Continual cruising

[Noah T]

I think that you will find, as Captain Zim generously pointed out (http://www.legalrss.co.uk/bsg/tub-boat-dweller-must-pay-council-tax) the legislation does already exist, if you are a permanent resident of an area you should be paying council tax. So tell me once again, why should permanently resident boaters be exempt from this liability? I am now genuinely interested to know what makes them special compared to a land based resident. If they wish to live in Camden, disregarding your economics, why should they not contribute?

 

I haven't stated that permanent residents of a local authority should not contribute (according to their means). I have no objection to people who are legally obliged to pay council tax complying with that obligation, or with Camden or any other Local Authority seeking to get people to comply, whether boaters or otherwise.

 

It's revealing that you prefer to disregard the economics. I would suggest that the economics is probably the main factor in why eg Camden Council and its residents are not getting themselves worked up like you are re: this issue.

 

Further, as you note that it's permanent residents of a borough who are liable for council tax, I reckon that your figure (allegedly from the NBTA) of 300 boaters in Camden being relevant to this is a wild exaggeration. I would doubt that there are more than a handful of liveaboard boaters with CC licenses who stay permanently on the stretch of the Regents which is within the confines of Camden borough.

 

That handful would in any case be facing or likely to face the CaRT enforcement process.

 

The alleged issue of 'freeloaders at the bottom of people's gardens' is a trivial one which you are getting all outraged about- because, I would guess, you think it is a stick which you can wave against CC'ing boaters.

[Captain Zim]

If the RFID system was adopted with readers at hidden points round the system it would IMO have a number of advantages.

 

It's difficult to answer without a lot more study but I've got a feeling CRT might fall foul of surveillance legislation if the readers were truly covert. Although they are not a public body there is precedent for other large organisations being bound by the same rules regarding watching people without their knowledge. Edited December 16, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Jerra]

It's difficult to answer without a lot more study but I've got a feeling CRT might fall foul of surveillance legislation if the readers were truly covert. Although they are not a public body there is precedent for other large organisations being bound by the same rules regarding watching people without their knowledge.

OK shall we say not hidden but in places not very convenient to get to so fiddling is discouraged.

 

EDIT to add:

 

It could be a bit Like CCTV a notice telling you it was happening but not exactly where in the area between the notices. Like CCTV notices don't tell you exactly which parts of the property are covered.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Jerra

[Captain Zim]

OK shall we say not hidden but in places not very convenient to get to so fiddling is discouraged.

 

EDIT to add:

 

It could be a bit Like CCTV a notice telling you it was happening but not exactly where in the area between the notices. Like CCTV notices don't tell you exactly which parts of the property are covered.

Yeah so long as you tell people it's there then there's no problem. But once people know its there they will find it, I guarantee. They like to find stuff and then pull that stuff apart to investigate. It's wondrous really.

[Iain_S]

The enforcement of the British Waterways 1972 Bye-Laws section 3 has my undying support.

Section 3 of the 1965 Bye-Laws could be appropriate in some cases ...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Section 3 of the 1965 Bye-Laws could be appropriate in some cases ...

[Nige G]

What a sickening load of dross from a pack of sheep like slaves.

 

Rather than wondering why a few dozen boats don't pay an extra tax (on top of the income tax, fuel duty, VAT et al) your baying would be better aimed at finding out why you are so happy to pay so much for so little.

 

And how you are so happy to accept the lies you are fed on a daily basis.

 

And how you are prepared to prop up, with your money = your efforts, a bloated and corrupt bureaucracy.

 

 

 

In the last six years the richest 10% in Britain doubled their wealth. Austerity? Yeah right. Pack of fools the lot of you.

 

Now you can go back to creating your straw men.

 

 

oh and remind me again, how successful your baying has been at getting tax out of Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone and Google. That might be a bit more worthwhile than raining your spite on a couple of hundred boaters.

I'd give you a greenie for that if I could work out how to do it on my phone!

[Gordias]

But there is no provision in law for shorter payments as far as I know. This is why all this is purely academic

 

Once my data is collected it becomes confidential. You can't just share it around for convenience.

 

If you have some facts on either point, please share them.

 

The laws controlling CaRT may be poorly worded, but local authorities have been around a lot longer - they've had plenty of time to adjust the wording to allow themselves reasonable freedom of action.

 

The second point doesn't make sense at first glance. The data collected would show that "boat BBB was at location LLL at date/time TTT", just as a photograph taken with a modern digital camera would. There are plenty of photographs on the web (including here) of cars and boats showing the name or registration number. It's hard to believe they're illegal.

[Captain Zim]

 

If you have some facts on either point, please share them.

 

The laws controlling CaRT may be poorly worded, but local authorities have been around a lot longer - they've had plenty of time to adjust the wording to allow themselves reasonable freedom of action.

 

The second point doesn't make sense at first glance. The data collected would show that "boat BBB was at location LLL at date/time TTT", just as a photograph taken with a modern digital camera would. There are plenty of photographs on the web (including here) of cars and boats showing the name or registration number. It's hard to believe they're illegal.

The first point I said 'as far as I know'. I just have never heard of any such provision and there are people on this site who work in these departments or close to them so I'm sure someone would have mentioned it by now. Why don't you call the council and ask them?

 

You still don't qualify for council tax until after the first year (even thats not guaranteed, its just what one judge said) so all we would have to do is move out from the borough after 364 days. I've never owned a static caravan but I'm sure some of those parks have a similar rule about not living all year round so that it's not a residential dwelling for planning and council tax purposes or something like that) Again, I'm sure someone else on here would confirm it or otherwise.

 

As for the second point, once any organisation collects my data for processing it becomes subject to the data protection act. Further, I am protected by the human rights act to my right to privacy. This means that if the council asked CRT for my data they'd have to have a reason such as a suspicion that I'd broken the law. Now, given that I can't break the law for at least a year, they would have no such right. I could then move, re-set the clock and go on indefinitely. This is a simplifies version of course (noteithstanding that as i and others have pointed out, we are not talking of 300 boats here, we are talking of a very very few). If CRT went on a fishing expedition for my details without the necessary reasons, or a hunch as some would like to think of it, they run the risk of me taking then to court for a breach of the HRA.

 

Private individuals posting pictures on the net is completely different in law. And if CRT were able to put together the necessary evidence from such pictures then CRT would probably be entitled use it. Which just goes to show you shouldn't take a picture of your own boat in the same location every day for a year and then post them all online. Free tip, that one.

 

I know a few people may be wondering why I'm persisting with this one (Alf?) but I think sometimes it is helpful to show why these things can't be done rather than just to say its not worthwhile. There is a very very very small cmer problem in general. I don't even consider it a problem, but if you do, that's your prerogative, but trackers, deals with councils to collect tax, etc, it's not the answer you think it is.

 

The answer is, again, as I have said before: forget about it and get on with enjoying your life. Leave others to live theirs as they want.

 

Eta: for that reason, I'm out

 

Eta: also I think I ought to say for clarity that I'm not a solicitor so this is all just my opinion and interpretation. I wouldn't want anyone thinking I'm offering advice...

Edited December 17, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Gordias]

If CaRT and the local authorities aren't allowed to share data on boat locations, they can collect it independently. It's still cheap for either one, if a little less efficient than sharing.

 

There's also the question of whether the data protection laws actually apply. Your arguments require that they do, but the nearest you've come to establshing context is calling it "my data", which doesn't sound like a quote from the law.

 

As I understand it, the information in question is required to be on display on the boat as a condition on the license. One way to interpret that is that the data is public domain. Another is that it belongs to CaRT (i.e. isn't "your data" after all). If either case were true, there's a good chance data protection laws would not apply.

 

And of course if (when) CaRT implement RFID or something similar, they'll have to adjust their license a little - they could also take the opportunity to add that they're allowed to share the information with local authorities.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Gordias

[Captain Zim]

I know I said I was out but anyway...

 

It doesn't matter whether it's on display or not. You are right that they could could collect it independently but that defeats the earlier point someone made of saving costs by working together. It then goes back to how much this would cost to implement.

 

Once my location is recorded and stored (electronically) any processing of that data for whatever purposes brings it within the scope of the DPA. Yes they might be able to enter into a data sharing agreement (with every single council in England and Wales, at yet more colossal expense) but they would still have to be able to justify the dissemination which I don't think they could as no offence would have been committed.

 

As an aside, if CRT can't justify the use of the RFID in the first place (I would again expect a challenge to this under HRA at the very least) then that's that one out of the window. Just because they are an authority does not mean they can do anything they like. Quite the opposite in fact. There are laws in this country that stop big people bullying the small guy. Everybody slags of the HRA because of europe but you wouldn't believe what it protects us against.

 

ETA: quick question. I thought you were an economics wizz but now I think you might be a cyborg sent from the future to enslave mankind. Am I close?

Edited December 17, 2014 by Captain Zim

[RichardN]

You still don't qualify for council tax until after the first year (even thats not guaranteed, its just what one judge said) so all we would have to do is move out from the borough after 364 days. I've never owned a static caravan but I'm sure some of those parks have a similar rule about not living all year round so that it's not a residential dwelling for planning and council tax purposes or something like that) Again, I'm sure someone else on here would confirm it or otherwise.

 

I know a few people may be wondering why I'm persisting with this one (Alf?) but I think sometimes it is helpful to show why these things can't be done rather than just to say its not worthwhile.

 

 

Bit of qualification needed.

 

If you are liable for Council Tax that is payable from day 1 though you can get a rebate for the time that the boat is not there (I have a pile of correspondence on that)

 

The fact that you say live in a marina does not automatically mean that you have to pay Council Tax, eg your move out for one month analogy or not having exclusive rights to a mooring - look up Aplsley Marina

 

Camden is a good borough to quote for boat numbers. It is where most of the noise comes from but there is relatively little canal within the Borough and I guess half of it is in tunnel!

 

None of our licence fee goes towards paying Council Tax. I see that guys trying to set up a community mooring on the Lea are saying otherwise, very unwise.

 

Some of the moral points that people have put forward are well made but I can't see RFID chips or video monitoring being introduced.

 

Google the subject and you will quickly get to the VOA guidance. Now I have not looked at the guidance for several years but looking at it the other day I think it has changed and that may go part way to explaining why BWML have this funny deal on Council Tax (but I think some things that BWML do are to put it politely random). If you read the guidance then carefully think about it, I can also see what could happen and that is the bit that worries me.

[johnmck]

Until the cash runs out, which it will, we have a land based home and a boat.

 

According to CRT, we CC, and hopefully, abide by the rules.

 

Our choice is to CC during the Spring/summer/autumn, then to hunker the boat down during the winter months in a Marina.

 

Thus far, we have had a truly glorious time visiting this diverse land. Problems mooring on the vast majority of the system have been minimal. Yes, the K&A was challenging at times and the London area....enough said!

 

But. As long as people respect each others life style choices and do not take the Pee, we can all get on.

 

The minority who do show no respect for their fellow boaters cross the entire spectrum. Being selfish is a trait not confined to boaters.

 

Enforcement of the rules now in place appears to be the key and with that, the recording has to be fit for purpose. Unfortunately, it is not!

 

Just my thoughts.

[Alan de Enfield]

Its actually quite clear on the VOA website as to when a 'boat' is individually charged council tax, or when a part of a marina is liable for council tax (which is then divided by the number of residential boat)

 

Here are some examples of when / when not a boat becomes a hereditament.

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/Corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/t-ct-man-pn7-appd.html

 

If you dig back further you can find the relevant definitions and requirements

 

 

Moorings (including those within in a marina) can be domestic property as defined by Section 66(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (LGFA 1988). "A mooring is domestic property if it is occupied by a boat which is the sole or main residence of an individual (construing sole or main residence in accordance with section 2 above)."

Moorings previously treated as domestic property should continue to be treated as such during a period when they are unoccupied if the Listing Officer is satisfied that, when next in use, the mooring will be domestic.

Careful liaison between Council Tax sections and Specialist Rating Units is needed to ensure that the correct assessments are applied in both Rating and Council Tax lists.

Just be careful and read the 'law' not just believe what your 'mate' tells you.

Depending on how the mooring is rated it can still be subject to charge whilst you are 'away' on your month long cruise

Edited December 17, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Captain Zim]

 

Bit of qualification needed.

 

If you are liable for Council Tax that is payable from day 1 though you can get a rebate for the time that the boat is not there (I have a pile of correspondence on that)

 

 

But is this in a marina? If it is then I can see how this would be since it would assumed that the mooring was for a calendar year. No such record would exist on the towpath.

 

Here are some examples of when / when not a boat becomes a hereditament.

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/Corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/t-ct-man-pn7-appd.html

 

 

These examples all seem to be based on known moorings, ie paid for moorings etc. I don't think this is comparable to towpath, until or unless you could prove long term mooring (ie over 12 months).

[Alan de Enfield]

But is this in a marina? If it is then I can see how this would be since it would assumed that the mooring was for a calendar year. No such record would exist on the towpath.

 

These examples all seem to be based on known moorings, ie paid for moorings etc. I don't think this is comparable to towpath, until or unless you could prove long term mooring (ie over 12 months).

 

You are starting to lose me with the 'paid for moorings' bit - surely a 'towpath'residential mooring is still paid for, as would be an 'off-side residential community mooring'

 

I have spent some hours this evening going through the VOA website regarding Marinas and caravan parks (they are both identified under the same legislation) and can find nothing that points towards having 365 days occupancy before CT is applied.

Can you kindly point me in the direction as to where I may find this stated.

 

In fact - as I mentioned earlier in the thread we own a caravan park and we become subject to business rates (based on the number of beds) for each new van as it arrives on site and is 'plumbed-in', irrespective of it being occupied or not.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Gordias]

[...]

It doesn't matter whether it's on display or not. You are right that they could could collect it independently but that defeats the earlier point someone made of saving costs by working together. It then goes back to how much this would cost to implement.

[...]

RFID makes sense regardless of whether different users share data or not.

 

RFID-based scanning would be efficient and cost-effective even if only CaRT used it to improve the productivity of their boat recording staff. Once in place, if local authorities in high-density areas like London wanted to record boat locations they could use the same efficient method if they wanted to.

 

Once my location is recorded and stored (electronically) any processing of that data for whatever purposes brings it within the scope of the DPA. Yes they might be able to enter into a data sharing agreement (with every single council in England and Wales, at yet more colossal expense) but they would still have to be able to justify the dissemination which I don't think they could as no offence would have been committed.

Your location is not recorded. The location of your boat is recorded. The equivalent "dry-land" information is the name and address information in a old-style telephone book.

You need to establish that the data protection laws apply to such information before you can draw any conclusions.

 

And what's this "more colossal expense" claim? RFID is a simple and cheap technology - I'd expect that CaRT would recover the full setup costs in well under a year due to the amount of time saved when recording boat locations. Once in place, it would provide local authorities with a more efficient way to record locations if they wanted to do that.

 

Why should it cost a lot for CaRT to share data with local authorities? Assuming it's legal, it would be simple (in terms of both administration and IT technology). If it's not legal to share data it wouldn't happen at all. If it was legal and possible, but too expensive, local authorities would have to choose another approach.

 

In practice I'd expect only a few local authorities would want to record boat locations - perhaps only those in larger cities and hot spots would want to do this.

Smaller local authorities might ask boaters to pay a daily or weekly council tax, but it's their choice how they manage enforcement, not CaRT's, and hopefully they'd consider income vs the costs of more or less active enforcement processes.

 

As an aside, if CRT can't justify the use of the RFID in the first place (I would again expect a challenge to this under HRA at the very least) then that's that one out of the window.

You're drawing a conclusion from a (very) low-probability premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_wishes_were_horses,_beggars_would_ride

 

Just because they are an authority does not mean they can do anything they like. Quite the opposite in fact. There are laws in this country that stop big people bullying the small guy. Everybody slags of the HRA because of europe but you wouldn't believe what it protects us against.

Assuming you mean this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

... first you need to establish there's a human right being abused. Are you suggesting it's a human rights violation to record the location of your boat?

 

ETA: quick question. I thought you were an economics wizz but now I think you might be a cyborg sent from the future to enslave mankind. Am I close?

I don't understand this comment.

 

My knowledge and experience of economics is sufficient for the posts I make here, but I don't ever expect to receive a not-quite Nobel Prize in Economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences

Edited December 17, 2014 by Gordias

[Captain Zim]

 

You are starting to lose me with the 'paid for moorings' bit - surely a 'towpath'residential mooring is still paid for, as would be an 'off-side residential community mooring'

 

 

Yes. I meant towpath mooring as in the case of a ccer stopping for 14 days (or longer as is reasonable etc). I know you could probably argue that this is also paid for but what I'm driving at is thy all the others have a contract where residency or use is shown to be permanent(ish). I am a ccer. I am not a permanent resident of anywhere.

 

As for the council tax liability, I am going on a judgement from the court of appeal in respect of chattels and all that nonsense. A ccer arriving in Camden could bot be hit with a council tax bill since he will simply say 'I'm not stoping thanks!'

 

And on he goes.

 

Now it might be that Camden challenge this an it goes for a very long time through the courts, at which point someone wheels out Lord Justice Alan Ward's decision which says 12 months seems about right in the case of boats. Like I said way before, it not guaranteed either way but it'll be pretty good.

[Captain Zim]

Your location is not recorded. The location of your boat is recorded.

 

And what's this "more colossal expense" claim? RFID is a simple and cheap technology -

 

Why should it cost a lot for CaRT to share data with local authorities? Assuming it's legal, it would be simple (in terms of both administration and IT technology). If it's not legal to share data it wouldn't happen at all. If it was legal and possible, but too expensive, local authorities would have to choose another approach.

 

Firstly

 

You're drawing a conclusion from a (very) low-probability premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_wishes_were_horses,_beggars_would_ride

 

Assuming you mean this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998

... first you need to establish there's a human right being abused. Are you suggesting it's a human rights violation to record the location of your boat?

 

I don't understand this comment.

 

 

My boat is my home. Therefore the location becomes personal when recorded. As an experiment, call CRT and ask for a named boat location and movement pattern and see what they say. Pretend to be a council if you like.

 

Firstly you are assuming that councils act in an efficient way which is far from the truth. Then you sort of seem to agree with me I think?

 

Probability has nothing to do with it. It's possible and that's what people who make up new rules have to consider.

 

Since my boat is my home, and I have a right to privacy, there might be a violation if my data is shared unnecessarily. It's fine for CRT to log my details so long as they look after them carefully.

 

Eta: I'm assuming CRT would claim that recording data helps to prevent or detect crime since non movement is a crime. So I think they are okay on the data collection front before anyone kicks off about that one. On the other hand they might not be subject to HRA anyway although I think they probably would be as they are administratin such a large network on behalf of the public.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Captain Zim

[Captain Zim]

To give a further usable example: I am currently on a winter mooring for five months. If the local authority come down and give me a tax bill, I shall not be paying it unless they can show how I am liable for it.

[b0atman]

I had this out with a valuation officer from a different authority.

You must have the sole right to your mooring space is a main criteria .

So marina or moorings owner cannot have the right to move you and cannot put a boat in your mooring when you are out boating .

You are not in that mooring consecutively for a year trips to pump out etc. do not count as being away.

The council backed down on their attempt to charge me council tax .

Assessment is by the Valuation office not the council.

[Gordias]

My boat is my home. Therefore the location becomes personal when recorded. As an experiment, call CRT and ask for a named boat location and movement pattern and see what they say. Pretend to be a council if you like.

 

Firstly you are assuming that councils act in an efficient way which is far from the truth. Then you sort of seem to agree with me I think?

 

Probability has nothing to do with it. It's possible and that's what people who make up new rules have to consider.

 

Since my boat is my home, and I have a right to privacy, there might be a violation if my data is shared unnecessarily. It's fine for CRT to log my details so long as they look after them carefully.

 

Eta: I'm assuming CRT would claim that recording data helps to prevent or detect crime since non movement is a crime. So I think they are okay on the data collection front before anyone kicks off about that one. On the other hand they might not be subject to HRA anyway although I think they probably would be as they are administratin such a large network on behalf of the public.

 

The rational assumption is that recording the location of a live-aboard boat is equivalent to recording someone's name and address - for example for use in a telephone catalog. If the Data Protection laws say otherwise you need to provide a link to the relevant part of the laws.

 

Similarly, if you think the Human Rights Act applies you need to provide a link.

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

 

 

TBH I don't understand why you're narrowing your arguments this way.

 

You're currently completely focused on an unimportant part of the "RFID discussion" - whether it would be legal for CaRT and local authorities to share information on boat locations.

 

It's clear that CaRT are allowed to record boat locations. I'd be very surprised if local authorities weren't allowed to do so. It makes no real difference if they collect such data separately, or if they are allowed to share.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Gordias

[Alf Roberts]

So now, in this fantasy land, you are postulating Camden council to be able to fit tracking devices on.... every boat? every boat they want to charge council tax?

 

How exactly are they going to establish the legislative framework to achieve this, let alone the practicalities.

 

Give it up. This one has no legs.

 

WIthout an understanding of the issues and problems, which you clearly do not have, you haven't a snowball's chance of coming up with a 'solution'.

 

It's clear that CaRT are allowed to record boat locations. I'd be very surprised if local authorities weren't allowed to do so. It makes no real difference if they collect such data separately, or if they are allowed to share.

[Captain Zim]

So now, in this fantasy land, you are postulating Camden council to be able to fit tracking devices on.... every boat? every boat they want to charge council tax?

 

How exactly are they going to establish the legislative framework to achieve this, let alone the practicalities.

 

Give it up. This one has no legs.

 

WIthout an understanding of the issues and problems, which you clearly do not have, you haven't a snowball's chance of coming up with a 'solution'.

Yeah good shout. It's like trying to explain the offside rule to a non football fan.

[jenlyn]

So now, in this fantasy land, you are postulating Camden council to be able to fit tracking devices on.... every boat? every boat they want to charge council tax?

 

How exactly are they going to establish the legislative framework to achieve this, let alone the practicalities.

 

Give it up. This one has no legs.

 

WIthout an understanding of the issues and problems, which you clearly do not have, you haven't a snowball's chance of coming up with a 'solution'.

Probably never had a train set as a kid.....