Overstaying

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Both Camdem and Tower Hamlets council tax units are looking at the liveaboard boats moored and not moving for months on end on the towpath along the Regent's canal. 

 

They can 'look at them' all they like I suspect, but until the law is is changed to allow charging of council tax on a boat rather than on an 'estate in land', that is all they will be doing AIUI.

 

 

10 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Council sent letters to the home address (Not the marina) of all marina moorers requiring that they produce a UK council tax bill in their name.  Any that were not able too, have now been charged council tax since July last year, Which includeds my boat as the council tax bill for my home in Dorset is not in my name.

 

So can we get this straight please? You are being charged council tax on your boat, not on your mooring. Yes? I'd be fascinated to see the letter, if you are minded to post it up! (Suitably redacted.) Or are you just being loose with your use of language?

 

I still hold that CT can only be charged on land, and a permanent mooring could probably qualify. I have to pay council tax on my holiday home as well as my notional 'main residence' even though I live in neither, simply because I own them. A mooring looks analogous to a 'holiday home' to me and eventually I wonder if all moorings will end up subject to CT.

[Nightwatch]

And in so doing, gives CRT an opportunity to charge for visitor moorings, to recoup such charges.

 

[Sir Nibble]

It's interesting isn't it, a few years ago this thread would have been full of posts saying stay where you like as long as you like they can't touch you human rights and only towpath residents are real boaters.

[David Mack]

12 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

Not only are the council going after him for non-payment of the charges, but are taking action for council tax avoidance.  

 

 

11 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

With regards to the boat you mentioned, I will pass details to the Council Tax team when we commence moorings monitoring for their information, who will investigate the tax avoidance.

 

P Hughes | Fenland District Council Leisure Services

 

That doesn't say they are going after him for council tax avoidance. It just says that Leisure Services have passed the matter to the Council Tax team. Who presumably know that they have no powers to charge the offending boater Council Tax.

[nbfiresprite]

59 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

They can 'look at them' all they like I suspect, but until the law is is changed to allow charging of council tax on a boat rather than on an 'estate in land', that is all they will be doing AIUI.

 

 

 

So can we get this straight please? You are being charged council tax on your boat, not on your mooring. Yes? I'd be fascinated to see the letter, if you are minded to post it up! (Suitably redacted.) Or are you just being loose with your use of language?

 

I still hold that CT can only be charged on land, and a permanent mooring could probably qualify. I have to pay council tax on my holiday home as well as my notional 'main residence' even though I live in neither, simply because I own them. A mooring looks analogous to a 'holiday home' to me and eventually I wonder if all moorings will end up subject to CT.

Don't have any to hand, but note the screen dump of the band listing. I also point out that 2 Marina Drive is over 200 yards from the nearest bit of river and has no moorings. And to which all council bills were sent. As I did not live there and even know the householder so no bills reached me, the first I heard about the council tax bill was when I had a phone call from a Debt collector working for the council.

 

22 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

 

That doesn't say they are going after him for council tax avoidance. It just says that Leisure Services have passed the matter to the Council Tax team. Who presumably know that they have no powers to charge the offending boater Council Tax.

I never brought the subject of council tax up the first place only about the misuse of the visitor moorings for long term use by the owner.

Edited August 10, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[Alan de Enfield]

59 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

So can we get this straight please? You are being charged council tax on your boat, not on your mooring. Yes? I'd be fascinated to see the letter, if you are minded to post it up! (Suitably redacted.) Or are you just being loose with your use of language?

Council tax can be charged on both the mooring, and the boat.

It all depends on the length of time the boat uses the mooring, and if, when the boat is absent and returns it returns to the same mooring, is it the primary or sole residence,  etc etc.

 

 

The boat will be unlikely to receive a separate CT bill, but the value of the boat will be added to the value of the land to decide on the band of CT to be paid.

There is also the question of composite hereditaments in marinas - far to complicated to explain here so DYOR.

 

A specific example of when the boat value is included:

............The flat bottomed barge together with its living accommodation is a chattel. As the boat is permanently located on the mooring and only moves away every 2-3 years for maintenance, it can be considered to be enjoyed with the land. The value of the boat should therefore be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

Examples of when a boat becomes 'a separate domestic hereditament'.

 

1) A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.

2) If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.

3) Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

 

It is all clearly explained in the Council Tax Manual , Note 4 appendix 7

 

Practice note 7: appendix 4 - is a mooring or a boat and a mooring a dwelling?

The following circumstances help to identify the council tax implications for the boat and its mooring where a boat is the sole or main residence of an individual.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[mrsmelly]

41 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Don't have any to hand, but note the screen dump of the band listing. I also point out that 2 Marina Drive is over 200 yards from the nearest bit of river and has no moorings. And to which all council bills were sent. As I did not live there and even know the householder so no bills reached me, the first I heard about the council tax bill was when I had a phone call from a Debt collector working for the council.

 

I never brought the subject of council tax up the first place only about the misuse of the visitor moorings for long term use by the owner.

What definition have the council come up with to levy the tax against a boat without a pukka residential status mooring? What happened when you challenged it at Apeal? How many hours/days/weeks etc do you have to be in one spot to qualify by law for the council to take the tax? Do they only levy it against people with webbed feet?

[Richard10002]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

3) Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

I'm trying to remember my meetings with the Valuation Officer in 1991 or so, when we were given instructions on how to Band properties for Council Tax. There were no boats in the postcodes that we did, but I recall the above example being one where, if the marina was residential, the marina owner would be charged the equivalent of council tax, (perhaps business rates), for the whole marina, and it would be for them to recoup the money as appropriate from boaters.

[nbfiresprite]

 

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

What definition have the council come up with to levy the tax against a boat without a pukka residential status mooring? What happened when you challenged it at Apeal? How many hours/days/weeks etc do you have to be in one spot to qualify by law for the council to take the tax? Do they only levy it against people with webbed feet?

I'm still waiting for a reply from the council, but from what others in the marina told me as they were unable to produce a council tax bill with their name on from any council in the country they were deemed to be chargerable for council tax.  The marina does reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but rarely exercise the right.  I'm only on the boat for three or four nights a week for about 44 weeks of the year. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by nbfiresprite

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I'm trying to remember my meetings with the Valuation Officer in 1991 or so, when we were given instructions on how to Band properties for Council Tax. There were no boats in the postcodes that we did, but I recall the above example being one where, if the marina was residential, the marina owner would be charged the equivalent of council tax, (perhaps business rates), for the whole marina, and it would be for them to recoup the money as appropriate from boaters.

That's the composite hereditament system, however a marina can have both individually 'charged' boats, and a composite hereditament 'charge'

 

From the Council tax manual :

 

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

[nbfiresprite]

4 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I'm trying to remember my meetings with the Valuation Officer in 1991 or so, when we were given instructions on how to Band properties for Council Tax. There were no boats in the postcodes that we did, but I recall the above example being one where, if the marina was residential, the marina owner would be charged the equivalent of council tax, (perhaps business rates), for the whole marina, and it would be for them to recoup the money as appropriate from boaters.

I belive that business rates are charged on the whole of the marina and a share is add to the mooring bill.

[Tacet]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Examples of when a boat becomes 'a separate domestic hereditament'.

 

1) A boat that is the sole or main residence of an individual remaining on the same mooring for more than 12 months. If in that time it left for a few days , then it returned to the same mooring the few days away would be considered de minimus and by virtue of sec 66 (5) it would be domestic.

2) If while the boat is away the marina operator temporarily puts another boat on the mooring; but the berth holder always returns to his original berth, this would indicate a separate hereditament by virtue of the boat owners ability to exclude others and hence rateable occupation.

3) Where a marina operator reserves the right to move boats to different moorings but actually does not exercise the right.

 

It is all clearly explained in the Council Tax Manual , Note 4 appendix 7

 

Practice note 7: appendix 4 - is a mooring or a boat and a mooring a dwelling?

The following circumstances help to identify the council tax implications for the boat and its mooring where a boat is the sole or main residence of an individual.

 

A boat (or chattel) cannot exist as a separate hereditament .   But if it is sufficiently annexed to a hereditament (e.g, a mooring), it can form part of that hereditament for the purposes of assessing its Council Tax band or rateable value.    It is made a little more confusing by, in practice, a mooring being partly identifiable by the sometimes presence of  boat(s) tied to it,  But if the boats are sufficiently transient, then they will not form part of the mooring when it com,e to placing a value.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 

A boat (or chattel) cannot exist as a separate hereditament .   But if it is sufficiently annexed to a hereditament (e.g, a mooring), it can form part of that hereditament for the purposes of assessing its Council Tax band or rateable value.    It is made a little more confusing by, in practice, a mooring being partly identifiable by the sometimes presence of  boat(s) tied to it,  But if the boats are sufficiently transient, then they will not form part of the mooring when it com,e to placing a value.

 

 

I lifted the wording directly from the Council Tax Manual.

It sounds as if you are quite familiar with the 'terminology' but I can only again repeat what they quote :

 

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

 

Is this suggesting that each mooring (can be) is a hereditament, and once the value of the boat is added to it, it then gets its banding.

Each mooring may then have a different band depending on its 'occupant' - a £10k Springer may be band A, but the next mooring with a £200k Widebeam  maybe band D.

 

In the composite hereditament all of the values are added together and divided by the number of boats to give an individual cost. (Unfair on the poor Springer guy, great for the owner of the 'fatty' boat).

 

As I quoted in the 1st example :

 

A specific example of when the boat value is included:

............The flat bottomed barge together with its living accommodation is a chattel. As the boat is permanently located on the mooring and only moves away every 2-3 years for maintenance, it can be considered to be enjoyed with the land. The value of the boat should therefore be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I lifted the wording directly from the Council Tax Manual.

It sounds as if you are quite familiar with the 'terminology' but I can only again repeat what they quote :

 

Where a marina with berths contains both moored pleasure boats and boats whose occupants use them as sole or main residences the outcome may on the facts be either a composite hereditament, a combination of composite hereditament and separate domestic hereditaments or indeed separate domestic hereditaments leading to separate bands .

 

Maybe you can explain what they mean (I was always under the impression that a boat was, and remained, a chattel until I tried to help out a couple of boaters having problems) if it is not as I read it.

 

That section is headed "Is a boat part of a dwelling" rather than "Examples of when a boat becomes a separate domestic hereditament'

 

Rating is rather dull - so I try to avoid it as much as possible but, as a valuer, do get dragged in occasionally.  At its most pure, and it has been meddled with by various governments to suit the policies of the day, it is an annual tax on the occupation of land, according to its value.  When Poll Tax was introduced, domestic rating was abandoned (but not business rates) and when Poll Tax was dropped, it was replace with Council Tax,  Essentially Council Tax and Business rates are conceptually similar - but CT is assessed on capital value "bands" and business rates of rental value in £ per annum.    Insofar as these are both points on which a rate/%/flat charge levied, there isn't much difference.  Both are (usually) collected by the local authority - but how the collected sums are retained or passed to other governmental bodies varies.

 

The Valuation Office (a government agency)  is required to maintain Rating Lists in which pretty much every property (land) is listed, one way or another. There are few types that are not assessed - but not many.  Each herediatment item has an entry; it is an archaic word mainly reserved for rating although our north-of-the-border friends  use it more widely.  As a property (i.e. land) tax, there cannot be an assessment for, say, a boat or caravan if not annexed to land - even though they might be commonly used as a dwelling, either part of full time.

 

When it comes to assessing  the value of land - in order to calculate the amount of tax - then this includes what is annexed to the land.  Most obviously, a house will usually increase the value of the land.  But when it comes to boats and caravans, it becomes more difficult to know whether they are annexed or not.  Two moorings, each of which will be assessed for (say)  Council Tax,  could have identical boats at any point in time - but one of which is only staying for one night and the other never moves.  The one with the boat annexed to it with have a higher banding.  Naturally, it becomes a bit subjective as to how-annexed-is-annexed - hence the guidance.   It also seems a but odd that you can have a Council tax assessed mooring, but no boat is present.  But it is not that different from a house remaining a house, even though there may be no-one living in it.

 

The composite hereditament is something else.   When, following the abandonment of the Poll Tax, there emerged a domestic and a non-domestic property list, it became necessary to put property into one or another.  But, for example, a pub where the living accommodation shares a kitchen with the commercial side, it was necessary to ensure the kitchen was split.  It's a bit of a bodge, but it is said to be a "composite" property and valued accordingly.  

 

Moving back to boats, a leisure marina will be be assessed for business rates.  But if a few moorings become domestic (regardless of whether individual boats are annexed, or not) - they will either separately or collectively be assessed for Council Tax - and removed from Business Rates.  If the mooring(s) are very largely independent of the other facilities - then no problem.  But more typically they will share the leisure facilities such a car park, maybe pontoons, services etc  - so the moorings become "composite" .  So in a marina it might well be possible to have a mixture of composite (sharing the leisure facilities), non-composite (not sharing the leisure facilities) and business rated (leisure) moorings.

 

Whilst on the subject, VO can sometimes be persuaded that, say, a pontoon is the hereditament as the various, residential boats shuffle around it.  The banding will be higher - but the Council Tax for the highest band is only three times that of the lowest band there can be a significant saving overall.

 

And planning permission is not essential to being assessed to these taxes.  It might well be a factor in being spotted - and possibly in deciding whether you have created a new hereditament and at what value - but no PP does not automatically mean not property tax. 

 

I said it was dull.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Tacet

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Tacet said:

 

That section is headed "Is a boat part of a dwelling" rather than "Examples of when a boat becomes a separate domestic hereditament'

 

Rating is rather dull - so I try to avoid it as much as possible but, as a valuer, do get dragged in occasionally.  At its most pure, and it has been meddled with by various governments to suit the policies of the day, it is an annual tax on the occupation of land, according to its value.  When Poll Tax was introduced, domestic rating was abandoned (but not business rates) and when Poll Tax was dropped, it was replace with Council Tax,  Essentially Council Tax and Business rates are conceptually similar - but CT is assessed on capital value "bands" and business rates of rental value in £ per annum.    Insofar as these are both points on which a rate/%/flat charge levied, there isn't much difference.  Both are (usually) collected by the local authority - but how the collected sums are retained or passed to other governmental bodies varies.

 

The Valuation Office (a government agency)  is required to maintain Rating Lists in which pretty much every property (land) is listed, one way or another. There are few types that are not assessed - but not many.  Each herediatment item has an entry; it is an archaic word mainly reserved for rating although our north-of-the-border friends  use it more widely.  As a property (i.e. land) tax, there cannot be an assessment for, say, a boat or caravan if not annexed to land - even though they might be commonly used as a dwelling, either part of full time.

 

When it comes to assessing  the value of land - in order to calculate the amount of tax - then this includes what is annexed to the land.  Most obviously, a house will usually increase the value of the land.  But when it comes to boats and caravans, it becomes more difficult to know whether they are annexed or not.  Two moorings, each of which will be assessed for (say)  Council Tax,  could have identical boats at any point in time - but one of which is only staying for one night and the other never moves.  The one with the boat annexed to it with have a higher banding.  Naturally, it becomes a bit subjective as to how-annexed-is-annexed - hence the guidance.   It also seems a but odd that you can have a Council tax assessed mooring, but no boat is present.  But it is not that different from a house remaining a house, even though there may be no-one living in it.

 

The composite hereditament is something else.   When, following the abandonment of the Poll Tax, there emerged a domestic and a non-domestic property list, it became necessary to put property into one or another.  But, for example, a pub where the living accommodation shares a kitchen with the commercial side, it was necessary to ensure the kitchen was split.  It's a bit of a bodge, but it is said to be a "composite" property and valued accordingly.  

 

Moving back to boats, a leisure marina will be be assessed for business rates.  But if a few moorings become domestic (regardless of whether individual boats are annexed, or not) - they will either separately or collectively be assessed for Council Tax - and removed from Business Rates.  If the mooring(s) are very largely independent of the other facilities - then no problem.  But more typically they will share the leisure facilities such a car park, maybe pontoons, services etc  - so the moorings become "composite" .  So in a marina it might well be possible to have a mixture of composite (sharing the leisure facilities), non-composite (not sharing the leisure facilities) and business rated (leisure) moorings.

 

Whilst on the subject, VO can sometimes be persuaded that, say, a pontoon is the hereditament as the various, residential boats shuffle around it.  The banding will be higher - but the Council Tax for the highest band is only three times that of the lowest band there can be a significant saving overall.

 

And planning permission is not essential to being assessed to these taxes.  It might well be a factor in being spotted - and possibly in deciding whether you have created a new hereditament and at what value - but no PP does not automatically mean not property tax. 

 

I said it was dull.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so I am not sure 

 Thanks for taking the time to type all that out.

 

Not dull - I enjoy (sad isn't it) taking on these challenges and have helped out a number of boaters with various things from 'minimising their CT' to gaining financial support and payment of their fees & costs.

 

If I understand it correctly (in it simplest form)

1) The mooring is the 'item' against which CT is charged

2) A mooring which has a variety of boats using it will not be charged more - will remain in the same band.

3) The value of a  boat which has sole use of a mooring may be added to the value of the mooring to get a revised band.

4) Non-residential moorings do not pay any CT, just Business rates.

 

The marina owner pays the CT on options 1 & 2 and recoups what he wants thru the mooring fees. (Composite)

Option 3 can either be charged by the marina owner and he re-pays it, or it can be paid directly to the LA by the boater.

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, Tacet said:

And planning permission is not essential to being assessed to these taxes.  It might well be a factor in being spotted - and possibly in deciding whether you have created a new hereditament and at what value - but no PP does not automatically mean not property tax. 

Thinking aloud - substitute the word caravan for boat, and consider an end of garden mooring with an electricity point and a water tap :

(Practice Note 7, appendix 3, example 4)

A family own a residential caravan which at list compilation date* they had kept in the grounds of their house for several years. It is used as overspill accommodation for family and friends. The caravan has a kitchen, wash basin, shower and WC connected to mains drainage.

The pitch is occupied by a caravan and as the house and grounds are the sole or main residence of the family, the requirements of s.66(3) are satisfied and the pitch will be domestic. The caravan can be regarded as enjoyed with the land in such circumstances and with such a degree of permanence that it can together with land can be regarded as one unit of occupation and the value of the Caravan included in the banding of the main house and ground. Given the self containment of the caravan, disaggregation would have been appropriate under the (Chargeable Dwellings Order) 1992 but with effect from 1 April 1997 disaggregation is no longer possible by virtue of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings, Exempt Dwellings and Discount Disregards) Amendment Order 1997.

*NB. The introduction of a residential caravan as additional accommodation occupied with an existing dwelling will be treated a material increase.

[Momac]

On 09/08/2018 at 15:34, Gareth E said:

Does anyone know how many times overstaying the 14 day rule, in a 12 month period, might lead to problems renewing the licence?  

One.

[Jim Riley]

Just now, MartynG said:

One.

evidence?

[Momac]

2 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

evidence?

None.

[Nightwatch]

7 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

And in so doing, gives CRT an opportunity to charge for visitor moorings, to recoup such charges.

 

When I wrote the above I had in mind that local councils could put a charge on all moorings in their catchment area. This is with the assumption that any boat moored could be benefitting from street lighting, police,ambulance or fire service. In turn, as the moorings are owned by CRT they will get the bill. In turn they would have to charge a fee for moorers using such moorings.

[Tacet]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 Thanks for taking the time to type all that out.

 

Not dull - I enjoy (sad isn't it) taking on these challenges and have helped out a number of boaters with various things from 'minimising their CT' to gaining financial support and payment of their fees & costs.

 

If I understand it correctly (in it simplest form)

1) The mooring is the 'item' against which CT is charged

2) A mooring which has a variety of boats using it will not be charged more - will remain in the same band.

3) The value of a  boat which has sole use of a mooring may be added to the value of the mooring to get a revised band.

4) Non-residential moorings do not pay any CT, just Business rates.

 

The marina owner pays the CT on options 1 & 2 and recoups what he wants thru the mooring fees. (Composite)

Option 3 can either be charged by the marina owner and he re-pays it, or it can be paid directly to the LA by the boater.

As I say, I am not a super-expert on rating - and certainly not boats.   But:

 

1 - Yes - the mooring(s) is the hereditament that appears in the List - against which the Council Tax liability is incurred

 

2 - Not quite sure what you mean.  But say, you are in rateable occupation of a single residential mooring (assessed for Council Tax) but several boats and put each of them on the mooring in monthly turns, then then none of the boast will be annexed to the mooring - and it will be banded without the added value of any of the boats.

 

3 - Yes .  If a boat is sufficiently annexed (a bit subjective - but see the VO guidance) to the mooring - the mooring will reflect the value of the boat for banding purposes

 

4  Yes.  Near enough.  The boat can add to the business rates assessment if it sufficiently annexed too.  I recall the Tattershall Castle was a test case as it was fixed to piles on the Thames

 

The party that is liable for the tax is a subject in itself, which I know even less about.  It starts with the the person in rateable occupation and there is a hierarchy that follows if there is none.

 

In practice, I suspect that the  VOA is not too obsessed by whether a mooring is assessed for Council Tax or Business Rates - it is good start that it is assessed at all.    Where there is a Council Tax assessment in respect of a single mooring (whether or not it is composite) the dweller is likely to get the bill and I doubt the marina owner offersto reimburse it.  There is an advantage to the marina owner in that its business rates assessment is quietly reduced.  Where a whole pontoon or whatever makes up a single assessment, it may well be the marina owner that gets billed.  I imagine he would look to the various dwellers to pay a proportion - or withdraw the co-operation to the favourable arrangement, which probably would lead to each person paying more.  The owner could foot the bill and adjust the fees; again there will be a reduction in business rates to its advantage.

 

 

[nbfiresprite]

On 10/08/2018 at 11:13, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

They can 'look at them' all they like I suspect, but until the law is is changed to allow charging of council tax on a boat rather than on an 'estate in land', that is all they will be doing AIUI.

 

 

 

 

What's to stop them zoneing sections of towpath for council tax after all some of these continuous moorers have not moved for months in some cases years and are using local services without payment including schooling for their kids. Some sections of the canal between Kensal and Victoria Park are two or three deep in continuous moored boats along the towpath. Which can be seen on the latest google maps.

[nbfiresprite]

On 10/08/2018 at 12:43, Richard10002 said:

I'm trying to remember my meetings with the Valuation Officer in 1991 or so, when we were given instructions on how to Band properties for Council Tax. There were no boats in the postcodes that we did, but I recall the above example being one where, if the marina was residential, the marina owner would be charged the equivalent of council tax, (perhaps business rates), for the whole marina, and it would be for them to recoup the money as appropriate from boaters.

The rateable value of the marina is £45000 which has not changed this gives a business rates of .48 x 45000 = £21600 which spread between 177 berths is only £122.03 per mooring. Hence the council going after boat owners, The council has so far charged 11 moorings with council tax (11 x 1212.94 = £13.342.34) with others yet to be valuated by the VOA which round here takes about eight months with the council tax backdated to when the paperwork arrived at the VOA. Some boats have aready left the marina as a result of this with some still to leave when the four months notice is up. Never seen so many empty berths at this time of year and there is no waiting list for moorings either. I had a boat moored here for 17 years and this is the first year with out a waiting list.

[jds_1981]

9 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

What's to stop them zoneing sections of towpath for council tax after all some of these continuous moorers have not moved for months in some cases years and are using local services without payment including schooling for their kids. Some sections of the canal between Kensal and Victoria Park are two or three deep in continuous moored boats along the towpath. Which can be seen on the latest google maps.

Probably too much effort. It does seem a major oversight though. I don't think living on a boat significantly reduces the costs to councils of providing services.

[PhilR]

1 hour ago, jds_1981 said:

Probably too much effort. It does seem a major oversight though. I don't think living on a boat significantly reduces the costs to councils of providing services.

The cost of collecting Council Tax from continuous moorers might exceed the income received. BUT, the cost benefits for continuous moorers in not paying towards local services (and mooring income for CaRT) will only encourage others to join the bandwagon of a cheaper lifestyle. Surely, that is not what most people want?