|
Post by ched on May 24, 2019 22:05:30 GMT
That's a good point Phil - would further explain any resistance to straightening this out.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 25, 2019 6:28:14 GMT
Thanks Tony, How would one go about getting ones money back? This could add-up to quite a significant amount for us. I was thinking something along the lines of writing to them, they say no, then filing a small claims. What does everyone (and Nigel!) think would be the best course of action? Anyone up for banding together for a class action if that's possible? I am somewhat hesitant to comment given that I have not kept up with the latest rules on VAT. Essentially though, given that any VAT collected goes to HMRC, if you can show good reason why you ought not to have been charged, you can (could anyway) reclaim from HMRC. This used to be the case, whether still so or not, and was the route taken by all those, for example, who purchased relevant goods or services on which VAT was charged in respect of vessels which were zero-rated. The providers may not have been aware or convinced of the zero-rating, and in any event proof of the zero-rating would need to be produced. Having that proof (which my company provided in the form of an HMRC approved Certificate of Tonnage for VAT purposes only), people could reclaim VAT unnecessarily paid, from HMRC, even back-dated to a certain number of years (I forget how many at this point in time) and from numerous different providers. The claim went to HMRC and was paid out (if accepted) by them. There would not have been any adverse fall-out against the initial collectors of the VAT so long as all transactions were recorded and filed properly. So if that situation still applies, and provided that you can produce proof that you have paid VAT on services which do not attract VAT, you can file a claim for refund of that from HMRC. If the 'mistake' was down to HMRC, then you could also claim interest on the sums owed, but they will not pay out any interest on sums owed as a result of 'mistakes' by the service provider.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 25, 2019 8:21:27 GMT
Will the service provider have to fork out the interest? Anyway, how many boaters have actually contacted CRT about this? Have the EA also been charging VAT for 'registering' boats?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 25, 2019 8:28:54 GMT
Will the service provider have to fork out the interest? Anyway, how many boaters have actually contacted CRT about this? Have the EA also been charging VAT for 'registering' boats? I think it's been covered earlier in the thread, no vat on ea reg certificate.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 25, 2019 9:50:03 GMT
Will the service provider have to fork out the interest? I suspect that would have to be the subject of a separate civil claim against the provider for 'damages', in this case for loss of interest. Given the standard bank interest, would one bother?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2019 8:20:32 GMT
Thanks Tony, How would one go about getting ones money back? This could add-up to quite a significant amount for us. I was thinking something along the lines of writing to them, they say no, then filing a small claims. What does everyone (and Nigel!) think would be the best course of action? Anyone up for banding together for a class action if that's possible? I've waited a couple of days before responding to your post because I wanted to see just how much useful, focused support there would be for seeking a remedy, and I'm sorry to have to say that it doesn't look as if things are going any better now than they did the last time I tried to draw attention to C&RT's "Rivers only Licence" scam, and to how much it's costing those who are being lied to and conned. Both this thread, and the one on the same subject over on CWDF, seem to have become focused on the minutiae of how VAT is collected and administered rather than sticking to the point about C&RT charging VAT at standard rate (currently 20%) on boat Registration fees, which in common with the EA's boat Registration fees, and registration fees in general, are either VAT 'Exempt' or 0% 'Rated'. As for how to go about getting back what's owed to you, and everyone else who has paid VAT that was never due on something that doesn't in fact exist, I think the first move has to be to C&RT themselves rather than to HMRC. After all, looking at this matter from the HMRC standpoint, it will appear to them that everything is in order, with C&RT doing exactly the same as BW always did and applying standard rate VAT to boat "Licences". Nobody is ever going to get anywhere with sorting this out until it becomes universally understood and accepted that the 'Rivers Only Licence' is nothing more than a figment of C&RT's corporately warped imagination, and as they have no authority whatsoever to 'licence' - ie. to permit or refuse - the use of the scheduled PRN river waterways under their control, that the charges they are empowered to collect from boats using the main navigable channel of those river waterways is simply the registration fee which was first introduced under the 1971 BW Act, . . and absolutely NOTHING more.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 26, 2019 8:38:04 GMT
I can understand your frustration, Tony - you can lead a horse to water an' all that. You'd think that boaters who have paid for their registration would want their wrongly paid VAT money back. Has anyone asked for it back?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 8:48:39 GMT
I can understand your frustration, Tony - you can lead a horse to water an' all that. You'd think that boaters who have paid for their registration would want their wrongly paid VAT money back. Has anyone asked for it back? How many people here have a ‘rivers only’ licence? I don’t...
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2019 8:58:08 GMT
I can understand your frustration, Tony - you can lead a horse to water an' all that. You'd think that boaters who have paid for their registration would want their wrongly paid VAT money back. Has anyone asked for it back? How many people here have a ‘rivers only’ licence? I don’t... Nobody has a 'Rivers Only Licence', . . . there's no such thing !
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 26, 2019 9:56:58 GMT
Thanks Tony, How would one go about getting ones money back? This could add-up to quite a significant amount for us. I was thinking something along the lines of writing to them, they say no, then filing a small claims. What does everyone (and Nigel!) think would be the best course of action? Anyone up for banding together for a class action if that's possible? Having that proof (which my company provided in the form of an HMRC approved Certificate of Tonnage for VAT purposes only), people could reclaim VAT unnecessarily paid, from HMRC, even back-dated to a certain number of years (I forget how many at this point in time) and from numerous different providers. The claim went to HMRC and was paid out (if accepted) by them. There would not have been any adverse fall-out against the initial collectors of the VAT so long as all transactions were recorded and filed properly. The refunding of VAT wrongly collected as a result of confusion or a genuine mistake is a completely different situation from what has been, and still is, happening with C&RT and their collecting of standard rate VAT on something which they are intentionally misrepresenting and know full well is in fact a Registration that doesn't attract VAT. If not for this being quite a serious matter involving people being conned out of considerable sums of money over a number of years, it would actually be very funny. Who else but C&RT would devise a scheme whereby they deceive their 'customers' into paying VAT that isn't due and end up in a position that leaves them liable to HMRC for an equivalent sum of Input VAT that they would have been able to reclaim against the smaller total of Output VAT that would otherwise have been used to calculate their annual VAT liabilities. Indulging in criminal dishonesty from which HMRC alone derives any financial benefit surely has to be some sort of business world 'first' for C&RT's management !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 17:17:45 GMT
Having that proof (which my company provided in the form of an HMRC approved Certificate of Tonnage for VAT purposes only), people could reclaim VAT unnecessarily paid, from HMRC, even back-dated to a certain number of years (I forget how many at this point in time) and from numerous different providers. The claim went to HMRC and was paid out (if accepted) by them. There would not have been any adverse fall-out against the initial collectors of the VAT so long as all transactions were recorded and filed properly. The refunding of VAT wrongly collected as a result of confusion or a genuine mistake is a completely different situation from what has been, and still is, happening with C&RT and their collecting of standard rate VAT on something which they are intentionally misrepresenting and know full well is in fact a Registration that doesn't attract VAT. If not for this being quite a serious matter involving people being conned out of considerable sums of money over a number of years, it would actually be very funny. Who else but C&RT would devise a scheme whereby they deceive their 'customers' into paying VAT that isn't due and end up in a position that leaves them liable to HMRC for an equivalent sum of Input VAT that they would have been able to reclaim against the smaller total of Output VAT that would otherwise have been used to calculate their annual VAT liabilities. Indulging in criminal dishonesty from which HMRC alone derives any financial benefit surely has to be some sort of business world 'first' for C&RT's management ! Have you spoken to CRT about your concerns Tony? It may well be a genuine mistake and perhaps the ‘rivers’ proportion of the ‘Canal & Rivers Licence’ is affected by your argument?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 26, 2019 17:33:03 GMT
Canal and rivers is a licence, rivers only is not, its a registration certificate. CRT are chancing their arm. Tony is right.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 26, 2019 17:38:28 GMT
Who else but C&RT would devise a scheme whereby they deceive their 'customers' into paying VAT that isn't due and end up in a position that leaves them liable to HMRC for an equivalent sum of Input VAT that they would have been able to reclaim against the smaller total of Output VAT that would otherwise have been used to calculate their annual VAT liabilities. This is perhaps the most bemusing aspect of it all - that they are actually losing money as a result of charging boaters more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 18:22:31 GMT
Who else but C&RT would devise a scheme whereby they deceive their 'customers' into paying VAT that isn't due and end up in a position that leaves them liable to HMRC for an equivalent sum of Input VAT that they would have been able to reclaim against the smaller total of Output VAT that would otherwise have been used to calculate their annual VAT liabilities. This is perhaps the most bemusing aspect of it all - that they are actually losing money as a result of charging boaters more. Please explain Nigel?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 27, 2019 0:18:39 GMT
This is perhaps the most bemusing aspect of it all - that they are actually losing money as a result of charging boaters more. Please explain Nigel? Just a shorthand version of what Tony said, as quoted.
|
|