Council Tax within Licence Fee?

[Paul C]

 

I have no security of tenure.

 

 

Moorings typically don't have security of tenure, its the nature of moorings. Pragmatically the only way to get round this would be to own the land you moor on. Even and EOG mooring is not secure, because although you own the land you moor alongside, CRT own the land you moor over and and EOG permit is not assured indefinitely.

 

[Chagall]

I'm not speaking for other people.

 

I'm just pointing out that the OP's question has been answered, but you've managed to morph it into a rant about one of your many hobby horses. In this case a trivial 'advantage' being taken of boaters who are, in general, entirely happy with their situation.

 

My question has indeed been answered but I'm open to further dicussion regarding council tax, because although I accept I must pay something it is the manner in which it has been decided I object to. I am indeed living on a mooring that is not 'residential' I am endeavoring to remain as legal as I can. I do not wish to leave the marina because I have no desire to CC illegally.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Chagall

[rgreg]

 

 

The average for band A is £845. And that is when you consider talking about your average Band A householder in a residence with all the perks of full residential status, receiving those services the council tax pays for.

 

It would be more acceptable to accept your term of "basic", if the mooring was valued by Hereditament. The moorer in this case seems to be short changed, He is not offered the security of exclusivity of mooring that Band A would/should afford him. What bugs me is that it is still unofficial. If anything, it is the council and the marina who are benefitting from this moorer. They both have his business and they sit on some fence and the moorer is conveniently trapped unless he moves.

 

Without full facts, it still looks like being taken advantage of. You apparently think that live aboards in non residential marinas are getting something for nothing. That's not true, they pay a mooring fee. They pay a licence fee. They pay a connection fee. In my opinion, the council and marina, in this case, haven't exactly been shown to do the best for the moorer and are looking after themselves and sweeping the moorer's position in all this under the carpet. I have nothing against paying council tax.

 

I do not follow your thinking that the moorer should be entirely grateful for the predicatment he finds himself in. Without having the full facts to hand, on the face of it, I could think of a better outcome than the marina and council pussy footing around for financial gain without commitment to supply the moorer with a definite residential status. Isn't it just their version of keeping their' heads down.

 

The licence that the OP is paying for is also worth naff all in a private marina. It is not legally necessary.

Ok, just to break this down a bit:

• None of the payments you refer to in your statement: "they pay a mooring fee. They pay a licence fee. They pay a connection fee. " have anything to do with council funding so are completely irrelevant to the council tax debate.
• Yes, I believe that everyone who can afford to pay council tax should contribute in one form or another
• I agree that it could be argued that the standard Band A amount may seem high for a boat and perhaps a lower negotiated rate may be more appropriate.
• What I mean is unfair is that there are other boaters in exactly the same position as the OP who are not paying council tax. So unfair to the boaters that do have to pay.
• As for your comment: "your thinking that the moorer should be entirely grateful for the predicatment (sic) he finds himself" then clearly you do not follow my thinking. I do not think the moorer should be grateful for the current position but that the consequences of not accepting it could be much worse; that's why I believe keeping a low profile is best in this situation. Not gratitude; just best of a potentially volatile situation. The alternative is to challenge it and the outcome may be better or a whole lot worse. That's the gamble.

[Higgs]

 

Ok, just to break this down a bit:

• 1. None of the payments you refer to in your statement: "they pay a mooring fee. They pay a licence fee. They pay a connection fee. " have anything to do with council funding so are completely irrelevant to the council tax debate.
• 2. Yes, I believe that everyone who can afford to pay council tax should contribute in one form or another
• 3. I agree that it could be argued that the standard Band A amount may seem high for a boat and perhaps a lower negotiated rate may be more appropriate.
• 4. What I mean is unfair is that there are other boaters in exactly the same position as the OP who are not paying council tax. So unfair to the boaters that do have to pay.
• 5. As for your comment: "your thinking that the moorer should be entirely grateful for the predicatment (sic) he finds himself" then clearly you do not follow my thinking. I do not think the moorer should be grateful for the current position but that the consequences of not accepting it could be much worse; that's why I believe keeping a low profile is best in this situation. Not gratitude; just best of a potentially volatile situation. The alternative is to challenge it and the outcome may be better or a whole lot worse. That's the gamble.

 

 

 

1. It was in response to the notion that moorers do not pay. "What is not fair is that some pay and others don't." I'll grant, you were probably meaning council tax. But, I do not exactly see that the OP is being treated with much respect. £1027, and you think that's good, for having no recognised residential mooring.

 

2. You must also believe that those that can't afford CT should receive council tax benefit, even when they don't have a recognised residential mooring. That could be for anywhere up and down the cut whilst CC'ing.

 

3. Given that the OP has to accept the possibility of being ask to move from one mooring to another, I think Hereditament would be more suitable - but with an official residential agreement in force.

 

4. I should hope that other moorers with similar mooring requirements are treated to something with an agreement that has some substance. Or, keep your head down. If you happen raise it, there is no guarantee that either the marina or council will follow planning permission procedure, but just take your money anyway.

 

5. "Keeping a low profile". If the council are taking the money, the moorer deserves the residential mooring be made official. Isn't it kind of making a mockery of planning procedure. By what rules are the council/marina playing.

 

 

Is it just the case that council tax has nothing to do with the residential. Does walking around homeless, never leaving a particular parish council make you liable for council tax.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Higgs

[b0atman]

some marinas are dubiously paying council tax for a set number of boats .this they then bill a share of to all live aboards making a nice earner for admin.

I believe that Lincolnshire for caravans in east Lindsey district which have a 10 month tenancy charge 1/2 band A.seems fairer.

[Paul C]

 

 

1. It was in response to the notion that moorers do not pay. "What is not fair is that some pay and others don't." I'll grant, you were probably meaning council tax. But, I do not exactly see that the OP is being treated with much respect. £1027, and you think that's good, for having no recognised residential mooring.

 

2. You must also believe that those that can't afford CT should receive council tax benefit, even when they don't have a recognised residential mooring. That could be for anywhere up and down the cut whilst CC'ing.

 

3. Given that the OP has to accept the possibility of being ask to move from one mooring to another, I think Hereditament would be more suitable - but with an official residential agreement in force.

 

4. I should hope that other moorers with similar mooring requirements are treated to something with an agreement that has some substance. Or, keep your head down. If you happen raise it, there is no guarantee that either the marina or council will follow planning permission procedure, but just take your money anyway.

 

5. "Keeping a low profile". If the council are taking the money, the moorer deserves the residential mooring be made official. Isn't it kind of making a mockery of planning procedure. By what rules are the council/marina playing.

 

1. CT payment and the recognition of a residential mooring, ie the use aligns with the planning consent, is not really linked, even though its the same council which do both CT collection and planning considerations. If it were inextricably linked, then you'd be likely have the situation that the marina would forbid residential mooring without planning permission. Ie much worse for the boater.

 

2. I don't understand this one, I'd think its fairly obvious that Council Tax Benefit would only be claimable by those who pay Council Tax. CCers and some other kinds of mooring have exemptions in law, more accurately they are outside the scope of council tax.

 

3. What is an "official residential agreement"?

 

4. Do you mean would the marina apply for planning permission?

 

5. See point 1, the two are not linked, even if you perceive they should be.

 

 

 

You seem to have a perception that if the payment of Council Tax was inextricably linked with the obtaining of planning consent, that boaters who are "in the middle" would be better off because some mechanism would occur which grants them planning permission. I'd counterpoint that in fact, many boaters would be worse off because instead of applying for planning permission (which would be the requirement of the mooring provider), many would alter or enforce their terms and conditions to not allow unofficial liveaboards. Sure, a few would apply for the relevant planning permission - which of course is no guarantee of its success, its just an application - but I suspect this would be in the minority. And I also believe that market forces would take effect, meaning that supply and demand would mean moorings providers could charge much more for an official residential mooring.

[Higgs]

 

You seem to have a perception that if the payment of Council Tax was inextricably linked with the obtaining of planning consent,

 

 

This whole situation boils down to - a person can use an unofficial 'residential' mooring as a residential mooring. The payment of council tax makes that possible. Planning permission can be circumvented.

[Paul C]

 

 

This whole situation boils down to - a person can use an unofficial 'residential' mooring as a residential mooring. The payment of council tax makes that possible. Planning permission can be circumvented.

 

I don't think payment of council tax makes it possible - it cannot in law, overturn planning law. BUT a council may have a policy of not pursuing ALL planning law breaches, and has a criteria for those it would pursue, and those which it might choose not to. Circumstances can and do change over time though. For example, look at the debacle with winter moorings......I believe the reluctance of CRT to offer them is due to planning law which previously was not an issue, but now is.

EDIT - I agree with you that pragmatically, basically its what happens at the moment, and is likely to continue for the time being in non-sensitive cases.

[Higgs]

 

I don't think payment of council tax makes it possible - it cannot in law, overturn planning law. BUT a council may have a policy of not pursuing ALL planning law breaches, and has a criteria for those it would pursue, and those which it might choose not to. Circumstances can and do change over time though. For example, look at the debacle with winter moorings......I believe the reluctance of CRT to offer them is due to planning law which previously was not an issue, but now is.

 

 

I'm running out of steam, today.

 

It's like a bloody conundrum. So, a council can choose not to pursue all breaches of planning law, that I can understand. Not worth the effort, slap on the wrist. What mechanism allows no planning permission, but allows full-time living aboard. The live aboard is known to the council and the marina doesn't have planning permission.

[Paul C]

 

 

I'm running out of steam, today.

 

It's like a bloody conundrum. So, a council can choose not to pursue all breaches of planning law, that I can understand. Not worth the effort, slap on the wrist. What mechanism allows no planning permission, but allows full-time living aboard. The live aboard is known to the council and the marina doesn't have planning permission.

 

CCing.

 

Have a look through http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/p-ct-man-pn7.html, it would suggest that any mooring which is "full time" is going to be classed as a hereditament. CCing has enough of an amount of movement that any occupied, isn't occupied long enough to meet the criteria.

[Higgs]

 

CCing.

 

Have a look through http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/p-ct-man-pn7.html, it would suggest that any mooring which is "full time" is going to be classed as a hereditament. CCing has enough of an amount of movement that any occupied, isn't occupied long enough to meet the criteria.

 

 

Thank you, and enjoy the rest of the day. I will have a look at link.

[Paul C]

Yeah I've had a further look though, the way round it for some (not full time, as you've specified) would be transience, for example the previous link refers to Bradshaw v Davey [1952] 1 All ER 350, where a yacht was occupied in the summer but not the winter.

[Alan de Enfield]

some marinas are dubiously paying council tax for a set number of boats .this they then bill a share of to all live aboards making a nice earner for admin.

I believe that Lincolnshire for caravans in east Lindsey district which have a 10 month tenancy charge 1/2 band A.seems fairer.

 

I little misunderstanding somewhere.

 

We own a caravan park / static caravans / Park homes in Lincolnshire which has PP for 11 months usage. NO Council tax is demanded or paid as the 11 months PP is not classed as residential ( it would have be 12 months to be residential).

 

The individual park-home owners do not pay CT

The company (caravan park) does not pay CT

 

We do however have to pay 'Rates' ( decided by the VOA on the potential rent that could be secured if the park was rented as a going concern), and corporation tax.

[MtB]

 

I little misunderstanding somewhere.

 

We own a caravan park / static caravans / Park homes in Lincolnshire which has PP for 11 months usage. NO Council tax is demanded or paid as the 11 months PP is not classed as residential ( it would have be 12 months to be residential).

 

The individual park-home owners do not pay CT

The company (caravan park) does not pay CT

 

We do however have to pay 'Rates' ( decided by the VOA on the potential rent that could be secured if the park was rented as a going concern), and corporation tax.

 

 

I think it's more likely you pay "Business Rates"

 

Plain "Rates" were split into "Community Charge" and "Business Rates" by Mrs Thatcher IIRC, which where then morphed into "Council Tax" and "Business Rates" by, I think, Tony Blair.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

I think it's more likely you pay "Business Rates"

 

Plain "Rates" were split into "Community Charge" and "Business Rates" by Mrs Thatcher IIRC, which where then morphed into "Council Tax" and "Business Rates" by, I think, Tony Blair.

 

Indeed - we pay business rates on properties we do not own ( the caravans) based on the number of beds they have. We have just been in "extended discussions" with the VOA who classify us as "bed & breakfast" property when all we do is 'rent' out a bit of ground to park the owners holiday home on (similar to a marina renting out a length of pontoon)

[Graham Davis]

The thing is I do not object to paying CT, I live on my boat and I benefit from all the services provided in the tax, its just that despite paying in triplicate to moor on my 12 inch strip of jetty I have no security of tenure. I'm not listed in the postal address and for any online forms I may only have the marina address. Insurance for my car is £120 extra because my car is in a public car park...et cetera. I could go on but then I'd be another moaning old git. (not complaining you must understand!..sigh)

 

But all of those things could just as easily apply to someone NOT living on a boat!

[David Mack]

What mechanism allows no planning permission, but allows full-time living aboard.

There is no "mechanism" here. You seem to believe that a council's CT department accepting payment of CT legitimises (or shoul legitimise) the mooring in planning terms. It doesn't. Full Stop.

 

In the OP's case, and others, it appears that the council's CT department is willing to accept the residential use by charging CT (on whatever basis) while at the same time, the same Council's Planning Department is looking the other way with regard to the breach of planning (in that the mooring does not have planning permission).

 

Residential planning permission is difficult to get, particularly for a marina in a rural area, as many are. So many council planning officers choose to overlook the breach as long as there are no significant planning issues arising - which in general there aren't as a residential boat in a marina doesn't usually make more of an impact than a non-residential boat in the same marina. But if people are going to go round insisting the council must act consistently in CT and planning terms the most likely outcomes are either that enforcement action is taken which will result in the loss of the residential use, or simply that the marina owner decides that residential boats are just too much hassle and boots them out anyway. And as has already been pointed out, if planning permission for residential use is sought and obtained, then the mooring price is likely to rise.

 

Hence the recommendation to "keep your head down".

[Higgs]

1. There is no "mechanism" here. You seem to believe that a council's CT department accepting payment of CT legitimises (or shoul legitimise) the mooring in planning terms. It doesn't. Full Stop.

 

2. In the OP's case, and others, it appears that the council's CT department is willing to accept the residential use by charging CT (on whatever basis) while at the same time, the same Council's Planning Department is looking the other way with regard to the breach of planning (in that the mooring does not have planning permission).

 

3. Residential planning permission is difficult to get, particularly for a marina in a rural area, as many are. So many council planning officers choose to overlook the breach as long as there are no significant planning issues arising - which in general there aren't as a residential boat in a marina doesn't usually make more of an impact than a non-residential boat in the same marina. But if people are going to go round insisting the council must act consistently in CT and planning terms the most likely outcomes are either that enforcement action is taken which will result in the loss of the residential use, or simply that the marina owner decides that residential boats are just too much hassle and boots them out anyway. And as has already been pointed out, if planning permission for residential use is sought and obtained, then the mooring price is likely to rise.

 

4. Hence the recommendation to "keep your head down".

 

1. The whole way through this thread, it has been noted that the CT hasn't made the mooring legitimate. That has been the one prevailing understanding., throughout.

 

2. Looking the other way, over a breach of planning permission. If planning permission is an arbitrary practice, I see no problem with looking the other way and avoiding paying CT.

 

3. Residential planning permission may be hard to get, but looking the other way seems to cure that problem - for the council and the marina. Why do some insist that boaters should be so moral and volunteer to play by rules that leave a boater the patsy.

 

4. Good advice for boaters living on board and not paying council tax.

[DrakeDruid]

 

 

That has nothing to do with your comment about obtaining implied PP to which I was replying, and is is patent rubbish.

Im not sure how you come to such a conclusion based upon your opinion that is based upon your theory where as my reply is based upon a court decision and facts.

Grow up and get over yourself!

[MtB]

Im not sure how you come to such a conclusion based upon your opinion that is based upon your theory where as my reply is based upon a court decision and facts.

Grow up and get over yourself!

 

Really?

 

Can you cite the case please?

 

Thanks.

[DrakeDruid]

 

Really?

 

Can you cite the case please?

 

Thanks.

yes come to my mooring details via pm and I will happily sit you down and educate you but what I'm not going to go is assist you In tossing your ego off on this forum as I have better things to be doing?

[MtB]

yes come to my mooring details via pm and I will happily sit you down and educate you but what I'm not going to go is assist you In tossing your ego off on this forum as I have better things to be doing

 

 

You don't know then...

[DrakeDruid]

 

 

You don't know then...

Invitation has been given has it not but in true MB form you are not interested in anything other than trying to prove a point that don't need to be proven!!

[MtB]

Have you been drinking?

[DrakeDruid]

Have you been drinking?

Gosh you do have it bad Mike.

PM is the button you need to press of you require more information.