Jump to content

Caravan parks first...marinas next??


frangar

Featured Posts

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Just 'playing the game' and complying with the conditions of the legislation.

(A bit like the CCers that only do 20 miles per year)

Yes. But if they are complying with the conditions then they are doing nothing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

What about ones who live in marinas on non residential moorings and don't pay even band A

This is the information from the Terms and Conditions at the Marina we are in

  1. The Marina is not an approved residential mooring. The planning conditions for the marina state that the maximum period of stay on board a Boat within the marina shall be restricted to two consecutive weeks in any 12 month period. Owners are expected to comply with this condition.
19 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

So, 14 days in the Marina, 1 day 'out' followed by 14 days in,1 day 'out' etc etc etc would be complying.

With that wording (which could be the marina operator's simplified explanation of the actual permission), an equally plausible interpretation could be that for a period of 50 consecutive weeks you are not allowed to stay on board, within the marina, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cheese said:

 

With that wording (which could be the marina operator's simplified explanation of the actual permission), an equally plausible interpretation could be that for a period of 50 consecutive weeks you are not allowed to stay on board, within the marina, at all.

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

So do you think that those who live on their boats in BWML marinas but move moorings to avoid paying council tax are committing fraud?

No. That is not what BWML say.  They say that if you are residential, then you are either required to have an individual assessment, which gives you the benefit of the exclusive undisturbed use of a particular berth, or you will pay a reduced amount through a composite assessment, for the inconvenience caused by having to move twice a year.  The bottom line is that you pay something.  

 

If the boat is your main or only residence, then it will be liable for Council Tax if it remains in one place for more than 28 days. The definition below suggests that it ought be liable anyway, but that would be impossible to enact.  If you find ways round not paying a tax for which you are liable then you are evading a tax. Tax avoidance is to not make yourself liable.  So  I avoid not being liable for Council Tax on my boat by not using it as my main or only residence.  I pay Council Tax on my house instead.  I am not required by law to pay twice, but I am expected to pay once.  There are clearly a number of folk on here who do not want to think they are 'doing anything wrong'  and believe they are simply 'playing by the rules'.  However,  if everyone 'played by the rules', then the 'pot' of money available to pay for services from which we all directly or indirectly benefit would shrink considerably. In the end we all wrestle with our own consciences.

 

'Non permanent (or ‘temporary’) dwellings are included if they are the occupant’s main residence and council tax is payable on them as a main residence. These include caravans, mobile homes, converted railway carriages and houseboats. Permanent traveller pitches should also be counted if they are, or likely to become, the occupants’ main residence.  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/definitions-of-general-housing-terms#dwelling

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, rowland al said:

No, a benefit cheat is someone who claims benefits but doesn’t comply with the required criteria. 

 

Live aboard boaters with no home mooring have no mechanism to contribute to, so it’s not a question of ‘they do not’ it’s that ‘they can not’.

 

You are quite right and I apologise for the lazy expression which may me suggest that.  I recognise that no mechanism exists.  

 

But if such a mechanism existed - do you think those who currently benefit from not paying £1500 pa form an orderly queue in order to pay it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

You are quite right and I apologise for the lazy expression which may me suggest that.  I recognise that no mechanism exists.  

 

But if such a mechanism existed - do you think those who currently benefit from not paying £1500 pa form an orderly queue in order to pay it?

To be honest, probably not. Well to be fair, how many of us pay out for things when we don’t have to?!

 

Also bear in mind there is a slight overlap between what the licence fee covers and council tax. Rubbish disposal and maintainence of shared  surroundings for example. 

 

As I have said in another thread, I think many boaters give back a lot more than just money to society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

No. That is not what BWML say.  They say that if you are residential, then you are either required to have an individual assessment, which gives you the benefit of the exclusive undisturbed use of a particular berth, or you will pay a reduced amount through a composite assessment, for the inconvenience caused by having to move twice a year.  The bottom line is that you pay something.  

 

If the boat is your main or only residence, then it will be liable for Council Tax if it remains in one place for more than 28 days. The definition below suggests that it ought be liable anyway, but that would be impossible to enact.  If you find ways round not paying a tax for which you are liable then you are evading a tax. Tax avoidance is to not make yourself liable.  So  I avoid not being liable for Council Tax on my boat by not using it as my main or only residence.  I pay Council Tax on my house instead.  I am not required by law to pay twice, but I am expected to pay once.  There are clearly a number of folk on here who do not want to think they are 'doing anything wrong'  and believe they are simply 'playing by the rules'.  However,  if everyone 'played by the rules', then the 'pot' of money available to pay for services from which we all directly or indirectly benefit would shrink considerably. In the end we all wrestle with our own consciences.

 

'Non permanent (or ‘temporary’) dwellings are included if they are the occupant’s main residence and council tax is payable on them as a main residence. These include caravans, mobile homes, converted railway carriages and houseboats. Permanent traveller pitches should also be counted if they are, or likely to become, the occupants’ main residence.  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/definitions-of-general-housing-terms#dwelling

 

So how does a Ccer or someone living on their boat with in the marina guidelines go about paying council tax?

 

They can't. There is no system that allows them to do so.

 

They are not avoiding tax. They simply can't pay it because the mechanism to do so does not exist.

15 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

You are quite right and I apologise for the lazy expression which may me suggest that.  I recognise that no mechanism exists.  

 

But if such a mechanism existed - do you think those who currently benefit from not paying £1500 pa form an orderly queue in order to pay it?

But the system does not exist. So those not paying because they can't pay are doing nothing wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Yes. But if they are complying with the conditions then they are doing nothing wrong.

Exactly, and before people accuse others of ‘playing the game’ it might be wise to judge ourselves before pointing fingers.

 

For example, how many of us have off shore bank accounts or have used ‘creative accounting’ to pay less tax? 

 

I suppose it all comes back to the balance between what you put in and what you take out again. Most of the important stuff had nothing to do with money, it’s to do with how we spend our time with others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Yes. But if they are complying with the conditions then they are doing nothing wrong.

Straight out of the laissez-faire textbook? (other political philosophies are available!)

39 minutes ago, KevMc said:

Ever had an ISA?

Yup - the problem is that (which I realised as I wrote wot I did) is that one person's tax avoidance is another person's tax planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/11/2018 at 19:35, Arthur Marshall said:

CRT will argue that it is impossible to CC legitimately without living on, state that that means you are using more of their resources, almost certainly win in the courts, and suddenly get a lot more money from CCers.

I very much doubt CRT would win with this argument.  We already have some judges comments which accurately describe the Mersey Ferry as continuously cruising.   Who lives on the Mersey Ferry?  The courts have made it clear that using your boat for bona fide navigation has nothing to do with anyone living on the boat.

 

I clearly remember the judge's comments saying that the determining factor as to whether a continuous cruiser is bona fide is 'temporal not geographical'.  CRT would do well to remember that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Yup - the problem is that (which I realised as I wrote wot I did) is that one person's tax avoidance is another person's tax planning.

I would guess that creative accounting and putting money in offshore accounts loses more potential tax revenue than a handful of CC’er live aboards not being able to pay council tax! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I clearly remember the judge's comments saying that the determining factor as to whether a continuous cruiser is bona fide is 'temporal not geographical'.  CRT would do well to remember that.

In which case IMO CRT may as well allow anyone without a home mooring to do as they want.   "I'm trying to bona fide cruise, honest, but until the kids leave school I am forced to move up and down these 200 yards near the bus stop"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

We already have some judges comments which accurately describe the Mersey Ferry as continuously cruising

I think we should be quoting the correct words, rather that what you would like them to say.

 

HHJ Halbert actually said "...……... the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations".

 

Absolutely no mention of "continuous cruising"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KevMc said:

Ever had an ISA?

An ISA isn't really tax avoidance or tax evasion.  It's more similar in intent and practice to the tax free allowance on income.  In other words it's the government's method to encourage behaviour deemed laudable.  In this case, having some money for a rainy day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KevMc said:

Ever had an ISA?

Why do you ask?  You may as well ask if  I buy carrots.  Tax is not levied on ISAs or carrots.  Tax is levied on a person's main residence if that residence stays in the same space for more than 28 consecutive days in any calendar year, the fact that there is collusion between some Marina Operators and some residential boaters doesn't alter that fact.  And it is no argument to point out (accurately) that there is a whole lot more fraud in the corporate world.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

 

For example, how many of us have off shore bank accounts or have used ‘creative accounting’ to pay less tax? 

 

You speak for yourself.  That sort of thing disgusts me.  Next time you read about some poor sod dying of winter cold because the DWP stopped their benefits, try and make the connection with your behaviour. 

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I think we should be quoting the correct words, rather that what you would like them to say.

 

HHJ Halbert actually said "...……... the Mersey Ferry operated continuously to and fro over the same stretch of water which is less than a mile wide. No one would ever have accepted the suggestion that the ferry boats were not bona fide used  for navigation throughout the period of their operations".

 

Absolutely no mention of "continuous cruising"

Fair enough but doesn't change my point that the mersey ferry doesn't have anyone living on it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

You speak for yourself.  That sort of thing disgusts me.  Next time you read about some poor sod dying of winter cold because the DWP stopped their benefits, try and make the connection with your behaviour. 

 

Couldn’t agree more except I have no offshore accounts and don’t participate in any creative accounting.  

Edited by rowland al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tanglewood said:

Why do you ask?  You may as well ask if  I buy carrots.  Tax is not levied on ISAs or carrots.  Tax is levied on a person's main residence if that residence stays in the same space for more than 28 consecutive days in any calendar year, the fact that there is collusion between some Marina Operators and some residential boaters doesn't alter that fact.  And it is no argument to point out (accurately) that there is a whole lot more fraud in the corporate world.  

But how can it be fraud if the boat owner has no way to pay tax?

 

They are not avoiding paying, they just have no way to pay it.

 

That isn't fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Sorry sir.  Your comment read to me like a proxy for your own actions.  It was your use of the word 'us' which misled me.

 

 

We probably all do have money in offshore accounts. 

 

Who knows what the banks and investment companies do with our money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

 

They are not avoiding paying, they just have no way to pay it.

There must be a way to pay as it seems some residential boaters do pay council tax . 

I suspect the council tax us collected by the marina and passed on to the council but I am guessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

But how can it be fraud if the boat owner has no way to pay tax?

 

They are not avoiding paying, they just have no way to pay it.

 

That isn't fraud.

BWML have devised  one mechanism.   In fact anyone can register to pay Council Tax, so it's not impossible.  The issue is that Marina Operators tend not to  want residential boaters as they would then have security of tenure, it is better for such businesses to turn a blind eye but retain the right to evict a boater, if for instance they were unable to pay their rent.  Also unsocial behaviour can be dealt with as, despite the collusion, they can always say a boater has breached their terms and conditions.

Edited by Tanglewood
to correct a spelling mistake
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.