Business licence fees ?

[Mike Todd]

6 hours ago, Chewbacka said:

I suspect the days of keeping lots of stuff forever are rapidly going, as the quicker your 'retention policy' requires documents to be discarded, the quicker you are unable to supply it.

There are various rules and laws that govern how long business need to keep certain documents. When I last had to look into it, the longest was 40 years - asbestos - as it can take that long to appear. As a result, it is easier for business just to archive everything, rather than try to spend time sorting it and then getting it wrong. In the days before digital records that meant many firms had lofts full of old paperwork.

Nowadays, even for material that is not originated electronically, a routine scanning process is by far the best and makes organised retrieval much easier. Makes it even more likely that everything is archived.

[NigelMoore]

2 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

*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.

Your second “option” above, is the actual legal position in my view – but that relates to the boat, rather than the carrying out of business on the towpath. I see some difficulty in using a boat licence as permission to carry on trade from the towpath, as the ‘business licence’ seemingly purports to do [it cannot cover anything else so far as I see]. A byelaw may be overlooked, but can it be bought off?

The draft 2010 byelaws sought to govern this and a whole host of situations, by making certain conduct unlawful UNLESS with the written consent of the Board. The early 1965 byelaws contain no such provision; they recognised no extended use of the towpath for any purpose other than ‘mooring in the course of navigation’. If up to 14 days has since been considered to meet the bill in that respect, then what you actually do with/from the boat while moored legitimately, is properly of no concern to the Board.

Some of the mess the Board get into with these ‘business licences’ and their specialised T&C’s is illustrated in the judgment in Taylor v BWB. Mr Taylor actually won the ‘breach of contract’ element of his claim and was awarded compensation, though the judge upheld the Board’s ability to move him off from limited time moorings – he was not entitled to stay there any longer than anybody else.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/294725758/Taylor-v-BW-Obstruction

Interestingly, his licence application is noted as being for the purpose of cargo carrying, hence would properly have been considered a Commercial Licence for canals classified as cruising waterways only – as was originally agreed. Later, BW decided that instead, he needed what they then called a “trading licence”, which I apprehend to be the same as what they now call a “business licence”. Nonetheless, it seems he was issued with an inappropriate commercial licence, with an agreement that he could trade from his boat so long as nobody stepped aboard.

It was all a rather typical mess.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Catch 22 situation.

You can't use any vessel as a shop without permission, and you won't get permission unless you pay (£80) extra for a licence that you don't legally require. 

 

 

[Jerra]

3 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Catch 22 situation.

You can't use any vessel as a shop without permission, and you won't get permission unless you pay (£80) extra for a licence that you don't legally require. 

£80 sounds like cheap trading to me.  We often pay more than that per day for a space in  a field.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

£80 sounds like cheap trading to me.  We often pay more than that per day for a space in  a field.

Makes you wonder why they have set up a separate and unnecessary licence category, and dedicated staff for such a insignificant fee .

[Jerra]

10 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Makes you wonder why they have set up a separate and unnecessary licence category, and dedicated staff for such a insignificant fee .

Perhaps so they have a vague idea of who is trading what on their waterways.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

24 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Perhaps so they have a vague idea of who is trading what on their waterways.

The permission under bylaw 30 would accomplish that.

[Jerra]

Just now, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The permission under bylaw 30 would accomplish that.

Perhaps but why shouldn't they raise a little extra money.  You have to admit the canals need all the money they can get.   It must be the cheapest way to trade available anywhere so I can't see why anyone would have reason to complain.

Other ,of course, than having something which makes them want to handicap CRT and so see the canal system suffer.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Just now, Jerra said:

Perhaps but why shouldn't they raise a little extra money.  You have to admit the canals need all the money they can get.   It must be the cheapest way to trade available anywhere so I can't see why anyone would have reason to complain.

Other ,of course, than having something which makes them want to handicap CRT and so see the canal system suffer.

How far would you limit CaRT in breaking the law to raise money ?

 

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

How far would you limit CaRT in breaking the law to raise money ?

Unlike some I don't see a bogey man round every corner.  As has been agreed the sum is trivia if it is against the law.  I am far more concerned by breaches of the law which are really serious such as some of the bending of the law I have seen by the police.

If CRT (which I am given to understand is the correct abbreviation not the daft CaRT used by many) are breaking the law boaters have a choice leave CRT waters.   People don't have a choice where the police are concerned.  If enough boaters find what CRT are doing not to their liking they will leave.  CRT will soon get the message.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

Can a boater break the law if its only trivial in comparison to something else totally unrelated ?

[Jerra]

31 minutes ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

Can a boater break the law if its only trivial in comparison to something else totally unrelated ?

They do regularly in various way just as motorists do nobody (apart from possibly you) is perfect.

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

The permission under bylaw 30 would accomplish that.

Might just be that they are not charging as such but are permitted top recover the admin costs.

[Muddy Ditch Rich]

58 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Might just be that they are not charging as such but are permitted top recover the admin costs.

If you don't need a special licence to trade as a shop in the first place, any admin cost of providing such a licence is purely their own making. 

No one has yet provided any evidence that such a licence is a statutory requirement. Unless you believe Mr Deards that an act of 1962 that does not contain any reference to licences or any thing like them, enacted more than a decade before licences were introduced, applies to licences.

[adam1uk]

16 hours ago, Jerra said:

£80 sounds like cheap trading to me.  We often pay more than that per day for a space in  a field.

I know from friends who are traders that the roving trading licence more than pays for itself, as they can legitimately buy all their diesel zero rated.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

If you don't need a special licence to trade as a shop in the first place, any admin cost of providing such a licence is purely their own making. 

No one has yet provided any evidence that such a licence is a statutory requirement. Unless you believe Mr Deards that an act of 1962 that does not contain any reference to licences or any thing like them, enacted more than a decade before licences were introduced, applies to licences.

I thought that you had already stated that a boater needs permission to trade. I was suggesting that the 'licence' charge was in effect the admin cost of granting that permission. But perhaps you don't concede that need foe permission after all.

[Iain_S]

On 8/4/2017 at 22:08, Muddy Ditch Rich said:

 

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.

Unless a trading licence is NOT a subdivision of a PBL, but a separate licence, i.e. "a licence" can be a Pleasure Boat Licence, a Trading Licence, a Hire Boat Licence, etc.

 

[NigelMoore]

46 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Unless a trading licence is NOT a subdivision of a PBL, but a separate licence, i.e. "a licence" can be a Pleasure Boat Licence, a Trading Licence, a Hire Boat Licence, etc.

 

However that might be, as Muddy Ditch Rich has observed, there are only two classes of boat licence provided for in the legislation – Pleasure Boats and Commercial Boats. Commercial boat Licences are confined to those that carry cargo on Cruising Waterways; Pleasure Boats are the only category that can be sub-divided as per the 1971 Act, to meet the statutorily imposed parity with Pleasure Boat Certificates.

So sub-categories of the Pleasure Boat Licence might include hire boats, shared ownership boats, trading boats, electric boats etc, etc, but those cannot be charged for at a rate more than that charged for the standard pleasure boat. They could be charged the same of course.

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

However that might be, as Muddy Ditch Rich has observed, there are only two classes of boat licence provided for in the legislation – Pleasure Boats and Commercial Boats. Commercial boat Licences are confined to those that carry cargo on Cruising Waterways; Pleasure Boats are the only category that can be sub-divided as per the 1971 Act, to meet the statutorily imposed parity with Pleasure Boat Certificates.

So sub-categories of the Pleasure Boat Licence might include hire boats, shared ownership boats, trading boats, electric boats etc, etc, but those cannot be charged for at a rate more than that charged for the standard pleasure boat. They could be charged the same of course.

But a Hire boat IS charged at well over the standard pleasure boat licence (£1851 as against £840.36 for a 60' boat)

 

[NigelMoore]

24 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

But a Hire boat IS charged at well over the standard pleasure boat licence (£1851 as against £840.36 for a 60' boat)

 

Don't doubt it for a minute - but what does that have to do with the statutory restriction on doing so?

Perhaps I ought more punctiliously to have said: "those cannot - legally - be charged for at a rate more than that charged for the standard pleasure boat".

 

[MtB]

7 hours ago, adam1uk said:

I know from friends who are traders that the roving trading licence more than pays for itself, as they can legitimately buy all their diesel zero rated.

 

I'll be staggered if that is true.

A VAT registered trader might be able to reclaim the VAT on their fuel, but it is sure as hell sold with 20% VAT on it in the first place.

Whoever is buying it.

[Iain_S]

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I'll be staggered if that is true.

(snip)

It actually is. It is considered "commercial" use, as opposed to "pleasure".  Even hire boats, where the end use might well be considered as "pleasure" pay the discounted rate for all their fuel.

[MtB]

11 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

It actually is. It is considered "commercial" use, as opposed to "pleasure".  Even hire boats, where the end use might well be considered as "pleasure" pay the discounted rate for all their fuel.

 

I think you are mixing up fuel duty with VAT.

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

But a Hire boat IS charged at well over the standard pleasure boat licence (£1851 as against £840.36 for a 60' boat)

 

Maybe a hire boat licence is a type of commercial one then, not a standard pleasure boat one?

[Iain_S]

36 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think you are mixing up fuel duty with VAT.

They can use rebated fuel without paying fuel duty. Not sure about the VAT, my reading of HMRC advice is that it should be 20% VAT. However, most suppliers charge it at 5%, and , if it's not being re-sold ......, or being resold at rebated price.

Bottom line is that Scottish Canals, at least, charge the same for "heating" fuel as "commercial" fuel i.e. VAT at 5%. (Using them as an example, as they're the only people I buy from as "commercial")

If I buy rebated fuel from an oil supplier, they charge 5% VAT as well, although they won't sell it if I tell them it's for a boat

Edited August 6, 2017 by Iain_S
additional text