1971: SCARBOROUGH Residents' Bizarre "WINDOW TAX" | Nationwide | Weird and Wonderful | BBC Archive

[@whatamalike]

I've heard some bollocks in my time, but this is possibly the biggest load of em lmao

[@BrownDaddy007]

Close, carbon tax.

[@yellowbelly06]

If the light was coming from British Rail then given how efficiently they ran the trains the light was probably taking several months to get from the rail yard to the window.

[@WSMITHify]

Amen

[@ironhell813]

The British are fond of useless taxes. One of the reasons the US exists

[@stephensmith1118]

so its really a Light rail.....

[@TheGramophoneGirl]

And today the residents have the privilege of receiving their light from a Sainsbury's Supermarket!

[@stephenspence1192]

Are they charged for it?

[@TheGramophoneGirl]

@@stephenspence1192 I very much doubt it, but you never know.

[@rjjcms1]

And there I was prepared to pay a premium for my view to be upgraded to herds of wildeest sweeping gracefully across the Serengheti.

[@wezzer9479]

I'm surprised they didn't charge for the air and rain water, also the privilege of smelling and consuming their pollution from the trains.

[@rjjcms1]

Apparently the water companies in Alabama in the States tried to get people banned from collecting rainwater,the greedy ba$tards!

[@liamkatt6434]

There was a case of a UK pub who collected rainwater and was off grid and the local water company tried to say that any water falling from the sky was theirs.

[@OffGridInvestor]

Well do you know the Australian government, particularly the Victorian government, 3 TIMES NOW has tried to charge farmers for their rainwater?!! The attitude is like as though our farms are covered in plastic film, every DROP that we store in dams/ponds is one drop STOLEN from water catchment. It is like they can't even comprehend that the SOIL soaks up water. Like I said, 3 TIMES they've tried this crap. Just in case farming isn't a near bankrupt industry to begin with.... owning a farm I can confirm there's no money in farming. Not even with 1000 acres.

[@KillingDeadThings]

I've seen farmers in America get told to fill in water collection pools etc and also have court actions brought against them for collecting rainwater. Trying to find the info again now but not having much luck. Thinking of the right search term seems to be my issue lol.

[@krisvind1715]

This has got to be the biggest scam in history

[@jamespetherick804]

No, British Rail ticket prices are

[@nimmichagger165]

No, that was Covid.

[@thedave7760]

@@nimmichagger165 and possibly the last American election.

[@timprescott4634]

The law of ancient lights. How this attorney keeps a straight face is a mystery…

[@e8ghtmileshigh1]

If you've met any solicitors born in at the turn of the last century, this face is full of incredulousness.

[@neilcameron7705]

I don't remember this episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

[@adriancampbell6924]

Nobody expects the British Railways! Our chief weapons are withdrawing the light and air from the people of Scarborough under pain of one shilling.

[@tonycraib5939]

Like

[@petergedd9330]

It sums up everything about this world.

[@louiswilliamterminator2887]

Oh dear, oh dear.......British rail wouldn't want their enormous wooden shed to 'have an unfortunate accident' would they? 🤣

[@jacobcoxe7371]

This happened in victorian times too, hence to term day light robbery. Its the reason you see old houses with bricked up windows. Day light tax.

[@shingitai5882]

So a company behaving like a bully to extract money from pensioners by abusing a law in a way it wasn’t intended to be used then stupidly trying to justify it on national television. I wonder if after this was exposed something happened about it?

[@original.dwornboy]

Sounds like something the mayor of London would do.

[@OffGridInvestor]

To be fair, this sounds like SOMETHING COMMON in Britain today.

[@alastairward2774]

It's not just companies that were doing this, there's another video on this channel showing a little old lady doing it to someone who lived next to their land.

[@shootmcrunfast]

Did you not watch the video ? This wasn't about bullying pensioners or exploiting and old law but about the railway protecting themselves so they could develop their land without falling foul of the law. Silly that they raised the amount but a shilling a year is like 61p a year in 2024.

[@shingitai5882]

@@shootmcrunfast Why then do you think a journalist from the BBC bothered to make a film regarding the issue? I think you need to have a look at HS2 and the numerous community issues it has created. If you think that the courts side with the general public over the Government and their railway infrastructure planes over a point of law.

[@toaztelg]

I always this was a joke from Blackadder, but yet again truth is stranger than fiction.... "Stamp duty, window tax, swamp insurance, hen food, dog biscuits, cow ointment. The list is endless."

[@craigcharlesworth1538]

Window tax was a real thing between the late 17th and mid 19th century. You paid tax based on how many windows your house had, it replaced income tax and was intended to be a progressive tax because it was assumed the richer you were the bigger your house would be, the more windows it would have and therefore the more you'd pay. What we see in the video isn't a window tax per-se, it's just British Rail absolutely taking the piss.

[@BertsMountain]

More likely to be Monty Python than Blackadder

[@Dirpitz]

@@craigcharlesworth1538 The thing that like all tax schemes it hits the poor hardest as the rich could afford to just brick up the windows like happened all around Bath

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

I THINK they are trying to avoid a situation in which they want to put up a shed, and planning permission is denied because the shed would block someone’s light. So they rent the light and as a result the homeowners admit they don’t have a right to it.

[@thephilpott2194]

Yep. Only became clear half-way thro the video.

[@babooXX]

Yarp. What happens if they don't can be seen if you search for "ancient lights". Thesenare, for example, the reason for the BBC London Headquarters initially asymmetric and weird shape.

[@OlafProt]

Window tax. Swamp insurance. Hen food. Dog biscuits. Cow ointment. The expenses are endless.

[@rjjcms1]

Window tax was a thing in the Middle Ages.

[@OlafProt]

@@rjjcms1 well that’s me enlightened 😂

[@Domdeone1]

Salt tax in France helped toward the Revolution.

[@petergivenbless900]

Basically, turning neighbours' potential objections to expansions blocking their views and access to clean air etc. by charging them not to do so; putting the "tort" into extortion!

[@randydewing7429]

It’s the law of ancient lights. If they are paying the rent, then the railway isn’t bound by the precedent of light hitting those windows for twenty years. If the windows were grandfathered as ancient lights, then the railway would be prohibited from building anything that would cast a shadow on those windows.

[@arielfilipova278]

It was window tax that caused a massive uprising in the UK against the Royal government when the taxes were so out of hand that window tax depending upon the view and light was the final straw and forced the government at the time or king to make immediate change!

[@edwarddewhirst4132]

They now look onto a Sainsbury’s, you need a nectar card for the light

[@dronespace]

😂

[@helmsly2010]

Did Mr Burns run British rail back then?

[@CadillacM]

I think it was young Mr.Grace

[@23hublock1]

Keir Starmer...."Hmmm...I like this one, hold my beer"

[@rosiefay7283]

So BR, according to that spokesman, knows about the residents' "ancient lights" rights, but sees them as a problem! Disgusting. It's a shame that shed got built.

[@AdAm-dd4jq]

Could they not charge British rail for the other way round?

[@mb106429]

Yes, they actually have to pay each other.... Under his BR logic

[@dan13770]

Ah this is relates to 'ancient lights'

[@stuart9683]

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard of! I hope it's long since abolished!

[@MrAlwaysBlue]

The residents paid 2'/6 and there was light...

[@Middle-Road.Kim.K]

Soooo... one part of my brain is thinking April Fools, but another is thinking how this is similar to the very real "buying the air space" above a neighbour's building so that they cannot build upwards and block your view. I dunno. 🤔

[@robbflynn4325]

Looked at the broadcast date, thinking it was an April Fool.

[@7000fps]

Sadly,,Oh very sadly NO! it be real, the empire will getcha

[@azazeldeath]

Some one tell that rail company they owe over 4 billion years of back tax's to the Sun (Sol), if they fail to pay me, an appointed Sun tax collector (don't believe me go to the Sun directly and ask, they are only open on Sundays) then I will block out their sunlight via the sunshade.

[@mojoden]

Broadcast March 30th 1971. Two days before April Fools Day.

[@hamsterclamper]

If BR provide the light, then surely the residents would be bathed in sunlight during the night, too. This would never hold up in court.

[@micrashed]

Which came first the railway or the houses? By charging a fee to enjoy uninterrupted light the railway were protecting their land interests to be able to develop as they pleased in the future and avoid objections from the houses that any development would block light that they had hitherto enjoyed uninterrupted for a period of 20+ years, which may prevent them from building a ruddy great shed.

[@clyde9803]

Good old fashioned British extortion. No different today.

[@ukusanz]

This is nuts, was this filmed on April 1 😂

[@original.dwornboy]

That was the spaghetti tree.

[@Jawst]

Yes I think the joke may have faded into fact over time

[@timblair8932]

Did I just watch a Monty python sketch

[@D_B_Cooper]

Rachel Reeves is watching and taking notes

[@kaelaleedaley]

TOP comment! 😂

[@scotmorley8526]

There was a cupboard in that depot with a sign that said make sure nothing can fall out before opening the doors

[@brainndamage]

It sounds to me like British Railways was trying to protect themselves from another law that said something like "if a property receives lightfrom another property, the owner of the property is not allowed to build or obstruct the passage of that light. Hence they made the property owners either lease the right to the light, in which case British Railways could not renew the lease if they decided to build a neighboring property that would obstruct that light, or they would purposefully block the light every 25 years, to make the time period shorter than what the law required, hence invalidating the property owners claim against British Railway if they ever built and obstructed the light. In other words, it sounds to me like the reporters are conveniently being silent about the real reason why British Railways chose to to this, but instead made a smear piece on British Railways, omitting vital context and taking their words out of context in order to fuel outrage and hate and get themselves more popular.

[@stevebuckley7788]

No it's just a case of a British Rail lawyer talking codswhallop to play down bad press. There was an archaic local government law in Scarborough which had residents paying a trivial sum for uninterrupted views over the rail yards that they decided to use as a revenue maker. Scarborough is the British Labor Party heartland and when this story broke they were on it in a flash.

[@brainndamage]

@@stevebuckley7788 Ah, well I was just speculating, because it seemed that the words of the British Rail lawyer were saying something to that effect

[@xvegitto]

@@brainndamageI understood it as you did, this is legal shenanigans playing out, there is another video in the archive of an old lady actually constructing something to block her neighbours view, it was framed as an evil act but it makes sense with the context provided with by rail guy in this video. It is still greedy behaviour but not unexpected in this capitalistic world. I think the video presented the logic behind the charge and even ended with them reverting it back the token payment agreed to keep the rights.

[@Verudur]

Is UK some kind of really large mental hospital?

[@Olivia-vn1tf]

certainly feels like it.

[@GetToTheFarm]

bizarre version of Law of Ancient Light....

[@jamesslick4790]

As an American, I'm unfamiliar with British law. But I do know THIS: No matter where on Earth you are THE SUN "gives" ALL natural light. (Yes EVEN at NIGHT).

[@JN003]

...grabbed me popcorn, can't wait to go through the comments.

[@paulhellawell5920]

Was this broadcast on the first of April by any chance ?

[@Thekowaikaiju]

My god, it's the Monty Python argument sketch bahah 😅

[@SandrasSpicySpanishSalami]

Amazon Windows°, Coming soon!

[@1969Kismet]

Excuse me, WOT?! What the devil is this nonsensical tax? I sincerely hope it was reviewed and thrown where it belongs since then.

[@daviddanagher7037]

Very sensible

[@B.Ies_T.Nduhey]

This is... Quite insane. Very British.

[@AntonioRivera28]

Why didnt they just charge the rail yard for the other half of the day when the rail gets light from the resident's land?

[@ArmyK9]

The railway gave them light? How's that possible? I thought the sun's free for everybody? 😂

[@ERobbins1234]

It’s basically a payment to stop British Rail building whatever they want on their land.

[@micrashed]

The reverse actually. By paying a fee to the railway the railway are protecting their interest to build whatever they want without the home owner claiming a right to light (Prescription). If they didnt pay it for 20 years they would gain that prescriptive easement and prevent the railway from building something on the railway companies land that reduced / blocked that right to light they had gained.

[@ERobbins1234]

@ Unless the railway builds something during that 20 years.

[@jasonayres]

When I was a boy, I remember seeing a piece of graffiti on a factory wall, as we drove past in my dad's truck. It said, "POLITICIANS", in rather darkly coloured paint. I asked my dad, "Politicians... What does *that* mean?" He didn't flinch, but solemnly replied, "You'll understand, one day." If you've never heard one before, this is the kind of thing they sometimes say (from 2:38) when trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[@animaanimus8011]

This happened in the US with corn patents, and they got away with it and still are. This gives new meaning to “company store.” “We don’t want to be bad neighbors…but we’ll threaten old people that we will be.”

[@davidstrohl]

Thank god this can never happen again here in the USA. Paying for the light that comes through a window? Ridiculous.

[@_Clem_H_Fandango_]

If you ever wondered why the colonists had revolts against the crown, here is but one example.

[@csb7376]

This rings a bell ifnsomething similar that was on That's Life in the late 70's/early 80's. The way they acted out the back and forth conversation in the studio, made ut seem just like a Minty Python sketch.

[@stuartwilsdon9683]

If that’s the case then British Rail should have been made to pay for all light that enters trains from land adjoining the tracks (bar their own land) for the odd 9,825 miles of track in the UK. That would more than even things out!

[@gregmathews715]

The answer would have been to have a system of mirrors to direct light from above into the windows

[@AnoraJohnson]

Does the railway also compensate the residents for the light the railway receives from their properties?

[@Chase_Mon3y]

wow. just wow how did this come to be and is it still around?

[@jacksonmiller2886]

The English have a common law legal doctrine called "ancient lights" which says if one property owner receives light into their home which comes through another property for 20 years, they get an easement to the other property. An easement is a nonpossessory right to use another person's property. This means if one person's house is next to a lot that has no building for 20 years, they can get the court to ban their neighbor from building anything that would block the light. So if you let your neighbor acquire "ancient lights" rights, your property value may be severely reduced as you lose the right to build on it. One way to prevent this is to get your neighbor to acknowledge they give up their "ancient lights" privileges, sealed by a token fee. The other is building obstructions, even like board towers. British Rails was actually being very reasonable, charging a minimum fee in order to keep their property from being immensely devalued by a government ban on building.

[@Alpacajon]

Classic big companies trying to fleece the little guy. The right of light and air does not mean you can charge them for that right it means that if you wanted to build something that may block that light then you can. Absolutely criminal.

[@Jawst]

Hahahaha seems like a April fools joke

[@Jawst]

It was released on the 30th of March lol

[@Ralphs-House]

Terrible, the railways having their light reduced by others 'stealing' it from them. I think these days you would have to prove 'loss' and that wouldn't stand up in court. Its a bit like the ridiculous charge made on consumers (which still exists) for water that runs off their roof. Even if you divert the whole lot into rain butts, you STILL get charged for runoff.

[@sarasread]

هل من المعقول وجود مثل تلك الرسوم والضرائب ؟!!! هل بإمكانك أخباري عن ضرائب أو رسوم مثل ذلك النوع ؟

[@wepreachchrist6685]

It seems ridiculous but the explanation near the makes sense. Basically the law states that if the people with the windows have their view (over a neighboring property) uninterrupted for 20 years then the landowner cannot legally block that view in the future. So of course that landowner has an interest in preventing that 20 year clock from running down. If it didn't their land would have to stay vacant and their land would functionally be worthless. It is similar to a squatter. If they stay long enough on a property they legally own it. It is a weird law but the logic is fall there.

[@JonHiddenColey]

Ludicrous!

[@4june9140]

Who is the guy presenting the programme? I remember him bu not his name

[@JoshWright10]

It seemed ridiculous until the lawyer explained it. They just want to protect their right to use their land freely and not have planning permission blocked later for obstruction of light. Increasing the fee was the only silly thing.

[@larryuknow]

I don't know if it is still in effect, but it's a good deal. It sounds silly, but if it prevents them from putting a building in front of my view. I win. Some day they will build a building there. We in the states have the same or similar laws. It's called zoning laws building restrictions etc .. difference is Britt's just more colorful ways of describing them.

[@Linda-pg3so]

Extraordinary🫤. The gall!

[@jacksonmiller2886]

British rail is actually being reasonable here. This is another problem caused by government intervention. Due to the odd and stringent law, they would lose the right to build on their property if they did not charge their neighbors or build obstructions. They elected to charge their neighbors a very small fee. It seems that is the most reasonable action to take under the law to keep their property rights. The alternative would be to lose the right to construct there, or at least make it very difficult, thus severely reducing the value of British Rail's property (well beyond a pound).

[@HeavenScent2110]

This is like a Monty Python sketch

[@iangrice329]

Omg what 😮😮😮

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

Reminds me of an abstract concept in economics which I read in Paul Sameulson's chapters on comparing utility or utils derived from consuming different products, which is included in his standard textbook, studied by millions of econ students at the undergraduate level, around the world. It is the PARADOX OF VALUE. For. e,g. Diamonds are of little value to a thirsty traveller who needs to drink water constantly during the summer heat in the Sub-Saharan desert region. So water has a higher utility! Similarly, to the British, daylight hours are precious, which is why it's being treated as a luxury commodity, not as a natural resource, which is available in abundance. Hence, sunlight is being taxed!? And those using it without paying a tax are described as free riders. hmm.. interesting.

[@davidrenton]

while it sounds stupid, there is an actual logic to it. If British Rail did nothing, then it would make expanding the site vertically in the future impossible if they where over the 20 year limit, the received 'light' would be given protection under the law. So basically they have the option charge a nominal fee or interupt that 20 year period by temporarily placing a structure that blocks it So by doing this , they deny the residents any future legal objection by saying i've had free unterupted light for 20 years, it legally correct it can continue

[@OpenRoader]

I wonder what a train derailment costs?

[@zulfiqarali9808]

What an unbelievably absurd argument by the then British Rails !!

[@nickp1548]

At least the shed has gone now. Does the twenty year rule still exist?

[@Estoverax]

You’ve got to love the UK 😂

[@RKusmie64]

And i thought we had weird laws.

[@QED777]

There's me thinking it was GOD that gave us all light ( and for free ! )

[@rjjcms1]

Divine retribution incoming.

[@keithraney2546]

That's Preposterous

[@Sacred_Silence]

Ask me if I'd ever pay that..

[@Sacred_Silence]

Spoiler: Hell no, I wouldn't pay a damn thing lol

[@zeroxception]

The law as always been for the benefit of the rich and powerful and big business

[@brianmmacu]

Tory HQ will have watched that and thought " brilliant idea!"

[@iandaniels8386]

new tory tax idea

[@effess8698]

I bet Sadiq Khan is watching this and feverishly making notes

[@christophercooper6731]

He wants to take us back to the good old days when men wore hats and ladies wore gloves, you mean?

[@TheRoswellCode]

4:24 In-your-face extortion.

[@crystalawen]

This was broadcast on April 1st…

[@petergarbutt9521]

PEOPLE THOUGHT THIS BR LIGHT TAX WAS COMPLICATED, UNTILL PEOPLE TRIED TO WORK OUT, WHICH TRAIN THEY COULD USE, WHEN PURCHASING A BR OPEN TICKET 🤬🤬🤬

[@MN-pu6qx]

Just for perspective, the government that allowed this was the same government that was responsible for the introduction of the UK's immigration policy.

[@geoffreywray4235]

It's a mad world 🌎 😅😮😢

[@thegreatawakening7945]

Is it not The Sun ?

[@cavnz]

4:40 "We don't wish to be bad neighbours" - you're beyond that point you stuck up git!

[@jamesleach4472]

‘Daylight robbery’

[@InfiniteLoop]

Much crooked, many scam. Though it is England we are talking about and when you’ve been around that long you’re bound to have some weird laws.

[@heatherbaker8596]

I hope they are passing on a commission to god for providing the light for them to sell in the first place

[@fatherofthenoo]

The Britain Reform wants to take us back to. Lovely.

[@Dushmann_]

lmao, you cannot be serious

[@johnk1639]

Seems fair 😂

[@knicol46]

These days we have a tax for living in a dwelling - council tax.

[@craigrothwell6144]

They had rates.

[@nickgray123]

Nice to see the actor Kevin Eldon doing a spot of time travelling as the crackpot British Rail revenue protection lawyer.

[@zipperton]

Ancient light bollocks

[@johnduffy4743]

Are you SURE the original date of broadcast WASN'T on 1st April 1971.......???! 🤔😱🤣😂🤭🤭👌

[@benwilliams2135]

Must be April fool.

[@Morbidia]

Rip off then rip off now every new years day the train fee's go up never missing a year.