Business licence fees ?

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

I saw on another forum this discussion about the extra business licence fee being against the law

 

"1971 BW act

10.  The  Board  may  from  time  to  time  resolve  that  as  from such  date  or  dates  as  may  be  determined  by  the  Board  the  classification  of  pleasure  boats  shall  be  sub-divided  and  may  from  time to  time  fix  the  appropriate  registration  charges  to  be  paid  in  respect of  the  pleasure  boats  included  in  each  sub-division: Provided  that  such  charges  shall  not  exceed  the  appropriate prescribed  charges  in  respect  of  such  pleasure  boats. "

 

Is this still the law ? 

Are business licence boaters due a refund ?

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

You will note that 'the website in question' is talking about 'licence fees' but is using 'registration fee' legislation for 'River Waterways' to substantiate their argument.

I suggest that you have a read the 1971 Act for yourself and see what 'registration' consists of, pay particular attention to Schedule 1 showing the affected waterways.

These are NOT licence fees.

I quote the preamble to the Section 2 (of which subsection 10 is included)

"This part of this Act applies to the Main navigable Channel of the Waterways specified in Schedule 1 to this Act. Which Channel, so specified is in this Act referred to as a "River Waterway"

 

Talk about "project fear' !!!!

Edited March 10, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike Todd]

In any event what you cite specifically and exclusively refers to pleasure boats. Business boats fall outside that scope, surely?

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

In any event what you cite specifically and exclusively refers to pleasure boats. Business boats fall outside that scope, surely?

Where would I find an act of Parliament that defines business boats ?

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Where would I find an act of Parliament that defines business boats ?

Any boat not a pleasure boat (which is described)?

[GUMPY]

Ooo Tadworth/Onion Bargee is back!

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Ooo Tadworth/Onion Bargee is back!

There is always one that says what many are thinking.

[GUMPY]

30 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There is always one that says what many are thinking.

I'm reknown for saying as it is. I did hold off for six hours

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Any boat not a pleasure boat (which is described)?

What act defines the rules for non pleasure boats ?

[Mike Todd]

41 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

What act defines the rules for non pleasure boats ?

Nigel may point elsewhere but I think that the canal company can charge as much as they wish to maximise their revenue. They certainly did originally.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Can't find any act that permits CaRT to sell business licences. There is a bylaw that requires permission for this activity, but no fee.

[matty40s]

So are you one who is breaking the law by having one, or just moaning for the sake of moaning about it.

[Graham Davis]

20 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can't find any act that permits CaRT to sell business licences. There is a bylaw that requires permission for this activity, but no fee.

Well according to "the other place" there is no such thing as a Business Licence, only a Roving Traders Licence.

I suppose the obvious thing for you to do is not pay it and become the test case. I'm sure you'll get lots of support from the usual suspects elsewhere I hope they would dip into their pockets and help with your legal fees.

[Iain_S]

25 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can't find any act that permits CaRT to sell business licences. There is a bylaw that requires permission for this activity, but no fee.

And nothing that says a fee cannot be charged for the said permission. 

[Arthur Marshall]

 If MDR & friends are so sure of themselves, go to court. Plenty of no win no fee lawyers out there for open & shut cases. Otherwise, shut up. And stop costing CRT (&therefore us) a fortune in having to answer stupid questions. Although I understand they are now refusing to communicate with the one known as "Tadworth" at all, which seems a sensible start. 

[Mike Todd]

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.

[Graham Davis]

The best, and most reliable expert on these matters Nigel Moore. Anyone else seems to either have an axe to grind or a chip on their shoulders that affects their perspective.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

On 10/03/2017 at 15:16, Mike Todd said:

In any event what you cite specifically and exclusively refers to pleasure boats. Business boats fall outside that scope, surely?

No they don't, Mike. The definition of pleasure boat is not given in in the '71 act  as it is defined in the '65 bye-laws. Counter-intuitively,  a pleasure boat is any craft not used 'solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods'.

The '65 bye-laws cite just two licences - 'private boat licence' and 'commercial vessel licence'. 

Private boat certificates and houseboat certificates came later ...

[Arthur Marshall]

15 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

No they don't, Mike. The definition of pleasure boat is not given in in the '71 act  as it is defined in the '65 bye-laws. Counter-intuitively,  a pleasure boat is any craft not used 'solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods'.

The '65 bye-laws cite just two licences - 'private boat licence' and 'commercial vessel licence'. 

Private boat certificates and houseboat certificates came later ...

Surely a boat used for business could be defined as a carrier of goods? Dictionary definition of goods:" A commodity, or a physical, tangible item that satisfies some human want or need, or something that people find useful or desirable and make an effort to acquire it." So if you are providing a service that people find useful, that would make you a commercial vessel. Probably. And back to the lawyers, who are the only ones likely to make any money out of all this...

[cuthound]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Surely a boat used for business could be defined as a carrier of goods? Dictionary definition of goods:" A commodity, or a physical, tangible item that satisfies some human want or need, or something that people find useful or desirable and make an effort to acquire it." So if you are providing a service that people find useful, that would make you a commercial vessel. Probably. And back to the lawyers, who are the only ones likely to make any money out of all this...

Now there's an idea, a law boat to complement the cheese, fudge and wool boats 

Should prove very popular on the western end of the K&A and in London.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Surely a boat used for business could be defined as a carrier of goods? Dictionary definition of goods:" A commodity, or a physical, tangible item that satisfies some human want or need, or something that people find useful or desirable and make an effort to acquire it." So if you are providing a service that people find useful, that would make you a commercial vessel. Probably. And back to the lawyers, who are the only ones likely to make any money out of all this...

You are spinning like a top, Arthur ...

Dictionary definitions do not take precedence over a legal definition as I am sure you know.

As far as I am aware 'roving trader licences' are only few pounds more than  'private boat licences/certificates' so I don't see anyone really wanting to contest the issue on cost grounds. 

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

No they don't, Mike. The definition of pleasure boat is not given in in the '71 act  as it is defined in the '65 bye-laws. Counter-intuitively,  a pleasure boat is any craft not used 'solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods'.

The '65 bye-laws cite just two licences - 'private boat licence' and 'commercial vessel licence'. 

Private boat certificates and houseboat certificates came later ...

Yes, after posting a re-read the Acts, esp 1971, and concluded that there was no definition that properly included the traditional narrowboat that carried freight but had a live aboard family.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

5 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes, after posting a re-read the Acts, esp 1971, and concluded that there was no definition that properly included the traditional narrowboat that carried freight but had a live aboard family.

My perception is that 1971 legislation confirmed a division  between traditional use of the waterways and any other uses.

[alan_fincher]

15 hours ago, cuthound said:

Now there's an idea, a law boat to complement the cheese, fudge and wool boats 

Should prove very popular on the western end of the K&A and in London.

I suspect a couple of boat owners down there believe they are already operating one.

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

My perception is that 1971 legislation confirmed a division  between traditional use of the waterways and any other uses.

Part I defines a pleasure boat as " . . . a craft that does not include a vessel being used solely as a tug or for the carriage of goods or a houseboat"

The Act itself in its preamble states that it is to make provision for regulating the use of pleasure boats and houseboats. Hence it does not really need to define what constitutes a commercial or business vessel.

In being so focussed it does seem to have been rather woolly in respect of vessels that cross boundaries. (Houseboats do, however, explicitly exclude anything used bona fide for navigation but there's a phrase that has caused problems! Perhaps that is why some court cases have had difficulties in deciding whether to consider a specific vessel as a pleasure carft or a houseboat)

What I cannot find in anywhere that clearly determines into which category to place a vessel that is both used as a residence and for carrying freight (such as the traditional narrowboat). Unless it is deemed that the residence is entirely incidental to the sole purpose of carrying freight. But how much of a year's travels must a boat be carrying freight?

Perhaps you can point to a specific part in the Act?