Is a boat a dwelling under UK law? Proven? Help please

[Paul and Mal]

Hello All Is there a legally experienced brain out there who can help? On behalf of a third party, I am looking for some legal help. Question. Can a boat be classed as a dwelling under English law? Is there case precedence? Someone has died, the partner, who has lived aboard since the boat was built about twelve years ago has no other home. Has the partner the same right of occupancy as if the home had been "Real estate" e.g. A house or flat. One lawyer suggests not, but in all honesty, she did not seem to be able to grasp the idea of living on a barge as a concept. Although an interesting discussion could be had, I would prefer replies of fact rather conjecture. Hope someone can help Paul

[Athy]

Welcome to you both!

Yes, most of us prefer replies of fact rather than conjecture, and there are one or two experienced and knowledgeable members on here who may be able to help you. Whilst I am not one of them, I can tell you that some boats are liable for Council Tax, which suggests to me that they are accepted as dwellings. Whoops, conjecture, sorry.

[Alan de Enfield]

Generally, and 'normally' boats (even liveaboards) are considered as 'Chattels' rather than 'property'

I would suggest that, as the outcome is fairly important to your 'friend', that rather than rely on any 'advice' from this forum you take legal advice from a specialist.

 

Here is one example :

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/articles/houseboats-property-or-chattels

 

The case law we all considered is the case of Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co. v Pope [2000]. The case established that a houseboat was held to be a chattel despite being held to the land by mooring ropes, a chain, an anchor and various service pipes and cables. This is because this mooring is insufficient to say that the boat forms part of the land.

 

One thing to consider is "is the boat a houseboat, and does it meet the legal definition of a house boat, or, is it just a boat that is used as a liveaboard ?"

 

Edit to add :

A couple of 'precedents' :House boats:

 

Mew & Anor v Tristmire Ltd [2012] WLR 852     Case summary

Mew & Anor v Tristmire [2012] 1 WLR 852 Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal were required to determine whether two houseboats ‘Emily’ and ‘Watershed’ formed part of the realty and thus constituted a dwelling house or whether they were chattels. If they formed part of the realty the defendants, who owned and resided on the boats would be  protected from eviction under the Housing Act 1988. Both Emily and Watershed were connected to the mains services providing water, electricity and gas. They were originally built to be landing crafts, but were never used as such and converted into house boats after the war. They were once capable of floating, but now could only be removed by a crane with an extensive supporting cradle. Even this would be likely to result in damage or destruction of the boats due to the present condition of the boats. They rested on wooden panels which are supported by wooden piles driven into the bed of the Bembridge harbour on the Isle of Wight.

Held:

The house boats did not form part of the realty and remained chattels. Whilst the degree of annexation was not dissimilar to that in Elitestone v Morris, in examining the object of annexation the court was to have regard to the circumstances prevailing when the boats first came to the site. At this time the boats were easily movable and not intended to be permanent structures. The tenancies of the plots did not extend to the boats.

 

 

 

Chelsea Yacht & Boat Club v Pope [2000] EWCA Civ 425    Case summary

".......A boat, albeit one used as a home, is not of the same genus as real property."

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Mac of Cygnet]

Just now, Athy said:

Welcome to you both!

Yes, most of us prefer replies of fact rather than conjecture, and there are one or two experienced and knowledgeable members on here who may be able to help you. Whilst I am not one of them, I can tell you that some boats are liable for Council Tax, which suggests to me that they are accepted as dwellings. Whoops, conjecture, sorry.

Conjecture indeed, and also apparently wrong on both counts.   This page may help, including;

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.

[Athy]

Good information, Mac, thanks. As I'm sure you're aware, the late Desmond Dekker opined "The more that you live is the more that you learn", and I can only concur.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Paul and Mal said:

Hello All Is there a legally experienced brain out there who can help? On behalf of a third party, I am looking for some legal help. Question. Can a boat be classed as a dwelling under English law? Is there case precedence? Someone has died, the partner, who has lived aboard since the boat was built about twelve years ago has no other home. Has the partner the same right of occupancy as if the home had been "Real estate" e.g. A house or flat. One lawyer suggests not, but in all honesty, she did not seem to be able to grasp the idea of living on a barge as a concept. Although an interesting discussion could be had, I would prefer replies of fact rather conjecture. Hope someone can help Paul

There's at least two questions there.

Does the partner have a right to remain in the boat (which has presumably been inherited by someone else)?

Does the partner have a right to 'inherit' the mooring agreement under which presumably the boat occupies its current mooring?

I don't know the specific answers, but a boat occupant generally has far fewer rights than the owner or tenant of bricks and mortar. And the partner of someone (not married to or in a civil partnership with the property owner/tenant) also has limited rights.  So on balance I would think the OP's friend is going to have an uphill struggle to establish a right to remain.

The OP's friend needs proper legal advice from an appropriately qualified/experienced lawyer (and not necessarily your nearest High Street solicitor), not the rambling thoughts of internet forum participants.

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by David Mack

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Welcome to you both!

Yes, most of us prefer replies of fact rather than conjecture, and there are one or two experienced and knowledgeable members on here who may be able to help you. Whilst I am not one of them, I can tell you that some boats are liable for Council Tax, which suggests to me that they are accepted as dwellings. Whoops, conjecture, sorry.

I'm sure one of the Forum experts showed that the rates were due on the moorings not the actual boat.

EDIT

Confirmed by Mac above

Edited April 13, 2017 by Graham Davis

[WotEver]

Just now, Graham Davis said:

I'm sure one of the Forum experts showed that the rates were due on the moorings not the actual boat.

As posted 4 posts prior to yours:

 

[Arthur Marshall]

A friend died intestate a year back, which meant the property passed to his son. The partner who had lived with him for about six  years certainly had no rights to remain in the property but thought she was entitled to a share of the sale price. That was debatable and could have been taken to court but as the lawyers fees would have swallowed the entire estate it was agreed out of court. 

[Athy]

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

.

The OP's friend needs proper legal advice from an appropriately qualified/experienced lawyer (and not necessarily your nearest High Street solicitor), not the rambling thoughts of internet forum participants.

 

 

 

Good advice, yes. Fortunately we have had no rambling thoughts from any participants in this thread.

[Athy]

46 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

I'm sure one of the Forum experts showed that the rates were due on the moorings not the actual boat.

 

Yes, a forum member did say that.

[Machpoint005]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

A friend died intestate a year back, which meant the property passed to his son. The partner who had lived with him for about six  years certainly had no rights to remain in the property but thought she was entitled to a share of the sale price. That was debatable and could have been taken to court but as the lawyers fees would have swallowed the entire estate it was agreed out of court. 

A sensible decision by all concerned, I'd say.

It does demonstrate why it is vital to write a will, though -- which was my first thought on reading the OP (not that it is any help to his friend(s)).

[Peter X]

Solicitors seem to think that if they repeat the claim that it's vital to have a will often enough, people will fall for this myth. In most cases the law is clear as to who inherits an estate because there's a pecking order of relatives, and anyone with a bit of education can exercise their rights and apply for probate. I've done it twice for my mother, following the deaths of my father and her brother, and didn't find it difficult. Where a will becomes necessary is if either the family tree is unclear, or the person contemplating their death wishes to leave things in a different order to the default prescribed by law. The latter typically occurs either to cut out some relative they don't like, or as seems to have been needed in the OP's case to provide for someone who isn't part of the family in the eyes of the law. However courts do have some sympathy for anyone who can show they were a dependent of the deceased or that the deceased would have wanted to provide for them. This is where a dispute, especially in the absence of a will, can lead to a Bleak House type situation where the lawyers inherit the estate, unless both that person and the relatives are sensible people as described by Arthur Marshall.

The OP doesn't give details, in particular whether a will exists and if so what it specifies, but it does sound as if some sort of deal should be negotiated directly between the partner on the boat and anyone else who might claim ownership, before the solicitors and barristers get the opportunity to drain their bank accounts.

[junior]

I've heard several people claim boats are Chattels not dwellings.

[Jim Riley]

8 hours ago, Athy said:

Good advice, yes. Fortunately we have had no rambling thoughts from any participants in this thread.

I'm thinking of going for a walk.

[Athy]

Someone's wide awake this morning!

Seriously though, any post on here raises the thread towards the top of the "View New Content" list on our contents page, making it more likely that it will be seen, and that one of our experts on legal matters will provide a definitive answer to Paul and Mal's question.

[Momac]

I looked it up in a dictionary

A ''chattel'' is an item of property other than freehold land 

A ''dwelling'' is  a place of residence.

My boat is certainly a chattel as it is not my place of residence.

However if someone lives on a boat and can prove it ,perhaps by having evidence they have paid council tax on a residential mooring, then a boat may, according to a  dictionary,  be a dwelling. 

Whether the boat is a chattel or  dwelling presumably makes no difference for the purposes of inheritance.

My wifes aunt died a few years ago and her estate was certainly not distributed as  she would have wished. But as  she left no will the estate had to be distributed according to the law. It does make  sense to have a will as it saves a lot of disputes.

I think if a house is owned by one partner who dies the other partner has no rights - unless they were married . If they were married the law is clear. 

In this case I presume the partner on the boat was not married to the deceased.  The deceased was presumably not married to someone else. If the deceased has children the estate will pass to them. If there were no children and the deceased has brothers or sisters the estate will pass to them ................it can seem complicated but in fact its not.

I am not a lawyer .

 

[Paul and Mal]

Hi Athy, As the O.P. and new to the forum,you suggest "View New Content" - how do I do that, could you do it for me please.

 

To all other replies.

Thank you very much for your effort and thoughts.  I will sift though them and see if something can be of help.

It is a wake up call to many of us to reread our Wills and update them even if by Codicil,  we have.

I cannot go into details on an open forum, the situation has been put to a solicitor.  If the couple had lived in "real estate" then there would have been no problem it being a "Dwelling".  Then certain rights of continued occupancy exist, and have been tested in court.

I raised the O.P. in the hope that somewhere out there in "Water land", there are said to be an estimated 20,000 of us living aboard (We do and have for 13 years), in the hope that a boat may have been tested as a "dwelling" in court.  It's the type of thing that a High Street Solicitor may not know about. 

Hope this explains things a little better.

Paul

 

 

[dmr]

Internet forums are not the place to get definitive or reliable answers to questions, they are discussion forums populated by a diverse range of individuals who post for a variety of reasons. A few actually enjoy posting untruths and some of those who post in an authoritative style and claim professional qualifications actually know very little.

Many many posters are just re-posting "facts" that they themselves have previously read on a forum and this can result in many posters posting the same mis-information which then appears to be correct by consensus.

Much of this applies to the whole internet, not just forums, and even to a fair few text books.

Forums are great fun and a very good way of gathering a range of opinions, but these then need to be verified by some other means.

.............Dave

 

[Chewbacka]

For me your original question was a little unclear, and in fact I think there are two separate questions.

1)  Does the partner have a right to the boat?  Without knowing if there is a will or not and if not the status/relationship to the partner - spouse, sibling etc - it is impossible to answer.

2)  Does the partner have a right to take over the mooring?  Without sight of the mooring agreement it is impossible to answer.

I strongly suggest you take legal advice and take any supporting paperwork you can get hold of to help you get a quick answer.

[Athy]

These last three posts may not have been written from the standpoint of trained lawyers, but they all contain a great deal of common sense.

 

Paul and Mal, when you enter "Canal World Forum" on your search engine and select it, you should be taken to our home page. On the right-hand side of this, near the top, there is [at least on my screen] a rectangular button called "View New Content" which, when pressed, will display the names of threads in which members have recently posted, starting with the most recent at the top.

[MtB]

On 13/04/2017 at 18:31, Paul and Mal said:

Hello All Is there a legally experienced brain out there who can help? On behalf of a third party, I am looking for some legal help. Question. Can a boat be classed as a dwelling under English law? Is there case precedence? Someone has died, the partner, who has lived aboard since the boat was built about twelve years ago has no other home. Has the partner the same right of occupancy as if the home had been "Real estate" e.g. A house or flat. One lawyer suggests not, but in all honesty, she did not seem to be able to grasp the idea of living on a barge as a concept. Although an interesting discussion could be had, I would prefer replies of fact rather conjecture. Hope someone can help Paul

 

Firstly, your question reminds me of when someone on here asks about what the regulations say about some detail or other about a gas installation on a boat. To answer, one first has to determine the circumstances in order to see which regulations apply, and which do not. 

Secondly, I remember a long and involved thread on a property investors' forum I used to frequent asking the similar question: "What is a dwelling?" After many pages of discussion even with a solicitor taking part, no consensus emerged. I can't remember the context but ISTR the definition varies according to context as different laws apply, or don't.

So I'd say in your case it is necessary to read the law that says the partner has the right of occupancy when it is a land dwelling, to see if you think it also applies to a boat dwelling.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Paul and Mal said:

I raised the O.P. in the hope that somewhere out there in "Water land", there are said to be an estimated 20,000 of us living aboard (We do and have for 13 years), in the hope that a boat may have been tested as a "dwelling" in court.  It's the type of thing that a High Street Solicitor may not know about. 

I have been unable to find any examples of court cases that prove what you are looking for.

Every case I have found has concluded the opposite - ie that a boat (even a liveaboard with permanent water, sewage, electricity connections) is a Chattel.

 

I posted links to three such cases in post number 3 - hopefully your 'professional' may be able to advise your friend why these cases/precedents are not applicable

[Athy]

The government guidelines say that "a boat and its mooring" constitute a dwelling when the boat is the sole or main residence of the owner, and that in such cases the boat should allocated a council tax band. So, to me that answers the question asked in the thread's title. That said, there is a grey area: what if the boat has no permanent mooring?

[MtB]

The curious thing is this boat is clearly a dwelling 'in fact', as the deceased's partners is living on it. It is being used as a dwelling therefore it IS a dwelling.

The OP may be asking the wrong question, I suspect. Arriving at the answer to this hypothetical question might shed some light for the OP. 

"If someone inherits or purchases a boat being lived on, do they have the right to evict the occupant if the occupant wishes to continue living aboard?"

I find myself wondering what 'offence' the occupant be committing, if any, should they refuse to surrender possession.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Mike the Boilerman