Terms & Conditions

[Pete Mc]

Hi all,

I'm a little bit all over the place with this one and would appreciate any help.

Claimant owns his boat and does not pay mooring charges but he has to pay for an annual licence to British Waterways to use the boat on the water.

He has claimed HB to cover the cost of the licence which is about £1k a year (just under).

Clearly, in order for him to live on the boat, he has to pay this charge or he can't even put his boat in the water. 

Reg 12(1)(d) states that HB is payable for payments in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling.  This would seem to apply here as he has to pay this to live in the dwelling.  However Reg 12(2)(c) says HB is not payable on periodical payments made by an owner.  This claimant is an owner so would this not rule out HB on these payments.

I'm aware of the Williams Commissioners decision from 2002 but this is in respect of a claimant who is paying mooring charges.  The thrust of that argument seems to be that the licence is effectively an extension of the mooring charges as he couldn't get a permit to moor the boat without it.

If there's no mooring charges though would we still pay for the licence.  I'm just thinking of the equivalent in "normal" accommodation.  If service charges are part of the rent (communal areas stuff), we pay them but if there is no rent (i.e. claimant is an owner) we would not pay those service charges.

 

Any thoughts?

[m ransome]

this rightsnet thread may prove useful to you;

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/7962/#35745

Cruising licences have been covered by HB since Commissioner’s decision CH/844/2002 in which two alternative solutions were offered:

– the term “mooring charges” was wide enough to include the licence, or
– the licence was a payment in consequence of use or occupation (the Commissioner preferred this option)

[Pete Mc]

Thanks for that, this is still reliant on Williams though and that was a case where mooring charges were payable.

If I owned a flat and had to pay charges for maintaining communal areas then this is a payment in consequence of use or occupation but I couldn't claim Housing Benefit to pay them (at least not the way I understand things) as I am an owner and therefore have no rent liability.

I can go along with the decision when mooring charges are included as the claimant doesn't own the space where he moors his boat and is effectively renting that space, the licence is then covered by 12(1)(d).  If there's no mooring charges though, there's no rent and we are just looking at a periodical payment made by an owner and not eligible for HB.

[Anonymous]

He's not an owner within the meaning of the Regs as a boat is not "real property", any more than a car or a picture is. Ownership refers to property you could find on Land Registry basically

[Pete Mc]

Regs just say owner is "in relation to a dwelling" and we are classing the boat as a dwelling or you couldn't claim HB.  Couldn't say the same about a car or a picture.  Has the owner definition been firmed up in case law to only include houses/flats?

[m ransome]

HI Pete,

from Guidance manual A4 re ownership of houseboat and mooring charges (payment) of licence under CH/844/2002

Mooring charges

4.100 Mooring charges payable for a houseboat which a claimant occupies as their home

• are eligible for HB

• includes berthing fees for a boat which a claimant occupies as their home

• are eligible even if the claimant owns the houseboat or boat

[Pete Mc]

Thanks for that but I would stress again that this claimant is not paying mooring charges or berthing fees.  If he was I would pay the boat licence without question, despite him being the owner of the boat, as the regs tell me I can. He is not the owner of the mooring space and is "renting" that space and needs to pay the boat licence in order to do that. 

If he's not paying mooring charges then I would argue he is not renting anything, he is an owner, and as such he would not be eligible for Housing Benefit.  I have told assessor to refuse and we'll see what happens if it goes to tribunal, will be interesting as I don't think CH/844/2002 gives us carte blanche to pay these the way people think it does.  I may of course be totally wrong and there may be other caselaw which says so but I am only seeing cases where mooring charges are in payment.

[m ransome]

Point taken, it is probabliy is unusual he does not pay mooring charges, I guess if he was a continual cruiser (I think thats a proper term), he would have no need for mooring charges (only for the payment of the British Waterways licence) , but then if he was a continuous cruiser he would n longer be in your area. (Good luck with it) from Shelter web site:

Moorings for houseboats

Very few permanent residential moorings for houseboats are available. You may be able to rent a residential mooring in a private marina. 

Most houseboats are 'continuous cruisers'. This means they pay a licence of between £500 and £1,000 per year to use the waterways.

A continuous cruiser can moor temporarily for up to 14 days without paying a fee. But in busy areas, you may only be able to moor from a short time, sometimes as little as 48 hours.

The terms of your licence may mean you can't stay more than 14 days in one stretch of water.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Pete, but you are wrong. An owner is defined as someone who is entitled to dispose of the fee simple.See definiton of fee simple below:

"a permanent and absolute tenure in land with freedom to dispose of it at will, especially in full fee simple absolute in possession a freehold tenure, which is the main type of land ownership"

 

A boat is not an "estate in land". Trust me on this. I've studied land law and there are only two types of "estate in land" – freehold and leasehold – and they refer to physical plots of land identifiable on Land Registry. A boat is a personal possession, just like a caravan that you attach to your car and park up somewhere. You sell it through Exchange and Mart and don't need a solicitor to draw up legal contracts for its sale. We have claimants paying boat licences for yachts in Chichester Harbour (yes really) and we pay them. My main issue with them is that they are actually using HB to fund their hobby and really have a home somewhere else, but that's a completely different matter.

[Pete Mc]

Thanks Chris, I take your point and don't doubt what you're saying regarding the fee simple. 

I'm still going to have a go at this though as I don't think this is rent and don't think we should be paying it.  It's not a massive amount of money either way (about £20.00 a week) but my concern is also that, if this guy is just a continual cruiser with no mooring charges, then what's to stop him claiming from multiple different authorities at the same time, how do we know where he is?  At least if he is paying mooring charges we have kind of an address for him in our area.

I will still make the owner argument if it goes to tribunal and say it should be stretched to include houseboats if we are calling the houseboat his home.  I may be shot down on all points but it's worth testing in my opinion.

 

[VIKKIE]

Hi Pete Mc, how did this work out, I have exactly the same situation now? My customer could not get a permanent mooring and is a continuous cruiser however in his appeal he is stating that although he continuously cruises he spent more time in out Borough? CH0318 2005

[d-stainsby]

I think your owner argument cannot succeeed and nor can any of your other arguments.  In my view this was put beyond doubt by Mr Commissioner (as then was ) Levenson in CH/4250/2006

[Pete Mc]

Hi Vikkie,

Never went to tribunal from memory, after I gave him our statement of reasons he never came back to us.

[Pete Mc]

[quote=d-stainsby]

I think your owner argument cannot succeeed and nor can any of your other arguments.  In my view this was put beyond doubt by Mr Commissioner (as then was ) Levenson in CH/4250/2006

[/quote]

 

That decision was regarding paying mooring charges and whether the boat was a houseboat, nothing to do with the boat licence.

[Pete Mc]

The arguments I used at the time were the above mentioned ownership argument (i.e. you own your dwelling so can't claim HB), this argument does not work if they are paying mooring charges due to CH/0844/2002.

 

Another possible lesser argument is that they have to pay the licence whether or not they live on the boat so it is not a payment as a consequence of use and occupation.

 

Finally I explained that CH/0844/2002 is not universally accepted as being correct as it did not consider a High Court decision from 1999 (Regina v Bristol City Council ex parte Mrs J Jacobs).  This was nothing to do with boats, it was about water rates and what constitutes "payments in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling".  In this case the judge decided that water rates were not a payment in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling as they were not payable to the owner under the tenancy but to a third party.  This boat licence is not payable as part of any rent agreement but to a third party and is therefore not eligible for HB based on that High Court decision.

 

I definitely think it's an argument worth having and would take this to tribunal if it came up again.

[Author]

Posts