Jump to content

David Mack

PatronDonate to Canal World
  • Posts

    20,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

David Mack last won the day on March 22

David Mack had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Boat Name
    Belfast 115

Recent Profile Visitors

26,311 profile views

David Mack's Achievements

Veteran II

Veteran II (12/12)

  • Event Master Rare

Recent Badges

5.2k

Reputation

1

Community Answers

  1. Well HMRC made the suggestion at the time the propulsion duty was introduced, so no individual boater has ever had to prove this was an appropriate split for their use. The background is that the EU (of which we were then a member) decided that boat propulsion use should have the same duty as road fuel, and most other EU countries were already doing this. The UK Government resisted the change as long as they were able to, but eventually had to comply. To avoid leisure boaters either having to pay propulsion duty on all fuel, or install separate tanks for propulsion and non-propulsion fuel, the Government came up with the split duty scheme. The details were developed with the boating industry, and it was agreed that the 60/40 split was a fair representation of the actual split in use across a range of different leisure boat types and activities (not just canal and river craft). In deriving the calculation, the contribution of an engine used for propulsion to also provide electricity and space/water heating was taken into account, reducing the propulsion element, notwithstanding that the electricity and heat was incidental to the main engine use for propulsion. The use of separate tanks would not have allowed this to be non propulsion use, so the split declaration worked in boaters' favour. The EU however regarded the split declaration basis as non compliant with EU law. In their view any fuel tank supplying a propulsion engine should only have duty paid (white) diesel in it, as is the case for road vehicles. Matters rumbled on for a while until the EU declared they were going to take the UK Government to the European Court over the issue, an eventuality that only didn't happen because we left the EU.
  2. This link sets out the requirements for domestic heating oil tanks. Not sure if your mooring garden counts as domestic property, but it gives you an idea of what may be involved. https://www.oftec.org/consumers/off-gas-grid-guides/home-guide-to-domestic-liquid-fuel-storage-up-to-3500-litres These are the rules for businesses: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/storing-oil-at-a-home-or-business
  3. David Mack

    RCD

    And that is such a generic and vague description that could prompt arguments for years about what is or is not a Major Craft Conversion! To be licenced the boat needs a BSC. To be sold by a broker the boat now apparently needs paperwork to demonstrate RCR compliance. Two completely different sets of standards. And scope for much confusion amongst boat owners and prospective boat owners who are not immersed in the minutiae of such matters!
  4. David Mack

    RCD

    Did you buy it from them directly? Did it come with an Annex III(a) declaration that it complied with the RCD up to the then stage of completion (and if so do you still have that declaration)?
  5. David Mack

    RCD

    No. Anybody wishing to sell a boat in Europe (EU country) has to comply with the EU RCD. Whether or not there are equivalent regulations in UK law has no bearing on that. At present the UK RCR is the same as the EU RCD, the EU rules having been transferred into UK law en-masse at the point of Brexit. But one of the purposes of Brexit was to enable UK law to differ from EU law. So far the idea of just dumping all the EU rules has been pushed into the long grass, but presumably over time both UK and EU rules will get modified, and the two sets will diverge. But I can't see the RCR being high on any UK politicians priorities, so we are probably stuck with the current rules for the foreseeable future.
  6. David Mack

    RCD

    Enforcement of the RCR is the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments, and most are so under-resourced that this comes such a long way down their list of priorities that only the most serious cases are likely to be followed up. More likely is a dispute between a customer and a boatbuilder or supplier about RCR compliance, which could eventually end up in court. But most people's experience of RCR issues will be when trying to sell a boat, as it seems that brokers are increasingly requiring complete and up to date RCR paperwork before taking on the sale. For a boat which has been owner fitted out or significantly modified, demonstrating compliance can be as much of an issue as actually doing the work in a compliant manner. So who are the 'bureaucrats' in your case? That says: "As in the previous Directive, there are still some boats which are exempt from the RCD, these are: Home built: where the boat has been substantially built by the owner for their own use and is not sold for a period of 5 years. However the boat owner may employ specialist services for elements of the build and still be considered a self build. However, you may find it challenging to sell the boat after 5 years without the relevant RCD documentation, builders plate and CE marking." That is reasonably clear for an entirely home built craft, but it doesn't say whether a sailaway built by a professional builder, and sold with full RCR documentation for a craft completed to the relevant stage, can then be regarded as 'owner built' in relation to the subsequent fitting out, and therefore exempt from a PCA and updated documentation if kept for at least 5 years.
  7. I think the only Cruiseway sections of the BCN are the Main Line/ New Main Line from Aldersley to Gas Street and Farmers Bridge, Netherton Tunnel Branch, Dudley Canal west of Windmill End and the Birmingham and Fazeley (including the Digbeth Branch as far as Warwick Bar). Everything else is remainder. At the time of the 68 Act, none of the BCN was regarded as being of any use for pleasure cruising, and the sections listed above were the minimum necessary to connect other cruising waterways.
  8. A meaningful start can either be the actual commencement of the proposed work, that then proceeds in earnest. Or it can be a token activity undertaken with the sole purpose of keeping planning permission alive, without actually intending to do anything more in the near future.
  9. Can you imagine the hoohah NBTA would make if they were 'banned' from having a stall at Cavalcade? Better to have them inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside p*ssing in.
  10. Looks good. Do you have to cut pockets in the back of the trim to accommodate the nut and bolt?
  11. Or possibly too long, got caught on a lock side or bridge arch, and got bent.
  12. And new top 'plank' both sides welded just above the top guard, so no rivets left along the gunwale angle. Fitted out back cabin, but no pictures. And engineless, yet photographed on the River Nene without a motor or tow line in evidence?
  13. Planning permission usually expires after 3 years if work on site hasn't begun. So has anything happened on site? Or is the permission now defunct?
  14. At school I made a key for a small store room that a school group I was involved with used. And then I filed the sides down and converted it to a master key that would open any classroom door in that building!
  15. The general description says that, but in the detail it says "For immersion service: steel; blast cleaned to ISO-Sa2½". In practice you may well get away with a lesser standard of preparation, but no manufacturer or supplier is going to say that as they don't want any responsibility if the paint system fails.
×
×
  • 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.