|
Post by tadworth on Apr 7, 2017 12:02:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 14:39:55 GMT
Just out of interest - what are you [considering] selling from your boat?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 8, 2017 12:53:23 GMT
Just out of interest - what are you [considering] selling from your boat? I'm not considering doing business from my boat, I just want to know if the business licence is legally valid or not.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 22, 2017 13:42:54 GMT
The 1975 bylaws number 3, mentions the display of a " commercial vessel licence" but I can't find any more details of what this was exactly, anyone know ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 23, 2017 22:24:47 GMT
The 1975 bylaws number 3, mentions the display of a " commercial vessel licence" but I can't find any more details of what this was exactly, anyone know ? Look a bit earlier in the "definitions" section - “commercial vessel” means any ship, boat, barge, lighter or raft and any other description of craft used for the conveyance of
goods on a canal other than a commercial waterway. “commercial vessel licence” means a licence issued in writing by the Board to the owner of a commercial vessel enabling him to navigate such vessel on a canal other than a commercial waterway. The curious thing there is that any vessel used for the conveyance of goods on a commercial waterway only [see the listings of such further to the 1968 Transport Act] does not require such a licence. Presumably they will be subject only to the applicable tolls.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2017 14:53:24 GMT
Do you think the current business trading licences are lawful or a fiction ?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 24, 2017 17:44:06 GMT
I have not looked into it. I suspect that what people do on their boats if not carrying cargo is their own business; to what extent somebody selling goods from their registered pleasure boat - as an example - could be considered to be carrying that 'cargo', is a nice point. If they are not carrying anything and are only selling skills perhaps, I cannot see that it concerns CaRT at all.
I do not see where 'business' licences come into any legislative picture, whereas any boat carrying goods for sale on the non-commercial waterways would qualify for the 'commercial' licence as per the byelaw, rather than anything else. My caveat, as said, is that this is a superficial and not authorative view.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2017 19:14:11 GMT
I would think carrying cargo is defined by transporting goods from one place to another, and does not involve retail those goods at any point. Any goods on a retailers boat are purely stock.
I don't see any way that CaRT could be free to create its own licences when there are statutory licences involved, it would be like the BBC selling its own TV licence independently of the government.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 24, 2017 20:31:36 GMT
I would think carrying cargo is defined by transporting goods from one place to another . . . The refinement of the definition is that it applies to vessels " used for the conveyance of goods", whether it is actually doing so or not. Rather similar to the definition of a pleasure boat "used for" navigation, whether it is actually being so used at any point in time or not [as most are not].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2017 21:25:29 GMT
I would think carrying cargo is defined by transporting goods from one place to another, and does not involve retail those goods at any point. Any goods on a retailers boat are purely stock. I don't see any way that CaRT could be free to create its own licences when there are statutory licences involved, it would be like the BBC selling its own TV licence independently of the government. I'm impressed by how interested you are in this subject given that you are apparently not trading or intending to trade from your own boat. Are you enquiring on behalf of someone else, in a consultant role?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Apr 24, 2017 23:04:59 GMT
I would think carrying cargo is defined by transporting goods from one place to another, and does not involve retail those goods at any point. Any goods on a retailers boat are purely stock. I don't see any way that CaRT could be free to create its own licences when there are statutory licences involved, it would be like the BBC selling its own TV licence independently of the government. I'm impressed by how interested you are in this subject given that you are apparently not trading or intending to trade from your own boat. Are you enquiring on behalf of someone else, in a consultant role? Thanks, I'm real glad you're impressed. I feel all special now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2017 13:21:04 GMT
I'm glad to hear my effort was not wasted.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 21, 2017 0:08:47 GMT
Some breathtaking dishonesty has appeared in a recent FoI internal review respecting a question over business licences – unless one is prepared to accept that CaRT’s head of legal has a very poor grasp of the legislation he cites. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/business_licences?nocache=incoming-1009847#incoming-1009847 “ Section 10 (which only applies in respect of registration of pleasure boats on the Trusts’s river navigations – i.e. not houseboats or boats used for the carriage of goods) allows the Trust to classify and sub-divide pleasure boats and to fix registration charges to be paid provided those charges do not exceed the “appropriate prescribed charges” in respect of such pleasure boats. The appropriate prescribed charges are defined in section 7, as such charges as the Trust may from time to time determine.” [my bold] The “appropriate prescribed charges” are, contrary to this bald lie, those rigidly prescribed in Schedule 3 of the 1971 Act. The Board may from time to time determine lesser charges for sub-classifications of equivalent sized boats, but not greater ones. Even on the face of it, the assertion is ludicrous - it would paraphrase the legislation as providing that whatever they choose to charge cannot exceed whatever they choose to charge. It seems odd that the quoted sections only, of the 1971 Act, are used; the “prescribed charges” did not survive the 1983 Act, instead, the charge levels for river registrations were pegged at 60% of the licence charges for the same boat [whatever its size and sub-classification might be], and no restrictions on those charge levels for pleasure boat licences exist. In my understanding however, the same principle will continue to apply: they can sub-divide pleasure boats into differing categories, but charges for those sub-divisions of pleasure boats cannot exceed whatever they choose to charge for the standard pleasure boat.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Jul 21, 2017 14:16:13 GMT
Some breathtaking dishonesty has appeared in a recent FoI internal review respecting a question over business licences – unless one is prepared to accept that CaRT’s head of legal has a very poor grasp of the legislation he cites. Let's face it, . . . had he not been an accomplished liar, he would never have got the job !
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 21, 2017 15:23:57 GMT
Well, it saddens me. On the brief face to face in court, I allowed myself a faint hope that he was made of more honourable stuff. The fledgling respect has died before having had a chance to spread its wings.
The comments were not, after all, an off the cuff bit of carelessness; this was a considered Internal Review of how CaRT had handled the relevant request.
|
|