Divide and Rule is over.

[Phoenix_V]

The local authorities get very worked up about living in caravans, without RPP, to the extent that they've threatened to bulldoze a "static/mobile" home site, near here.

 

That's true but I cant see any harm in living in caravans on a "leisure" site and it would open many cans of worms encouraging town hall "little hittlers" to start looking closely at canals

[David Schweizer]

The so called continuous cruisers and liveaboards should it seems to me to be excluded from leisure mooring sites and therefore the WUSIG meeting have got a point. These people pay no council tax and therefore contribute nothing to the country's education system,police or fire and other services which are not funded by national government(although they should be).I fail to see why they should have the benefit of services they do not pay for. At least the liveaboards in marinas are paying at least a small sum via the business rates on the marina. Perhaps I am missing something and stand correcting.

Whilst I agree, in principle, that residential boaters living in one place should pay Council Tax, it is untrue to say that they pay nothing towards services. Although the precise percentage will vary form one Local Aurthority area to another, on average, the National Government funds aproximately 75% of all Local Authority services through grants.

 

The remaining 25% is funded locally through a mixture of Council Tax and fees for services, eg. rent of land/premises, car parking cgharges, leisure facility entrance fees, etc. Again the balance will vary from one Council area to another, but the average will come out at apriximately 75% Council Tax, 25% fees. This means that Council Tax accounts for a little less than 20% of the Council's total income.

 

I can already hear the arguement, "Ah but they don't work either so they don't pay Income tax", but that is irrelevant, because they do pay VAT and would not pay Income Tax if they were unemployed and lived on the land, and may well also be elible for Rates Suport Grant, in which case the finacial contribution could be similar, minus the administartion costs involved in calculating the Grants.

 

Life is never as simple as the Daily Mail tries to make it seem.

Edited April 24, 2009 by David Schweizer

[carlt]

That's true but I cant see any harm in living in caravans on a "leisure" site

Me neither but it was always a big issue, when I worked for the council, and I was surprised the same attention wasn't aimed at boaters.

 

As I was a "CT dodging" liveaboard, at the time, I never invited trouble, by asking the question.

[Smelly]

The irony of the whole council tax thing is that, as has been said above, I couldn't pay council tax even if I wnated to. My BW resi mooring cannot be acceepted as a "dwelling" and it would take an amending order to the '95 BWA to change that... Considering they can't find enough parliamentary time to change the registry office arrangements then I sorely doubt they'll get round to debating BWA amendments in the near future.

 

If they could ask me I would, albeit reluctantly, pay my dues but they can't so all's well

 

Even more ironically is the fact that i work in a primarily Council funded job, however before chucking labels around please note that in the last 52 weeks I've put £184k into the local economy from the Govt's coffers. That's a bit steeper than 50% of band A I reckon

[Tiny]

Most liveaboards paying a large amount of cash to do so in a Marina don't, in fact, have residential-status moorings. This is mainly down to local planning politics rather than BW regulation. Would BW's new inspection regime extend to Marina berths? [i know they have the right to inspect licences in a Marina, though this doesn't seem to happen very often].

 

If so, there will suddenly be no point in having a Marina berth, and everyone will be out CCing. This seems slightly counter-productive when BW have been trying for years to get everyone off the cut and into Marinas.

 

Buy shares in Genny manufacturers is my advice, lol.

 

Far from not checking the licences in marinas our one is regularly visited by a checker who goes round a number of different marinas to make his number of checks that must be done per week up.

 

He explained this to one of our residents who suggested he try just outside the entrance where there were a number of non-licence showers over the odd mile or two in both directions. The checker said 'why should he' as he could easily get his numbers walking a few hundred yards round marinas rather than walking miles along canal and maybe getting agro from some of the boat owners who might object to him taking details of their boats.

[alan_fincher]

Tiny's remarks are too true! Boats on marina berths, (well at least ours), are (very) regularly checked by BW staff, which hardly seems like the most productive use of the resource. (I suppose it would be too simple for the marinas to supply a list of names, numbers, and owners of all the boats they are berthing - probably data protection gets in the way of such a cost effective idea ?).

 

As far as I know I could spend every night aboard our boat in the marina, without breaking any planning regulations, provided I have a permanent address elsewhere ? In practice I'm not sure I've ever slept at the marina, as if I'm on board, I like to go somewhere, but I can't see any issue if I were to move aboard, as long as I didn't quote the marina as my home address.

 

My understanding is that despite a significant number of people effectively live-aboard, the actual number of approved residential places is minuscule, (but I don't know exact number). The same certainly used to be true on the BW linear moorings outside - IIRC when I was there in the 1970s, the council recognised just 3 residential places, (my father used to compile the electoral register for there....). Possibly some other members would know the exact situation there now ?

[David Schweizer]

There are about 18 boats on my moorings, but the Planning Consent only permits one residential mooring (for the Caretaker)

[carlt]

As far as I know I could spend every night aboard our boat in the marina, without breaking any planning regulations, provided I have a permanent address elsewhere ?

This is not strictly true. If the planning authority suspect you are using your boat as your main residence then they can demand that you apply for retrospective planning permission, whether you have another address, or not.

 

Of course, proof that you are paying full Council Tax, at the address you have given, would provide you with a very strong argument, in your defence.

 

Ironically I spend far less time at home, now I live in a house, than when I lived on the boat.

[Lady Muck]

But is living on a leisure mooring not breaking the rules as much as CCers not moving on and speeding?

 

Yes it is. It has gone on for years with BW's full knowledge. The mooring agreements are the same whether they are for residential or leisure, you are supposed to contact the LA yourself to find out if you can live there. Who the hell does that? There is even confusion in some local authorities as to the status of moorings. BW have allowed this to happen and made it easy.

 

I'm really interested to know what will happen should they enforce this in London. Leisure moorings are now so expensive very few genuine leisure boaters are able to afford them. Usually only the liveaboards are prepared to pay the inflated cost. Many of the moorings have no services, either. There are way more residents than there are leisure boaters on many of the moorings.

 

I think BW might end up with lots of empty leisure moorings and even more towpath moorers. There is not really room for any more towpath moorers in London as it is. They need all the money they can get at the moment, so evicting dozens of boaters and forcing ccers off the canals isn't going to help swell their coffers is it? Imagine the legal costs. What a nightmare! I await the results with intrigue.

 

As for the avoidance of council tax - well, there are plenty of LA services that require the production of a council tax bill in order to use them.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Lady Muck

[bag 'o' bones]

Personally I think i'd opt to ignore the perceived problem. There casn't be that many folk 'living' on boats illegally and if there were I think the cost of implementing a campaign to get rid of them would probably cost more in resources than what would be saved.

 

Anyway, I think I would prefer to moor next to someone who lived on there boat for most of the year as they would naturally keep an eye on your boat!

[carlt]

I think BW might end up with lots of empty leisure moorings and even more towpath moorers. There is not really room for any more towpath moorers in London as it is. They need all the money they can get at the moment, so evicting dozens of boaters and forcing ccers off the canals isn't going to help swell their coffers is it? Imagine the legal costs. What a nightmare! I await the results with intrigue.

I don't think BW will, voluntarily, evict moorers (over planning issues, at least) but it may be that, eventually, they are forced to.

[alan_fincher]

This is not strictly true. If the planning authority suspect you are using your boat as your main residence then they can demand that you apply for retrospective planning permission, whether you have another address, or not.

Accepted.

 

In fact, in practice the marina seem to be more than happy to act as the residential and postal address of quite a few live-aboards who do not have an alternate address, but at least some of whom have confided to me that they don't have a residential berth.

 

If the council were going after anybody, I suspect it wouldn't be me, (even if I lived on the boat, which I never have).

 

 

Recently my GP wrote out some information for me on the back of a prescription form - when I got it home, I found the other side was printed up with the name and boat name and marina address of one of my fellow moorers. Data protection, hey ?!?

[carlt]

There casn't be that many folk 'living' on boats illegally and if there were I think the cost of implementing a campaign to get rid of them would probably cost more in resources than what would be saved.

I suspect that the majority of liveaboards, on a permanent mooring, lack residential planning permission.

 

The only people actually not breaking planning laws are those that have RPP and continuous cruisers (oh the irony!)

[Lady Muck]

I don't think BW will, voluntarily, evict moorers (over planning issues, at least) but it may be that, eventually, they are forced to.

 

I think it will depend on the LA involved. I know Debbifiggy mentioned the main problem was when boaters on leisure moorings put pressure on LA social services, apply for housing benefit, that sort of thing.

 

This then draws their attention to a problem. And is the main reason they don't like residentials. And is the reason they are unlikely to change their mind about allowing it. As Sueb says boaters are considered to be little better than travellers in some quarters. The LA probably wishes that they'd evaporate or something. Many of them don't vote anyway, so they don't count. Everyone seems to pretend they are not there until it kicks off and they want some help (i.e money)

[Smelly]

On the other had, on our mooring we've got two leisure users blocking residential moorings... And BW put up with it! Outrageous I tell ya!

[sociable_hermit]

The so called continuous cruisers and liveaboards should it seems to me to be excluded from leisure mooring sites and therefore the WUSIG meeting have got a point. These people pay no council tax and therefore contribute nothing to the country's education system,police or fire and other services... SNIP!

Some major assumptions in there...

 

I'm on a non-residential mooring in a Marina because I couldn't find a residential mooring anywhere, and the extent to which I live aboard varies. My Father's address is my official address and I am registered for Council Tax there - more fool me, perhaps. I sleep on my boat and at my Dad's, in hotels (working as a Consultant means going where the work is) and also in a converted railway parcels van (an old PMV body, for the anoraks out there) at the Bluebell Railway, where I volunteer. Trying to establish which of these places is genuinely my "home" address would be impossible because I move around so much, but anyway, I still pay tax. Not everyone can be lumped into your "freeloaders" stereotype. I'm one exception and I'm sure there are many others.

[onthecut]

Some major assumptions in there...

 

My Father's address is my official address and I am registered for Council Tax there -

 

The poll tax is gone ---- individuals aren't registered for council tax. It relates to the property and is down to the owner or occupier.

 

Mike.

 

PS. Am I the only person in the country who thought the poll tax was a jolly good idea ? (Retires to trench, with tin hat on)

Edited April 24, 2009 by onthecut

[sociable_hermit]

The poll tax is gone ---- individuals aren't registered for council tax. It relates to the property and is down to the owner or occupier.

 

Mike.

Yes and no. You still have to declare how many people live there, and that has an impact on how much is paid.

 

I'm registered to vote there, too, as I didn't want to lose the right to vote - even though the choice frequently isn't up to much.

 

It also means that two-faced Marina owners who knowlingly let you stay as a part-time liveaboard without residential planning permission, but then conveniently forget about the arrangement and threaten to charge you more when the wind changes (with the implied threat that they'll snitch on you to the authorities if you don't agree) are on a real hiding to nothing. All of my paperwork is legitimate. Which is nice.

Edited April 24, 2009 by sociable_hermit

[carlt]

PS. Am I the only person in the country who thought the poll tax was a jolly good idea ? (Retires to trench, with tin hat on)

If the "Community Charge" had been introduced as a universal local tax, related to earnings, then I would have paid it.

 

Instead it was just another way of making the rich richer, therefore I didn't.

[onthecut]

Yes and no. You still have to declare how many people live there, and that has an impact on how much is paid.

 

Surely not --- it's banded on property value.

 

Mike.

 

If the "Community Charge" had been introduced as a universal local tax, related to earnings, then I would have paid it.

 

Instead it was just another way of making the rich richer, therefore I didn't.

 

I think you will find there were an awful lot of older people with very limited resources struggling to cope with astronomical rates bills who wouldn't necessarily agree with that analysis.

 

Mike.

[Naughty Cal]

Yes and no. You still have to declare how many people live there, and that has an impact on how much is paid.

 

I'm registered to vote there, too, as I didn't want to lose the right to vote - even though the choice frequently isn't up to much.

 

It also means that two-faced Marina owners who knowlingly let you stay as a part-time liveaboard without residential planning permission, but then conveniently forget about the arrangement and threaten to charge you more when the wind changes (with the implied threat that they'll snitch on you to the authorities if you don't agree) are on a real hiding to nothing. All of my paperwork is legitimate. Which is nice.

 

Not really. Your council tax is worked out using your properties value and banding. You can get a discount if only one person lives at the address.

[carlt]

I think you will find there were an awful lot of older people with very limited resources struggling to cope with astronomical rates bills who wouldn't necessarily agree with that analysis.

Why not? Do you think they'd pay anything at all, if it was in the form of a local income tax?

 

The ratable value of a property is a ridiculous method of gauging someone's ability to pay. I didn't dispute that but the poll tax is even less fair, which is why it failed.

[Lady Muck]

Some major assumptions in there...

 

I'm on a non-residential mooring in a Marina because I couldn't find a residential mooring anywhere, and the extent to which I live aboard varies. My Father's address is my official address and I am registered for Council Tax there - more fool me, perhaps. I sleep on my boat and at my Dad's, in hotels (working as a Consultant means going where the work is) and also in a converted railway parcels van (an old PMV body, for the anoraks out there) at the Bluebell Railway, where I volunteer. Trying to establish which of these places is genuinely my "home" address would be impossible because I move around so much, but anyway, I still pay tax. Not everyone can be lumped into your "freeloaders" stereotype. I'm one exception and I'm sure there are many others.

 

Similar situation to us then......We own a house in Letchworth but the boat is in London and I am here alot. I am all over the bloody place (for work that is) althought it's not as bad as it used to be when I would spend three or four months of the year abroad. I could cc (and more than stick to the rules) but it is nice to have a base for the boat and the 240v. I'd love it if BW were more flexible with subletting. We are actually subletting this summer (we have bw's approval) as we will be away on our boat for a min. of four months. I'd do this every summer if they'd let me. If they started getting uppity about how many nights a week we spend here, then I'd be tempted to take the boat elsewhere - the fens perhaps?

 

Unless we are all fitted with tracking devices how on earth is this going to be policed?

[sociable_hermit]

Not really. Your council tax is worked out using your properties value and banding. You can get a discount if only one person lives at the address.

No, really. My being there affects the discount, doesn't it? I pay the difference so all is fair. Plus I am shown as living somewhere, so all the bureaucrats are happy.

 

My main point was that it's easy to make assumptions about other people's circumstances, but life isn't that simple.

Edited April 24, 2009 by sociable_hermit

[alan_fincher]

Yes and no. You still have to declare how many people live there, and that has an impact on how much is paid.

 

 

Surely not --- it's banded on property value.

Yes, but you do pay less irrespective of band, if only one adult lives at the address, (don't you ?).

 

I'm sure my mum gets a discounted rate, since my dad passed away ?