[VAT]

The time limit for VAT refunds has been increased from 3 years under the transitional arrangements below. This would suggest to me that any ‘qualifying ship’ used residentially as outlined in HMRC Brief 38/09 and purchased since the end of the accounting period ending on 30th April 2006 should be able to benefit from retrospective Zero Rating. As I understand it the accounting periods for VAT are usually quarterly and therefore it may be possible to retrospectively Zero Rate a vessel purchased as early as 31/01/06 (i.e. the beginning of the VAT accounting period)

 

 

Paul

 

 

Transitional arrangements for the increase in time limits from three years to four years

The time limit for adjusting returns and correcting errors, including making claims, was increased with effect from 1 April 2009 from three years to four. However, in order to ensure that accounting periods that were out-of-time on 31 March 2009 are not brought back in-time by the change, transitional arrangements have been put in place.

Because of these arrangements, between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010 you can't correct an error made in an accounting period ending before 1 April 2006 - either by adjusting your return, or by notifying HMRC separately in writing.

• For instance, on 31 March 2009 the earliest accounting period for which you can make a return adjustment correction or error correction report or claim, whether for an understatement of tax paid or a refund of overdeclared output tax, is the accounting period ending on 31 March 2006 (the old three year rule).

• On 30 April 2009, the earliest accounting period for which you can make such an adjustment or claim would be that ending on 30 April 2006.

• Similarly, on 31 October 2009 the earliest accounting period for which you can make such an adjustment or claim would also be that ending on 30 April 2006.

• However, by 30 April 2010, the four-year time limit will have come fully into effect so that such an adjustment or claim made on that date can still go back to the accounting period ending 30 April 2006.

For non-standard tax periods, you can make adjustments on your return and notify HMRC about errors in writing between 1 April 2009 and 1 April 2010 for any accounting period ending on or after 1 April 2006, subject to this transition from three years to a four year limit.

 

 

 

Since Waterways World seem to have managed to print a completely incorrect interpretation of a way to avoid paying VAT on a boat plus it seems or doesn't seem depending on who his giving the lesson that if you have a tug or butty combination built the tug can be supplied VAT free.

 

 

Then do you think that VAT should be payable on residential boats?

 

The subject is complex but to highlight it in simple terms you don't pay VAT on a house, caravan or house boat if it is for residential use the scope to provide VAT relief for boats built for residential use at present under law does not exist but should it?

 

After all when I was involved in a similar "discussion" before a rather high ranking civil servant told me that "only a handful of people live or would consider living on boats" and when I went on to mentioned VAT relief on residential caravans he then went on at length about not upsetting the Gypsy/Traveller community that would "make waves" if they had to pay VAT on new caravans.

 

Anyway it doesn't make any difference to the boat builders if you pay VAT or don't but is seems the powers that be look down on and don't even acknowledge that anybody lives on the water.

[VAT]

HMRC have recently sent me the updated brief below. This may be of interest to owners of qualifying craft who use their vessel residentially.

 

Paul

 

 

Revenue & Customs Brief 38/09

VAT - 'Dutch barges' and similar vessels designed for and used as permanent residential accommodation by owners

Who needs to read this?

Businesses making supplies of:

 

vessels to be used for permanent residential living by the owner

certain goods and services to the owners of vessels used for permanent residential living by the owner

This brief also withdraws Section 4 of Business Brief 35/04 VAT - clarification of the VAT liability of ships supplied to customers who intend to use them as residential accommodation.

 

Background

'Qualifying ships' - are zero-rated for VAT purposes. A 'qualifying ship' is defined as a ship which is not less than 15 gross tons and is neither designed nor adapted for use for recreation or pleasure. The law is set out in the Value Added Tax Act 1995, Schedule 8, Group 8, Item 1 and legal note A1(a).

 

'Houseboats' - are covered by a separate zero-rate. For VAT purposes, 'houseboats' are boats designed as living accommodation that do not have, and cannot be fitted with, a means of propulsion. If a boat can be fitted with a means of propulsion, it is not a 'houseboat'. The law is set out in the Value Added Tax Act 1995, Schedule 8, Group 9, Item 2.

 

H M Revenue & Customs (HMRC) policy

In the light of the High Court decision in the case of Lt Cmdr Colin Stone [2008] EWHC 1249 (Ch), HMRC are changing their long-standing policy on the liability of vessels used as residential accommodation, excluding houseboats, for VAT purposes. This case concerned the VAT liability of the supply of 'Dutch barges' acquired for the purpose of being used as a permanent residence.

 

The High Court decided that the supply of the vessel was entitled to zero-rating under the terms of UK law, because it was designed to be lived in as a permanent home and, therefore, not designed for use as recreation or pleasure.

 

HMRC consider that many of these and similar vessels, although designed for use as a permanent residence, can also be designed for use as recreation or pleasure and are perfectly capable of being so used. It was never the intention that UK legislation should provide for the supply of such vessels to benefit from zero-rating but, following Tribunal and Court decisions over time, HMRC have found it increasingly difficult to apply a consistent and coherent policy around the borderlines in this area.

 

HMRC do not rule out a wider review of policy and legislation in this area. However, in the meantime, we have decided to treat Dutch barges and similar vessels that are designed and supplied for use as the permanent residence of the customer as qualifying ships and eligible for zero-rating. As vessels of less than 15 gross tons can never be zero-rated regardless of their design, the majority of narrow boats designed for permanent residential use will not meet this requirement and their supply will continue to be standard-rated.

 

As a result of this policy change some supplies of goods and services to the owners of such vessels may also be zero-rated by suppliers.

 

These include:

 

repairs and maintenance of the vessel itself; this does not extend to the domestic equipment and fittings on board

modification or conversion of the vessel itself provided that it remains a qualifying ship after modification or conversion; this does not extend to domestic equipment and fittings

parts and equipment ordinarily installed or incorporated in the propulsion, navigation, communications or structure of a ship; this does not extend to domestic equipment and fittings

Further details can be found in Notice 744C.

 

Evidence of intention

In keeping with normal rules, suppliers will have to hold evidence to satisfy HMRC that the supply is entitled to zero-rating. This may be in the form of contractual or other documentary evidence. HMRC would also advise suppliers to obtain a declaration from their customers that the vessel is to be designed for use as a permanent residence and intended for such use. We would suggest that suppliers use the format set out for the Undertaking of Use in Notice 744C, adapted as necessary where the supply is one of the vessel itself. Customers should be aware that HMRC have powers to impose penalties where false documentation is used to obtain a tax advantage.

 

Past supplies and claims

Customers who have been previously charged VAT on a supply that is now covered by this policy must approach the person who made the supply to them to obtain a refund of VAT. They should not contact HMRC as we have no legal powers to refund tax direct to customers. Suppliers who wish to claim a refund of VAT charged to customers on a supply covered by this policy must submit their claims in accordance with the published rules and subject to the normal repayment, unjust enrichment and capping criteria to HMRC.

 

Further information

For further information on houseboats please see Public Notice 701/20: VAT Caravans and Houseboats.

 

For further information on qualifying ships please read Public Notice 744C: VAT Ships, aircraft and associated services

 

For additional information on parts and equipment please read Information Sheet 15/07 VAT: Supply of parts and equipment for qualifying ships and aircraft.

 

Or contact our National Advice Service Helpline on Tel 0845 010 9000, or by email, or by writing to:

 

HM Revenue & Customs

National Advice Service

Written Enquiries Section

Alexander House

Victoria Avenue

Southend

Essex

SS99 1BD

 

Issued 8 July 2009

In this section

Accounting Schemes

Appeals

Avoidance

Calculating VAT

Complaints

Deposits

Evasion

Input Tax

International Trade

Intrastat

Invoices

Liability

Output Tax

Partial Exemption

Payment

Penalties

Registration

Returns

 

 

Since Waterways World seem to have managed to print a completely incorrect interpretation of a way to avoid paying VAT on a boat plus it seems or doesn't seem depending on who his giving the lesson that if you have a tug or butty combination built the tug can be supplied VAT free.

 

 

Then do you think that VAT should be payable on residential boats?

 

The subject is complex but to highlight it in simple terms you don't pay VAT on a house, caravan or house boat if it is for residential use the scope to provide VAT relief for boats built for residential use at present under law does not exist but should it?

 

After all when I was involved in a similar "discussion" before a rather high ranking civil servant told me that "only a handful of people live or would consider living on boats" and when I went on to mentioned VAT relief on residential caravans he then went on at length about not upsetting the Gypsy/Traveller community that would "make waves" if they had to pay VAT on new caravans.

 

Anyway it doesn't make any difference to the boat builders if you pay VAT or don't but is seems the powers that be look down on and don't even acknowledge that anybody lives on the water.

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE - COULD IT BE RED DIESEL ?]

Hi all,

 

I thought it was worth relaying my experiences to add to the melting pot.

After buying a Webasto Thermotop C in 2005, and installing it myself in 2006, I suffered continuous heater failures from within hours of first

commisioning it until I removed and returned it in November 2008.

 

During this time the heater was tested by both the dealer from whom I purchased it and Webasto UK. Both maintained that it was faultless.

 

Another dealer selling into the offshore market (Keto Ltd), despite having no vested interest, was the only organisation prepared to visit my boat

to investigate my difficulties without threatening me with a charge.

Toby Hague (Keto) spent six hours attempting to discover the cause of the heater fault. He concluded that the heater did indeed possess a fault but was unable to diagnose the cause.

He then emailed Webasto UK with his visit report, and asked them to help. No response was ever forthcoming from Webasto to my knowledge.

During my ownership of this heater I derived no use from it as for the majority of the time the boat was on dry land, being fitted out.

 

I finally issued a claim against the dealer through the county court. During the court hearing, the judge informed me that I had no claim as the heater was three years old.

(this stance taken by the judge is incorrect according to trading standards who told me that the sale of goods act provides me with some protection for up to six years)

The judge did say that I may be entitled to some costs however and suggested to the defendant that he may wish to make an offer to settle.

He did so to the tune of £1200 with the proviso that I did not mention his company in relation to my experiences in public. Hence the reason I have not mentioned them by name.

 

One other red herring I would like to dispell is that Webasto heaters carbon up due to dirty, inferior quality red diesel.

My heater had three new burners in it's short life (300 hours approx.) I had only run it on fuel bought from Countrywide Fuels, meeting the required British standards for red diesel

(and stored in clean containers). They informed me that they also supply two inland marinas.

 

My thanks go to Toby Hague (Keto) for his help and support and to Paul Sylvan who provided me positive encouragement on several occasions.

Absolutely no thanks to the dealer I bought the heater from in the first place or to Webasto UK who as far as I can tell, continue to sell in to a market aware that their product is

unsuitable for the fuel used in that market.

 

Rob

 

Hi Rob,

 

Having followed your story over the last year, I am pleased that your ‘Webasto Nightmare’ has now finally finished and that you have had the opportunity to tell your story. Given the appalling level of service that you personally received I am still aghast that you have been prevented from naming and shaming. I wonder how many other Webasto owners have also been ‘gagged’. This kind of behaviour prevents open and honest discussion and brings both Webasto and its suppliers into disrepute. I can only hope that truth will out in the fullness of time.

 

Paul Sylvan

[CAR INSURANCE FOR CONTINUOUS CRUISING?]

I kinda agree with you on this. I store my car at Grindley Brook and as I spend my winters cruising the Llangollen it is handy to have for visiting family and friends at Christmas and other times during the winter when I am just cruising slowly moving every 14 days. I pay the insurance for the 12 months with Grindley Brook as the location but only pay the road tax for 6 months.

 

Thanks for that. In my case, although we will be cruising, unfortunately I still need the car in connection with my work a few times each week.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE - COULD IT BE RED DIESEL ?]

WEBASTO NIGHTMARE - COULD IT BE RED DIESEL ?

 

My wife and I bought a new boat from The New Boat Company in October, 2006, to live on. It came with a Webasto heater which we were told by sales staff would run on red diesel. We believed them at the time but now we’re not so sure.

We suffered continual breakdowns with our Webasto heater for over 12 months and each time the problem was the same, and required the same solution i.e. a new burner unit (the burner would get coked up to the point that the heater would not restart after its first 35 minute heating cycle). The New Boat Company failed to rectify the ongoing faults so in October, 2007, (8 long months after the problems first appeared) we contacted Webasto in Germany. They forwarded our email to Webasto UK who took over the investigation. After checking the installation and replacing the burner unit (AGAIN! This was No. 4) Webasto UK, conducted a month long experiment running the heater on white diesel. At the end of the experiment, No. 3 burner, which had been run on red diesel only, was compared with No. 4 burner (white diesel only). There was a difference. What a surprise! The burner run on red diesel had an extra yellow/white deposit mixed in with the black carbon deposits on the inside of the burner chamber. Webasto UK sent us a final report in which they stated that ‘…the most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulphur and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation issue’. That seemed to be the end of it as far as Webasto was concerned - we were being told that it was the fuel that was faulty not the unit. But how could this be? The boat had been built with the heater plumbed directly into the red diesel fuel tank and we had only ever filled up our tank with red diesel from a reputable marina outlet . We smelt a rat and decided to look further.

We contacted the Department for Transport and were told there was a considerable difference between standard red diesel BS 2869 (also called dyed gas oil), and white road diesel BSEN 590. The main difference is the sulphur levels. Webasto UK had chosen to use white road diesel (low sulphur) for their experiment on our burner. How convenient! particularly in view of the fact that they indicate excessive sulphur as the problem.

We began to see that there is a lot of misinformation around concerning red diesel and how it differs from white diesel. This was highlighted to us when the Managing Director of The New Boat Company told us that red diesel was just white diesel with dye, clearly at odds with what the Department for Transport and the British Marine Federation, who we had also made enquires to, told us.

Still without a properly functioning heater and now in the grip of winter, and still with no solution in sight, we began to feel decidedly abandoned not only by Webasto but also by The New Boat Company. With nowhere else to go we continued to dig. And this is what we found out.

Many years ago red and white diesel had the same high sulphur levels and were identical except for the red dyes used to distinguish the off road diesel for tax purposes. Over the years, however, legislation has required a lower sulphur content for white road vehicle diesel and the levels of sulphur have been dramatically reduced to, now, less than 50 parts per million (P.P.M.) for white road diesel. In contrast, red off road diesel continued to contain its high levels of sulphur, up to 2000 P.P.M. until January 2008 at which time it was reduced to no more than 1000 P.P.M. So, until recently, according to our calculations, standard red diesel has been able to contain up to 40 times more sulphur than white road diesel. Could this be the same excessive sulphur that was described in the Webasto report? And if so, is red diesel really a suitable fuel for long term use with Webasto heaters?

 

BK Marine (a Webasto agent) who bench-tested our heater unit seemed to support the above when they told us that if we ran the heater on Kerosene it would be fine. This statement seemed to imply that red diesel might not be quite as suitable a fuel to use for Webasto heaters as we’d been told and it was certainly in contradiction to the information given to us by The New Boat Company when they said that the heater ran on red diesel. BK Marine further stated that our Webasto problem was a ‘one in a million’. Hmmm…

In case we weren’t just the ‘one in a million’ we decided to search the Canal World Forum for other heater problems and, amongst numerous relevant postings, came across Roger Gunkel’s ‘Red Diesel…At last the facts!…’ dated July 2006, and then his other posts relating to his heater experiences. Our stories seemed so similar that it got us wondering if our heater problems and the continuing roundabout of buck passing and speculation were being echoed elsewhere on the inland waterways system.

We never really did buy into the ‘you’re one-in-a-million’ lie. What a joke!.

 

All the Webasto heater problems we have heard about, to date, and there are many, seem to relate to boaters who are living aboard. Could it be that it is the daily use of the heaters particularly in winter time that shows up weaknesses in the ability of these heaters to perform for a reasonable period of time on red diesel.

 

After a year of heating nightmares we have now given up on the Webasto and installed another manufacturers unit which has been guaranteed to run effectively on red diesel.

We are warm again.

 

We have asked The New Boat Company to remove the Webasto unit and refund the appropriate monies on the basis that it was not fit-for-purpose on our vessel.

They have declined this request.

We have now commenced legal action.

Whatever the outcome we hope that some much needed transparency will be brought to this slippery world of boat heating systems and the appropriateness of using red diesel for high use consumers.

 

We would be interested to hear other boaters’ experiences with Webasto heaters and their reliability (or not) when run on red diesel, particularly where they are the main source of heating and get considerable/ongoing use.

Comments appreciated.

 

Paul Sylvan

 

Here is the update - origionally put on this forum as a seperate post.

 

Webasto Nightmare Update

Paul Sylvan -vs.- The New Boat Co.

 

As some of you may remember from my previous ‘Webasto Nightmare’ post on this forum, my wife and I were sold a Webasto Central Heating Unit as part of a larger boat purchase by The New Boat Company back in October, 2006. After four months of use the Webasto heater, for whatever reason, stopped working properly. Despite numerous attempts by The New Boat Company and /or their agents to repair the unit over a period of one year (Feb 2007 – Feb 2008) the heater did not improve. In February, 2008, having suffered from unreliable heating and hot water through a second winter we asked The New Boat Company to replace the heater with a different product. The company refused despite us offering to pay for any difference in the cost of an alternative product.

 

In an attempt to ascertain the nature of the problem, Webasto UK visited our boat in December, 2007, and January, 2008, and carried out an experiment for a period of just over a month. As opposed to the normal red diesel that we had been using they asked us, for the duration of this experiment, to run the heater on white road diesel only. The heater appeared to work perfectly when run on this white diesel but when connected back up to red diesel began, over a period of time, to fail again in its ability to restart itself after its initial 30-40 minute cycle. On conclusion of the experiment, Webasto sent us a report on our heater which stated that … “The most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulphur and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or fuel tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation issue”. In February, 2008, coming to the end of our second winter with an unreliable heating system and with The New Boat Co refusing to replace the product, we felt that a year was more than enough time for any supplier to sort out the problem. We made the decision to commence legal action against The New Boat Co. as the supplier of the goods. A Court Hearing was listed for 06 August, 2008.

 

We stated in our Court Claim that the Webasto Heater had not been fit for purpose.

 

The defence maintained “… that the heater supplied to the claimant was suitable to be run on red diesel”. They then went on to qualify this statement by stating “… that the problems experienced by the claimant are the result of the heater being filled with a lower grade of red diesel”.

 

This raised the question ‘A lower grade than what?’ We were informed by The New Boat Co. at the time of purchase that we should use red diesel. We were never informed of any particular grade of red diesel that we should use, nor were we informed of any particular grade of red diesel that we should not use. [Even now, months down the line and after numerous direct requests to Webasto UK, we still have not received a detailed British Standard fuel specification for the running of this heater.]

 

At the hearing which was at Reading County Court the judge found against The New Boat Co, and awarded us the full amount claimed along with our court costs.

 

The Judge has agreed to send us the detailed wording of his judgment in due course. However, the reasons given at the hearing for his decision we believe are fairly represented by the following:

 

 

1) That our Webasto heater has not been fit for purpose with the red diesel that was available to us on the waterways.

 

2) That there had been a breach of contract in that the New Boat Co. had not informed us at the time of purchase that some red diesel on the waterways may not be suitable for the heater.

 

 

*****

 

We believe that Webasto UK and their suppliers should as a matter of course, furnish their customers with precise written British Standard fuel specifications suitable for these heaters. As stated above, we have written to Webasto UK on several occasions recently requesting (again) this information. At the time of writing this post we have yet to receive it. However, when we do get it we’ll be sure to post it.

 

We would particularly like to thank Roger Gunkel who has not only offered his support to us, but in addition his previous Eberspacher research provided a valuable platform from which we could focus our research and build our case. We feel that justice has been served now and hope that others with similar issues may find our experiences helpful in their search for justice.

 

Paul Sylvan.

[CAR INSURANCE FOR CONTINUOUS CRUISING?]

CONTINUOUS CRUISING?

WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT YOUR CAR INSURANCE?

 

My car insurance which is currently with Esure is almost due for renewal. Esure and I presume many other car insurers require a fixed post code and overnight location on the insurance documentation. Esure have suggested to me that we call them whenever we move the boat in order to provide them with an updated postcode for the car. They also informed me that there may well be an administrative charge of up to £20 for each change (God help us). Are there any alternatives? For the most part we keep our car in private car parks but obviously cannot guarantee this will always be the case. We can obviously use a residential address but if we had to make a claim at some stage I am sure we would suddenly find that we were not covered.

 

Any suggestions greatly appreciated.

 

Paul Sylvan

[VAT]

Since Waterways World seem to have managed to print a completely incorrect interpretation of a way to avoid paying VAT on a boat plus it seems or doesn't seem depending on who his giving the lesson that if you have a tug or butty combination built the tug can be supplied VAT free.

 

 

Then do you think that VAT should be payable on residential boats?

 

The subject is complex but to highlight it in simple terms you don't pay VAT on a house, caravan or house boat if it is for residential use the scope to provide VAT relief for boats built for residential use at present under law does not exist but should it?

 

After all when I was involved in a similar "discussion" before a rather high ranking civil servant told me that "only a handful of people live or would consider living on boats" and when I went on to mentioned VAT relief on residential caravans he then went on at length about not upsetting the Gypsy/Traveller community that would "make waves" if they had to pay VAT on new caravans.

 

Anyway it doesn't make any difference to the boat builders if you pay VAT or don't but is seems the powers that be look down on and don't even acknowledge that anybody lives on the water.

 

Hi all,

 

This request is particularly directed to both Gary and Colin, however, all advice is welcome.

I am attempting to locate a VAT expert who would be familiar with the ‘ins and outs’ of ‘Qualifying Ship Status’. In your investigations and dealings to date with HMRC is there anyone who you would recommend.

 

Many thanks

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Well, I took a look at the blog and dear me, there is an awful lot of invective flying about. I was somewhat surprised, as when I had an issue with my Webasto BK were very polite and helpful and from what I recall conversations with them were lighthearted and friendly; and they replaced my burner under warranty without quibble, putting me in contact with Foxton Boat Services, Sam doing the job the same day on their behalf....

Touch wood, it's been running fine ever since....

A different engineer who services Webasto did tell me that whenever he gets a Webasto in for a 'de-coke' he alters the fan speed profile away from the original factory settings to make it more 'red' tolerant.

If somebody is implying that BK Webastos are Chinese clones, I'd be mildly surprised, unless the cloning goes as far as technical data, bar code stickers and other bits 'n' pieces written in German.

 

Hi Denis,

 

I noticed that yesterday, your post about 'invective flying about' was in reply to a post which has now been removed. As that post has now been removed, I presume that your 'invective post is a residue only and not a direct comment on my Webasto Nightmare Update.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE - COULD IT BE RED DIESEL ?]

Who are these people chelping on about webasto heaters?

Ive had one for nine years, used it and abused it, had in on pretty much 24/7 thruogh the winters and in nine years only had 3 yes thats THREE burner changes. I run it on gas oil, yes GAS OIL as the so called red diesel dose not exist.

Surely Mr Gunkel & Mr Sylvan are blessed with sufficient common sense to realise that when there webasto heater stops because of excess carbon / burner problems, SEVERAL times in quick succession that there may be external factors causing this?

Possibly crap cheap contaminated fuel?

 

Have you a good quality fuel filter inline like a Racor? Probably not.

 

Try buying some good quality fuel from a non waterways supplier.

I found that up here in the north that some so called marinas and chandlers that sell fuel actually sell what I can only describe as contaminated slops full of dirt, water, particulates and algea, (diesel bug).

 

The best place for us to buy fuel is from a road haulage yard where they sell loads of gas oil for the trucks who use night heaters and the diesel engined fridge trailer units.

This is beacause they have a faster turnaround of the fuel in there underground tanks.

And from what ive seen of the bankside tanks I wouldnt want anything from them going in my boat.

I bet the cassette in my thetford potty is cleaner!

 

So there you have it Messers Gunkel and Sylvan and all the other muppets out there moaning, use clean fuel not cheap slops. And fit a *CENSORED* fuel filter!

 

May allah roast your stomachs in hell and besiege you with a plague of locusts and your camels die of thirst!!

 

 

In reply to your post and your accusation that I, along with others, used ‘cheap slops’ full of dirt etc. in my Webasto heater, I conclude that you have not been thorough in your reading of my posts both on this thread and on the ‘Webasto Nightmare update’ on this forum. The New Boat Co., my supplier, took a sample of fuel from my tank for testing as did I. It was clean, red, and after being left to settle, showed neither dirt nor water contamination. It obviously hasn’t occurred to you that if The New Boat Co. had any evidence, however slight, regarding the type of contamination that you suggest, then they would have used it as the ‘perfect defence’ in the recent court case (P Sylvan versus The New Boat Co.) and thus exonerated themselves of any culpability.

 

I have always taken great care to report my experiences in a factual and balanced way. Given that my contention, (i.e. that our particular Webasto heater had not been ‘fit for purpose’ and that there had been a ‘breach of contract’ with our supplier), was upheld in a British Court Of Law, would rather suggest that the legal system upon which this country has built itself agrees with me.

 

I am glad that your experiences with your Webasto heater have been so positive, but there are clearly people around, including myself, who have had very different experiences to you. To refer to people as being muppets, just because their experiences don’t echo your own, is facile and unwarranted. In fact, it does rather suggest that the muppet boot should be on the other foot.

 

I suspect that from the tone of your post, and the general lack of consideration for other people’s experiences, that you have an undisclosed agenda. If this is the case, no meaningful discourse of any sort can usefully take place.

 

P Sylvan

[VAT]

I recommend reading the Statutory Instrument 1996/1510 and in particular the definitions:

 

Some definitions from SI 1997/1510:

 

"breadth" means the maximum breadth of the ship, measured amidships to the moulded line of the frame in a ship with a metal shell and to the outer surface of the hull in a ship with a shell of any other material;

"break" means the space bounded longitudinally by a side to side upward step in the lowest line of the upper deck and another such step or the end of the ship, transversely by the sides of the ship and vertically by the higher part of the deck and the lowest line of the upper deck continued parallel thereto;

 

"length overall" means the distance between the foreside of the foremost fixed permanent structure and the afterside of the aftermost permanent structure;

 

"moulded depth", and in the case of a ship of less than 24 metres "depth", means the vertical distance measured from the top of the keel of a metal ship, or in wood and composite ships from the lower edge of the keel rabbet, to the underside of the upper deck at side, or, in the case of a ship which is not fully decked, to the top of the upper strake or gunwale, provided that -

 

(a) where the form at the lower part of the midship section is of a hollow character, or where thick garboards are fitted, the distance is measured from the point where the line of the flat of the bottom continued inwards cuts the side of the keel;

 

( in the case of a glass reinforced plastic ship where no keel member is fitted and the keel is of open trough construction, the distance is measured from the top of the keel filling, if any, or the level at which the inside breadth of the trough is 100 millimetres, whichever gives the lesser depth;

 

© in ships having rounded gunwales, the distance is measured to the point of intersection of the moulded lines of the deck and side shell plating, the lines extending as though the gunwales were of angular design; and

 

(d) where the upper deck is stepped and the raised part of the deck extends over the point at which the moulded depth is measured, the distance is measured to a line of reference extending from the lower part of the deck along a line parallel with the raised part; and for the purposes of this definition -

 

 

 

(i) "upper deck" means the uppermost complete deck exposed to weather and sea, which has permanent means of weathertight closing of all openings in the weather part thereof, and below which all openings in the sides of the ship are fitted with permanent means of watertight closing. In a ship having a stepped upper deck, the lowest line of the exposed deck and the continuation of that line parallel to the upper part of the deck is taken as the upper deck; and

 

I do not believe that the "cabin roof" can be legitimately claimed as upper deck of a vessel unless the openings in the ends and sides meet the watertight closing criteria.

 

(ii) "weathertight" means that in any sea conditions water will not penetrate into the ship;

And the tonnage calculation:

 

The tonnage of a ship shall be the sum of -

 

(a) the product of multiplying together its length overall, extreme breadth over the outside hull and depth in metres and multiplying the resultant figure by 0.16; and

 

( the tonnage of any break or breaks, calculated for each break by multiplying together its mean length, mean breadth and mean height in metres and multiplying the resultant figure by 0.35.

 

 

As I have said earlier, the 20489 Tribunal seems odd and I am amazed that HMRC did not appeal it.

 

Also as I have said before, bite the bullet and ask HMRC for a written ruling having given them all the details as required in VAT Notice 700/6. You may well have to draft such a letter from your chosen boat builder to send as HMRC invariably hide behind the fact that the issue lies with the supplier and not the customer.

 

Speculating here on the VAT status from various opinions probably won't help - and no company is going to either zero rate or claim VAT back on the basis on the advice given on this forum.

 

 

Hi Colin,

 

Thanks for that. In relation to the 20489 Tribunal, could it be that the ‘weathertight’ criteria outlined in the Merchant Shipping Act (between decks) was not pursued by HMRC because it has no relevance to an inland waterways craft which is surely only required to be weathertight to the extent that it meets the requirements of the environment for which it is designed and used. The relevant legislation that covers this I believe is the Boat Safety Scheme and presumably not the Merchant Shipping Act. If HMRC were to insist on the Merchant Shipping ‘weathertight’ criteria, it seems to me that a Tribunal may well decide that in the balance the HMRC argument is not reasonable. What do you think?

 

Paul

 

PS Congratulations on your case.

[VAT]

Surely Paul's 60' x 11' widebeam is a barge?

 

Paul, if you ever get your head around this, decide to do something and you and want to approach NBC with other customers in a sort of "class action" please let me know (PM me).

 

Mine is a 2005 57' x 12' widebeam.

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike,

 

I will let you know in due course once I have done a bit more research. I believe that there is a three year cut off for a VAT refund if due, so in your case it may be worth writing to HMRC and the NBC with a view to at least registering a claim. I don't know if this will help preserve the time limit, but it may do if things drag on - Something to think about. Maybe someone else on the forum knows the answer to this.

 

Good luck

 

Paul

[VAT]

You begin to tread in difficult ground here if you consider the living space to be a break then you imply that it a deck structure so it's roof can't really be the deck can it?

 

The guidance (Remember that is all it is!) only makes specific provision for where the measurement of depth should be taken in narrowboats for other vessels the general rules apply. (and probably in law do too narrowboats) So you need to consider the wording of the guidance for the length measurement (the full hull) and for depth if you consider the roof to be a deck then that is your measurement.

 

Remember a break is a raised portion of deck not a low portion of deck you need to look at the Ricard Fee tribunal to see how he demonstrated his beliefs to the VAT tribunal. (Some would say he was incorrect but HMRC did not appeal the decision)

 

Considering the volume of boats the New boat Co sell and have sold it might be worth asking them if they along with their customers would like to get on board for the battle.

 

It's a shame it isn't a barge because it would in theory be a lot simpler with calculation criteria clearly met.

 

 

Thanks for that Gary. I am awaiting a reply from HMRC and will post an update in due course.

 

Paul

[VAT]

The multiplier will not be subject to negotiation.

 

I think you will find if you stick to the under the gunnels measurement 60' x 11' will qualify anyway provided it is not based on a narrowboat design using standard narrowboat side sheets with very low gunnel's.

 

If it is a "fat" narrowboat design then you might still have a get out clause because the guidance to measure to the gunnels is specific to narrowboats which it obviously is not.

 

That leaves you to prove that the coach roof is the deck in the way that Mr Fee demonstrated, now on most narrowboats the steps/gunnels discussed in that case are even narrower than dimensions he presented.

 

It will be a battle to get your VAT back and the biggest hurdle will be convincing the boatbuilder to "bang heads" with HMRC on your behalf because there isn't really anyway you can do it directly.

 

I don't think HMRC will want to "play nice" because giving concession to barges qualifying is one thing but opening the flood gates to all the other variations of boats both broad and narrow would probably be rather an upsetting thought to them.

 

If the boat is based around a "fat" narrowboat design then it may still be worth pushing hard to see what you can achieve.

 

I would consider getting a good number of residential owners of similar boats together to add weight to the battle. It would then be a good starting point if enough of you were then to ask the same questions of HMRC and then who knows what might happen?

 

Anway good look with it! Only time and the mood of HMRC will tell!

 

 

Thanks, Gary, for your reply and advice. Our boat is an Aqualine widebeam and I think it more accurately fits your description of a ‘fat’ narrowboat with the gunnel 1.11 metres above the bass plate. As the interior living space with its increased depth to the coach roof is only 44 feet in length, would it be correct to still consider the overall length of the boat to be 60 feet for calculation purposes? Or should I, as I suspect, do two separate calculations, the first to gunnel height across the entire length of the boat and the second from gunnel height to coach roof for the 44 foot section considering that part as a ‘break’ with its subsequent different multiplier?

 

I know of a number of people who are in a similar situation to us and your suggestion seems a positive way forward. However, I think I need to be a little more convinced of our case before getting lots of other boaters too excited!

 

Paul

[VAT]

Since Waterways World seem to have managed to print a completely incorrect interpretation of a way to avoid paying VAT on a boat plus it seems or doesn't seem depending on who his giving the lesson that if you have a tug or butty combination built the tug can be supplied VAT free.

 

 

Then do you think that VAT should be payable on residential boats?

 

The subject is complex but to highlight it in simple terms you don't pay VAT on a house, caravan or house boat if it is for residential use the scope to provide VAT relief for boats built for residential use at present under law does not exist but should it?

 

After all when I was involved in a similar "discussion" before a rather high ranking civil servant told me that "only a handful of people live or would consider living on boats" and when I went on to mentioned VAT relief on residential caravans he then went on at length about not upsetting the Gypsy/Traveller community that would "make waves" if they had to pay VAT on new caravans.

 

Anyway it doesn't make any difference to the boat builders if you pay VAT or don't but is seems the powers that be look down on and don't even acknowledge that anybody lives on the water.

 

 

Hi Gary,

 

I’ve been following this topic carefully and want to thank you for the very informative and detailed posts concerning the recent court rulings relating to VAT on ‘qualifying vessels’. Because I suspect that my own particular vessel, a 60’ x 11’ widebeam (built 2006) which my wife and I live on, fits the relevant criteria for zero rating I have recently written (twice!) to HMRC requesting further information and guidance on our particular situation. They have been extremely slow in responding in detail to my enquiry and I hope that this is only due to the delays in implementing the new guidance since the latest court ruling.

 

I am still not absolutely clear, however, as to which measurements should be used in determining the depth for the gross tonnage calculation. I have read that the measurement is from the bass plate to the underside of the gunnel (the steps) in the case of narrowboats and widebeams. However, in the Richard John Fee T/A Swiftcraft Boats court case the judgement relating to depth was that:

 

‘applying the de minimis principle (ignoring that which is too small to be considered relevant) and in our view the steps in this case with a usable horizontal surface too narrow to afford a safe footing are not part of the or any deck and the measurement should therefore be taken from the midpoint of the underside of the actual deck which is the top of the boat…’

 

In view of the above, is it your understanding that HMRC now accept the bottom to top of boat measurement as suitable for the calculation of gross tonnage, or, will they only accept the measurement to the gunnel?

 

I presume that only the multiplier of 0.16 is allowable for vessels under 24m. Are there any exceptions to this that you know about?

 

Once again thanks for a very informative thread.

 

Paul Sylvan

.

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Paul has sent me scanned pictures of his burner, they are not brilliant but sufficiently clear to see carbon build up on both burners. The one running on the boats supply for two to three months shows approximately one third coverage of carbon and over the glow pin. The one running on white diesel for two months shows approximatey the same amount of carbon but not covering the glow pin, sulphur has made no apparent difference! This carbon would be easy to remove when serviced and can break off and burn away in normal service provided the glow pin is not completely covered. If the burners were run for identical times it would not be unexpected, considering the amount of carbon present, for the burner to stop in a similar time. The test therefore was inconclusive. My conclusion to that is that white diesel has made little or no difference to the running efficiency on this burner installation.

 

The report states that Co2 was checked several times but does not state at all what the readings were or what the smoke reading or stack temperatures were which is required to calculate the efficiency and Co2 reading. There are no adjustments to make but the Co2 reading would indicate the correct fuel/air mix and this was a serious omission. The main reason for carbonising is excessive fuel or insufficient air and none of this was even considered in the report!

 

The last report after running on white diesel states that there was a build up of carbon but was not in the opinion of the Webasto engineer unusual due to the amount of running time sustained (two months only!) and was not (at that time) effecting the burners functionality. I conclude from this that it is considered normal by Webasto engineers for a burner with no white deposit and also on white diesel, to carbonise after a short time, therefore clearly carbon build up cannot be related to sulphur.

 

The engineers clearly have not distinguished between the carbon build up created with the inefficiencies of starting this type of burner and the running inefficiencies of a maladjusted burner. They claim there was a clear noticable difference between the two burners (the pictures do not show that) down to amount of white residue present (there is no indication that this light suface deposit caused any carbon to form and then build up over the glow pin). They claim that this white deposit is an indication of excessive amounts of sulphur (sulphur is mainly yellow) or other unknown properties within the diesel (they don't know what it is!) that are known (news to me, evidence?) to cause excessive wear (what wear, it's carbon?) of the burner.

 

It is quite clear to me that these "engineers" were only installers and had no knowledge of combustion, why would they, there are no adjustments required? All the settings for correct fuel and air are preset at the factory which is fine provide quality control is consistant and the installation meets and remains within the design parameters for airflow, exhaustflow, fuel delivery and operating voltage. This type of burner will carbonise when starting but this should burn off in normal use, there should be no carbon deposits in normal running. If the burner starts and stops frequently it will build up carbon, if the fuel/air mix is too rich it will build up carbon and require frequent servicing, in this case every two months.

 

The causes of this failure in my opinion have nothing to do with sulphur from the same quality fuel that we all get but all to do with inefficient combustion and the cause would not be difficult to find. The lack of fine control of fuel and air prevents some burners from running at their optimum efficiency in varying installations. If they run weak they simply run cleaner but less efficient but running rich has the opposite effect so the correct mixture is critical which is consistant with any diesel or kerosene burner.

 

 

Hi Terry,

 

Glad you received the Webasto burner pictures. I have just noticed on the Webasto UK website,

 

http://www.webasto.co.uk/am/en/am_marine_3364.html

 

that in relation to sulphur, Webasto UK are now saying:

 

Note: The use of fuels containing high levels of sulphur, water or other contaminants may increase the service interval required

 

Now, officially, as they say on the telly, ‘I’m confused .com!’

 

What do you think?

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Well done Paul,

 

As I have a court case pending in a few weeks time for what sounds like very similar problems, your outcome sets a powerful precedent.

 

With respect to my claim, is it acceptable, ethical and legal for me to submit extracts from this thread to the court to provide further supporting material?

 

I can offer further info to this debate. My heater, installed by myself, purchased from a main dealer, has persistantly failed to function correctly from new. My unique(?) situation is that I know exactly what fuel the heater has been running on throughout its life as I obtained it directly from the same major fuel distributor on three seperate occasions. The distributor has provided me with the full specifications of the fuel. Furthermore they have also stated that they have supplied identical fuel to two or more inland marinas.

The fuel (which is sold legally as red diesel) meets or exceeds BS 2869 Classes A2 and D.

 

The heater supplier has persisted in blaming my installation for the heater problems without having seen it. However another authorised supplier of the same units has seen it and has confirmed to me in writing that the installation is satisfactory. (Having done well in the awards at the IWA National can't hurt in confirming my competence to carry out such an installation either.)

 

Hi Robkg

 

Interesting post. I have sent you a personal message concerning the above. Good luck with your case,

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

I do a fair number of boiler/burner services, a good number are running on gas oil including two of my own. Even if there was a high build up of yellow sulphur deposits which would normally be deposited on the heat exchanger surfaces over a long time and cleaned off on the annual service, this does not explain how it can cause a high build up of carbon that should not appear and does not happen with a pressure jet burner in normal serviced use.

 

This is a totally separate problem due to incomplete combustion. If sulphur is responsible in some way by clogging it up for example then that has always been the case because the fuel is the same as it always was and this problem would be down to the burner design. These problems have been going back decades and it can't be new to them!

 

Obviously a burner needs cleaning and adjusting periodicly but I understand your problem happened fairly quickly so how would it build up that quickly bearing in mind the sulphur mostly leaves via the exhaust? The most I see is a thin coat and usually in the cooler parts of the boiler which might be a clue to your problem. Other deposits (white) are caused by condensation especially if the boiler is run below the dew point of about 50oC. If you think your fuel might be unusual you can always have it analysed! Can I see the burner pictures/report?

 

Hi TerryL

 

I have enclosed the full Webasto report but unfortunately the pictures have not transferred to the post. There are a number of inaccurate statments within the report mainly relating to dates and who did what etc, but the report does give a fair indication of the heater problems.

 

 

Webasto

Feel the drive

Department: Engineering

Phone Tel No: 01302322232 Fax Fax No : 01302 322231 E-Mail workshop@webastouk.com

Date: 30th January 2008

 

 

 

Subject: Objective: Attendees: Next meeting:

Copy to:

 

Thermo Top C Webasto Heater Report on heater failure

Paul Suliivan, New Boat Company, BK Marine & Vehicle Heating

 

Product Thermo Top C

Boat:

Customer: Paul Sullivan

Summery of the Heater's History.

March 2007: This was the first reported fault with the unit after 3 months usage, BK Marine & Vehicle Heating where called out to the boat to carry out checks and repairs.

Nature of reported fault:

• Heater would run for about 1 hour then fail to restart after control idol period

^- Repair/checks carried out:

• Installation was checked with no reported faults found

• Burner was inspected and found to be badly carbonized

• Burner was changed

• Co2 was checked

June 2007: The second reported failure was about 3 months after the first repair, 6 months from new. BK Marine & Vehicle Heating where called out to the boat to carry out checks and repairs. An Engineer from Webasto Doncaster also went along to assist.

Nature of reported fault:

• Heater would run for about 1 hour then fail to restart after control idol period

Repair/checks carried out:

• Installation was checked with no reported faults found

• Burner was examined and found to be carbonized.

• Suspicion was noted that this could be a "poor fuel quality" issue

• To eliminate any faults associate with the actual

Heater the unit was replaced with a new one from sjpck

• Co2 was checked

 

 

Webasto

Fee/ the drive

 

 

Sep 2007: The third reported failure was about was again about 2 to 3 months after the second repair, 9 months from new. BK Marine & Vehicle Heating where called out to the boat to carry out checks and repairs.

Nature of reported fault:

• Heater would run for about 1 hour then fail to restart after control idol period

Repair/checks carried out:

• Burner was examined and found to be carbonized.

• Burner was changed

• Fuel Pump was replaced as a measure to eliminate any

Relationship between fault and the installed Webasto Equipment.

• Co2 was checked

Nov 2007: The forth reported failure was about 2 months after the third visit, 11 months from new. An engineer from Webasto Doncaster attended the boat with the objective of isolating the boats own fuel supply and running the unit from a clean supply of white diesel for an extended period of 2 months.

Nature of reported fault:

• Heater would run for about 1 hour then fail to restart after control idol period

Repair/checks carried out:

• Burner was examined and found to be carbonized.

• Burner was changed

» The boat's fuel supply to the heater was isolated and a 20 Itr jerry can filled with forecourt white diesel was installed.

• Co2 was checked

Jan 2008: No reported faults. Webasto Engineer attended the boat with the intention of inspecting the burner after 2 months of running on white diesel in comparison to the burner running of the boats supply.

Nature of reported fault:

• No reported faults

Repair/checks carried out:

• The heater was striped and the burner was inspected and compared

with the old burner which had been running from the boats own supply of fuel.

• Upon examination of the burner which had been running on clean diesel,

a build up of carbon was noted, but was not (in the opinion of the Webasto engineer) unusual due to the amount of running time the heater had sustain during the test, and in no way was effecting the heaters functionality.

• The ctear noticeable difference between the two burners was down to amount of white

residue which was present on the burner which had been running from the boats

own supply of diesel. This white residue is an indication of excessive amounts of sulpher or other unknown properties within the diesel that are known to cause excessive wear of the burner. See pictures (fig 1) & (fig 2) below.

• The burner was changed

• The fuel system was reconnected to the boats own supply of fuel

• The Co2 was checked

 

 

 

Webasto Thermosysteme International GmbH

 

 

Webasto

Feel the drive

 

Conclusion:

After each repair and burner change the heater would operate as normal for up to 3 mouths. Each time the heater failed the reported fault was "failure to restart after control idol period". The reason was due to the fact that the build up of carbon was to such an extent as to completely cover the giow pin and subsequently prevent restart of the heater. See picture (fig 2)

The most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulpher and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or fuel tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation issue.

 

Regards

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Hi TerryL

 

Your post mentions that gas oil does not affect marine heaters with sulphur. Webasto UK in a letter to me recently included sulphur as one of the reasons for heater failures. Indeed, as I’ve mentioned in previous posts, in their written report to me on my Webasto Thermo Top heater they concluded that:

 

‘The most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulphur and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or fuel tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation’.

 

This report seemed consistent with the yellow/white deposits in the burner tube which I was able to see and which the Webasto engineer informed me at the time were sulphur deposits. The photographs of my burner in the Webasto report also show in detail these yellow/white deposits. I am not qualified to say if the deposits were sulphur or not but presume that Webasto as the product producers are qualified and this being the case I had no reason not to believe what they were telling me.

 

Regards

 

Paul Sylvan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome Colin. One of my specialities is oil fired heating both domestic and marine. I would avoid all the marine type heaters completely and fit the smallest modern domestic condensing oil fired boiler. This will be type approved and be as efficient as is possible and will be cheaper to run than any LPG boiler and without the hassle or safety issues. You can save further space by specifing a combination condensing boiler which will also take care of all your hot water demands. You will need to run it on kerosene because of the corrosive effects of gas oil on the secondary heat exchanger but a non condensing high efficiency boiler will run happily on diesel or gas oil with only slightly higher fuel consumption. If you do a bit of googling you will see how efficient they are and all domestic boilers can be checked. This will also be much cheaper than the marine stuff and you can always find someone to fix it quickly.

 

The boiler will be about the size of a domestic undercounter fridge or a boiler house version without the case can be fitted in an engine room etc. Pressure jet burners such as fitted to the domestic boiler are used extensively around the world in many applications and are well proven, gas oil is burned under high pressure through a jet to atomise it very finely for very efficient mixing with air and producing an excellent clean burn, most marine burners cannot do this or maintain a clean burn. You might also like to consider an oil fired pressure jet range cooker such as Stanley or Rayburn and save further space! I could supply you with new or reconditioned.

 

Gas oil by the way does not effect marine heaters with sulphur, it doesn't have enough for that and this was just an assumption by someone, the fuel is the same as before and they have always had problems. The problem is to do with the crude and inefficient way they work which causes heavy carbon deposits which is unburnt fuel, although they will work better on kerosene because it vaporises better. Diesel and kerosene last much, much longer than petrol but diesel can suffer from "the diesel bug", this is usually a result of water, heat and bacteria feeding on the diesel which can block filters.

 

I also suggest you insulate your barge as well as you possibly can to conserve heat and also help keep it cool. Fit modern domestic heating controls to modern standards such as a programmer, room thermostat and thermostatic radiator valves and use a domestic installer preferably OFTEC registered not the boat yard! You are not required to comply with building regulations of course but in the absence anything better for boats these will give you a very high standard of heating and efficiency comparable with living in a similar size house. You will not regret it.

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Congratulations on your successful court case.

 

Please let us know if you ever get more than the court papers in your favour wont you?

 

Hi Troll

 

Yes, as of today, we have got more than just the court papers in our favour.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Webasto Nightmare Update

 

Paul Sylvan -vs.- The New Boat Co.

As some of you may remember from my previous ‘Webasto Nightmare’ post on this forum, my wife and I were sold a Webasto Central Heating Unit as part of a larger boat purchase by The New Boat Company back in October, 2006. After four months of use the Webasto heater, for whatever reason, stopped working properly. Despite numerous attempts by The New Boat Company and /or their agents to repair the unit over a period of one year (Feb 2007 – Feb 2008) the heater did not improve. In February, 2008, having suffered from unreliable heating and hot water through a second winter we asked The New Boat Company to replace the heater with a different product. The company refused despite us offering to pay for any difference in the cost of an alternative product.

 

In an attempt to ascertain the nature of the problem, Webasto UK visited our boat in December, 2007, and January, 2008, and carried out an experiment for a period of just over a month. As opposed to the normal red diesel that we had been using they asked us, for the duration of this experiment, to run the heater on white road diesel only. The heater appeared to work perfectly when run on this white diesel but when connected back up to red diesel began, over a period of time, to fail again in its ability to restart itself after its initial 30-40 minute cycle. On conclusion of the experiment, Webasto sent us a report on our heater which stated that … “The most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulphur and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or fuel tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation issue”. In February, 2008, coming to the end of our second winter with an unreliable heating system and with The New Boat Co refusing to replace the product, we felt that a year was more than enough time for any supplier to sort out the problem. We made the decision to commence legal action against The New Boat Co. as the supplier of the goods. A Court Hearing was listed for 06 August, 2008.

 

We stated in our Court Claim that the Webasto Heater had not been fit for purpose.

 

The defence maintained “… that the heater supplied to the claimant was suitable to be run on red diesel”. They then went on to qualify this statement by stating “… that the problems experienced by the claimant are the result of the heater being filled with a lower grade of red diesel”.

 

This raised the question ‘A lower grade than what?’ We were informed by The New Boat Co. at the time of purchase that we should use red diesel. We were never informed of any particular grade of red diesel that we should use, nor were we informed of any particular grade of red diesel that we should not use. [Even now, months down the line and after numerous direct requests to Webasto UK, we still have not received a detailed British Standard fuel specification for the running of this heater.]

 

At the hearing which was at Reading County Court the judge found against The New Boat Co, and awarded us the full amount claimed along with our court costs.

 

The Judge has agreed to send us the detailed wording of his judgment in due course. However, the reasons given at the hearing for his decision we believe are fairly represented by the following:

 

1) That our Webasto heater has

not been fit for purpose

with the red diesel that was available to us on the waterways.

 

2) That there had been a

breach of contract

in that the New Boat Co. had not informed us at the time of purchase that some red diesel on the waterways may not be suitable for the heater.

*****

We believe that Webasto UK and their suppliers should as a matter of course, furnish their customers with precise written British Standard fuel specifications suitable for these heaters. As stated above, we have written to Webasto UK on several occasions recently requesting (again) this information. At the time of writing this post we have yet to receive it. However, when we do get it we’ll be sure to post it.

 

We would particularly like to thank Roger Gunkel who has not only offered his support to us, but in addition his previous Eberspacher research provided a valuable platform from which we could focus our research and build our case. We feel that justice has been served now and hope that others with similar issues may find our experiences helpful in their search for justice.

 

Paul Sylvan.

 

Today I have written to Webasto UK and Webasto Germany asking for their comments on the following statement which I have found in the Webasto Installers Installation guide, para 2 of page 7 which states that:

 

… ‘but note that red diesel is of a lower grade than road diesel, and more likely to cause problems and wear to the burner’.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

And from as I read it here, now that tax will start to have to be paid on diesel used on boats, boaters will still get the poor quality "gas oil" type red diesel, but have to pay the full white diesel cost for it! In fact if this guy link is to be believed we'll actually pay more for it as an EU green tax because it's so dirty! This seems daft. Also daft is that it will still be permitted to use red diesel at reduced tax rate for heating, where it seems to be that heaters are what it's causing the most problems to (and it's not a system I can see working, having to declare what purpose your fuel is used for -propulsion or heating)

Incidentally, as I understand it (and I'm not sure about this) - it's not the sulphur as such which causes the problems. If anything sulphur helps (in an engine at least) as it increase the lubricity of the fuel, so reducing wear on pumps, etc. It's a problem for car engines with catalysts and particulate filters though, as it stops those working properly. The low cetane number of the fuel would explain the coking up of the heater though.

I also wonder whether the poor quality fuel could affect engines in the future. Most modern engines going into boats are car or truck derived, so are presumably designed to work with ISO 590 fuel, (even if designed to work on red diesel, it'll be the better stuff as opposed to the "gas oil" ) will running on poorer quality fuel effect them over time?

 

As I'm planning the heating arrangements for my boat at the moment I'm really unsure what to do. Will diesel heating still work out cheaper than gas if the full rate of tax has to be paid on it? Were these problems with a drip feed naturally aspirated type system or a forced air type?

 

Hi Tim

 

According to Webasto UK it was the sulphur in the fuel that was the problem. Their report to me stated:… “The most probable cause for the high build up of carbon and reduced burner life is due to an excessive presence of sulphur and/or other unknown properties within the fuel and/or fuel tank, and is not in any way related to a Webasto product or installation issue”.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Oh David what have you done.

 

When this whole red v white diesel argument originally kicked off. I stated that there were three types of diesel in general use.

1- White diesel(road use)

2- Red diesel ( agriculture, building plant use and so on)

3 -Gas oil (domestic,industrial heating oil)

I even quoted the cetane numbers for each type. Only to be ridiculed with quips like cetane number whats a cetane number? it's not in my dictionary, ha, ha, ha.( should have replied for them to buy a decent dictionary)

Therefor I was really pleased to read your account, which goes a long way to confirm my side of this debate.

Unfortunately this red v white argument has been hammered out so much that you start to lose the will to live

Lets just hope that it is believed different grades of red diesel/gasoil do exist. I am pleased for all those involved in achieving a result for the underdog. Well done all of you.

Seeing that since this argument/debate started the manufacturers of certain diesel heaters have now changed their opinions, resulting in them giving warnings as to what fuel should be used. A totally different stance now from them being insistent that they could run on red/gas oil.

 

Hi Big Col

 

Can you tell me which heater manufacturers have changed their opinions on fuel to be used, and what are they now specifying?

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

I keep meaning to ask boatyards if their 'red diesel' is BS 590 compliant but I always forget. I don't know if they'd be obliged to tell me anyway, to be fair.

Hi Magnetman

 

I have contacted a number of fuel suppliers on the canal and river network and those that I have spoken to are generally not aware of the grade of red diesel that they supply. However, a while back I contacted some of the fuel companies and it seems that the most commonly available fuel on the canal network is not BSEN 590. (same specification as white diesel) So far I have only come upon one outlet on the Thames that has informed me that they supply red diesel BSEN 590.

 

I would be very interested in knowing the grade and specification of fuel that is availabe to boaters in different locations around the UK, any info would be appreciated.

 

Paul

[WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE!]

Hi all

For those who are interested the origional WEBASTO NIGHTMARE post and all the responses provide a detailed background to the court case.

Paul

[Eberspacher, Webasto, Red diesel etc]

Look forward to hearing the results of this - I have a Webasto Thermo 90 onboard and have never been convinced of Gas Oil compatibility either! I am also interested when you say 'lack of servicing' above, as in most Webasto manuals I have seen there is no specific service requirement or method exclusive to the particular mode l- just a breakdown of components. In other words I have never seen a proper service and repair manual, just a parts list/installation guide. Puzzling..

 

Hi Orca

 

You will find all the info regarding the court case on my recent 'WEBASTO NIGHTMARE UPDATE' posted over the weekend.

 

Paul