Council Tax

[Richard Fletcher]

I'm moving onto to my narrowboat, as a liveaboard, in about 3-4 weeks (once the estate agent and solicitor pull their fingers out!) and trying to find out about council tax. I've searched through the forum and am still no clearer but I did find this example on www.voa.gov.uk

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapter...%5Fpn/frame.htm

 

 

Example

 

"A couple live on a narrow boat as their sole or main residence. They pay a mooring fee to the British Waterways Board for one of several moorings along the towing path and a licence fee to be on the canal. They share a water tap with the other boats, but the nearest sewage disposal facility is some distance away. Periodically, they move the boat to dispose of sewage; and every few years the boat is taken into dry dock for essential maintenance. British Waterways Board reserves a continual right to allocate a different mooring, for example, in order to accommodate boats of different length at the site, but in practice the boat returns to the same mooring, which is not used by other boats in its absence It has a postal address and post is delivered direct to the boat.

 

The mooring is domestic property by virtue of s.66(4) and sufficiently defined as to form a separate hereditament. The boat is moored with a sufficient degree of permanence as to be enjoyed with the mooring and therefore should be regarded as part of the hereditament and be included in the valuation for banding purposes.

 

If however the separate moorings along the canal bank are not easily identified, either in the agreement with BWB or on the ground, and can vary each time a boat is moored, as the boat always returns to a different position, then the hereditament will comprise of the whole length of moorings along that part of the canal, and the rateable occupier will be the BWB. The boat will not form part of the hereditament because it lacks sufficient permanence to be enjoyed with the land.

 

If the moorings are solely occupied by boats which are the sole or residence of an individual, then there will be a single Council Tax banding of all the moorings. However, should pleasure boats also use the moorings, the moorings should be treated as a composite hereditament. In many cases a common sense view will need to be taken of the extent of the domestic and non-domestic parts, and regulation 7(1) of the Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations 1992 requires a band to be ascribed which reflects the value which would reasonably attributed to the domestic use. The distribution between domestic and non domestic use will therefore reflect how the market would view the use of the hereditament, if it were made available with vacant possession. The actual use of the moorings at 1 April 1993, or a notional distribution based on the prevailing pattern of use along moorings in that locality can be adopted.

 

Where a single composite hereditament is appropriate, the non domestic part in this example will be included in the Central List assessment for BWB, and a single Council Tax band will be entered in the valuation list for the residential moorings."

 

 

Sounds to me that BW pay a single, flat rate for all residential moorings at one location and as such there is no Council Tax due from the liveaboards.

 

What do you think?

 

Richard

[StoneHenge]

We don't pay council tax. We live in a marina but the moorings we rent are annual rather than residential moorings.

Edited September 1, 2006 by StoneHenge

[Alastair]

a single Council Tax banding of all the moorings.

 

 

a band to be ascribed which reflects the value which would reasonably attributed to the domestic use. The

 

What all this means is that your banding is fixed. The banding is calculated based on the value of the land that you are moored against. Apart from a few moorings (such as in centre of cities), this is low (compared to a house). So you will fall into the lowest band, Band A.

 

If you moor in a marina, and your mooring is part of the marina for postal and electoral roll purposes, then the marina operator will be paying council tax for you as part of their business rates (usually).

 

If you have a permanent mooring outside of a marina, even if you cruise, then you are liable for council tax.

 

We don't pay council tax. We live in a marina, but we tell them we are continuous cruisers

 

You are basically dodging it by lying. Good luck, I hope they never catch up with you - the sods are like rabid monkeys when it comes to back-charging.

[StoneHenge]

The moorings at the marina as classed as annual, not residential, so it comes into a different category.

Edited September 1, 2006 by StoneHenge

[Alastair]

Sounds like you have sensible and supportive landlords.

 

A lot depends on the council. Harrogate are currently trying to bill me per boat, rather than for the one mooring I rent (that has several boats on it).

[StoneHenge]

Sounds like you have sensible and supportive landlords.

 

A lot depends on the council. Harrogate are currently trying to bill me per boat, rather than for the one mooring I rent (that has several boats on it).

 

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

 

I would pay if we had to however.

Edited September 1, 2006 by StoneHenge

[Richard Fletcher]

Ouch, that's going to hurt.

 

I would pay if we had to however.

 

 

Just had a reply from the council

 

"Thank you for your e-mail.

 

On the basis that you have a cruising licence to occupy the mooring at Beeston Marina there will be no Council Tax to pay. This is because people on boats moored on cruising licences are considered to be temporary occupiers of the mooring. If however, you change your licence to a residential one then you become considered as a permanent resident and become liable for Council Tax. At this stage you would need to contact us to confirm the exact date the residential licence applied from and we will arrange to make you liable for Council Tax."

 

So looks like I don't have to pay.

[Gary Peacock]

The folk on our moorings don't pay council tax, the local authority tried to impose it but one of the owners is worth a considerable amount of money and is very friendly with a very well qualified barrister he made clear he was quite prepared to go to court and further if they wanted to play to prove that a boat was not a fixed residence and guess what they backed off!

 

Now having the odd million pounds available plus access to the best legal team available obviously is more effective than legal aid!

[David Schweizer]

The folk on our moorings don't pay council tax, the local authority tried to impose it but one of the owners is worth a considerable amount of money and is very friendly with a very well qualified barrister he made clear he was quite prepared to go to court and further if they wanted to play to prove that a boat was not a fixed residence and guess what they backed off!

 

Now having the odd million pounds available plus access to the best legal team available obviously is more effective than legal aid!

It is unlikely that the Local Council discontinued its attempt to secure Council Tax Payment from your moorers will have been because they were not legally entitled to demand it, but probably because the cost of winning a Court case would be more than the revenue collected.

 

There is a bizzare bit of legislation which prevents Local Councils from being awarded legal costs, even when they win cases, whilst the defendant can claim costs if they win. It is one of the main reasons why so many rouge breaches of planning are allowed to go un challenged.

 

So Yes Gary if you have a lot of money and can engage a Barrister (possibkly for free) then you can get away with breaking the law. If that makes them proud then it is a very sad world. But that is probably how they got rich in the first place, by cheating the system.

Edited September 8, 2006 by David Schweizer

[Alastair]

I'm with David on this one.

 

BTW, the liability to pay has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the boat is a fixed residence or not. It is not the boat that is registered on the VOA lists, it is the mooring (same as for caravans, it is the caravan pitch not the caravan).

 

If someone is residing at a mooring for part of a year, then they are liable for council tax.

[ChrisPy]

 

BTW, the liability to pay has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the boat is a fixed residence or not. It is not the boat that is registered on the VOA lists, it is the mooring (same as for caravans, it is the caravan pitch not the caravan).

 

If someone is residing at a mooring for part of a year, then they are liable for council tax.

what if the boat that is moored at the mooring is a second home (holiday home), i.e. nobody lives there permanently ?

[Alastair]

what if the boat that is moored at the mooring is a second home (holiday home), i.e. nobody lives there permanently ?

Then it isn't a residence, and the mooring shouldn't be on the VOA register. Simple.

 

If it is your primary residence, you pay council tax. If it isn't, you don't. Nothing complicated about it.

[bottle]

Then it isn't a residence, and the mooring shouldn't be on the VOA register. Simple.

 

If it is your primary residence, you pay council tax. If it isn't, you don't. Nothing complicated about it.

 

Sorry Alastair but second residence/holiday homes do pay Council Tax.

 

They use to get a discount for the second home but that has beeen stopped now.

 

 

A link to Citizens Advice council tax site.

[Alastair]

didn't know that, bottle. So, this rich geezer really really should be paying then.

[David Schweizer]

didn't know that, bottle. So, this rich geezer really really should be paying then.

 

As I understand it, if the boat is the owner's principal place of residence then he should be paying Council Tax. If it is a recreational vessel which he uses frequently but which does not comprise his principal place of residence then the mooring will not attract Council Tax.

 

The reason Gary has given for the Mooring not being liable for Council Tax is that it was not a fixed residence which is an interesting legal point and one which is open to interpretion. However it has long been established that floating on water does not excempt a boat from being considered "fixed" if it is attached to the land by ropes, chains, boarding plank or ladder etc.. The same rules are used to establish whether tree houses in gardens require Planning Consent. ie: If it is genuinely in a tree and you have to climb the tree to gain access no consent is required, but if a ladder attaches the tree house to the land, consent is required.

 

If on the other hand, the term was actually used to indicate that the mooring was not an approved residential mooring ie: without planning Consent for residential purposes, and therefore not liable for Council tax, then the boat owners should not be using it for that purpose. If this is the case but the boat owner is using the boat s hios principal place of residence, then as I understabnd it, the boat owner could be prosecuted for a breach of planning Regulations, and the land Owner could also be prosected for permitting such a breach to take place.

 

Could be an interesting one.

Edited September 9, 2006 by David Schweizer

[matt]

I nearly commented on this earlier but held off.

 

However, I really think it's unfair to find loopholes to not pay CT on your primary residence. You're still using the local services whether you're on a boat or in a house. Okay CC'ers and other people cruising use local services as they travel, but that's a different argument.

 

There maybe other people in the local area who may also not be able to easily afford the tax, but they have no option to find the money and they would have to find less money if people weren't evading.

 

If there is a millionaire living on a permanent mooring, evading CT and proud that he can get lawyers to defend the position - then he should be ashamed.

[Alastair]

...was not an approved residential mooring ie: without planning Consent for residential purposes, and therefore not liable for Council tax, ...

 

Not having planning consent for residential purposes has absolutely nothing to do with being liable (or not liable) for council tax.

Not a single one of the moorings on the river ouse has planning consent for residential purposes, yet the councils are quite happy to collect council tax.

[David Schweizer]

Not having planning consent for residential purposes has absolutely nothing to do with being liable (or not liable) for council tax.

Not a single one of the moorings on the river ouse has planning consent for residential purposes, yet the councils are quite happy to collect council tax.

You are quite correct, and I agree that my earlier explanation does not make this clear. What I was trying to explain was that if the moorings do not have Planning Consent for Residential purposes, the Local Council Ratings Office may have assumed that they are not being used for this purpose, and therefore took the view that the moorings are not automaticly liable for Council Tax.

 

In the example that you quote, the Local Council resonponsible for appling the Planning legislation will be the same Council which is responsible for the collection of Council Tax. It could therefore be argued that the Local Council is complicit in the permitting of a breach of Planning Regulations. Having worked for local Government in the past, and having also served as a local Councillor, it comes as no suprise that there may be a lack of communication between Departments of the same Council, however the Local Government Ombudsman might consider this to be a serious case of Maladministration.

Edited September 11, 2006 by David Schweizer

[Alastair]

In the example that you quote, the Local Council resonponsible for appling the Planning legislation will be the same Council which is responsible for the collection of Council Tax. It could therefore be argued that the Local Council is complicit in the permitting of a breach of Planning Regulations. Having worked for local Government in the past, and having also served as a local Councillor, it comes as no suprise that there may be a lack of communication between Departments of the same Council, however the Local Government Ombudsman might consider this to be a serious case of Maladministration.

 

You are correct - it's the same council. However, I'd be reluctant to push the issue, as I suspect that the council's solution would be to evict all residential boaters. Much cheaper for them to do this than to get planning permission for residential use through (as the Environment Agency and BW would be involved).

[David Schweizer]

You are correct - it's the same council. However, I'd be reluctant to push the issue, as I suspect that the council's solution would be to evict all residential boaters. Much cheaper for them to do this than to get planning permission for residential use through (as the Environment Agency and BW would be involved).

I agree. In the same situation, I would probably remain quiet. However it has just occurred to me that being on a river, rather than a man made waterway, the landowner may have Ancient Riparian Rights which preceed moden Planning Regulations. If there has been an historical practice of mooring residential boats on the moorings you refer to, there may be no need for planning Concent, in much the same way as most of the old houses and cottages in Villages have never had Planning Consent because they were built prior to the regulations being introduced.

[ChrisPy]

what valuation band does a mooring or a boat on a mooring represent? presumably band A (resale value in 1991 less than £40K)

[Alastair]

Mostly band A. Boaters mooring in cities have been caught out by high land valuations, however.