

 

[JoeC]

I know of CRT non-residential boat moorings where people live on their boats. They are not supposed to do it but if you keep your head down and not make an issue (and that goes for other people who want to raise a fuss) then why not.

[Machpoint005]

22 hours ago, BEngo said:

BW tried something similar with designated mooring wardens at long term and casual mooring sites.   HMRC took a dim view, declared these folk to be BW employees, receiving a (taxable)  benefit in kind and needing such things as employers NI contributions.  BW dropped the plan, smartly.

 

 

22 hours ago, NB Saturn said:

 

Don’t see why - if you have to live on-site to do a job then it isn’t taxable. e.g. a full time caretaker.  Any competent accountant would be able to sort that out. Maybe BW changed their minds and used that as an excuse?

 

The key is "have to live on site". A designated mooring warden doesn't have to live on site. The job can easilybe done by somebody living locally.

 

Therefore, a free mooring is a benefit in kind and is taxable as such, as BEngo says, and the employer and employee are both liable for NICs. 

 

.

Most accountants are competent and know their tax law.

 

[Mike on the Wey]

On 03/06/2025 at 14:59, Machpoint005 said:

Therefore, a free mooring is a benefit in kind and is taxable as such, as BEngo says, and the employer and employee are both liable for NICs. 

There is no employee NIC liability on a benefit in kind such as a free mooring - essentially because it is not cash, and therefore cannot be treated as earnings. But, taking a step back, the provision of a free mooring does not automatically give rise to a taxable benefit in kind, because first there must be an employment. And taking a further step back, providing a free mooring to a volunteer doesn't automatically make that volunteer an employee. It's far more complex than respondents to this thread suggest. 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Mike on the Wey said:

There is no employee NIC liability on a benefit in kind such as a free mooring - essentially because it is not cash,

 

Would that thinking then not apply to a company car ? (which is certainly taxed as a BIK)

Edited June 4 by Alan de Enfield

[Arthur Marshall]

39 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would that thinking then not apply to a company car ? (which is certainly taxed as a BIK)

Benefits are by definition not cash, but there still has to be an employer. I presume vlockies are sort of self employed, though there must be some form of contract with CRT .

[Barneyp]

50 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would that thinking then not apply to a company car ? (which is certainly taxed as a BIK)

 

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Benefits are by definition not cash, but there still has to be an employer. I presume vlockies are sort of self employed, though there must be some form of contract with CRT .

Mike is correct that the recipient of the benefit-in-kind would not pay employee NI on it, but the organisation giving the benefit would have to pay employers NI, and the recipient would have to pay tax on it 

 

And he is also correct in saying providing a free mooring to a volunteer doesn't automatically make that volunteer an employee.

 

However providing the free mooring in return for them doing "voluntary" work does make them an employee, "worker" or contractor - which one would depend on various other factors, although most likely it would be "worker".

Which ever one they were classified as, the free mooring would be a benefit in kind and therefore taxable.

 

If the volunteer was given a free mooring, but it wasn't in return for them volunteering HMRC would want proof of the reasons for the free mooring, and examples of free moorings being given to other people in similar circumstances who weren't volunteering.

Edited June 4 by Barneyp

[Gybe Ho]

On 03/06/2025 at 09:59, MtB said:

 

I'd have thought ^^^this^^^ specifically, excludes the possibility that CRT are giving them special treatment and a free mooring as a volunteer.

 

They know they need to move the boat away on clocking day in order to avoid getting caught up in the enforcement procedure.

 

 

 

I like your logic but this raises a further question. Can clocking day be predicted for a year without insider information?

[Mike on the Wey]

15 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Would that thinking then not apply to a company car ? (which is certainly taxed as a BIK)

Class 1A NICs arise on a benefit such as a company car. That wasn't always the case - IIRC they were invented (yet another form of taxation) in the early 1990s.

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Benefits are by definition not cash, but there still has to be an employer. I presume vlockies are sort of self employed, though there must be some form of contract with CRT .

Not being an employee does not make a volunteer self employed. I volunteer for a charity ... I am simply a volunteer. I can decide when and where to do what I do, and I can walk away from it whenever I please. They are characteristics of self employment, but I am absolutely not self employed. 

It is good practice in the charitable sector to have some form of agreement with volunteers - for instance that they will follow the organisations policies and procedures etc - but that would rarely be described as a contract. 

14 hours ago, Barneyp said:

However providing the free mooring in return for them doing "voluntary" work does make them an employee, "worker" or contractor - which one would depend on various other factors, although most likely it would be "worker".

Which ever one they were classified as, the free mooring would be a benefit in kind and therefore taxable.

The provision of a free mooring would not automatically confer employee/worker/contractor status on an individual. A worker is simply a person who performs tasks described as 'work'. Such a worker might be employed or self employed, which is determined by the terms and conditions of the engagement. The term 'contractor' means a few different things. 

"Which ever one they were classified as, the free mooring would be a benefit in kind and therefore taxable." That contention is incorrect. 

This forum should not be relied on for tax advice, because many contributors do not know what they are talking about.

[Barneyp]

37 minutes ago, Mike on the Wey said:

The provision of a free mooring would not automatically confer employee/worker/contractor status on an individual. A worker is simply a person who performs tasks described as 'work'. Such a worker might be employed or self employed, which is determined by the terms and conditions of the engagement. The term 'contractor' means a few different things. 

"Which ever one they were classified as, the free mooring would be a benefit in kind and therefore taxable." That contention is incorrect. 

This forum should not be relied on for tax advice, because many contributors do not know what they are talking about.

As far as the English language is concerned you are correct in saying " A worker is simply a person who performs tasks described as 'work'"

However when it comes to employment law a worker is a specific form of self employment that sits between an employee and a self employed contractor.

 

Workers are self employed for tax purposes, but have some of the rights of an employee eg holiday pay, minimum wage.

The worker status was created because people were being classified as self employed when they didn't have the independence that normally goes with being a contractor eg at least some control over how, when, where and even if the work is done.

 

If a volunteer Is given something in return for the work they do as a volunteer, they can no longer be classified as a volunteer and so must either be an employee, worker or contractor. This is employment law, not tax law.

 

Tax law would then apply and it is likely they would have to pay tax on the money or benefit in kind they have received. Obviously personal tax allowances and the current exemption for people who make less than £1000 from completing a self assessment may affect this, and so might other things.

 

I agree that relying on the forum for specific tax or employment law advice would not be a good idea. I'm reading this thread as a general discussion of the possible implications of someone receiving a free mooring in return for volunteering. 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

For a benefit to be taxable (or even classed as a benefit) it has to have an assigned value. If CRT were to allow a boat to moor, it needs just value the mooring at zero, so no benefit arises. Any defacto agreement to allow a volunteer to overstay while volunteering in a particular spot would therefore not cause any problems.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

If CRT were to allow a boat to moor, it needs just value the mooring at zero, so no benefit arises.

 

I think that HMRC migt be 'onto that one'. Would it still be valued at Zero if you or  I were mooring there ?

 

One of my Brother in Laws separated from his (1st) wife and sold the house to a pal for £1 that didn't 'fly' for very long.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think that HMRC migt be 'onto that one'. Would it still be valued at Zero if you or  I were mooring there ?

What would be the value of a 14 day mooring?
On a parallel tack I understand some camp/caravans give a free pitch for the season for a sort of care taker. Anyone know about that?

 

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

What would be the value of a 14 day mooring?
On a parallel tack I understand some camp/caravans give a free pitch for the season for a sort of care taker. Anyone know about that?

 

Be same rules as a tied cottage on a peppercorn tent, I suppose. I rather doubt HMRC would be interested.

[haggis]

43 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

What would be the value of a 14 day mooring?
On a parallel tack I understand some camp/caravans give a free pitch for the season for a sort of care taker. Anyone know about that?

 

Or the site manager in a marina getting free mooring? 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, haggis said:

Or the site manager in a marina getting free mooring? 

 

 

BIK

[TheBiscuits]

4 hours ago, Gybe Ho said:

Can clocking day be predicted for a year without insider information?

 

Yes. Easily.

 

Whether or not the prediction turns out to be correct is the gamble you'd be taking with the enforcement process ...