distance not important ?

[kris88]

 

 

This attitude annoys me. Usually promoted by those taking some sort of advantage at everyone else's expense.

This is the argument wheeled out every time personal privacy is eroded some more.

[Phil.]

The judge basically said bona fide navigation is an intention, not a distance - a line to make lawyers happy.

 

Quite the opposite. This should make boaters happy because it is more difficult to prove an intent than it would be some arbitrary distance.

[WotEver]

Surely intent cannot be proven or disproven?

 

If I have a full tank of fuel it could be because I have the intent to go cruising a long way. Or it could be that I want to minimise the chances of fuel bug. The only person who knows what my intent was is me.

[waterworks]

Go to the council and offer to pay council tax while continuously cruising, the answer is they cannot fit you into any group, and won't be able to invoice you for it. Therefore you do not have to pay it. There is no evasion or fraud. That is the situation until the rules change.

 

 

As a funny story I was chased by a council for a year for council tax, and they insisted my address was "XXXXX lock" , when I was a CC'er in the area. They had invented the address, and it didn't exist. Every time I explained to them the truth they just implied I was trying to defraud them. If I owned the lock I would have made a mint charging for using it.

[waterworks]

I think that the widespread social housing would actually start to attack the problem. As you rightly say at the moment the 4 major builders are sitting on a huge land bank of sites with PP but they have no real interest in building particularly quickly. If they were to flood the market with a large number of new homes the prices will crash so, until there is some central initiative, this will go on for the foreseeable future and they will just slowly drip feed the market to keep demand above supply, keeping prices high and rising.

 

If councils were able to start building their own houses again (without then giving them away at a massive discount) the incentive to build for the big 4 builders would increase since the prices would stabilise or even fall as more council houses were built. They would have the option of either staying sitting on their land bank which is no longer increasing in value, or build on it.

 

Under the current and previous governments (of both colours) this isn't going to happen so people just need to get used to sky high rents and astronomical house prices.

Building social housing is pointless now as there are more people migrating here than the number of houses that can feasably be built. There is not even enough building materiels in the UK to cope with the demand, that shows you how big the problem is. The empty housing stock, if it was all made habitable would only be a temporary solution. The fact that every new house requires water, sewerage, roads, drains,

and other services just makes it even more unviable.

[Arthur Marshall]

Building social housing is pointless now as there are more people migrating here than the number of houses that can feasably be built. There is not even enough building materiels in the UK to cope with the demand, that shows you how big the problem is. The empty housing stock, if it was all made habitable would only be a temporary solution. The fact that every new house requires water, sewerage, roads, drains,

and other services just makes it even more unviable.

I never realised they came for the privilege of sleeping in a ditch. Thank you for enlightening me. Obviously, our British lads who go to Spain or Saudi to work expect no more.

[Mike Todd]

Surely intent cannot be proven or disproven?

 

If I have a full tank of fuel it could be because I have the intent to go cruising a long way. Or it could be that I want to minimise the chances of fuel bug. The only person who knows what my intent was is me.

Whilst this is a good principle, it would be unwise to assume that any claim would be upheld by a court - indeed cases have been lost on this point. Courts, I suspect, can be quite good at weighing the evidence, even qualitative evidence, just as they are at applying a reasonableness test. OK, so it does not give the certainty that some people carve but life is never that simple. Simple rules always cause problems of fairness. The intent test can be subject to independent review but it is heavily weighted in favour of the boater. It is just not 100%! In some case, a simple set of photos of the boat and its mooring will yield evidence that there is no intention to CC whilst in others defendants my be quizzed under oath about their lifestyle, in ways which others could corroborate. Hence if there are children at school, jobs being worked, families being cared for, all can be tested. As others have indicated, I personally would want to avoid getting into a situation where my future depended on the outcome of such a test - the result can never be guaranteed even when your lawyer says you have a cast iron case - but if things went pear shaped entirely out of my control, I would have some confidence that a court would apply commonsense given that, in this case, that is the precedent now set. (But I will admit that I have on occasion been at the wrong end of a (civil) court judgement - as well as the right end - and have suspected motives. However, I would rather have our system than some autocratic and inflexible scheme.

[Delta9]

Building social housing is pointless now as there are more people migrating here than the number of houses that can feasably be built. There is not even enough building materiels in the UK to cope with the demand,

Poppycock.

[Tony Dunkley]

Although this subject has been done to death over the years I'm still not entirely sure on the seizure/removal aspect of things. I can understand how you may 'seize' a boat without necessarily removing it (secure it in a lockable mooring like Bradley Workshops for instance), but how do you remove a boat without seizing it? If the owner comes along whilst you are removing it and tells you to stop, unless you are in constructive possession of it (i.e. having seized it) you would have to comply with his instructions.

 

You seem quite clear, and correct as far as you've gone, about C&RT's practice of unlawfully seizing boats despite knowing the identity and whereabouts of the owner.

 

C&RT are fully aware that, in doing this, they are acting unlawfully and exceeding their statutory powers under the 1983 Act which is, to a great extent why, when running one of their illegal Section 8 procedures they invariably supplement it by dishonestly claiming that the target boat has magically become a houseboat since the last licence was issued. The sole reason for this is that by claiming that the vessel in question is a houseboat they can invoke the more draconian powers in respect of houseboats, conferred by the 1971 BW Act.

 

Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that a houseboat moored, placed, kept or maintained on any inland waterway must be the subject of a current Houseboat Certificate.

In the absence of such a Certificate, sub-section (2) provides for the issuing of a Notice requiring that the 'houseboat' is 'removed' or 'demolished', within a period of 28 days, by the 'person having control' of it. The Notice can be sent to this person's last known address, or if the person, and /or the address, are unknown, then simply affixed to the boat.

Sub-section (3), of Section 13, empowers 'the Board' [now C&RT] to 'remove or demolish the houseboat' following expiry of the 28 day Notice, and recover the costs of doing so from the owner ['person having control'].

[waterworks]

Poppycock.

OK, would you care to explain why ?

 

since 24,000 homes are needed per year to keep up with UK population growth alone, that excludes net immigration which is currently 336,000 per year as of March 2015.

[waterworks]

 

You seem quite clear, and correct as far as you've gone, about C&RT's practice of unlawfully seizing boats despite knowing the identity and whereabouts of the owner.

 

C&RT are fully aware that, in doing this, they are acting unlawfully and exceeding their statutory powers under the 1983 Act which is, to a great extent why, when running one of their illegal Section 8 procedures they invariably supplement it by dishonestly claiming that the target boat has magically become a houseboat since the last licence was issued. The sole reason for this is that by claiming that the vessel in question is a houseboat they can invoke the more draconian powers in respect of houseboats, conferred by the 1971 BW Act.

 

Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that a houseboat moored, placed, kept or maintained on any inland waterway must be the subject of a current Houseboat Certificate.

In the absence of such a Certificate, sub-section (2) provides for the issuing of a Notice requiring that the 'houseboat' is 'removed' or 'demolished', within a period of 28 days, by the 'person having control' of it. The Notice can be sent to this person's last known address, or if the person, and /or the address, are unknown, then simply affixed to the boat.

Sub-section (3), of Section 13, empowers 'the Board' [now C&RT] to 'remove or demolish the houseboat' following expiry of the 28 day Notice, and recover the costs of doing so from the owner ['person having control'].

What is the legal definition of a houseboat ?

[Tony Dunkley]

What is the legal definition of a houseboat ?

 

There is a definition of a 'houseboat' in Section 3(1) of the 1971 BW Act.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

You seem quite clear, and correct as far as you've gone, about C&RT's practice of unlawfully seizing boats despite knowing the identity and whereabouts of the owner.

 

C&RT are fully aware that, in doing this, they are acting unlawfully and exceeding their statutory powers under the 1983 Act which is, to a great extent why, when running one of their illegal Section 8 procedures they invariably supplement it by dishonestly claiming that the target boat has magically become a houseboat since the last licence was issued. The sole reason for this is that by claiming that the vessel in question is a houseboat they can invoke the more draconian powers in respect of houseboats, conferred by the 1971 BW Act.

 

Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that a houseboat moored, placed, kept or maintained on any inland waterway must be the subject of a current Houseboat Certificate.

In the absence of such a Certificate, sub-section (2) provides for the issuing of a Notice requiring that the 'houseboat' is 'removed' or 'demolished', within a period of 28 days, by the 'person having control' of it. The Notice can be sent to this person's last known address, or if the person, and /or the address, are unknown, then simply affixed to the boat.

Sub-section (3), of Section 13, empowers 'the Board' [now C&RT] to 'remove or demolish the houseboat' following expiry of the 28 day Notice, and recover the costs of doing so from the owner ['person having control'].

A very detailed answer....but not to the question asked. You are saying that seizure is unlawful but removal isn't. How do you remove a boat without seizing it first?

[NigelMoore]

A very detailed answer....but not to the question asked. You are saying that seizure is unlawful but removal isn't. How do you remove a boat without seizing it first?

In legal speak, seizure is taking into possession; effectively assuming title. Removal is simply shifting location; no vesting of title involved.

 

The statute Tony cites notes that title vests 6 weeks after removal IF no ownership has been established. Even then, title vests only for the facilitating of the vessel's timely disposal; the owner has still 12 months from removal to learn of it and establish that title vests in him/her, whereupon the vessel must be returned, or, if already disposed of, the sums remaining (if any) after deducting the costs incurred in removal and storage.

 

Seizure, as in taking into possession even as a lien on debt, does not enter the legislative picture here, at all.

[waterworks]

I looked up houseboat in the 1971 act, and it says to me any kind of boat that is not used for bona fide navigation. So I theory if you fail to satisfy the board you are continuously cruising you have a houseboat ?

[Arthur Marshall]

OK, would you care to explain why ?

 

since 24,000 homes are needed per year to keep up with UK population growth alone, that excludes net immigration which is currently 336,000 per year as of March 2015.

Er, because sometimes more than 1 person lives in one house? Because some are coming to join people already here? Because there are things called flats where lots of people live in a building? Because this is neo-racist twaddle and if it was true the country would already be crammed with people living under bridges , and it isn't. And its off topic.

[NigelMoore]

I looked up houseboat in the 1971 act, and it says to me any kind of boat that is not used for bona fide navigation. So I theory if you fail to satisfy the board you are continuously cruising you have a houseboat ?

Made headway in answering this on the phone and when nearly finished it all disappeared. Not trying again until reunited with laptop.

 

But - this is exactly what BW/CaRT say.

[wreckferret]

No I've got an easy life.

But there is a few things that annoyme.

Council tax avoidance.

Driving while having a mobile phone strapped to their ear.

 

There must be things that annoy you.

 

 

Me ;-).

I live on my boat and have a Marina mooring (although I spend a fair bit of time out on the cut) and to imply that I am "avoiding council tax" is a bit harsh to be honest.

I would gladly pay, but as Mike has pointed out, there is NO method in place for me to do this. All the council has to do is give my mooring residential status (some moorings have it, some don't) then bill me.......job done ?

In my defence I do pay CT on my house to the same council but that is by the way.......

[Alan de Enfield]

A few years ago BW had, following a complaint, a consultation (with houseboat owners) over the 'definition of a houseboat' :

 

BW comments:

 

We were challenged on our definition and the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. During this time we asked our legal team to consider the definition.
There is apparent ambiguity between the definition of a houseboat in the BW Act 1971 (which defines a houseboat as a vessel not used for navigation) and the provision in Schedule 1 of the BW Act 1995 which says that a houseboat may “be moved". The apparent ambiguity is however resolvable if the statutory language is carefully analysed. In addition and given that the definition in the 1971 Act was not repealed or amended by the 1995 Act the provision in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 of the 1995 Act has to be construed in the context of that definition. We subsequently accepted that the previous definition was too restrictive so we amended it and took on board the Ombudsman’s comments. This revised definition had been in place since 2010.
Because it is a technical legal matter, it was not appropriate to conduct a public consultation on the revised definition. The potential ramifications of the change for people living on their boats on our moorings however meant that we needed to consult on these terms and conditions.
We included the amendment to the definition within the consultation on boat licence changes published in November 2010.

 

BW's statement :

 

The definition of a houseboat has changed
To take into account the 1971 and 1995 Acts, our definition of a houseboat has changed to:

Houseboat means a boat whose predominant use is for a purpose other than navigation and which, if required for the purpose, has planning permission, for the site where it is moored. A houseboat may be used for navigation from time to time provided it does not become its predominant use.”
The new definition means that boats which can navigate may now be registered as a houseboat. Previously, a houseboat was defined as not capable of moving.
We acknowledge that our definition of a houseboat is not consistent with those of HMRC and planning, so we will provide clear references to the different definitions where appropriate. The existence of multiple definitions is unhelpful, but it is not within our power to change this.

 

The 1995 Act States :

 

Movement of houseboat

15(1)The houseboat may be moved from place to place but while being so moved may not be navigated for hire.

(2)While the houseboat is in the course of being moved the certificate shall be deemed to be—

(i)a pleasure boat certificate for the purposes of Part II of the Act of 1971, where the houseboat is on a river waterway within the meaning of section 4 (Extent of Part II) of that Act; or

(ii)a pleasure boat licence issued by the Board, when the houseboat is on any other inland waterway;

and its use at such times shall be subject to any conditions for the time being in force for the control of pleasure boats and the holder shall comply with any requirements made by or under any enactment applicable to pleasure boats.

Which, by my understanding, suggests that it is only a 'houseboat' when it is on its home mooring, &, as soon as it leaves its home mooring it becomes a 'pleasure boat' and subject to a pleasure boat certificate or licence depending on usage/location.

Conversely I can find nothing that suggests that a 'pleasure boat' becomes a 'house boat' when it returns to its 'home mooring', or, in the case of a 'boat without a home mooring' becomes a 'houseboat' when it ceases moving.

 

The issue MAY be somewhat clouded by the fact that HMRC also have a definition of a 'Houseboat' :

 

HMRC Reference Notice 701/20 (April 2012)

 

7.1

What is a houseboat? A houseboat is defined for the purposes of VAT as being a floating decked structure which is designed or adapted for use solely as a place of permanent habitation and which does not have the means of, and which is not capable of being readily adapted for, self propulsion.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[bassplayer]

Er, because sometimes more than 1 person lives in one house? Because some are coming to join people already here? Because there are things called flats where lots of people live in a building? Because this is neo-racist twaddle and if it was true the country would already be crammed with people living under bridges , and it isn't. And its off topic.

Whilst we are not crammed with people living under bridges we do have a lot of people living rough in this country. Cramming people into rented accommodation is just playing into the hands of wealthy landlords and property owners/investors. That's why I doubt our government are that bothered about tackling the recent hike in the net migration figures (including building enough new homes).

 

It's very likely this situation is making the idea of living on a boat attractive to more and more people who can't afford to rent a flat in London...and who can blame them?

Edited January 24, 2016 by bassplayer

[NigelMoore]

 

But - this is exactly what BW/CaRT say.

It is so claimed in every single s.8 case. which becomes simultaneously a s.13 case as well.

[Arthur Marshall]

5(1)The houseboat may be moved from place to place but while being so moved may not be navigated for hire.

 

(2)While the houseboat is in the course of being moved

 

That would seem to imply still that the boat is BEING moved, rather than moving under its own system, which is still consonant with the original definition (and that of HMRC and planning) of a houseboat as having no propulsion unit. Surely, if it has it's own engine, it would "move from place to place" rather than "be moved". This may cause problems with butties, i suppose, though...

It's the change of houseboat definition which should have been challenged at the time, but I doubt anyone noticed - i certainly didn't. It's a huge change and no doubt they slid it through as quietly as possible.

ETA this seems such an important point, might it be worth its own thread?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[NigelMoore]

 

It's the change of houseboat definition which should have been challenged at the time, but I doubt anyone noticed - i certainly didn't. It's a huge change and no doubt they slid it through as quietly as possible.

ETA this seems such an important point, might it be worth its own thread?

The unilateral redefining is of no legal standing. The vexed question was debated earnestly through passage of the 1990 Bill and the unsatisfactory definition noted - but nothing better was found so it was left. Will link to the minutes when able.

[Tony Dunkley]

I looked up houseboat in the 1971 act, and it says to me any kind of boat that is not used for bona fide navigation. So I theory if you fail to satisfy the board you are continuously cruising you have a houseboat ?

 

That is precisely the argument with which C&RT attempt to justify what is, in truth, a shameful example of dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Section 3(1) of the 1971 Act defines a 'houseboat' in a somewhat inverted manner, by specifying not only what is excluded from consideration in determining what any vessel is, but primarily what excludes a vessel from being a houseboat; . . . . from S.3(1) : ~

 

"houseboat" means any boat or barge or any vessel or

structure or any part, remains or wreckage thereof

whether or not the same shall be used or intended

to be used for human habitation but does not include

any boat, barge, vessel or structure ---

a) which is bona fide used for navigation;

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

~ which makes it quite clear that living aboard any vessel has no bearing on whether or not the law sees it as a houseboat for certification purposes, and that any self-propelled vessel designed and intended to move about, rather than to remain moored and static, is excluded from being defined as a houseboat for the purposes of the Act.

It must be noted that there is no reference whatsoever to either the frequency or duration of any period of 'use' for 'navigation', which therefore rests as a matter entirely with those in charge of the vessel, and further, has no bearing, in statute or otherwise, on the definition of a houseboat as laid down in the Act.

BW / C&RT have concocted a revised definition of a houseboat as "a boat whose predominant use is for a purpose other than navigation", but this carries no weight in law as there has been no repeal of the statutory definition within the 1971 Act.

 

There is also a staggering example of C&RT's deviousness and hypocrisy arising from this matter.

C&RT are very reluctant to issue Houseboat Certificates and, unlawfully, refuse to do so, unless there is in force, a Mooring Agreement for a C&RT mooring to run concurrently with the Certificate, and the vessel is declared and proven to be used predominantly for habitation.

This leaves the owners of licensed or registered houseboats moored elsewhere than to C&RT land or property committing the criminal offence of breaching S.13(1) of the 1971 Act and open to precisely the same penalties and consequences as boaters holding either a boat Licence or a Pleasure Boat Certificate [River Registration] and are unlawfully subjected to the 1983 Act Section 8 process with a 1971 Act Section 13 Notice served at the same time.

 

Put simply, by serving S.13 Notices on holders of boat Licences or Pleasure Boat Certificates, C&RT are seeking to apply potentially draconian penalties to boaters for not having something they would have refused to issue, if it had been applied for.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[waterworks]

Er, because sometimes more than 1 person lives in one house? Because some are coming to join people already here? Because there are things called flats where lots of people live in a building? Because this is neo-racist twaddle and if it was true the country would already be crammed with people living under bridges , and it isn't. And its off topic.

Lack of housing is racist !

 

Ha, ha, ha , ha ,ha !