Reeves (Listing Officer) v Northrop

Hearing date: 20th December 2012

1. This case began with an article published in the North Devon Journal on 25th February 2010.

“A family living on a houseboat near Dunstable say they are sick of being branded a “problem” by local authorities.

Randy Northrop, 54, lives with his wife Susan and 12 year old son, Benjamin, on an old tug boat called Cannis which is moored off Chivenor Business Park.

Randy, a Californian who moved to England in the late 1980s, has lived with his family on the ship for more than 9 years but only arrived in North Devon a year ago.

Randy told the Journal the boat was a labour of love which makes an ideal and cheap family home.

He said: “I bought the boat from a man in Bideford for £11,000 in 2001. We were living in Bristol at the time and decided to buy a boat because we were fed up living in a grotty council house in a rough area of the city. I am an electrical engineer and handyman by trade and have spent the last eight years renovating the ship … Most of the hard work is now done and it's mainly DIY and painting that's left.”

Randy and his family arrived in North Devon in October 2008 having spent the previous 8 years moored in Bristol. Randy said: “It was a real shame we had to leave Bristol but the authorities there aren't too keen on “live-aboards”. Susan had a great job as a music teacher at … School and I had regular handyman work coming in. Things were pretty sweet. However, it wasn't to be, so we moved slowly down the coast, stopping at Minehead, Ilfracombe and Instow en route to Chivenor.

The Northrop's houseboat, a former Thames tug built in 1953 has many of the features that prospective house buyers look for. There are two good-sized bedrooms, two open fireplaces, gas central heating, a large sitting room and kitchen and several flat screen TVs. Old admiralty maps decorate the ceiling and there is even a grand piano and dedicated music room on board.

Randy said: “A lot of people don't realise how we live here. We don't get grief from anyone and most are quite envious. I am upset that councils and groups such as the TAW and Torridge Estuary Forum label us as a problem — they don't know us so how could they make that judgment? We may live differently to those in concrete boxes but we're not bad people. We work, we pay taxes — the boating community are no different to the rest of the population … We may not pay council tax but neither do we receive services such as electricity, water or having our bins emptied. We don't live on a boat in a deliberate attempt to screw the council over — we just enjoy it.” … Benjamin, who is home educated by Randy and Susan, added: “I love living on a boat. It's exciting.”

I can readily imagine that it is.

2. The article excited a flurry of email comment with views being expressed, temperately and intemperately, for and against Randy and his family. One correspondent suggested sending the local authority “some voluntary council tax and make them acknowledge you have your right to live as you choose.” Randy Northrop accepted the advice. He sent an email to the North Devon District Council asking how he could go about paying some contribution in lieu of council tax saying that he did that “as a gesture of good citizenship”. That was a big mistake because, as he explained with bemusement, the predictable result was that:

“Anyway, in about 2 weeks, we got a reply … no — statement — that we were now banded Band “A”, fait accompli! I couldn't actually believe it. I sent another email, tactfully explaining I did not mean for us to be banded; indeed we should not have been banded; as we were a BOAT; not “property”. No response. Eventually I was contacted by the VOA in Exeter; and after an email; and a long phone call; I at least “got the picture”; the Council had simply asked the VOA to band me; as “proof” of being liable; the Council said we were “there too long”; and sent a copy of our newspaper article as further “proof”? I guess it was up to me to “prove” my innocence.”

3. Thus began the sad tale that has led Randy Northrop to be the appellant challenging the order made by Mr Justice Wyn Williams on 6th March 2012 when he allowed the Listing Officer's appeal against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England upholding Mr Northrop's appeal and ordering that the entry in the Council Tax Valuation List relating to the motor vessel “ Cannis” be deleted from the list with effect from 11th December 2008.

The appeal to the valuation tribunal

4. Mr Northrop (I sense he would prefer it if I simply called him “Randy”) represented himself and made a good job of it. (That is not to denigrate the efforts since made on his behalf by Mr Stephen Knafler QC who now represents him and whom I have always found gives the court excellent assistance). Randy began his written submission with a quote from Mark Twain:

“Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do, than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor, catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”

5. Randy had taken on board (if I may be forgiven the pun) the Council Tax Manual — Practice Note 7: Application of Council Tax to Caravan Pitches and Moorings, which set out to explain the law and circumstances which require the mooring for a boat to be banded for council tax purposes. There is no definition of “boat” for the purposes of the legislation. He would have learnt that in order to be subject to council tax, property must be a dwelling as defined in s. 3(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 namely:

“3(2) Any property which –

(a) by virtue of the definition of hereditament in s. 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, would have been a hereditament for the purposes of that Act if that Act remained in force; and

(b) is not for the time being shown or required to be shown in the local or central non-domestic rating list in force at that time; and

(c) is not for the time being exempt from local non-domestic rating for the purposes of Part III of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988.”

Thus to be treated as a dwelling and assigned to a council tax band, the mooring must both be a hereditament and be domestic property.

6. To be domestic property s. 66 of the Local Government and Finance Act 1988 applies, namely:

“66(1) … Property is domestic if –

(a) it is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation, …

…

(4) Sub-section (1) above does not apply in the case of a mooring occupied by a boat, but if in such a case the boat is the sole or main residence of an individual, the mooring and the boat, together with any garden, yard, outhouse or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with them are domestic property.”

S. 66 was however amended by the Rating (Caravan and Boats) Act 1996 as follows:

“(1)(3) For sub-section (4) of that section, moorings, there is substituted –

(4) Sub-section (1) above does not apply in the case of a mooring occupied by a boat, but if in such a case the boat is the sole or main residence of an individual, the mooring and the boat, together with any garden, yard, outhouse or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with them are domestic property.”

I am sure Randy followed every word of that.

7. Then he would have to grapple with the meaning of “hereditament”. He would be directed to s. 64 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 which would inform him that:

“(1) An hereditament is anything which, by virtue of the definition of hereditament in s. 115(1) of the 1967 Act, would have been an hereditament for the purposes of that Act had this Act not been passed.”

That is astonishingly informative. Ss. (4) of s. 66 would tell Randy that:

“(4) A hereditament is a relevant hereditament if it consists of property of any of the following descriptions –

(a) lands …”

S. 65 defines owners and occupiers –

“(1) The owner of a hereditament or land is the person entitled to possession of it.

(2) Whether a hereditament or land is occupied, and who is the occupier, shall be determined by a reference to the rules which would have applied for the purposes of the 1967 Act had this Act not been passed (ignoring any express statutory rules such as those in sections 24 and 46 A of that Act).”

Really?

8. The Practice Note, making a valiant attempt to explain what constitutes a hereditament, would have informed Randy that a hereditament is defined in s. 115(1) of the General Rates Act 1967 as

“… “hereditament” means property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list.”

S. 16 of that Act imposes liability to be rated in respect of occupation of property:

“16. Subject to the provisions of this Act, every occupier of property of any of the following descriptions namely –

(a) lands … shall be liable to be assessed to rates in respect of the hereditament or hereditaments comprising that property according to the rateable value or respective rateable values of that hereditament or those...