Jump to content

Business licence fees ?


Muddy Ditch Rich

Featured Posts

Reading the terms and conditions for business licences they seem to be offered as purely contracts outside of the statutory licencing process for pleasure boats, so when did Parliament allow CaRT to create its own licences ?

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/business-and-trade/boating-business/application-process-and-fees/fees-and-terms-and-conditions
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2017 at 09:11, Mike Todd said:

I am sure that CaRT levies charges on the now all-to-few commercial freight operations.Don't know what the proper title is, however. If Tony D were still here then I am sure he would still know.

Vessels that carry freight on the C&RT Commercial Waterways (68 Act) or substantial volumes on any other waterway (e.g. the aggregate that was carried on the GU from Denham) are registered as 'freight vessels' and pay tolls.  The standard toll is 1p/tonne per km (with a discount for distance, a supplement for dangerous cargoes, and a minimum charge of 10p/tonne for short distance) and has been for many years. So the tanker going to Rotherham pays C&RT about  £300 a trip.  Small craft (e.g. narrow boats) that carry the occasional cargo are licensed at a fixed annual charge and designated as 'cargo carrying' to differentiate from 'freight carrying'.  The Trust decides which category is appropriate.  Anyone selling goods from a boat (e.g. the coal and diesel boats) are treated slightly differently in T&Cs - there used to be a big differential in cost with cargo carrying cheaper,  but I think it's the same now - slightly more than a pleasure boat.  

David L 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Commercial boat licences apply only to boats used on the non-commercial waterways as defined further to the Transport Act 1968. The parameters of the licence system are defined in the 1976 byelaws :-

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.

commercial waterway” means a canal for the time being included in the list of commercial waterways set out in Part I of Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968.

Any such vessel conveying goods on the commercial waterways will be subject to the toll system only, depending upon the tonnage and nature of goods carried; it will be noted, however, that the commercial vessel licence is for that vessel to navigate on the “Cruising Waterways”, whether it is carrying cargo or not. The latter is a fixed annual fee permit so has nothing to do with the carrying out of any business, except insofar as that is the logical intent of so licensing a vessel. It could apply to any craft, including those not normally considered suitable for the merely cruising waterways, but such permitted use will not carry with it any obligation on CaRT to increase the minimum maintenance standards to accommodate them.

BW had experimented with voluntary “licensing” of all commercial vessels as an alternative to the toll system in the early sixties, but it appears that the experiment was a failure so far as they were concerned. Hence the later, 1976 statutory provisions authorising these, but limiting them to cruising waterways. These would be subject to the s17 provisions of the 1995 Act, though It seems arguable that it is also within their discretion to keep to the toll system instead [as fanshaft has described], where that seems more appropriate. I have no firm opinion on that, having not delved into the subject.

Nothing, so far as I can see, legitimises a “carrying out business” licence; it is entirely within their discretion as to the terms of use of any of their canalside business premises of course, but I would have thought that that came under the simple description of relevant Terms of Business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can you include retailing goods in the term " carriage of goods" ? 

There is an accepted distinction between road transport operators moving goods from A to B, and those with vehicle based retail operations, ice cream vans as an example. 

BW and now the Trust have differentiated between boats and barges that carry goods from A to B on cruising waterways as a purely transport service  and those that use the boat for retail - which may be the main use of course.  Today the difference is reflected not in licence cost (which is the same) but in terms and conditions e.g. whether a Boatmaster licence or similar is needed, permission to load and unload at locations etc.

Regards  David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Commercial boat licences apply only to boats used on the non-commercial waterways as defined further to the Transport Act 1968. The parameters of the licence system are defined in the 1976 byelaws :-

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.

commercial waterway” means a canal for the time being included in the list of commercial waterways set out in Part I of Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968.

Any such vessel conveying goods on the commercial waterways will be subject to the toll system only, depending upon the tonnage and nature of goods carried; it will be noted, however, that the commercial vessel licence is for that vessel to navigate on the “Cruising Waterways”, whether it is carrying cargo or not. The latter is a fixed annual fee permit so has nothing to do with the carrying out of any business, except insofar as that is the logical intent of so licensing a vessel. It could apply to any craft, including those not normally considered suitable for the merely cruising waterways, but such permitted use will not carry with it any obligation on CaRT to increase the minimum maintenance standards to accommodate them.

BW had experimented with voluntary “licensing” of all commercial vessels as an alternative to the toll system in the early sixties, but it appears that the experiment was a failure so far as they were concerned. Hence the later, 1976 statutory provisions authorising these, but limiting them to cruising waterways. These would be subject to the s17 provisions of the 1995 Act, though It seems arguable that it is also within their discretion to keep to the toll system instead [as fanshaft has described], where that seems more appropriate. I have no firm opinion on that, having not delved into the subject.

Nothing, so far as I can see, legitimises a “carrying out business” licence; it is entirely within their discretion as to the terms of use of any of their canalside business premises of course, but I would have thought that that came under the simple description of relevant Terms of Business.

I don't recall a proposal to license all commercial (i.e. freight) vessels unless it was contained in the  Bowes Committee report (1959) which I don't have to hand.  I do know that according to the IWA at the time Bowes recommended licensing of narrow boats and (as reported in IWA Bulletin November 1963) the vice-chairman of the newly formed British Waterways Board, Sir John Hawton, agreed to an experimental licensing arrangement for Willow Wren CTS Ltd and Blue Line Canal Carriers Ltd in that year. This was reported as being £25 per craft in the SE and £21 per craft in the NW.  From about 1970 most if not all the remaining narrow boats were licensed in this way, plus some wide boats on the Leeds & Liverpool (as mine were). I'd never heard the licensing regime described as a failure.  Barges on the (1968 Act) Commercial Waterways continued to pay tolls as they do today, registered (since 2003) at a nominal annual rate.

Regards

David L

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cant see any evidence that a non statutory licence is legitimate. If it was statutory licences would be irrelevant, all licences would be contractual, the fact that BW sought the consent of parliment for the 1995 act ( and others ) as regards licences is proof that they did not have the power to create their own licences, or the terms and conditions of them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All" commercial vessels was inaccurate, agreed - thank you for pulling me up on that. Nor did it apply to all waterways.

Experimental licensing arrangements had been introduced on the Grand Union in 1963, and the following year some private freight operators in the north-west expressed an interest in operating the boats in that area on a licence [as distinct from toll] basis. The Board – having in mind particularly that some of the ‘boat people’ might welcome an opportunity to continue their trade – agreed to extend the experimental licence arrangements to parts of the Shropshire Union Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.

The experiment was made for a period of 2 years. In the case of the south-east licences, the 2 year period terminated at the end of 1965; for the north-west licences the end of the period was 31 December 1966.

During 1964 BW was asked by the largest of the operators to extend the period of licensing to a total of 10 years, but BW could not see their way to agree. The licences had been fixed at £21/annum for the north-west and £25/annum for the south-east - as you say; that contrasted with an annual toll income [under the previous arrangement] of about £150 per boat

BW were concerned that by giving special encouragement to the re-introduction of commercial traffic on more parts of the system they would be morally [!?] committed to maintenance costs exceeding those they were statutorily bound to; plus there were features of some existing patterns of operation “which made the application of the licensing system doubtful or inappropriate” [as in: resulting in further loss of revenue]. 

The issues were discussed in the above terms in BWB's Annual Report of 1964.

 

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I cant see any evidence that a non statutory licence is legitimate. If it was statutory licences would be irrelevant, all licences would be contractual, the fact that BW sought the consent of parliment for the 1995 act ( and others ) as regards licences is proof that they did not have the power to create their own licences, or the terms and conditions of them.

 

 

The “consent of Parliament for the 1995 Act” was not for the introduction of licences – those already existed [both pleasure boat and commercial boat] since 1976 as approved by Parliament. Pleasure Boat and Houseboat certificates of registration had existed under statute since 5 years previous to that.

The 1995 Act simply sought to set down conditions upon which those “relevant consents” could be refused or revoked – no such sanction being catered for previously, unless one counts the now abolished sections of the 1983 Act [that were replaced by the 1995 requirement for boat safety certificates as a pre-condition for issue of the consents]. As also recognised in the 1995 Act, conditions could always have been imposed upon houseboats, though not for the other consents [although the byelaw making powers of 1975 could have provided a means to that end].

That is not, however, to detract from your point. The necessity for Parliamentary consent to mandatory licences is evidenced by the provisions of both the 1971 Act and the 1976 Byelaws, each of which provide for appropriate sanctions against non-compliance. There was though, nothing illegitimate about the pre-1976 licences for so long as those were recognised as voluntary contractual agreements, whether for pleasure boats or commercial boats. Those placed a burden of responsibility upon both parties - one of the reasons BW were against the introduction of licence provisions in the 1968 Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2017 at 09:11, Mike Todd said:

I am sure that CaRT levies charges on the now all-to-few commercial freight operations.Don't know what the proper title is, however. If Tony D were still here then I am sure he would still know.

Don't worry - he still is, just using a different name!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

"All" commercial vessels was inaccurate, agreed - thank you for pulling me up on that. Nor did it apply to all waterways.

Experimental licensing arrangements had been introduced on the Grand Union in 1963, and the following year some private freight operators in the north-west expressed an interest in operating the boats in that area on a licence [as distinct from toll] basis. The Board – having in mind particularly that some of the ‘boat people’ might welcome an opportunity to continue their trade – agreed to extend the experimental licence arrangements to parts of the Shropshire Union Canal and the Trent & Mersey Canal.

The experiment was made for a period of 2 years. In the case of the south-east licences, the 2 year period terminated at the end of 1965; for the north-west licences the end of the period was 31 December 1966.

During 1964 BW was asked by the largest of the operators to extend the period of licensing to a total of 10 years, but BW could not see their way to agree. The licences had been fixed at £21/annum for the north-west and £25/annum for the south-east - as you say; that contrasted with an annual toll income [under the previous arrangement] of about £150 per boat

BW were concerned that by giving special encouragement to the re-introduction of commercial traffic on more parts of the system they would be morally [!?] committed to maintenance costs exceeding those they were statutorily bound to; plus there were features of some existing patterns of operation “which made the application of the licensing system doubtful or inappropriate” [as in: resulting in further loss of revenue]. 

The issues were discussed in the above terms in BWB's Annual Report of 1964.

 

Thanks for that Nigel.  I suspect that the 1964 date for the north west licensing scheme (I'd forgotten about the interval between the two schemes)  coincided with Willow Wren taking over the operations and cargoes of the British Waterways north west  'southern fleet' (the BW NW 'northern fleet' being the short boats operating on the Bridgewater & Leeds & Liverpool Canals) in October of that year.  (Incidentally the oft quoted 'British Waterways gave up narrow boat carrying in 1963' is wrong on two counts, one of which being its continued operation in the north west for another year, and the other being its continued carriage of cement and lime juice on the Grand Union.) Seymour-Roseblade did take over some of the northern fleet short boat traffics including hiring two craft, from 1964 for a couple of years or so.

Regards David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, fanshaft said:

I don't recall a proposal to license all commercial (i.e. freight) vessels unless it was contained in the  Bowes Committee report (1959) which I don't have to hand. 

The Bowes Committee Report is preserved in the National Archives, for anyone to see or request a copy [expensive].

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3547424

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

There is also the fact that its illegal to use a pleasure boat as a shop, store or workshop without the boards permission. Bylaw 30.

A completely undefined and open ended bylaw that only makes the situation worse ?

 

The most curious thing about that byelaw is that it falls within the section headed "Mooring of Vessels". That would suggest that BW were not concerned as to use made of navigating boats, but rather boats which improperly annexed the towpath for purposes other than mooring in the course of navigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

 

The most curious thing about that byelaw is that it falls within the section headed "Mooring of Vessels". That would suggest that BW were not concerned as to use made of navigating boats, but rather boats which improperly annexed the towpath for purposes other than mooring in the course of navigation.

I suppose it does make sense - it would be very difficult to trade ("4oz of cough-candy please", shouted as you run along the tow-path) whilst 'navigating'. It would be when moored that the boats became 'traders', and, as you say annexed the tow-path for an indeterminate length of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked CaRT via FOI what the legal basis for the business licence is, they responded by producing a list of all BW legislation, an evasive answer, in fact not an answer after they agreed to respond to my request. ( One which just involves pointing out the relevant legislation at no cost to anyone ).  So they cannot produce any specific legislation that these licences are based on, I can only conclude they are not mandatory, are unlawful, or are just a fiction. But seeing as no one cares they are paying extra for nothing, certainly not the Roving Canal Traders Assoc.  this remains academic. 

Case closed ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/04/2017 at 16:20, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I cant see any evidence that a non statutory licence is legitimate. If it was statutory licences would be irrelevant, all licences would be contractual, the fact that BW sought the consent of parliment for the 1995 act ( and others ) as regards licences is proof that they did not have the power to create their own licences, or the terms and conditions of them.

Pertinent to that observation is the fact that BW objected to having mandatory licences introduced within the Transport Act 1968, when that was proposed to accompany the removal of all conferred rights of navigation. For so long as the existing licences were a voluntary contract, they could apply T&C's - and the important one they were concerned about was that absolving BW of liabilities. If mandatory licences had been introduced, they would have wanted some statutory protection insulating them from liabilities arising from failures to maintain the system adequately etc. The Transport Act actually imposed a responsibility for maintenance [for all the good that did], and provided for anybody to sue them for failure to meet those standards - but BW did not want boaters suing them over personal injury or inability to navigate. The T&C's of contractual licences freed them from that.

Considering that they were so aware of the advantages [respecting the ability to impose T&C's] of contractual licences over statutory mandated licences, one has to wonder why they bothered with the 1976 byelaws. Possibly they were seen as a precursor to further governing byelaws over conditions for issue that they never did get around to. At all events, they came to realise at some point that they could assert whatever rights to condition the statutory licences as they pleased, without effective challenge, so going through the further rigmarole involved in acquiring statutory powers would have seemed redundant on a practical level. Neither boaters nor the courts were aware of the distinction when the case of BWB v Peter James cropped up for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The head of CaRT legal dept has confirmed that the power to sub divide pleasure boat licences only applies to the relevant rivers, and they are not applying it generally, which means the business trading licence can only be a commercial vessel, there is no power to subdivide that licence. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/business_licences

 

Q. What legislation governs the fees charged for commercial vessel licences ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2017 at 17:36, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

I asked CaRT via FOI what the legal basis for the business licence is, they responded by producing a list of all BW legislation, an evasive answer, in fact not an answer after they agreed to respond to my request. ( One which just involves pointing out the relevant legislation at no cost to anyone ).  So they cannot produce any specific legislation that these licences are based on, I can only conclude they are not mandatory, are unlawful, or are just a fiction. But seeing as no one cares they are paying extra for nothing, certainly not the Roving Canal Traders Assoc.  this remains academic. 

Case closed ?

 

 

Speaking generally, and I may be wrong about this but I think an FOI request is limited to recorded information that exists.  It does not give a right to be given an explanation requiring a new document - such as a letter or e-mail to be created , so if an organisation covered by FOI don't have any documents specifically detailing the legal basis for a decision then they may not have any specific documents to give you.  It is also my understanding that if the organisation were to discuss such things with their outside legal advisers and if only the legal advisers kept a written record of the reasoning behind such a licence, then again the organisation would not have any documents to give you.  I am sure Nigel M will be able to confirm if this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Speaking generally, and I may be wrong about this but I think an FOI request is limited to recorded information that exists

I think you are correct.

When I was researching for a book I was writing I needed to do an FOI to all the Police forces in GB - I already had much of the information (in written form from other sources) but it was surprising how many of the forces :

1) Said the information did not exist.

2) Said the information was no longer available and all records destroyed.

3) Said that the information was a security risk and they did not need to supply it.

4) Gave totally incorrect information.

5) Denied having ever purchased the equipment I was requesting information about (I had copies of the manufacturers sales ledger showing how many, and when they had been supplied)

And a few, who answered my list of questions completely with no problems at all (notably the Met who gave information well beyond the asked questions)

 

An FOI answer is only as good as the person completing it allows it be.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The head of CaRT legal dept has confirmed that the power to sub divide pleasure boat licences only applies to the relevant rivers, and they are not applying it generally, which means the business trading licence can only be a commercial vessel, there is no power to subdivide that licence. 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/business_licences

 

Q. What legislation governs the fees charged for commercial vessel licences ?

That is not quite what he said; he correctly identifies that the power to sub-divide categories of pleasure boats derives from the 1971 Act, which so far as pleasure boats are concerned, applies only to the rivers - BUT, the effect of the 1983 Act in fixing an expressly stated percentage relationship between charges for pleasure boat licences and certificates, necessarily demands that the categories are identical.

Commercial vessel licences are a different category altogether, outside of the pleasure boat schemes. They are provided for under the 1976 byelaws, wherein they are defined thus: "“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." Given the legislated ability to demand such licences for that category of vessel, and given that no limitations on charging exist as is the case with the pleasure boat certificates, they can charge what they like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My understanding so far.

*If sect 10 , 1971 only applies to PBC's as Mr Deards said, then CaRT have no powers to sub divide PBL's. ( only the permission is required to use your pleasure boat as a shop, store or workshop under bylaw 30 ) and the specific licence for trading is not a statutory requirement.

*If sect. 10 does apply to PBL's via the 83 act then the sub category of trading licence is valid but the extra fee charged over and above a standard PBL is illegal.

Both options are not in CaRT' s favour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.