Jump to content

DEFRA Working Party into Boats Used As Accommodation.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

Maybe the underlying reason for secrecy is to discuss the control measures and powers needed by those who will take action against offender. - and raising money to pay for it - for instance by charging per mile for cruising and per night mooring, or even per lock.

That in turn will need an infrastructure of cameras/satellites for automatic boat tracking and charging - and as boaters are a small minority, details of which the majority of the public at large will ignore - and hence politically viable - allowing the scheme to be implemented.

But what if boat 'tracking' used automatic number plate recognition already in place for roadways and parking - where there is a fine for speeding/overstaying/ bus-lanes etc,  (and being avoidable, is morally and politically acceptable).

But wait! - what if the automatic boat charging scheme was to be a guinea pig for perfecting a per-mile charge (mooring/parking etc) that could be transferred to roadways (in the guise of congestion for instance - and acceptable without much protest - because it could be avoided by journey planning) except, little known, the mileage charge would be computer controlled and instantly variable and displayed by the minute to suit road conditions - so it would be nigh on impossible to make a journey without being caught out somewhere -

So the agenda is to find a way of controlling boat usage by automatically raising money, that in the overall scheme of things, will soon, by stealth, apply to every road users - when it is too late to stop.

This is not the sort of thing the Govt. want the public to know about in advance - so no wonder the secrecy.

Just a thought!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I fully agree.  I'm not sure why they link the two, but that is exactly what I hear during conversations with random boaters.

 

Of course the link is not accurate -  I have a scruffy boat with junk on the roof but I think you get called "eccentric" if you have money ...

 

Just like those wealthy young ladies and gents who drink too much being called "socialites".

 

Down my local pub they are called "lushies".

 

George

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

Just like those wealthy young ladies and gents who drink too much being called "socialites".

 

Down my local pub they are called "lushies".

 

George

When I was in the Royal Navy we were classed as being " Drunk in uniform " on occasion,  whereas the officers where said to be " In high spirits " 

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horace42 said:

Maybe the underlying reason for secrecy is to discuss the control measures and powers needed by those who will take action against offender. - and raising money to pay for it - for instance by charging per mile for cruising and per night mooring, or even per lock.

That in turn will need an infrastructure of cameras/satellites for automatic boat tracking and charging - and as boaters are a small minority, details of which the majority of the public at large will ignore - and hence politically viable - allowing the scheme to be implemented.

But what if boat 'tracking' used automatic number plate recognition already in place for roadways and parking - where there is a fine for speeding/overstaying/ bus-lanes etc,  (and being avoidable, is morally and politically acceptable).

But wait! - what if the automatic boat charging scheme was to be a guinea pig for perfecting a per-mile charge (mooring/parking etc) that could be transferred to roadways (in the guise of congestion for instance - and acceptable without much protest - because it could be avoided by journey planning) except, little known, the mileage charge would be computer controlled and instantly variable and displayed by the minute to suit road conditions - so it would be nigh on impossible to make a journey without being caught out somewhere -

So the agenda is to find a way of controlling boat usage by automatically raising money, that in the overall scheme of things, will soon, by stealth, apply to every road users - when it is too late to stop.

This is not the sort of thing the Govt. want the public to know about in advance - so no wonder the secrecy.

Just a thought!

 

 

Oh dear! Its when I read this sort of crap that I get a little insight into how we have apparently got into this sort of position:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Oh dear! Its when I read this sort of crap that I get a little insight into how we have apparently got into this sort of position:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

My concern is that someone thinks charging a per lock-mile fee will reduce the numbers of non-moving boats!

 

I did once suggest (a little tongue in cheek) that a reverse toll was the way forwards - money back from the annual licence fee if you went anywhere and used locks.

 

ETA:

 

That's a classic Grauniad headline.

 

I believe in conspiracy theories - there are hundreds of the damn things.

 

I don't necessarily believe the theories though!

Edited by TheBiscuits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Oh dear! Its when I read this sort of crap that I get a little insight into how we have apparently got into this sort of position:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

"Beware of the flowers 'cos I'm sure they're out to get you" - J. Otway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

I think were are on the same track here.  It is the complaints from the residents the councils care about, not the effects on other boaters.

 

I still think the local authorities are seeking to get their pound of flesh though - which is going to affect all liveaboard boaters (CC'ers or not) who are not currently paying Council Tax.

 

Yes indeed; it was just that you mentioned riparian owners, and the complaining residents were not necessarily such (and so far as I know, no trespass had been made on the private riverbanks of individuals).

 

I don't quite follow your point on council tax – for any increase in that from boats resident within their boundaries, they would have to recognise them in the first place, which the relevant councils do not wish to do. It was similar in Brentford along Watermans Park, where several boaters wanted to legitimise their moorings and pay council tax, but the council refused (because they wanted them gone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is now 12 months since this Working party was set up - no outcomes yet reported.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/10/boaters-battling-influence-government-review-ease-congestion/

 

 

The Telegraph article is a very poor one, in that it ignores the existence of the originating complaint responsible for setting up the group, and concentrates only on perceived congestion in CaRT hotspots (principally London), which may well be an issue to be dealt with by the group, but was never the cause of the group being set up – and has not been mentioned once in such published correspondence as we have.

 

Moreover it was not congestion anywhere, per se, that was initially complained of to DEFRA, but the long term mooring alongside public riparian parks on the Thames.

 

Not only are the EA also invited to the group, but AINA for all navigation authorities, and expressly including the Broads Authority. Somehow the MLC with its new powers were overlooked, but maybe they will get invited once somebody realises they have a stake in this as well.

 

Perhaps, once the forum readers have twigged that this is not a CaRT/CC'ing topic, as the Telegraph suggests, there could be some more generally applicable and useful comments elicited - maybe even write to members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on waterways with their concerns/suggestions (if there are any)? Forget about organisations or non-organisations doing it for you; if you have anything say, say it for yourself - it can and does work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

My concern is that someone thinks charging a per lock-mile fee will reduce the numbers of non-moving boats!

 

I did once suggest (a little tongue in cheek) that a reverse toll was the way forwards - money back from the annual licence fee if you went anywhere and used locks.

 

ETA:

 

That's a classic Grauniad headline.

 

I believe in conspiracy theories - there are hundreds of the damn things.

 

I don't necessarily believe the theories though!

 

21 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Oh dear! Its when I read this sort of crap that I get a little insight into how we have apparently got into this sort of position:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

RE

The Biscuits: The object is not to reduce the number of moving boats.  It is to work out ways of making money out if it.

I recall years ago commenting to IWA that mooring licenses should a mandatory requirement for obtaining a cruising license.

I think they laughed

be   

 

Re:David Mack:

If the conspiracy theory is crap (and mine might be); why not! it appears I am not alone - in fact in the 60% majority.

If you think there is nothing in it, and to be dismissed as crap, then the position we are in will become reinforced, or have arisen due to some other theory - perhaps one of yours?

Whether theories are true, or crap or not, is fairly irrelevant, it is what action is actually taken about it. Especially if the outcome is one you could influence to avoid a decision you might not like. 

I posed a theory why the proceedings of the DEFRA meetings might not include 'boaters.'

That is because I think they want to talk about ways of raising money - in which the boating issue itself is a distraction - but boating being a ready made problem and a useful vehicle to launch (ouch!) a small scale pilot scheme for tracking, charging and automatic billing of boats - that with problems ironed out can easily be extended to road traffic.

Then they will invite boaters at a later date to seek 'democratic' comments on the 'boating' details needed to make it work .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Oh dear! Its when I read this sort of crap that I get a little insight into how we have apparently got into this sort of position:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/23/study-shows-60-of-britons-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

 

 

Yeah but my question is ... Who decides when something is a conspiracy theory and not a conspiracy?  :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be easy enough to set up an automated tracking system for boats to run in conjunction with a towpath check for non-moving ones.  If, that is, all boats were compelled to show a registration number in a specific place and a specific format.  And if there was any way of policing or tracing those who didn't. Which there isn't.

Let's face it, if CRT can't even organise the record keeping at the Harecastle Tunnel and the Anderton Lift to be automatically noted on their systems,  a conspiracy theory that suggests world domination is a non-starter.

  • Happy 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

You would say that, being one of the Lizard People secret masters. 

 

I have my suspicions about @Tumshie too! 

It's cos I'm green, innit?

 

Blimey, I go away for a whole 5mins and I still manage to get myself in trouble - I worry about me some times. :huh:

 

14 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

One of them is bad enough - are you suggesting there are more ?

You're quite safe there can be only one - I just have quite a lot of personality ?

 

Or should that be personalities. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

It would be easy enough to set up an automated tracking system for boats to run in conjunction with a towpath check for non-moving ones.  If, that is, all boats were compelled to show a registration number in a specific place and a specific format.  And if there was any way of policing or tracing those who didn't. Which there isn't.

Let's face it, if CRT can't even organise the record keeping at the Harecastle Tunnel and the Anderton Lift to be automatically noted on their systems,  a conspiracy theory that suggests world domination is a non-starter.

It isn't, they will just farm it out to an external contractor, probably the same cowboys who are threatening you with a frontal lobotomy (or sixty squids fine) if you engage neutral within 50 yards of a CRT long term mooring site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/11/2018 at 18:05, NigelMoore said:

Yes indeed; it was just that you mentioned riparian owners, and the complaining residents were not necessarily such (and so far as I know, no trespass had been made on the private riverbanks of individuals).

 

I don't quite follow your point on council tax – for any increase in that from boats resident within their boundaries, they would have to recognise them in the first place, which the relevant councils do not wish to do. It was similar in Brentford along Watermans Park, where several boaters wanted to legitimise their moorings and pay council tax, but the council refused (because they wanted them gone).

For many years I paid council tax to the City of Westminster when living aboard my boat on a BW leisure mooring in Blomfield Road, Little Venice.  I paid it for a number of reasons, including to obtain a resident's parking permit and proof of residency (as well as because I thought I should). Westminster staff were bemused but happy to take the money. I doubt it bestowed upon me any additional rights with BW as the argument is that the boat is your home, wherever you should be moored, rather than the mooring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Yank on the Cut said:

For many years I paid council tax to the City of Westminster when living aboard my boat on a BW leisure mooring in Blomfield Road, Little Venice.  I paid it for a number of reasons, including to obtain a resident's parking permit and proof of residency (as well as because I thought I should). Westminster staff were bemused but happy to take the money. I doubt it bestowed upon me any additional rights with BW as the argument is that the boat is your home, wherever you should be moored, rather than the mooring.

 

Mooring Taxation 

The source of the confusion can be traced back to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. According to Section 3, council tax is levied on domestic property, and while a boat can be considered as a domestic dwelling, it cannot officially be classed as a “property”. Instead it is an asset or possession, regardless of whether an individual chooses to live in it or not.

 

Any tax liability occurs not with regard to the boat itself, but the mooring the vessel occupies. If planning permission for permanent residential use has been secured on a mooring then it can be levied for council tax, but who actually pays the tax depends on whether you have exclusive occupancy of the mooring or not. If the mooring is yours alone then by rights you should be footing the bill. Many live-aboards mistakenly believe – or want to believe – that by living on a boat they must be tax exempt and avoid raising the issue with their local council. Whether they are eventually taken to task for their oversight depends on the conscientiousness of their local authority, which can vary significantly in this matter.

 

Given that the tax liability relates to the mooring, the council tax you pay is levied on the value of the mooring rather than that of the boat. Most residential boat moorings are consequently in council tax band A, the lowest band. There are some instances in which a permanent boat mooring is liable for council tax levied on the value of the mooring together with the value of the boat, but never exclusively on the value of the boat. These usually apply to purpose-built houseboats or any boats that are moored with a “sufficient degree of permanence as to be enjoyed with the mooring”.

 

http://www.livingonaboat.co.uk/paying-taxes-if-you-live-boat.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Yank on the Cut said:

For many years I paid council tax to the City of Westminster when living aboard my boat on a BW leisure mooring in Blomfield Road, Little Venice. 

You were very lucky that C&RT were not aware of that - their Mooring T&Cs clearly state that a leisure mooring is not to be used for residential mooring - the fact you elected to pay council tax made your usage very clear.

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.