'Marina fined' rumour

[Alan de Enfield]

Oh for an expert on canal law!

 

The only current option would be either Shoosmiths, or C&RT, both apparently are 'on' the forum.

I have no knowledge as to whether any marina has been fined but BWML have the following on their site which makes it quite clear that some of their residential moorings need to have the boats moved from berth to berth at least twice a year to attract a lower council tax charge. If a boat isn't moved then it is liable for a higher council tax charge. As to how it is enforced, all it would take is someone on the moorings deciding to report non movement of boats to the Valuation Office Agency or the relevant Council offices.

 

https://bwml.co.uk/council-tax-clarification-for-residential-moorings/

 

I have had a quick look and can't see anything on the internet regarding a marina being fined so suspect this is a non story.

 

Yup - offered the choice of :

 

1) Move moorings twice a year and pay no council tax, or.

2) Stay on your mooring and pay 'band A' (about £100 per month) extra.

[Mike Todd]

I have no knowledge as to whether any marina has been fined but BWML have the following on their site which makes it quite clear that some of their residential moorings need to have the boats moved from berth to berth at least twice a year to attract a lower council tax charge. If a boat isn't moved then it is liable for a higher council tax charge. As to how it is enforced, all it would take is someone on the moorings deciding to report non movement of boats to the Valuation Office Agency or the relevant Council offices.

 

https://bwml.co.uk/council-tax-clarification-for-residential-moorings/

 

I have had a quick look and can't see anything on the internet regarding a marina being fined so suspect this is a non story.

My understanding that it is the ability to be moved under the contract that is important rather than the actuality.

[Alan de Enfield]

My understanding that it is the ability to be moved under the contract that is important rather than the actuality.

 

The letter we had explained that is was the actual implementation by 'the authorities' that was now making the marinas enforce their contracts

[FadeToScarlet]

Marinas have recently been advised that boats must move twice in each year to a different mooring i.e. A-B-C not A-B as currently to qualify for the composite tax scheme. This is causing problems to some marinas and bertholders. I imagine he is coming late to this story.

Where is this stated? I ask because the VOA are after me, when I've moved far more than that.

[Naughty Cal]

 

The only current option would be either Shoosmiths, or C&RT, both apparently are 'on' the forum.

 

Yup - offered the choice of :

 

1) Move moorings twice a year and pay no council tax, or.

2) Stay on your mooring and pay 'band A' (about £100 per month) extra.

Is taking the boat out of the marina and going for a cruise classed as "moving moorings?"

 

Or do you need to actually switch to a different mooring pontoon within the marina twice a year?

[zenataomm]

So how does changing moorings by going out for a while ................

 

Just noticed Naughty Cal beat me to it.

[Alan de Enfield]

You must be seen to be on a DIFFERENT MOORING, ie onto a different pontoon, or, at least, berth number.

 

In the past where there are two residential moorings side by side they have just 'swapped' positions, now they are having to make a 'proper movement'.

 

The VoA actually state that moving off from your berth for the weekend, or a couple of weeks holiday' and you return to the same mooring means that it is still 'the same mooring' and that you have not 'moved'.

[KevMc]

Has anyone who is on a supposedly "composite" council tax rate had a look at the VOA site to see what is registered there?

[Tacet]

Has anyone who is on a supposedly "composite" council tax rate had a look at the VOA site to see what is registered there?

 

A property with "composite" assessment is quite a different animal in the world of local taxation - so a term best avoided in this context if additional levels of confusion are unwanted.

[romarni123]

A few years ago the moors at Grendon were all given a fill in truthfully or face a fine form.The council wanted to know how many nights they stayed on board hiw many meals they had etc.The moorings there except one or two are none res

[KevMc]

 

A property with "composite" assessment is quite a different animal in the world of local taxation - so a term best avoided in this context if additional levels of confusion are unwanted.

BWML are levying a share of composite council tax on their residential berth holders who have said they are prepared to juggle berths .... I'm interested to know what other people see on the VOA in the same position so I can compare it with what I see for my berth.

[ditchcrawler]

Well I am happy to say I haven't heard anything like this. I am sure it would have been on Narrowboat World if there was half a chance of it being right.

[BruceinSanity]

The Valuation Office has recently changed its definition of what is required to judge a boat to be transient rather than permanently moored. Permanently moored boats attract Council Tax at Band A, transient ones do not and form part of the marina's composite hereditament. The VO used to be satisfied with one move every ten months and a return to the previous berth ten months later, A-B-A-B. Now they require a move every six months and involving at least three berths, A-B-C-A.

 

Practice note here: http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-app4.html

 

Here at Mercia, where we are reluctantly complying with the new rules, we too have heard a rumour about a marina being fined £200,000, but have seen no hard evidence.

[KevMc]

The Valuation Office has recently changed its definition of what is required to judge a boat to be transient rather than permanently moored. Permanently moored boats attract Council Tax at Band A, transient ones do not and form part of the marina's composite hereditament. The VO used to be satisfied with one move every ten months and a return to the previous berth ten months later, A-B-A-B. Now they require a move every six months and involving at least three berths, A-B-C-A.

 

Practice note here: http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-app4.html

 

Here at Mercia, where we are reluctantly complying with the new rules, we too have heard a rumour about a marina being fined £200,000, but have seen no hard evidence.

 

How is the composite hereditament represented on the VOA site? I have looked at the postcodes for our moorings and the surrounding area and the only references are to specific addresses within the marina - nothing to the marina as a unit.

[carlt]

Well I am happy to say I haven't heard anything like this. I am sure it would have been on Narrowboat World if there was half a chance of it being right.

It probably will be tomorrow.

[MtB]

The Valuation Office has recently changed its definition of what is required to judge a boat to be transient rather than permanently moored. Permanently moored boats attract Council Tax at Band A, transient ones do not and form part of the marina's composite hereditament. The VO used to be satisfied with one move every ten months and a return to the previous berth ten months later, A-B-A-B. Now they require a move every six months and involving at least three berths, A-B-C-A.

 

 

With that trajectory, give it a few more years and they'll have you all moving once a fortnight, just like the rest of us!

[14skipper]

BWML have always said that a portion of their mooring fees include council tax,but despite several requests by some of their moorers they unable to say what this amount is.

Now they are being questioned by the authorities as too whether the monies they are paying is council tax or a business tax.

[Alan de Enfield]

It was 'rumoured' a couple of years ago that Councils, desperate for money after years of 'cuts' would be taking every opportunity to get in every penny possible, and Council tax payments by residential boats was certainly mentioned by our 'local council'.

 

Subsequent to that 'our' Marina has been granted PP for an additional 10 fully residential moorings, the Council know exactly how many residential moorings are in the Marina - the only issue is are they 'fixed' berths and subject to individual 'band A' payments, or 'movable berths' and subject to the 'composite hereditament'.

 

The band A Council tax to be paid by the boater either directly, or via the Marina, whilst the composite hereditament yields far less cash and is payable by the Marina - obviously - the Marina has to get the money from 'somewhere', and it is paid for by the Moorers in the difference in the rate of a Residential Mooring and a 'Leisure Mooring'.

'Residential Moorers' also get 'free' pumpouts and a number of Launderette tokens as part-recompense for the additional cost.

[Tacet]

I’ll freely admit to having looked some of this up, but as I understand it:

 

If it is a leisure mooring, it is assessed for business rates and appears in the non-domestic list.

A marina occupied for leisure purposes will therefore be in the non-domestic list. If the marina owner actively controls all the berths (requiring boats to move berths is one sign) the owner will usually be in rateable occupation of the whole marina which therefore comprises a single hereditament. If some berths are exclusively, long-term occupied by other parties (sold on long leases could be a sign) these parties will be in rateable occupation and separate hereditaments will have been created with their own entries in the non-domestic list.

 

If it is a residential mooring, it is assessed for Council Tax and there is an entry in the domestic list.

A marina wholly occupied for residential purposes could therefore be made up of multiple entries for Council tax with each occupier in rateable occupation of its berth. If the marina owner actively controls berths (requiring boats to move berths is one sign) the owner will usually be in rateable occupation of that pontoon/marina/group of berths which will therefore form a single hereditament comprising multiple berths. The practical effect of this is usually a substantial reduction in the aggregate Council tax payable and who is directly responsible for the tax - hence the attraction of boat-shuffling, but it doesn’t change the principles really. I am not sure, but where there are regular boat-changes, the VOA might be less inclined to worry about whether it is residential or leisure moorings. It would get rather complicated if there are varying mix and there may well be less tax at stake.

 

It is unusual to find a marina wholly in residential use but in mixed residential/leisure use it may well remain a single hereditament. It is therefore a “composite” hereditament with entries in both non-domestic and domestic lists.

It is also possible for a marina to be made up of a number of single-berth hereditaments (each liable to Council Tax), shops/workshops hereditaments (each liable for Business Rates) and an area of mixed residential and leisure berths making up a composite hereditament (i.e. liable to both Business Rates and Council Tax). But a composite hereditament will only have one entry (assessment) in each list (i.e. two entries in total) and a non-composite hereditament will have a single entry in whichever list is appropriate. But you can have multiple hereditaments for what might be viewed as a single place in some contexts.

 

Whether a mooring is in residential or leisure use is a matter of fact and law see: http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7.html#P73_861-

It also has something to say about multiple moorings although unhelpfully it is in the same paragraph as mention of composite hereditaments which is liable to confusion

 

Whether the boat itself “is enjoyed with the land” is also a matter of fact and law. This is relevant to valuation and not principle http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/publications/Manuals/CouncilTaxManual/council_tax_man_pn/ct-man-pn7-app4.html#TopOfPage

 

 

Planning permission is a separate matter. Although planning permission might be one of the factors that help decide whether a mooring is in residential or leisure use, it is quite possible to be taxed on one basis whilst having planning permission for another. Or even where there is no formal planning permission at all. Or even if you have no authority to be on the mooring.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Tacet

[AndrewIC]

[i don't live on board, but] I put my boat where the marina manager tells me to. If it suits him to keep it in the same place for however long because it fits his mooring plan for squeezing in as many boats as possible, so what? That's what the contract says.

Edited October 19, 2016 by AndrewIC

[Tacet]

[i don't live on board, but] I put my boat where the marina manager tells me to. If it suits him to keep it in the same place for however long because it fits his mooring plan for squeezing in as many boats as possible, so what? That's what the contract says.

 

Hopefully your mooring agreement says that the owner is liable for business rates,so it won't make a difference to you anyway.

 

But in a non-domestic matter, the VOA is unlikely to go looking to create a separate hereditament because it doesn't achieve a great deal, but it is nevertheless possible. If it did, you would be liable for 1 x mooring business rate whilst the marina owner would lose 1 x mooring from its larger assessment. The precise financial implications would depend on the valuations (assessments) and something called transitional relief - but largely self-cancelling. Whether you could renegotiate the mooring fee is another matter. There used to be (when I was at Uni) an entitlement for an inclusive (of rates) rent tenant to deduct the rates element from the rent and pay it direct. This was essentially due to the liability falling firstly on the occupier - even when there is a contract for another to pay. It might well not have applied to mooring licenses and/or been repealed in the considerable period since I last bothered to look.

 

In a domestic (residential) situation, the VOA asserting the creation of a separate hereditament is rather more likely. Business rates and Council Tax are (notwithstanding Government meddling) taxes on occupation of land. If you occupy land you are liable to face the tax. Pieces of paper that say you don't really occupy the land (because the owner can ask you to relocate) if in fact you do occupy, may not cut it.

 

If your boat is regularly moved-on and replaced by another boat, the owner is likely to be rateable occupier and thus face whichever one or the other taxes. This will obviously change who is directly responsible for the tax and probably the amount, due to the implications of a changed Council Tax banding or revised Rateable Value.

 

Two people agreeing to contract-out of paying tax is mostly ineffective.

[ditchcrawler]

Still nothing on NBW although some one has realised its cheaper to cruise through the winter than take a winter mooring.

[BruceinSanity]

It's been pointed out to me that, although "fined" is the wrong term, a tax raising body has the capacity to impose financial penalties without troubling the courts. All it has to do is to decide to revisit a previous assessment in the light of new knowledge, revise it upwards and demand the extra payment.

 

This is what HMRC does when deciding that someone previously declared as a subcontractor is in fact an employee and requiring back payments of NI, frequently going back several years.

[Paul C]

It's been pointed out to me that, although "fined" is the wrong term, a tax raising body has the capacity to impose financial penalties without troubling the courts. All it has to do is to decide to revisit a previous assessment in the light of new knowledge, revise it upwards and demand the extra payment.

 

This is what HMRC does when deciding that someone previously declared as a subcontractor is in fact an employee and requiring back payments of NI, frequently going back several years.

 

Sounds about right. I can imagine, that retrospectively applying council tax, or a higher rate of business rates due to review ie composite hereditament, could be quite high if going back a number of years. Shame the journalist in the OP, can't/won't name the marina, although I suspect many are in similar positions anyway and its only a matter of time.

[alan_fincher]

Why am I not particularly surprised that Andrew Denny has started this thread, then 50 posts later chosen not to enter into it again (yet)?