Jump to content

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

Who do you think will be selling it when only farms can use it

RDCOs of course, just like now ... but there's going to be a lot less of them when the restrictions on who they can sell it to come into force.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

RDCOs of course, just like now ... but there's going to be a lot less of them when the restrictions on who they can sell it to come into force.

RDCOs will sell to whoever but NONE - other than farmers and a very few others will get / claim the rebate

 

Everyone, but everyone else will have to pay 'the current rate' which is not what you can get from ASDA/ etc, but what the small local  filling station charges and proably more as the local station will be buying more per 'drop' than a marina does.

 

Trust me (haha), I worked in the oil industry for some years  - and it's (not unreasonably about VOLUME)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Exactly, and the Government already has legislation in place that all new ships for UK waters ordered from 2025 should be designed with zero-emission capable technologies. No diesel engine boats may be built after 2035 and no diesel engine boats may be used, (on inland or coastal waters) after 2050

 

Anything we do now is just a short term 'sop' to try and appease the environmentalists, but as has been said "red is just white with a dye" so why should anyone spend £10,000's putting in new infrastructure to be able to supply 'white' with such a short term payback, particularly when the retailers are typically only making 4p (before tax) per litre on fuel sales

I'm not challenging the above but I'm curious over what it's referencing.  Have you a link to anything I could read?

Surely it can't include narrowboats?  I doubt anyone of them would be ready in fewer the 5 years to sell boats with zero-emission capable technology.

 

Fingers crossed that technology massively improved by 2035.  Having visited a boat builder yesterday were I was told a Beta hybrid setup would cost £25K+, and yet obviously it's still reliant on diesel!  Some of the smaller, new boats I looked at don't have especially large engine bays and would have no chance of accommodating a hybrid set up and battery bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MoominPapa said:

I note that the removal of red diesel is the one, single, thing done to us by the EU that's unequivocally not in boater's interests and , irony of ironies, it's now being taken away anyway by the British government. Can anybody explain, now the "we" can make "our own" laws why "we" are not listening to ourselves?

 

A suitable rendition of Won't get fooled again by The Who, may be accepted as an answer. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

An admission that you're all mugs, and you've been done over again by the Old Etonians and psychopaths in the Tory party would be good too, when you have a moment away from practising your forelock-tugging.

 

MP.

Isn't it because we faffed about so long in leaving the EU, that it gave them time to get a European court judgement against the UK government on the use of red diesel.  

  • Greenie 2
  • Horror 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Isn't it because we faffed about so long in leaving the EU, that it gave them time to get a European court judgement against the UK government on the use of red diesel.  

Umm - but wasn't that while we were STILL in the EU?

Now that we've left, shirley that's cancelled..

..

..

Or is tha something Balmy Boris hasn't told us...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NB DW said:

I'm not challenging the above but I'm curious over what it's referencing.  Have you a link to anything I could read?

Surely it can't include narrowboats?  I doubt anyone of them would be ready in fewer the 5 years to sell boats with zero-emission capable technology.

 

Fingers crossed that technology massively improved by 2035.  Having visited a boat builder yesterday were I was told a Beta hybrid setup would cost £25K+, and yet obviously it's still reliant on diesel!  Some of the smaller, new boats I looked at don't have especially large engine bays and would have no chance of accommodating a hybrid set up and battery bank.

No, it doesn't specifically state Narrowboats, but it does specifically state all British waters INCLUDING inland waterways.

 

I'll send you a PM but note the following extracts :

 

 

Page 11 :
 
"..for standardising environmental
regulations for vessels operating
domestically within the UK, including
inland waterways....."
 
Page 12
"..... the RTFO
currently applies to fuel suppliers for the
non-road mobile machinery (NRMM)
sectors, the definition of which includes
inland shipping and recreational craft that
do not normally operate at sea......
"
 
 
Page 20
"..... emissions from vessels operating
domestically within the UK, including
inland waterways.
...The aim of this work
is to collect a body of evidence that
will give a clearer picture of the extent
of emissions from domestic and inland
waterway vessels.."
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

Umm - but wasn't that while we were STILL in the EU?

Now that we've left, shirley that's cancelled..

..

..

Or is tha something Balmy Boris hasn't told us...

The way I thought it worked is that by international law we have to abide by the ruling, leaving did not change that as that ruling was made while we were a member.  Legal changes are not in general retrospective.

 

Anyway that aside I have just filled in and sent off the consultation document, and given my view, not that anyone will take any notice of it!  

 

The bit that I was not expecting was the question about the proposed rebate scheme for private boats

 

Quote

Private pleasure craft
18.    Do you agree with the government’s suggested approach of introducing a new relief scheme where the fuel supplier would deduct from the sale price the duty difference on the proportion of white diesel purchased by private pleasure craft users for non-propulsion use? If you do not, please explain why and give details of an alternative that you believe would be better.  

 

On the face of it that proposal would be exactly the same as we have today except that you declare the non-population percentage not the propulsion percentage.  So if that is what happens  the change to white diesel would be cost neutral to private boaters.

 

The rub is that there is a further question about the 60% propulsion split, so that has the possible implication that you  could only declare a max of 40% for non-propulsion use, but even if this is what happened it is not such a bad result, and I think would allow canal side suppliers and fuel boats to stay in business and prevent an explosion in the use of cans for filling boats, which the the big concern that I expressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Other than the fact that it is nice to get things cheaper, can anyone give a realistic justification as to why leisure boaters/liveaboards should be able to get cheaper diesel than Joe Public can get for his car?

 

If Joe Public puts red diesel in his car the repercussions can be dire (like  HMRC impounding their vehicle). As someone else has pointed out the duty on fuel stopped being hypothecated for the roads many years ago (1937) and since then has just gone into the Treasury Funds. I may be wrong but I think Haulage Companies can claim back the VAT on diesel fuel for their lorries but even they have to buy white diesel so why should boaters be different? (hire companies may be able to reclaim VAT in the same fashion). Is it just because that is what we have always done even though there is no inherent logic to it??

As has already been stated on here, there are unintended consequences to this change which have the potential to cause significant environmental damage. Whilst I will personally fill up with white at canal side locations irrespective of price if we have to, many with less means will engage in sourcing the cheapest outlet for their fuel. In all likelihood this will be supermarkets, and then we will see slicks of diesel floating across the canal as the inevitable spillages occur. So purely on environmental grounds, stick with the current situation, carry on using red but pay tax on the bit used for propulsion. Technically speaking, if someone is complying with the rules now, you don’t get cheaper diesel than joe public get for their car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Not 'claim it back' surely? A VAT registered company deducts VAT on inputs from VAT on outputs and pays HMRC the difference. If the difference is negative it used to be possible to claim it back but most of those opportunities were removed by Ken Clark when Chancellor. (The clue is in the name: Value Added Tax)

Sounds a bit like semantics to me. The end result is that they set their VAT on their inputs against their VAT on their outputs so that it is almost neutral for them (with a good accountant) and the VAT itself just gets passed down the line to the end user.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Phil. said:

As has already been stated on here, there are unintended consequences to this change which have the potential to cause significant environmental damage. Whilst I will personally fill up with white at canal side locations irrespective of price if we have to, many with less means will engage in sourcing the cheapest outlet for their fuel. In all likelihood this will be supermarkets, and then we will see slicks of diesel floating across the canal as the inevitable spillages occur. So purely on environmental grounds, stick with the current situation, carry on using red but pay tax on the bit used for propulsion. Technically speaking, if someone is complying with the rules now, you don’t get cheaper diesel than joe public get for their car.

If we were already paying the same for our fuel as joe public surely there wouldn't be any problem with the tax changes. I think that the last time I filled up at Hawne Basin the propulsion rate was £1.07p, so if I'd bought the whole lot at propulsion rate it would have been much the same as I'd have paid at a garage anyway (give or take a few pence).  Yes, many marinas may charge more, but they do already and people still buy their fuel there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Phil. said:

As has already been stated on here, there are unintended consequences to this change which have the potential to cause significant environmental damage. Whilst I will personally fill up with white at canal side locations irrespective of price if we have to, many with less means will engage in sourcing the cheapest outlet for their fuel. In all likelihood this will be supermarkets, and then we will see slicks of diesel floating across the canal as the inevitable spillages occur. So purely on environmental grounds, stick with the current situation, carry on using red but pay tax on the bit used for propulsion. Technically speaking, if someone is complying with the rules now, you don’t get cheaper diesel than joe public get for their car.

For all sorts of good reasons which I can’t be arsed to explain; I’ve been topping  up with Jerry cans for the last couple of years. I manage not to spill any. 
Yet most mariners seem incapable of filling without causing spillage.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Goliath said:

For all sorts of good reasons which I can’t be arsed to explain; I’ve been topping  up with Jerry cans for the last couple of years. I manage not to spill any. 
Yet most mariners seem incapable of filling without causing spillage.
 

We regularly 'fill-up' at sea by decanting from plastic25 litre drums. The drum sits above the tank filler and then we use a syphon pump made from an outboard fuel-bulb with a length of pipe on each end (a short length to reach into the fuel container, and a longer end down into the fuel tank). The bulb is repeatedly squeezed until the fuel starts to flow and then it syphons.

Very simple, no 'sucking' and no spillages.

 

 

Ready made ones available from Screwfix

 

https://www.screwfix.com/p/laser-fuel-transfer-tool-8mm/85358?

 

When we have a 'BIG' fill up (2000 - 2500 litres) on the cruiser we arrange for a Road Tanker to meet us by a bridge or dock / wharf and invariably we end up with more spillage that DIY syphoning

 

The Cat has twin tanks (one in each hull) with each fuel filler level with the top step so the fuel drum just sits on the top step whilst it syphons

 

Inked-IMG-1018-LI.jpg

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob-M said:

The marina we are in is the same, a strict no filling from cans policy.

I don't know which one it is, but will surely recognise it by the swastika flag fluttering over its buildings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

We regularly 'fill-up' at sea by decanting from plastic25 litre drums. The drum sits above the tank filler and then we use a syphon pump made from an outboard fuel-bulb with a length of pipe on each end (a short length to reach into the fuel container, and a longer end down into the fuel tank). The bulb is repeatedly squeezed until the fuel starts to flow and then it syphons.

Very simple, no 'sucking' and no spillages.

 

 

Ready made ones available from Screwfix

 

https://www.screwfix.com/p/laser-fuel-transfer-tool-8mm/85358?

 

When we have a 'BIG' fill up (2000 - 2500 litres) on the cruiser we arrange for a Road Tanker to meet us by a bridge or dock / wharf and invariably we end up with more spillage that DIY syphoning

 

The Cat has twin tanks (one in each hull) with each fuel filler level with the top step so the fuel drum just sits on the top step whilst it syphons

 

Inked-IMG-1018-LI.jpg

Looks a beast 👌

Love the steps either side, with hand rails so you can go swimming I guess. 
 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thomas C King said:

I've declared 60/40 when given a choice because I don't agree with cheating on tax (don't like the rate? Get people to vote for change).

 

I absolutely agree with you, I've retired now but when I had a holiday job in my teens (in a filling station) lowlives were asking for "a few blank receipts" to cheat on their tax. Nothing has changed during the intervening 50 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are of course always ways round things. Some couriers used to (maybe still do?) avoid paying too much for fuel in one of 2 ways:

 

1/ Maintain a tank of white diesel but fuel is actually taken from a 'secret' second tank, filled with red, sited in the back of the van.

 

2/ Have red in an adapted tank that has a central 'glove' containing white diesel. The main part of the tank contains red of course, filled from a 'secret' second filling point.

 

This is for amusement only. I'm quite sure no boaters, most especially CWDF members, would seek to evade taxation, particularly in such a devious way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

This is for amusement only.

It is certainly not reality as not only do HMRCE 'dip & check the fuel in the tank' but they also break into the fuel line near the engine (pump or injectors) to see what fuel is being used.

 

I suppose if you were really clever you could have a second engine hidden away being fed by 'red'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I suppose if you were really clever you could have a second engine hidden away being fed by 'red'.

 

I did wonder why you kept a spare engine hidden in the other hull...

 

Do you think you could claim there's one  domestic and one propulsion engine?

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Sounds a bit like semantics to me. The end result is that they set their VAT on their inputs against their VAT on their outputs so that it is almost neutral for them (with a good accountant) and the VAT itself just gets passed down the line to the end user.

When I worked in the animal feed industry we received a very substantial cheque from HMRC every quarter.  Virtually all outputs were zero-rated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

There are of course always ways round things. Some couriers used to (maybe still do?) avoid paying too much for fuel in one of 2 ways:

 

1/ Maintain a tank of white diesel but fuel is actually taken from a 'secret' second tank, filled with red, sited in the back of the van.

 

2/ Have red in an adapted tank that has a central 'glove' containing white diesel. The main part of the tank contains red of course, filled from a 'secret' second filling point.

 

This is for amusement only. I'm quite sure no boaters, most especially CWDF members, would seek to evade taxation, particularly in such a devious way. 

And do you not think HMRC are not on to that one

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/07/2020 at 12:37, Alan de Enfield said:

EG :

60/40 is 60% propulsion and 40% 'domestic'

 

Are you saying that only 20% of the fuel you buy is used for propulsion ?

 

 

Not read the whole thread but had to laugh at this bit. It is certainly not well understood. We've filled up twice in the last 3 weeks. First time "60/40 please" and got the form to sign with 60% propulsion. The next place (a busy marina fuel dock), "60/40 please" and it was 40% propulsion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr Bob said:

First time "60/40 please" and got the form to sign with 60% propulsion

 

That's how the Governments documentation says it should be.

 

2nd time - you made the correct declaration, if they charged you incorrectly their loss, your gain !

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎22‎/‎07‎/‎2020 at 10:25, doratheexplorer said:

I may respond, but not in the way you would want.  I'm not sure I can see the justification for red diesel in boats.  If we are to meet our emmissions targets, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The purpose of taxation here is to encourage alternative (less polluting) energy sources.

 

At present, and in the near future, I simply don't see such sources becoming viable

 

We already pay the duty, but this change could lead to an end to canalside supply, and an increase in people fueling from cans, which would have an environmental impact

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.