Selling diesel to unlicensed boats

[CanalWalker]

But aren't required to refuse service, if they suspect another, unrelated, tax has not been paid.

 

A pub is required to check a person is legally able to buy alcohol ie age and sobriety. That is a bit tricker than checking a boat on BW water going to a business on BW land/water has a BW licence. My landlord has to check I pay my council tax, thats under his agreement with the estate the flat is in.

 

No business is forced to operate with BW.

Edited September 7, 2009 by CanalWalker

[carlt]

A pub is required to check a person is legally able to buy alcohol ie age and sobriety. That is a bit tricker than checking a boat on BW water going to a business on BW land/water has a BW licence. My landlord has to check I pay my council tax, thats under his agreement with the estate the flat is in.

 

No business is forced to operate with BW.

Again you are talking about a specific law that exists.

 

There is no law that prohibits a diesel supplier from selling fuel to a minor, or an allegedly unlicensed boat.

 

If such a law exists then there would be cause for debate.

 

Until then, however, BW are overstepping the mark.

[CanalWalker]

There is no specific law that says my landlord has to check my council tax or car tax but there is a agreement with the estate management that requires him to do that. If he doesnt like it he doesnt have to lease from that estate company. he gets far more benefits from doing so though than he would elsewhere.

 

I am sure a boat selling fuel has more benefits from working under BW agreements on BW water selling to BW customers than it would else where. The boat could be lifted out and put on provate land and he could sell his fuel there with no regard to any water/canal authority.

[carlt]

There is no specific law that says my landlord has to check my council tax or car tax but there is a agreement with the estate management that requires him to do that. If he doesnt like it he doesnt have to lease from that estate company. he gets far more benefits from doing so though than he would elsewhere.

 

I am sure a boat selling fuel has more benefits from working under BW agreements on BW water selling to BW customers than it would else where. The boat could be lifted out and put on provate land and he could sell his fuel there with no regard to any water/canal authority.

British Waterways are not free to change their licence t&c's in that way (though some employees believe they are).

 

If they are able change the commercial licence conditions to include this requirement, and do so, then the fuel sellers remaining, that won't mind their new role as tax inspectors, would have to comply.

 

Until then BW are overstepping the mark.

[Sir Nibble]

Regardless of the legal powers, or lack of them involved here. I personally want unlicensed boats to pay up or simply get off the water now, right away, and I find it difficult to give credence to any contrary view.

The idea of refusing fuel sales however, WOULD result in fuel thefts increasing and therefore is a bad idea.

As for a persons licence status being a private matter, fine, I can go along with that. Personally one way I guage BW's performance is to check one particular stretch to see what proporting of boats living on 48 hour moorings are evading. Usually hovers around 20%, last time I checked (last week) 80%. Now that is not my business, but it is very much my business to say to BW " Oy! pull finger". So I say keep the licence card so that pasing boaters can see some indication of evasion rates, not to "tch tch" at the boater, but to hold BW to account for their performance.

[carlt]

So I say keep the licence card so that pasing boaters can see some indication of evasion rates, not to "tch tch" at the boater, but to hold BW to account for their performance.

These performance figures are available for you to check and do not require an invasion of privacy, to tell you BW's failings.

 

In the same way, we do not have to display receipts for all our taxes, in our house windows, to prove that the Inland Revenue is, or is not, doing its job.

 

Edited to say: Isn't this in the wrong thread, though?

Edited September 7, 2009 by carlt

[Sir Nibble]

These performance figures are available for you to check and do not require an invasion of privacy, to tell you BW's failings.

 

In the same way, we do not have to display receipts for all our taxes, in our house windows, to prove that the Inland Revenue is, or is not, doing its job.

 

Edited to say: Isn't this in the wrong thread, though?

The difference being that the inland revenue are rottweillers and will always chase every penny to the nth degree of the law whearas BW cannot be arsed and will get away with not spending more money on enforcement than they stand to gain if they can. For these reasons, I simply would not trust BW's figures.

I really believe that if there were not boaters constantly complaining about license evasion and overstaying that both matters would be allowed to go their own sweet way.

[alan_fincher]

I've not read the whole thread, I'll admit, but.....

 

Isn't it simply a legal requirement, as well as breaking your licence conditions, to have a licence, but not display it.

 

Presumably true for a boat on BW waters as well as a motor vehicle on the roads, but I'm happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

Whilst I will if necessary break a "silly" law, or one that I consider to be unjust, I really can't get worked up enough about whether somebody knows if I have paid my tax or not, to make a point of non-display - I think boats should be licensed, if that's the law, so don't see an issue with displaying.

 

Whilst it is true that many BW checkers probably can tell straight away from a BW index number whether a boat has a license or not, it is not obvious to me that (say) a lockie at Thames Lock has the same facility to check that a boat entering BW waters is licensed, (OK he could have, but does he ?).

 

Also, the painting of a BW index number on my boat does not actually prove it is the boat that relates to that index number. I could borrow one from my neighbours boat, and go cruising. On the other hand, it is harder to actually have the physical pieces of paper displayed if you are not entitled to them, without leaving the real owner without.

 

Of course non display of my actual license, but displaying my correct index number does not actually guarantee anonymity about whether I have paid BW or not. As we all know they have provided an on-line facility that allows anybody to make their own check of my license status. If you are worried about your privacy, the next step can then only be to stop displaying your index number too, at which point even an official with access to the requisite database can't check.

 

On balance, I think the case for having a paper licence displayed still remains, busy bodies, or not.

[carlt]

I really believe that if there were not boaters constantly complaining about license evasion and overstaying that both matters would be allowed to go their own sweet way.

Possibly because it's not that big a deal.

 

Despite what you say about the IR there are individuals who dodge more tax than the sum total of every boat tax evader.

 

Of course non display of my actual license, but displaying my correct index number does not actually guarantee anonymity about whether I have paid BW or not. As we all know they have provided an on-line facility that allows anybody to make their own check of my license status. If you are worried about your privacy, the next step can then only be to stop displaying your index number too, at which point even an official with access to the requisite database can't check.

The snitch site is an invasion of privacy that I have no control over (and is wildly inaccurate).

 

I believe we should have to display an index number but I don't believe that this should enable the public to access private information.

[alan_fincher]

The snitch site is an invasion of privacy that I have no control over (and is wildly inaccurate).

I'm not arguing with that.

 

What I can't understand is any reason why the "snitch" data should not be being derived from exactly the same source as people say BW are using when checking. If it were then BW would have to be getting the same inaccurate results, wouldn't they?.

 

I suppose if there are two sources of such "data" there must be a reason, but I don't imagine we would get an explanation why, would we ?

 

I can't for the life of me see why both can't be accurate - a boat has either had a licence issued for the current date, or it has not.

[carlt]

I can't for the life of me see why both can't be accurate - a boat has either had a licence issued for the current date, or it has not.

I have entered the details of many boats that no longer exist and it comes back with (these boats appear to be unlicensed...) yet licence reminders, court summonses don't get sent out (I know, because I'd receive them) therefore there must be two databases, one for the snitch site and one for the enforcement team.

[alan_fincher]

I have entered the details of many boats that no longer exist and it comes back with (these boats appear to be unlicensed...) yet licence reminders, court summonses don't get sent out (I know, because I'd receive them) therefore there must be two databases, one for the snitch site and one for the enforcement team.

I'm not arguing with you - I just can't think of a reason why.

 

Perhaps one of our occasional contributors, not unassociated with this kind of thing, could explain?

 

Coming back though more on topic, if BW's official website for saying if a boat is licensed or not can't get it right, then expecting third party canal-side reseller of diesel to get it right consistently sounds pretty nigh impossible, (as well as plain wrong).

 

EDIT:

 

Quick thought.

 

If the problem with the "snitch" site database were to only relate to boats no longer existing, I suppose it doesn't matter that much, for the intended purpose. Nobody should be sighting those boats, and hence checking them.

 

It really only become an issue (for the intended purpose), if it reports a boats as unlicensed, but which exist and are genuinely licensed, (as a bare minimum reporting these must be needlessly wasing BW resources).

 

(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a supporter of the snitch site, but it becomes an even worse thing if it both exists, and is wrong, in my view).

Edited September 7, 2009 by alan_fincher

[carlt]

Coming back though more on topic, if BW's official website for saying if a boat is licensed or not can't get it right, then expecting third party canal-side reseller of diesel to get it right consistently sounds pretty nigh impossible, (as well as plain wrong).

I agree entirely.

[DHutch]

Me too.

As an aside, we tied up near a marina recently, and some bods came in with cans. As they left, two customs and excise bods jumped out of an unmarked 4x4 and dipped their vehicle tanks. They both had red in the tanks and were being read their rights as we walked by. I too got dipped when I took my cans to a local fuel suppliers a couple of months ago. Myvehicle is unleaded so they were a bit pi**ed off.

Well thats always good to know.

- Mum had her's dipped once (fairly beat up 806, covered in mud, cramming it round the country lanes) and while she was ofcause using road diesal, its good to know there is/are checks being caried out.

 

 

Daniel

[carlt]

Well thats always good to know.

- Mum had her's dipped once (fairly beat up 806, covered in mud, cramming it round the country lanes) and while she was ofcause using road diesal, its good to know there is/are checks being caried out.

 

 

Daniel

I'm starting a campaign fighting for coal powered craft to come into line, with diesel.

 

"6 sacks of nutty slack for propulsion and 4 for domestic, please!"

[NB Alton]

As the owner & operator of a coal / diesel boat I have never been asked by BW (officially or unofficially) to check boat licences. Nor have I been asked to not supply diesel to unlicenced boats.

[alan_fincher]

I'm starting a campaign fighting for coal powered craft to come into line, with diesel.

 

"6 sacks of nutty slack for propulsion and 4 for domestic, please!"

Unlike all the complications of putting red, and other, dyes into gas oil, it should be very easy to put precautions into "coal" used for these two purposes.

 

You could include something that died the smoke, or gave a certain incense smell, or such like.

 

Easy then to test if "the wrong kind of smoke" is coming up the wrong chimney, I'd have thought.

[carlt]

Unlike all the complications of putting red, and other, dyes into gas oil, it should be very easy to put precautions into "coal" used for these two purposes.

That would mean installing a second scuttle, though.

[mayalld]

I have entered the details of many boats that no longer exist and it comes back with (these boats appear to be unlicensed...) yet licence reminders, court summonses don't get sent out (I know, because I'd receive them) therefore there must be two databases, one for the snitch site and one for the enforcement team.

 

And it is logical to do it that way.

 

If you notify BW that a boat has been removed from their waters (including broken up), they will stop sending out reminders and the like. However, the system must accouint for the fact that some of these boats may actually be returned illicitly to BW waters.

 

So, if you enter the number of a boat that has been broken up, BW will wish to investigate whether the boat has really been broken up or not...

[carlt]

So, if you enter the number of a boat that has been broken up, BW will wish to investigate whether the boat has really been broken up or not...

and once that has been confirmed, what is the point in keeping it on the database?

[DHutch]

I'm starting a campaign fighting for coal powered craft to come into line, with diesel.

 

"6 sacks of nutty slack for propulsion and 4 for domestic, please!"

You will find no favours here! Less so even than trying to sell us nutty slack as coal.

[carlt]

You will find no favours here! Less so even than trying to sell us nutty slack as coal.

I know you wouldn't buy nutty slack but it sounds nice.