Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 13:56:39 GMT
PBC's are not exempted from the requirements for insurance and safety certificate. Tony is not suggesting otherwise. That's what I thought Nigel. The words "needless BSS examinations" did seem to imply that he thought he was somehow immune I think that may be what Jim was referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 31, 2019 14:23:52 GMT
PBC's are not exempted from the requirements for insurance and safety certificate. Tony is not suggesting otherwise. That's what I thought Nigel. The words "needless BSS examinations" did seem to imply that he thought he was somehow immune I think that may be what Jim was referring to. Yes. I didn't think it could be so.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2019 14:29:47 GMT
Not for me to put words into Tony’s mouth, as it were, but he has been saying, as I understand, that the necessary BSSC can be issued without a full examination – for either PBC OR PBL – if the vessel is self-certified - as per CaRT’s online guide - as having no operational systems requiring examination for compliance. Additionally, proof that the vessel in question is the one for which the application is relevant, is somewhat redundant in his case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 14:42:47 GMT
All along I have been dense, assuming the aim in this was to get the boat legal. But that isn't the aim. Not at all because that could be achieved very simply by supplying a photo of the boat proving it's exemption from the BS scheme.
Permanent exemption until the owner decides to inform CRT it is no longer exempt.
What CRT need to do here is simply issue the pbc to get rid of the problem. But they can't see it !!
this is deliberate stalling of the legal process of license/certificate application with the intention to have the process itself examined for probity.
Quite intriguing but I still tend to agree with Mrs tabby that it will just end up with the boat being lost.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 31, 2019 15:30:02 GMT
All along I have been dense, assuming the aim in this was to get the boat legal. But that isn't the aim. Not at all because that could be achieved very simply by supplying a photo of the boat proving it's exemption from the BS scheme. Permanent exemption until the owner decides to inform CRT it is no longer exempt. What CRT need to do here is simply issue the pbc to get rid of the problem. But they can't see it !! Now you're getting there, Andrew ! With regard to C&RT issuing the PBC, however, it's not that they ''can't see" how to get rid of the problem, but that they dare not simply register my boat, which is all that the law requires, as opposed to licensing it, because of the inevitable repercussions. C&RT know that issuing 'the pleasure boat certificate' specified in the 15 August 2019 Court Order would in effect amount to an admission of their previous wrongdoing with regard to issuing fictitious/fraudulent 'licences' which in turn would almost certainly blow the lid completely off the deception, the 'licence' fraud, and the unlawful collection of VAT with which they have been feeding their megalomania since July 2012. The deception took the form of lying to the boating public, AND the Courts, about having statutory powers to 'licence' the use of the river waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the BW Act of 1971, . . the fraud took the form of selling a registration certificate [the PBC] as a 'licence', with the accompanying unlawful collection of VAT being draped with a veil of legitimacy and facilitated by way of the knowingly false representation of a registration certificate as a 'licence'.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 31, 2019 17:29:06 GMT
What CRT need to do here is simply issue the pbc to get rid of the problem. But they can't see it !! Yes. But where is the fun in that?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 31, 2019 17:30:10 GMT
Has anyone contacted the VAT people yet?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 31, 2019 18:41:33 GMT
why ...... it's not their problem if people give them money when they don't have to
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 18:50:07 GMT
Only one thing is for sure: You can't persuade Tony to change his mind on the issue of the BSS certificate or anything else so don't bother trying. To be fair, the only likely result of jumping through the presented hoops will be to not have however much a BSS survey costs, in which case having spent it on beer instead will seem eminently sensible. The only hope is that the high court judge is the sort who is comfortable enough in his or her seniority to exercise it. I couldn't find a report on how this ended.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 31, 2019 18:54:21 GMT
why ...... it's not their problem if people give them money when they don't have to I think one would find someone in the VAT dept. would reply at least. I think the Tax Office is generally fair in getting things right. You don't know without asking! Should I ask? (when I have time? next week?)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 31, 2019 18:59:57 GMT
Only one thing is for sure: You can't persuade Tony to change his mind on the issue of the BSS certificate or anything else so don't bother trying. To be fair, the only likely result of jumping through the presented hoops will be to not have however much a BSS survey costs, in which case having spent it on beer instead will seem eminently sensible. The only hope is that the high court judge is the sort who is comfortable enough in his or her seniority to exercise it. I couldn't find a report on how this ended. A spokesman for the Lord Chancellor's department does not appear to know if anyone has the right to demand trial by combat. Why not? Does he not know the laws of the land?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2019 19:03:05 GMT
why ...... it's not their problem if people give them money when they don't have to I think one would find someone in the VAT dept. would reply at least. I think the Tax Office is generally fair in getting things right. You don't know without asking! Should I ask? (when I have time? next week?) Go for it. And record the conversation. And post it on youtube.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Oct 31, 2019 19:06:38 GMT
I think one would find someone in the VAT dept. would reply at least. I think the Tax Office is generally fair in getting things right. You don't know without asking! Should I ask? (when I have time? next week?) Go for it. And record the conversation. And post it on youtube. Remind me on Sunday evening and I'll scratch something together. There's no harm in asking, is there? I am surprised no-one else here has got round to this. Travelling this weekend, but might have time to work out what to say on Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 31, 2019 19:32:55 GMT
Only one thing is for sure: You can't persuade Tony to change his mind on the issue of the BSS certificate or anything else so don't bother trying. To be fair, the only likely result of jumping through the presented hoops will be to not have however much a BSS survey costs, in which case having spent it on beer instead will seem eminently sensible. The only hope is that the high court judge is the sort who is comfortable enough in his or her seniority to exercise it. I couldn't find a report on how this ended. According to the telegraph he was fined £200 plus £100 costs. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1416262/Court-refuses-trial-by-combat.html
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 31, 2019 19:41:47 GMT
I couldn't find a report on how this ended. The right to trial by combat was repealed by Parliament in 1819, after the defendant in a murder case had successfully invoked it the previous year. The magistrates in the case you cited were evidently unaware of this. People in general would doubtless be dismayed at how little judges or magistrates might know about specific law - but it is hardly surprising; they often need the barristers or the court clerks to identify any relevant legislation. Mr Humphries was mistaken in asserting that the right was still on the statute books; apart from the fact that the right had been repealed, it was common law not statute law. In the Humphries case the magistrates made no decision as to the continued validity of the claim; they just logged him in as pleading 'not guilty'.
|
|