Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 18:42:43 GMT
That'd work. And engines not to be run between 8pm and 8am.
OK so we need to look at vessel design as your "chines" thing won't float.
How about 14ft wide with a narrow waterline then a pair of wide underwater buoyancy tanks.
Or my favourite idea which is a narrow boat with slide-outs like the pikeys have in their rather nice caravans at fairgrounds. That would be good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 18:44:47 GMT
That'd work. And engines not to be run between 8pm and 8am. OK so we need to look at vessel design as your "chines" thing won't float. How about 14ft wide with a narrow waterline then a pair of wide underwater buoyancy tanks. Or my favourite idea which is a narrow boat with slide-outs like the pikeys have in their rather nice caravans at fairgrounds. That would be good. Pikey?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 18:46:11 GMT
Come on !
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Mar 6, 2018 19:46:13 GMT
The reason crt want self declaration is so they can "do" you if you supply false information. If they get the numbers from anywhere else, apart from the boot being on the other foot, they'll have to deal with a flood of complaints when they inevitably get it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Mar 6, 2018 19:58:08 GMT
Having just quickly looked through this latest load of tripe from my favourite navigation authority, I noted that the lies/mis-information get off to a flying start in paragraph 1.1 with the mention of - " a statutory river-only [Licence] discount of 40% ". There is, of course, no such thing as a 'River only' Licence and therefore nothing to apply any such discount to.
C&RT have no powers whatsoever to demand or issue any kind of 'Licence' for craft used only on their scheduled river navigations/waterways. In place of a Licence they do in fact have statutory powers to demand and enforce that every such craft is registered by way of a Pleasure Boat Certificate (PBC) limited in statute to no more than 60% of the cost of a Licence (PBL) - " payable to the Board for the licensing of such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway " - (Section 4[1] BW Act 1983).
An important but little known distinction with regard to PBC's and PBL's is that the former does NOT attract VAT, whereas the latter does. Notwithstanding, C&RT, like BW before them, have collected VAT in respect of every phoney 'Rivers only Licence' they have ever issued. In light of the fact that the stated intention of this Licensing Review was to make the charging criteria 'fairer' for everyone, perhaps they should now set about calculating and refunding every penny of the VAT they've wrongfully collected since 1 July 2012, . . a tidy sum in total, and a very welcome windfall for all the boaters they've robbed !
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2018 20:23:58 GMT
C&RT, like BW before them, have collected VAT in respect of every phoney 'Rivers only Licence' they have ever issued. In light of the fact that the stated intention of this Licensing Review was to make the charging criteria 'fairer' for everyone, perhaps they should now set about calculating and refunding every penny of the VAT they've wrongfully collected since 1 July 2012, . . a tidy sum in total, and a very welcome windfall for all the boaters they've robbed ! A potential alternative, if wrongful payment of VAT has occurred, could be to apply to HMRC directly for refunds, and leave them to pursue those who 'mistakenly' demanded it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 20:24:18 GMT
iwantmybwvatback.com ?
I can see the cold callers queuing up to randomly phone boaters to ask if they were illegally charged vat.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 6, 2018 22:34:15 GMT
If VAT has been charged knowingly and illegally, shouldn't someone be off to prison? I personally believe that any individual officers and their superiors who have pursued criminal extortion to the benefit of their employer, should never be able to do so in confidence of immunity – the sad fact is, however, that for all practical purposes, they can and do get away with it. That is so even when their actions have been found by the Courts to be illegal/criminal, and even where they admit to being “mistaken” without waiting for such a proclamation. I have cited the example before, but even where the then London Regional Manager for London admitted in a press release that they needed to “treat this area differently” regarding the historic criminal enforcement of licensing on the Brent, they continued to demand that in serving s.8 Notices that had been declared invalid by the Court. They never volunteered refunds of the sums illegally extorted over decades, even though they quietly re-imbursed [with interest] the tens of thousands of pounds claimed by those few boaters with the balls and the nous to ask for it. No authoritative body has ever been involved in holding them to account though, in terms of direct sanctions against their officers, and I doubt they ever will. I know of only one adverse finding against them on a criminal charge, in concert with a sub-contracting firm – yet that itself illustrated the tenderness with which BW [as they then were] were treated. They were, admittedly, as the principal offender, fined the most, but whereas the Director of the sub-contractor company had to pay a fine individually also, alongside the fine levied against his company, not such sanction was applied against anyone in BW!
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 6, 2018 23:33:20 GMT
If VAT has been charged knowingly and illegally, shouldn't someone be off to prison? I personally believe that any individual officers and their superiors who have pursued criminal extortion to the benefit of their employer, should never be able to do so in confidence of immunity – the sad fact is, however, that for all practical purposes, they can and do get away with it. That is so even when their actions have been found by the Courts to be illegal/criminal, and even where they admit to being “mistaken” without waiting for such a proclamation. I have cited the example before, but even where the then London Regional Manager for London admitted in a press release that they needed to “treat this area differently” regarding the historic criminal enforcement of licensing on the Brent, they continued to demand that in serving s.8 Notices that had been declared invalid by the Court. They never volunteered refunds of the sums illegally extorted over decades, even though they quietly re-imbursed [with interest] the tens of thousands of pounds claimed by those few boaters with the balls and the nous to ask for it. No authoritative body has ever been involved in holding them to account though, in terms of direct sanctions against their officers, and I doubt they ever will. I know of only one adverse finding against them on a criminal charge, in concert with a sub-contracting firm – yet that itself illustrated the tenderness with which BW [as they then were] were treated. They were, admittedly, as the principal offender, fined the most, but whereas the Director of the sub-contractor company had to pay a fine individually also, alongside the fine levied against his company, not such sanction was applied against anyone in BW! Do they actually charge vat for rivers only or is it based on that it's 60% on a licence fee which includes vat. If it's the latter, I reckon they are just about meeting the requirement of the act.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 7, 2018 10:49:09 GMT
Do they actually charge vat for rivers only or is it based on that it's 60% on a licence fee which includes vat. If it's the latter, I reckon they are just about meeting the requirement of the act. I have no idea how the charge is calculated, so am not suggesting that they are doing anything wrong. My response was directly to naughtyfox’s query as to the proper consequence “ IF VAT has been charged knowingly and illegally”. The historic fact is that fines have been levied against the organisation where found guilty, but no individual officer, to my knowledge, has ever been punished let alone sent to prison for it. I except from that observation, of course, any instances where individual crimes have been committed independently of the organisation's approval. [Many years ago one BW inspector, who regularly fleeced boaters in a sort of protection racket on the Grand Union, was charged, convicted, and sent to prison - but had evidently not been acting according to official policy, and had kept the cash for himself.]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 12:11:35 GMT
Do they actually charge vat for rivers only or is it based on that it's 60% on a licence fee which includes vat. If it's the latter, I reckon they are just about meeting the requirement of the act. I have no idea how the charge is calculated, so am not suggesting that they are doing anything wrong. My response was directly to naughtyfox’s query as to the proper consequence “ IF VAT has been charged knowingly and illegally”. The historic fact is that fines have been levied against the organisation where found guilty, but no individual officer, to my knowledge, has ever been punished let alone sent to prison for it. I except from that observation, of course, any instances where individual crimes have been committed independently of the organisation's approval. [Many years ago one BW inspector, who regularly fleeced boaters in a sort of protection racket on the Grand Union, was charged, convicted, and sent to prison - but had evidently not been acting according to official policy, and had kept the cash for himself.] Still seems to be widespread, and even harder to stamp out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 12:21:01 GMT
Seems very odd. Do these people provide some sort of paper receipt to make it appear legitimate? Or is it simply a bribe to "not notice" overstaying.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 7, 2018 13:56:29 GMT
Seems very odd. Do these people provide some sort of paper receipt to make it appear legitimate? Or is it simply a bribe to "not notice" overstaying. It would be interesting to know the details of that particular case, and how the practice was supposedly employed widely throughout the system elsewhere, but it cannot have required any “paper receipt”! Easy enough though, to take bribes for cancelling out a s.8 Notice for example, as you query; they were often slapped on boats without due process being followed. Presumably victims would not want to be exposed, thus permitting abuse to continue without complaint [though somebody must have squealed in Mr Kent’s case]. Probably few have read through the cross-examinations in my main case, let alone the Judgment, but the Patrol Officer concerned – Ray Farrow – gave evidence that it was his custom to serve s.8 Notices on boats without bothering to find out who the owners were, simply as a “wake-up call” to get their attention. He did so [with managerial approval] even on boats where previous officers had recognised that these were inapplicable, by the evidence of the very Patrol Reports that he provided in evidence. Now, I do not suggest that he was ever known to extract payment for cancelling those , but it would certainly have been one way to extort money, should such an officer be so inclined. The difference, between that old case and current practice, is probably that employees would see how evidence of enthusiasm in issuing Notices will advance their careers [as in Mr Garner’s case], such that it would be more profitable [and risk-free] to have any monies paid into CaRT coffers via ostensibly ‘legal’ processes – such as overstay charges etc – rather than pocketing cash for themselves directly. I have been unable to discover any particulars of the James Kent case; as to the Health & Safety prosecution of British Waterways, which I referred to earlier, skeletal details are available here – www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/criminal_prosecutions I cannot remember whether I did manage to get hold of the judgments; I seem to recall that I did read something more, and ‘corporate manslaughter’ was not applied, but why no BW officer received the same treatment as the Director of the sub-contracting company was never explicated. Another twist to that tale, was that BW’s Legal Director of the time, Nigel Johnson, drafted a bonus aim for himself as obtaining clearance of the criminal finding. It would not surprise me if he succeeded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 18:07:06 GMT
I was wondering if it had been a mooring fee scam. There are some authorised (authorised by land owners) mooring fee bailiffs on the Thames the most notable one being Steve at Henley but there have also been instances of people attempting to collect mooring fees illegally. Having a receipt book is one way of looking official. I'm moored almost opposite you by the way - in a 20ft Colvic waiting for Thames lock at 0645 tomorrow..
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Mar 7, 2018 18:24:08 GMT
I'm moored almost opposite you by the way - in a 20ft Colvic waiting for Thames lock at 0645 tomorrow.. Pity you didn't give me advance warning - am away for a few days, otherwise we could have had a drink .
|
|