|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 14:41:04 GMT
I was VAT registered as well for years made a lot of money out of it π it's amazing what you can do with the money in the three months before you have to pay it to the VAT man. Having never noticed VAT mentioned on my licence I forgot that it was on there. I think you got it. The licence fee is inclusive of VAT. That is what they charge 60% off. I remember it being a very technical debate and largely depends it CRT send of the VAT grey have technically collect on a non vat product. It was a long debate.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 14:44:00 GMT
I also note that the licence fee says "The Licence is a legally binding contract, subject to the Terms and Conditions contained in this document"
I wonder who and when that will be tested in court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 15:05:38 GMT
To be honest I don't really care as I am and will remain for the foreseeable future on EA Anglian waters.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2021 15:18:17 GMT
TD, We all should pay towards the upkeep of the system be it through a canal licence or through a river registration. You however did not pay for HD whether this was your fault or carts fault is immaterial. The fact is you didn't pay so we are in effect subsidising you. So tell me how is the statement wrong? I'll deal first with the crackpot notion that ANYONE should be paying for the use of something WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING IT, . . and then, with the all too apparent general confusion that persists over the VAT that C&RT have fooled both the majority of demonstrably gullible boating public, and HMRC, into believing to be legitimately applied to a 'licence' by means of dishonestly selling only fraudulent "Rivers only LICENCES" -- with the VAT that legitimate LICENCES attract added to the fee -- instead of issuing the legitimate VAT free river registration certificate that the law demands under Section 5 of the BW Act 1971. Section 5 of the British Waterways Act of 1971 introduced the mandatory registration of any pleasure craft exercising the (still extant to this day) Public Right of Navigation on the 'river waterways' under the control of the then British Waterways Board -- now replaced by the C&RT -- by means of what was defined within the terms of the Act as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate. The purpose of the introduction of this chargeable registration of pleasure craft was primarily to replace the previous system of charging pleasure craft for the use of locks by way of paying a toll for each passage of any 'river waterway' lock, or by giving pleasure craft the option of buying what used to be called a 'Lock Pass', which gave entitlement to unlimited passage of river locks, and some canal locks, without any further payment of any fee or toll. An additional benefit to be had by the BWB from the introduction of the mandatory registration of pleasure craft in 1971 was that it would now have the means to identify individual pleasure craft and their owners in the event of Byelaw infringements, . . and this is why pleasure craft already holding a Pleasure Boat Licence for the use of the BWB's man-made canals were exempted from the requirement to hold a separate river 'registration' certificate when venturing off the canals and onto the Board's river waterways. Other than as stated above, there is not, and never has been, any form of charging for the maintenance of river waterways other than contributing to the cost of dredging the navigation channel as and where necessary, and the maintenance of locks, via the fee charged for the Pleasure Boat Certificate. Maintenance of the navigation channel does not, and has never, entailed any dredging or bank protection works in the river margins between locks. By definition, therefore, ANY out of commission pleasure craft moored to privately owned riverside land is NOT using or benefitting from ANY of the maintenance works carried out to the 'river waterway' as defined under the 1971 Act by the navigation authority.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 10, 2021 15:38:38 GMT
TD, We all should pay towards the upkeep of the system be it through a canal licence or through a river registration. You however did not pay for HD whether this was your fault or carts fault is immaterial. The fact is you didn't pay so we are in effect subsidising you. So tell me how is the statement wrong? I'll deal first with the crackpot notion that ANYONE should be paying for the use of something WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING IT, . . and then, with the all too apparent general confusion that persists over the VAT that C&RT have fooled both the majority of demonstrably gullible boating public, and HMRC, into believing to be legitimately applied to a 'licence' by means of dishonestly selling only fraudulent "Rivers only LICENCES" -- with the VAT that legitimate LICENCES attract added to the fee -- instead of issuing the legitimate VAT free river registration certificate that the law demands under Section 5 of the BW Act 1971.Β Section 5 of the British Waterways Act of 1971 introduced the mandatory registration of any pleasure craft exercising the (still extant to this day) Public Right of Navigation on the 'river waterways' under the control of the then British Waterways Board -- now replaced by the C&RT -- by means of what was defined within the terms of the Act as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate. The purpose of the introduction of this chargeable registration of pleasure craft was primarily to replace the previous system of charging pleasure craft for the use of locks by way of paying a toll for each passage of any 'river waterway' lock, or by giving pleasure craft the option of buying what used to be called a 'Lock Pass', which gave entitlement to unlimited passage of river locks, and some canal locks, without any further payment of any fee or toll. An additional benefit to be had by the BWB from the introduction of the mandatory registration of pleasure craft in 1971 was that it would now have the means to identify individual pleasure craft and their owners in the event of Byelaw infringements, . . and this is why pleasure craft already holding a Pleasure Boat Licence for the use of the BWB's man-made canals were exempted from the requirement to hold a separate river 'registration' certificate when venturing off the canals and onto the Board's river waterways. Other than as stated above, there is not, and never has been, any form of charging for the maintenance of river waterways other than contributing to the cost of dredging the navigation channel as and where necessary, and the maintenance of locks, via the fee charged for the Pleasure Boat Certificate.Β Maintenance of the navigation channel does not, and has never, entailed any dredging or bank protection works in the river margins between locks. By definition, therefore, ANY out of commission pleasure craft moored to privately owned riverside land is NOT using or benefitting from ANY of the maintenance works carried out to the 'river waterway' as defined under the 1971 Act by the navigation authority.Β So you keep saying, but we can't influence anything. What are you going to do now, they won't rise to your bait, so that you could bring it up before the beak? The ball is in your court to take action against CRT. Banging on at us won't cut the mustard.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 10, 2021 18:22:42 GMT
I'll deal first with the crackpot notion that ANYONE should be paying for the use of something WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING IT, . . and then, with the all too apparent general confusion that persists over the VAT that C&RT have fooled both the majority of demonstrably gullible boating public, and HMRC, into believing to be legitimately applied to a 'licence' by means of dishonestly selling only fraudulent "Rivers only LICENCES" -- with the VAT that legitimate LICENCES attract added to the fee -- instead of issuing the legitimate VAT free river registration certificate that the law demands under Section 5 of the BW Act 1971. Section 5 of the British Waterways Act of 1971 introduced the mandatory registration of any pleasure craft exercising the (still extant to this day) Public Right of Navigation on the 'river waterways' under the control of the then British Waterways Board -- now replaced by the C&RT -- by means of what was defined within the terms of the Act as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate. The purpose of the introduction of this chargeable registration of pleasure craft was primarily to replace the previous system of charging pleasure craft for the use of locks by way of paying a toll for each passage of any 'river waterway' lock, or by giving pleasure craft the option of buying what used to be called a 'Lock Pass', which gave entitlement to unlimited passage of river locks, and some canal locks, without any further payment of any fee or toll. An additional benefit to be had by the BWB from the introduction of the mandatory registration of pleasure craft in 1971 was that it would now have the means to identify individual pleasure craft and their owners in the event of Byelaw infringements, . . and this is why pleasure craft already holding a Pleasure Boat Licence for the use of the BWB's man-made canals were exempted from the requirement to hold a separate river 'registration' certificate when venturing off the canals and onto the Board's river waterways. Other than as stated above, there is not, and never has been, any form of charging for the maintenance of river waterways other than contributing to the cost of dredging the navigation channel as and where necessary, and the maintenance of locks, via the fee charged for the Pleasure Boat Certificate. Maintenance of the navigation channel does not, and has never, entailed any dredging or bank protection works in the river margins between locks. By definition, therefore, ANY out of commission pleasure craft moored to privately owned riverside land is NOT using or benefitting from ANY of the maintenance works carried out to the 'river waterway' as defined under the 1971 Act by the navigation authority. So you keep saying, but we can't influence anything. What are you going to do now, they won't rise to your bait, so that you could bring it up before the beak? The ball is in your court to take action against CRT. Banging on at us won't cut the mustard. Before complaining about something being repetition of previously published material, it's generally acknowledged to be a wise precaution to take the trouble to read what's been said first, . . especially if it's reply directed to someone other than you, . . and in response to a specific point that they have raised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 18:58:16 GMT
I'll deal first with the crackpot notion that ANYONE should be paying for the use of something WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING IT, . . and then, with the all too apparent general confusion that persists over the VAT that C&RT have fooled both the majority of demonstrably gullible boating public, and HMRC, into believing to be legitimately applied to a 'licence' by means of dishonestly selling only fraudulent "Rivers only LICENCES" -- with the VAT that legitimate LICENCES attract added to the fee -- instead of issuing the legitimate VAT free river registration certificate that the law demands under Section 5 of the BW Act 1971. Section 5 of the British Waterways Act of 1971 introduced the mandatory registration of any pleasure craft exercising the (still extant to this day) Public Right of Navigation on the 'river waterways' under the control of the then British Waterways Board -- now replaced by the C&RT -- by means of what was defined within the terms of the Act as a "Pleasure Boat Certificate. The purpose of the introduction of this chargeable registration of pleasure craft was primarily to replace the previous system of charging pleasure craft for the use of locks by way of paying a toll for each passage of any 'river waterway' lock, or by giving pleasure craft the option of buying what used to be called a 'Lock Pass', which gave entitlement to unlimited passage of river locks, and some canal locks, without any further payment of any fee or toll. An additional benefit to be had by the BWB from the introduction of the mandatory registration of pleasure craft in 1971 was that it would now have the means to identify individual pleasure craft and their owners in the event of Byelaw infringements, . . and this is why pleasure craft already holding a Pleasure Boat Licence for the use of the BWB's man-made canals were exempted from the requirement to hold a separate river 'registration' certificate when venturing off the canals and onto the Board's river waterways. Other than as stated above, there is not, and never has been, any form of charging for the maintenance of river waterways other than contributing to the cost of dredging the navigation channel as and where necessary, and the maintenance of locks, via the fee charged for the Pleasure Boat Certificate. Maintenance of the navigation channel does not, and has never, entailed any dredging or bank protection works in the river margins between locks. By definition, therefore, ANY out of commission pleasure craft moored to privately owned riverside land is NOT using or benefitting from ANY of the maintenance works carried out to the 'river waterway' as defined under the 1971 Act by the navigation authority. So you keep saying, but we can't influence anything. What are you going to do now, they won't rise to your bait, so that you could bring it up before the beak? The ball is in your court to take action against CRT. Banging on at us won't cut the mustard. It's ok Jim, Tony clearly stated last week that it's all kicking off this week. Personally I have every confidence it isn't the usual bullshit this time. ,
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 10, 2021 19:59:44 GMT
So you keep saying, but we can't influence anything. What are you going to do now, they won't rise to your bait, so that you could bring it up before the beak? The ball is in your court to take action against CRT. Banging on at us won't cut the mustard. It's ok Jim, Tony clearly stated last week that it's all kicking off this week. Personally I have every confidence it isn't the usual bullshit this time. , So it's happening ππ I've had the popcorn out a while but will order some more. πΏπΏ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2021 21:51:43 GMT
Henley regatta tomorrow I must put my blazer on and use the fob electric steering while standing on the port bridge wing just to annoy people.
|
|
|
Post by patty on Aug 11, 2021 5:53:23 GMT
It's ok Jim, Tony clearly stated last week that it's all kicking off this week. Personally I have every confidence it isn't the usual bullshit this time. , So it's happening ππ I've had the popcorn out a while but will order some more. πΏπΏ The original popcorn is probably soggy by now... I like popcorn, the white wolf can eat that snack
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 12, 2021 16:42:14 GMT
I also note that the licence fee says "The Licence is a legally binding contract, subject to the Terms and Conditions contained in this document" I wonder who and when that will be tested in court. So should anyone who forked out for this back in April of this year : -- < www.crowdjustice.com/case/protect-boats-homes/ > . . . introduced to TB by the, possibly, now departed well known liar, loudmouth, and embezzler who formerly went, amongst countless other phony ID's, under the name of bedruthan !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 12, 2021 17:06:01 GMT
So your in touch with the organisations involved and know how the judicial review is progressing then Tony? No thought not, just venting your spleen as usual.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 12, 2021 19:25:04 GMT
So your in touch with the organisations involved and know how the judicial review is progressing then Tony? No thought not, just venting your spleen as usual. Had you taken the trouble to open the link provided -- instead of just gobbing off in your customary fashion -- you would have seen that there is, as yet, no Judicial Review, filed for, progressing, or otherwise, . . and that the most recent 'update' provided by this still somewhat indeterminate 'coalition' was over 6 weeks ago, on 28 June 2021, stating that C&RT had made only a few "minor concessions" in respect of the new extra-statutory ultra vires Licence T&C's. Not very good value for Β£6,432.00 is it ? Nb: I see that your petulant ill-considered outburst has earned you another undeserved vote of approval of your silly comments from the equally vacuous Alice, . . well done !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Aug 12, 2021 19:32:16 GMT
Oh is that right Tony, maybe you should check before you βgob off.β But then the habits of a lifetime are hard to break hey. As an aside where are you going to moor your wooden cruisers as you no longer have the mooring at Barton in Fabis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2021 19:40:22 GMT
So your in touch with the organisations involved and know how the judicial review is progressing then Tony? No thought not, just venting your spleen as usual. Had you taken the trouble to open the link provided -- instead of just gobbing off in your customary fashion -- you would have seen that there is, as yet, no Judicial Review, filed for, progressing, or otherwise, . . and that the most recent 'update' provided by this still somewhat indeterminate 'coalition' was over 6 weeks ago, on 28 June 2021, stating that C&RT had made only a few "minor concessions" in respect of the new extra-statutory ultra vires Licence T&C's. Not very good value for Β£6,432.00 is it ? Nb: I see that your petulant ill-considered outburst has earned you another undeserved vote of approval of your silly comments from the equally vacuous Alice, . . well done ! What a lovely chap Rog
|
|