Terms & Conditions

[assert no no]

Any assistance would be grateful

I have a claim where a claimant has indicated they pay £88.00 per month charges and live on a boat
Further investigation has revealed that the £88 is not for mooring fees or harbour dues, and that the charge is for the hardstanding only, as the boat is out of the water

Is she eligible to claim HB ?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

I have never come accross this before, but to draw an analogy – if a claimant lived in a caravan but only paid rent on the pitch we would cover it – is this not the same?
Depending on why the boat was in this situation, I would probably argue it was and would be prepared to pay this – I would imagine the cost is not excessive if it were a mooring and amenities charge anyway. 8)

[petedavies]

Must admit my original thought was no since it would fall outside the scope of 12(1)(f) and they do not arise as a consequence of use and occupation…

If you want to be a bit more charitable you could look to 12(1)(g). As far as I am aware “mobile home” is not defined in the Regs.
So,
Is it a home? Yes, your punter lives there.
Is it mobile? Yes – right so it has to get in the water first but so what?.

Are the payments made in respect of the site on which it stands? Yes.

[assert no no]

Pete, Jon

Thanks very much for your replies – much appreciated.

[Anonymous]

Try this (somewhat famous) decision of Comm. Jacobs.

https://hbinfo.org/comdecs/ch_0318_2005.doc

Para 18 seems to cover this situation.

[Kevin D]

[Edit]: Compiled as Martin was posting.

Based on the outcome of one or two CDs, you’d be forgiven for thinking that a cardboard box on a pitch would get HB. Maybe it would…..

In this particular case, taken at face value, it would appear that the “rent” is eligible for HB.

These CDs may, or may not, be of interest:

[b:7db6fefd2a]CH/0318/2005
CH/0844/2002[/b:7db6fefd2a]

Excellent bedtime reading – especially if you like comedy…..

[Anonymous]

Kevin D wrote “Excellent bedtime reading – especially if you like comedy…..” 😉

I had a quick flash through my mind of doing reviews for CDs at this point. How about
“You have just got to see Commissioner XXXX in CH/0318/2005. Laugh? I nearly split my sides” 😯

But then again, maybe not!! 8)

[Anonymous]

How about a claim in respect to a tent that [i:069d81428b]is[/i:069d81428b] in the water?

[emmadring]

Glad I stumbled across this thread as I will have to prepare an appeal in the near future on the definition of ‘houseboat’. I’ve looked at the decisions but they are not much help to me really!

My claimant lives on a yacht which is berthed in a marina, he pays pursuant to a berthing licence. The yacht has a toilet, kitchen, living room and two bedrooms.

Would anyone pay HB on this, and why?

I am half tempted to allow it as the boat is suitable for living on and the claimant does in fact live there, it is his house and it is a boat, therefore….. ❗

Facing strenuous opposition here though, the main argument being that it is for use on open waters and is not the right kind of boat.

[Anonymous]

Emma – I really can’t see any reason why HB should not be paid in respect to the berthing fees. “Not the right type of boat” is almost as silly a comment as my flippancy about an aqua-tent…

[emmadring]

I agree, I think the real issue is what the boat is being used for rather than the actual structure of the boat.

We had another claim for an ocean going catamaran a while back – but it only had one ‘room’ – no toilet, kitchen etc so not designed for living on at all. The yacht is clearly capable of being used as a permanent home, albeit not designed for that.

[petedavies]

Andy: If the railways can have the wrong type of snow and, if my local network is to be believed, the wrong type of rain why can’t we have the wrong type of boat!

Emma: I think you are right – in the absence of a definition I do think you need to take a common-sense approach.

[emmadring]

Thanks for your comments Andy and Pete, unfortunately I think I am being overruled! I’ll keep trying, but may have to wait and see what the Tribunal makes of it.

[Anonymous]

If your over-rulers are still arguing that this is the “wrong” type of boat to be classed as a houseboat, try a different tack (no pun intended).

Does this yacht constitute a dwelling? Well, he does actually dwell on the boat, so it seems difficult to argue that it is not. Does he have to make payments in respect of, or in consequence of, use and occupation of the dwelling? Yes, he does, he has to pay the berthing charges to be able to park himself in the marina. Therefore, reg 12(1)(d) of the HBR 2006 applies – he is paying rent, insofar as the HB regs are concerned, and consequently is eligible for HB.

As Kevin pointed out earlier, the way Commissioners are inclined, it is not so far-fetched to think that one day payments in respect of a cardboard box [i:3809404a5a]will[/i:3809404a5a] be deemed eligible for HB, and I really do think you would be wasting your time taking this to Tribunal.

[petedavies]

Must admit I did not think of that one but it’s a strong argument. It also heads off any similar pedantic argument that mooring fees are covered but berthing fees are not.

Are the people arguing the toss on this one ensuring that houseboats are moored rather than berthed? or are they limited in their pedantry.

[Author]

Posts