BW Residential Moorings and Council Tax

[deletedaccount]

The freeman stuff fails because in essence, it's bollocks.

[Guest]

No worries, its more an interest than a critical thing at this stage. I did hear a rumour that, with councils facing cuts in government funding and the prospect of cutbacks etc, they may decide that pursuing CT on ALL moorings (including leisure, etc) is worthwhile and this will affect a great deal of boaters quite a bit. So its definitely worth keeping a close eye on!

 

Where did you hear that one??

 

or was it just someone speculating as that will just about kill off leisure boating for a good few people...

[Paul C]

Where did you hear that one??

 

or was it just someone speculating as that will just about kill off leisure boating for a good few people...

 

It was on this forum although I can't find the particular thread now. It was a speculative suggestion.

 

EDIT: Found it, post #49 here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48424&st=40&p=902052entry902052

Edited July 17, 2012 by Paul C

[carlt]

What I don't accept is, towns people telling me everything is equal. Towns people are not obliged to further fund their town with charity aid and volunteer help. They're not oblige to do anything for the canal.

Nor are you.

 

I lived on a boat for over a decade and the vast majority of my fellow liveaboards did squat for the network.

 

You are perfectly within your rights to do nothing except pay your bills just as I, if I chose, need never do voluntary work for my sons' school (to supplement their underfunding), contribute to the funding of play areas, because the council tax provision is inadequate and my OH wouldn't be working in her career if the CT covered the social services requirements adequately.

 

All things that many liveaboards take advantage of without paying CT, on top of policing, fire service, highway maintenance and rubbish disposal, other than emptying your bin once a week.

 

You're right though, everything is not equal.

 

You just have the inequality the wrong way round.

[Smelly]

No worries, its more an interest than a critical thing at this stage. I did hear a rumour that, with councils facing cuts in government funding and the prospect of cutbacks etc, they may decide that pursuing CT on ALL moorings (including leisure, etc) is worthwhile and this will affect a great deal of boaters quite a bit. So its definitely worth keeping a close eye on!

 

 

Before I get into trouble I must re-iterate that it was speculation, but I can see nothing really to stop them other than common sense.

[Guest]

It was on this forum although I can't find the particular thread now. It was a speculative suggestion.

 

EDIT: Found it, post #49 here: http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=48424&st=40&p=902052entry902052

 

Yes I read that as more speculation than rumour that it's going to happen TBH.

 

It would as I said kill off leisure boating for a lot of people and would be incredibly unpopular throughout the industry and amongst leisure boaters - none of which of course means some twerp in Whitehall might not think it a good idea...

[Higgs]

All things that many liveaboards take advantage of without paying CT, on top of policing, fire service, highway maintenance and rubbish disposal, other than emptying your bin once a week.

 

You're right though, everything is not equal.

 

You just have the inequality the wrong way round.

 

Fine.

 

Set us up in County Hall and fund the canal, and I agree. Until then, the begging bowl separates my view from yours.

[carlt]

Fine.

 

Set us up in County Hall and fund the canal, and I agree. Until then, the begging bowl separates my view from yours.

What begging bowl?

 

Why do you feel you have to stoop to begging?

[Higgs]

What begging bowl?

 

Why do you feel you have to stoop to begging?

 

Because chugging isn't that far removed. That's how I see it.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Higgs

[carlt]

Because chugging isn't that far removed. That's how I see it.

Manning a stall at the school summer fair, the other day, spending 3 hours a week maintaining the Forest School site or selling raffle tickets, all to try to raise money because the school is underfunded isn't any different.

 

Volunteering to maintain footpaths and parks because the CT doesn't cover it is pretty much the same thing too.

 

Perhaps you should talk to some "town people" before assuming that the canals are the only facility that requires charitable support.

[Graham Davis]

Perhaps you should talk to some "town people" before assuming that the canals are the only facility that requires charitable support.

 

Higgs you really need to think before letting your fingers loose!!

 

We'd love some financial support, other than what we raise ourselves, and yes we are a Registered Charity

>>>>>>see the header below!!

[Higgs]

Manning a stall at the school summer fair, the other day, spending 3 hours a week maintaining the Forest School site or selling raffle tickets, all to try to raise money because the school is underfunded isn't any different.

 

Volunteering to maintain footpaths and parks because the CT doesn't cover it is pretty much the same thing too.

 

Perhaps you should talk to some "town people" before assuming that the canals are the only facility that requires charitable support.

 

 

I don't forget the things in life any decent person would want to help with.

 

And all this discussion is going nowhere in a hurry.

 

There are many more charities I would give to before C&RT. As a citizen, C&RT is way down the list of priorities. You can't force people to give to C&RT. That's probably why it isn't a good idea to collect revenue that way. The canal is not a priority, no matter how much bull you hear from above. It's important to the people that use it.

 

So important? The strategy of fund raising and volunteers is hardly putting money where the mouth is. I have volunteered too. Not lost my goodwill.

 

There's no sure thing in fund raising and volunteers. I'm part of the fundraising problem. One of a minority that needs the canal.

 

The bull and the hipe, plenty of that though. I will help out the town, with hard cash, if they want CT. But, I'm not wearing a cloth cap and waistcoat and neckachief. Please put a few shiney buttons in me cap guv. It's for the canal mate.

 

Higgs you really need to think before letting your fingers loose!!

 

We'd love some financial support, other than what we raise ourselves, and yes we are a Registered Charity

>>>>>>see the header below!!

 

All the best with your charity. Fingers working fine.

[Chris Pink]

This advice is out of date. It is founded on an action that RBOA reported in their "Waterlines" magazine in the early noughties.

 

It has been legislated around and there are now deeming provisions for what might constitute a "dwelling"...

 

The new position has been debated many times here and a search for "composite hereditament" will reveal accurate discussion of the current position.

 

Is this a more relevant statement;

 

 

Needless to say, this can be a very complicated area but the following may assist:

 

Summary of Policy

The policy that the legislation is intended to achieve can be summarised as follows. Although this specifically refers to boats and moorings the same principles apply to caravans and their pitches.

 

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.

 

If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence stops at a mooring and moves away for a sufficiently long period (see 6.2), and it seems that when next in use that mooring will be used by that same boat or another boat which is someone’s sole or main residence, then the mooring is domestic but the mooring only is subject to Council Tax.

 

c) If a boat which is someone’s sole or main residence is moored at a mooring and moves away, and it seems that when next in use the mooring will be used by a non-sole or main residence boat, then the mooring is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates.

 

d) If there is a mooring with no way of telling what sort of craft will be moored at it, then it is non-domestic and subject to non-domestic rates.

 

Whether the value of the boat or caravan can be included with the pitch is a matter of fact and degree. As a general rule, where a dwelling boat or caravan occupies a mooring or pitch for a substantial period of time - such duration would usually be for 12 months or more - it should be included in the band value, even if it moves away for brief periods of say 2 to 4 weeks, provided it then returns to its original mooring or pitch. The question to be asked is whether the occupation can be characterised as that of a 'settler' or a 'wayfarer'. If the latter, then only the mooring or pitch should be valued.

 

To be clear, this paragraph refers only to the treatment of the chattel value, not to establish whether a dwelling exists – that is the established mooring or pitch. A caravan does not have to be in place on a recognised pitch for 12 months to establish the pitch as a dwelling, nor does a boat have to be moored on a recognised mooring for 12 months to establish the mooring as a dwelling.

 

Even if the sole or main resident of a caravan or boat does not have exclusive rights to a particular pitch or mooring if, in practice, the caravan or boat occupies the land with sufficient permanence it will be included with the mooring as domestic property, and the value included in the Council Tax banding.

 

 

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-draft.html

 

 

And this;

 

 

 

Council Tax Manual - Practice Note 7 - Appendix D - Circumstances where boats used wholly as living accommodation may or may not be regarded as part of the hereditament

Practice Note 7: Appendix D

 

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.

 

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-app4.html

 

..

Edited July 17, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Paul C]

 

And all this discussion is going nowhere in a hurry.

 

 

The topic is council tax liability though, not the charitable status of C&RT.

[David Schweizer]

I don't forget the things in life any decent person would want to help with.

 

And all this discussion is going nowhere in a hurry.

 

There are many more charities I would give to before C&RT. As a citizen, C&RT is way down the list of priorities. You can't force people to give to C&RT. That's probably why it isn't a good idea to collect revenue that way. The canal is not a priority, no matter how much bull you hear from above. It's important to the people that use it.

 

So important? The strategy of fund raising and volunteers is hardly putting money where the mouth is. I have volunteered too. Not lost my goodwill.

 

There's no sure thing in fund raising and volunteers. I'm part of the fundraising problem. One of a minority that needs the canal.

 

The bull and the hipe, plenty of that though. I will help out the town, with hard cash, if they want CT. But, I'm not wearing a cloth cap and waistcoat and neckachief. Please put a few shiney buttons in me cap guv. It's for the canal mate.

 

 

 

All the best with your charity. Fingers working fine.

 

Am I alone in not understanding almost anything you post? You seem to express yourself in a way that is outside my awareness of comprehensible language.

Edited July 17, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Chris Pink]

Edited July 17, 2012 by Chris Pink

[Paul C]

Is this a more relevant statement;

 

 

 

 

 

And where does it come from, Ian?

 

 

And where does this (posted in 2009 stand?)

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

Looks like a quote from the guidance manual on council tax, published online by the valuation office agency (govt department). Here's a link:

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-draft.html#P167_13443

[mayalld]

Interesting linky discussing that freeman video

 

ETA: and the other side of the story

 

 

The complete nonsense they spout is quite amusing.

 

They have decided what the answer is, and will quite blatantly pick and choose not only which bits of law they include in their argument, but which individual words!

 

So, we have the precedent that constitutional law cannot be subject to implied appeal, which a few paragraphs later is asserted to mean that such law cannot be subject to any repeal.

 

All of which overlooks the fact that their whole argument is based on a contention that Acts of Parliament (which constitutional law is) have no validity without consent.

 

They contend that a Magistrate has sworn an oath (mandated by an Act of Parliament), to a monarch (whose posession of the throne is by virtue of the Act of Settlement - an Act of Parliament), and somehow this gives them a right to ignore any act they don't like.

 

Very funny!

[Higgs]

The topic is council tax liability though, not the charitable status of C&RT.

 

Can't help where a thread wanders.

 

Am I alone in not understanding almost anything you post? You seem to express yourself in a way that is outside my awareness of comprehensible language.

 

No. But, I don't try to be obscure. I'll work on it.

[Paul C]

Can't help where a thread wanders.

 

With the exception of the Freeman post and comments on it, it was reasonably on-topic until post #47. I'm sure you're happy to let topics wander off topic but it kinda dilutes the usefulness of threads if its done. For example, anyone subsequently searching for info on council tax will have to trawl through this one (as well as loads of others) for any meaningful answers. And anyone who agrees, or even disagrees with you about charitable status of C&RT won't get to express their opinion unless they stumble upon, or are already involved in, this unrelated thread.

 

I'm sure somewhere previously, you made a tenuous link between the two topics, but it got blurred in the mix with all the other posts.......what is the link between the two? Duplicated services or something?

[Higgs]

With the exception of the Freeman post and comments on it, it was reasonably on-topic until post #47. I'm sure you're happy to let topics wander off topic but it kinda dilutes the usefulness of threads if its done. For example, anyone subsequently searching for info on council tax will have to trawl through this one (as well as loads of others) for any meaningful answers. And anyone who agrees, or even disagrees with you about charitable status of C&RT won't get to express their opinion unless they stumble upon, or are already involved in, this unrelated thread.

 

I'm sure somewhere previously, you made a tenuous link between the two topics, but it got blurred in the mix with all the other posts.......what is the link between the two? Duplicated services or something?

 

They just do wander. Anyway, a couple of similar threads have been stitched together. Last night a new short thread, this morning gone. Turns up here. What can you do.

 

No point going over it all again. Even I find it tedious.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Higgs

[matty40s]

With the exception of the Freeman post and comments on it, it was reasonably on-topic until post #47.

That must be a new record then Paul, it is normally post (looks for hash key).....none on keybroad..... 4 or 5. and getting to 92 before taking umbrage makes you a potential moderator.

 

shared costs of council tax and licence fee are probably covered by police,fire and ambulance only.

water supply is covered by water company bill or marina or licence.

road use, lighting etc, should be covered by road tax on cars.

refuse is covered by council or marina or BW/CaRT licence.

Edited July 17, 2012 by matty40s

[Smelly]

Is this a more relevant statement;

 

..

 

Yes, thank you.

 

but only if the boat has exclusive occupancy of the mooring

 

is the bit that's got me worried... The OP was looking at the imposition of a composite hereditament and the liability being passed down to the moorers.

 

That is what seems to be happening in most places. The old "if they can move you you're not liable" trope isn't necessarily true any more.

 

Furthermore, individual liabilities are arising in some corners of the world on the basis that by custom and practice a boat has exclusive use of one pontoon; whatever their agreement says!

 

I will re-iterate; where a benefit claim may be in question, that in a composite situation the same mechanism that applied in R(H)9/08 arguably applies and people are free to ask for assistance.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Smelly

[Arthur Brown]

In my local London Borough it's plain that they have increased the number of traffic enforcement staff by about 100%, they are looking for sources of funding. From this it's likely that other loopholes will be looked at and I don't see my London Borough being the only one.

 

It's (IMO) highly likely that councils will need to look at all forms of fund raising and make sure that nothing escapes that should be chargeable.

[carlt]

Roll on a proportionate local income tax where we can all make a fair contribution to local services regardless of how we choose to live our life.