Jump to content

GillianOlcay

Member
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    London
  • Boat Name
    Gilgie
  • Boat Location
    London

GillianOlcay's Achievements

Engager

Engager (3/12)

7

Reputation

  1. We took over a business just before a random VAT inspection of the books, and the Inspector discovered that our predecessor had claimed a proportion paid for VAT on rent on which no VAT was due [or itemised]. So I know HMRC can be very hot on claims for VAT payments respecting zero-rated invoices; we had to repay them the amount claimed. I seriously doubt they would expend the same resources on investigating why a business was paying them more than justified [although one would like to think that in a random check such as with us, they would have so informed us]. I also seriously doubt that anyone in CaRT’s accountancy department was attempting a financial fraud that did not benefit them; I suspect that the reasoning behind charging VAT is, as Tony suggests, to re-inforce the ‘licence’ status of the registration certificates. Then again, I suppose it could just be laziness. Regardless, if done knowingly [as the linked email suggests], then erivers would be correct that fraud has been perpetrated. The victims would be the boaters, just not HMRC. Interesting as the discussion over ‘exempt’ v ‘zero-rated’ is, if registration certificates are indeed zero-rated as suggested, then the issue is immaterial to the fundamental argument here, is it not? The end result of not charging VAT where unjustified would be increased revenue?
  2. I used to do our VAT returns for BMS Ltd; the more zero-rated work we did, the more we got back from HMRC each quarter, as VAT charged is set off against the VAT reclaimed. Less VAT charged, the more paid back. How could CaRT actually benefit from charging VAT on zero-rated certificates? Would it not be the case that their overall income would rise by not charging VAT on certificates of registration? Stopping the practice would actually cost boaters LESS rather than more, would it not?
  3. Have you checked back to calculate how much VAT you have paid on your own past PBC’s Tony?
  4. The application and plan describes a strip of waterspace. It is an average 1.1 metres in width along 380 mtrs of bank. Just over half a narrowboat width. To add to the mix of legal and social issues, the proposal is directly contrary to the Blue Ribbon Network Policies of the London Plan, which insist that the waterspace should NOT be used as an extension of developable land. Well done and thanks to those who have alerted ‘should-be’ interested parties. I share the lack of confidence that anything will be done, but at least something has been tried!
  5. NBTA London have just posted up news of this on their facebook page.
  6. The Community Law Partnership specialise in Legal Aid cases [with a travellers and gypsies team] and would probably only employ barristers prepared to do pro-bono work. The harsh reality of public funded representation is that you get barristers fitting freebies in to a busy, far more profitable schedule. They will rarely be familiar will the relevant legislation, or in a position to give things the necessary time and thought. Admittedly, Chris Johnson as the instructing solicitor has accumulated a fair degree of knowledge in this field, but it still forms only a section of his firm’s workload [and his/their emphasis is on the human rights angles], and even then you still have the problem of communicating a broad familiarity with the relevant law to a third person with minimal time to absorb, retain and present it on the hoof. They are [usually] up against sophisticated silks with decades of experience in the BW legislation, who are virtually on a retainer. Mr Fowles hardly fits into that category of course; maybe Mr Stoner was on holiday, or too busy with other cases. That’s another scary aspect – had this CaRT counsel not been filled with what the judge saw as far too much and too premature self-importance, the case could so easily have been yet another steamrollering of the opposition with incorrect legal submissions.
  7. My daughter tells me LOL means “laugh out loud”? I don’t know, it seems to be used that way. Supposing that was referring to Geoff’s case, which lost him his home and nearly everything he had – why is that something to laugh about? As one of those Nigel refers to as believing it better to fight and lose rather than roll over and lose, it seems Geoff would do it all over again, although I would hope that he did so better armed with knowledge of protocols and procedures, less reliant on jobsworth legal-aid lawyers, and more canny as to handling things generally. It's that knowledge that is needed, for cases of injustice. It is ignorance of the dance steps that has some falling over their feet in the court routine, and the superiority of CaRT's hired professionals is not something to crow over, but to face up to. I know better than most how much luck and inexperience can play its part in the fight, because I very nearly lost my boat over it, time and again, but is that not a good reason for people to pool resources and experience in order to help each other cope with genuine cases?
  8. Why would we want to do pump-outs in the basin, in competition with the dozens of other boats doing the same there?
  9. By ignoring the haters and embracing the friends. The back-biters and political fiddlers can be left to their own devices. We are conscious of them, because they impose themselves on us from time to time, but we don’t have to pay any attention, nor let them spoil our enjoyment of the life. Strangely, it is the passing foot traffic and local house-dwellers that are the friendliest and most supportive section of society, not the other boaters. That is enough. And just a few of the other local boaters have stayed friends for years.
  10. No. Nor are they concerned in practice with all the boats on the “Island” moorings above the Gauging Locks – anyone seen any of those using the pump-out facilities? BW deliberately, according to them in their planning application, refrained from installing sewerage connections, in order to encourage boat movement across to the pump-out and back. It was part of the design for a “lively” canal scene. At least below the Gauging Locks the tide helps move it all out to the Thames on a regular basis.
  11. Do the IWA claim that most licence evasion cases are CC’ers, or do they rather claim the overstayers are mostly CC’ers?
  12. Good observation – applies to all sources of comment.
  13. BW shouldn't have bothered either, insisting on what they did, as a condition for licences. Is there any other navigation authority who thought such clauses necessary?
  14. The journalist took liberties translating my comments. I don't wear nighties. I still have shivers thinking about that morning.
×
×
  • 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.