Another Fuel Rant

[mayalld]

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2007/bn53.htm

 

After wading through income tax and a myriad of form applications, from oil rigs to distant relatives verucas, that's about as good as it gets. There is a PDF No.BN66 that states much the same but dated April 2009 - this gives duty rates for various fuels.

 

It seems there is a section on fuels for marine pleasure craft, but that section is currently with a "problem", so no joy. Distant relatives can sort their own verucas out.

 

No-one should be made so sign a false declaration. Doing so is an act of fraud. I think David and I would agree on that. (Is this a first?).

 

Derek

 

Yes, nobody should be made to sign a false declaration, and as such retailers who only do fixed splits should be up front about this.

 

However....

 

If faced with a retailer who is entirely up front about what splits he offers, the answer is that if you don't like the split, don't buy from him. People claiming that they had to buy because there was no alternative supplier, and claiming that they were forced to sign a false declaration are simply wrong. There are always alternative suppliers, they just might not be as convenient.

 

Of course, if somebody wants to make a fuss, get TS/HMRC involved. Tell them that the supplier was the only possible supplier, and that he wrongly "made" you sign a declaration. I suspect that the next month, they won't be supplying diesel at all. What a victory!

[Nickhlx]

Yes, nobody should be made to sign a false declaration, and as such retailers who only do fixed splits should be up front about this.

 

However....

 

If faced with a retailer who is entirely up front about what splits he offers, the answer is that if you don't like the split, don't buy from him. People claiming that they had to buy because there was no alternative supplier, and claiming that they were forced to sign a false declaration are simply wrong. There are always alternative suppliers, they just might not be as convenient.

 

Of course, if somebody wants to make a fuss, get TS/HMRC involved. Tell them that the supplier was the only possible supplier, and that he wrongly "made" you sign a declaration. I suspect that the next month, they won't be supplying diesel at all. What a victory!

 

 

Hear, Hear - whilst their services are "useful", not "at any cost" - they need to charge a fair price and not "extract the Michael". I would resent being held to ransom and would boycott their services too.

 

I also would feel "duty bound" ( ) to make HMRC aware of their illegal activities...

 

Nick

Edited July 27, 2010 by Nickhlx

[mayalld]

Hear, Hear - whilst their services are "useful", not "at any cost" - they need to charge a fair price and not "extract the Michael". I would resent being held to ransom and would boycott their services too.

 

I also would feel "duty bound" ( ) to make HMRC aware of their illegal activities...

 

Nick

 

I fear that the point may have escaped you.

 

It is NOT illegal to restrict the spilits at which you will supply.

 

Claiming that a retailer "forced" you to sign a false declaration when you had the option of not doing business with him, simply because it would be inconvenient to go elsewhere is hogwash.

 

Trying to bully that retailer by boycotts, or running to HMRC to complain will simply mean that next time you want fuel, you will have no option but to go elsewhere, because instead of offering only 60/40, he will be offering nothing at all.

 

It would be a very hollow victory.

[Dominic M]

I'm sure it would be possible to make a pump that could deal with changing splits, the attendant just entering the desired split and the pump then displaying the calculated price per litre and the sales total. This would probably be only a small modification for a typical garage forecourt pump, where the price per litre is entered by the garage electronically.

Of course it would be possible to make such a pump where the boater's split could be keyed in & the price then displayed accordingly. If produced it would have a very limited market and would cost a fortune. I can just see every canal side wharf operator rushing out to part with the many thousands it will cost, should it ever exist.

 

At what point in the purchasing process do you make you declaration/confirm the price?

 

You go in to the boat yard that is advertising fuel at 70p per litre.

 

"Fill her up my man", you say.

 

Spotty Saturday job boy fills her up.

 

"That'll be 70p per litre + VAT, + 60/40 tax please mister", says afore mentioned boy.

 

"No thanks", says you, "I wish to declare 20/80 and your sign does not advise 'ex VAT".

 

Does there now ensue a canal side row with the manger, owner et al?

The HMRC instruction is that an RDCO (Registered Dealer in Controlled Oils) is NOT to make a supply to any boater who is not prepared to sign a declaration. So the declaration should always be made first, or the yard is running the risk of getting into trouble.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Dominic M

[mrsmelly]

a shade darker than yours

 

Nick

:lol:

[Athy]

Dave, whilst I am certainly not arguing with you, I'm sure I read that it was up to the boater to declare the split which he required and the seller had to abide by that. Did I imagine that, or has the regulation changed since the introduction of the system?

Or maybe I read it in Wikipaedia which might account for it.

[magpie patrick]

I shall soon be free of such things, and shall be found wandering the roads near canals, jerry can in hand, in search of petrol for my outboard...

 

Is this an improvement?

[mayalld]

Dave, whilst I am certainly not arguing with you, I'm sure I read that it was up to the boater to declare the split which he required and the seller had to abide by that. Did I imagine that, or has the regulation changed since the introduction of the system?

Or maybe I read it in Wikipaedia which might account for it.

 

No, you are correct that it is for the boater to determine the split that he requires.

 

Once he has done so, it is then for the boater to find a supplier who is prepared to sell at that particular split.

[RLWP]

I shall soon be free of such things, and shall be found wandering the roads near canals, jerry can in hand, in search of petrol for my outboard...

 

Is this an improvement?

 

Judging from Allan's exploding petrol boat thread, no it isn't!

 

Richarsd

[Nickhlx]

I fear that the point may have escaped you.

 

It is NOT illegal to restrict the spilits at which you will supply.

 

Claiming that a retailer "forced" you to sign a false declaration when you had the option of not doing business with him, simply because it would be inconvenient to go elsewhere is hogwash.

 

Trying to bully that retailer by boycotts, or running to HMRC to complain will simply mean that next time you want fuel, you will have no option but to go elsewhere, because instead of offering only 60/40, he will be offering nothing at all.

 

It would be a very hollow victory.

 

 

No, it has not escaped me. It's all down to signage and timing as others have remarked. If I were a 70/30 user and the sign only says "70p/litre", that does not convey enough information to inform that the vendor will only sell at certain splits. It's too late, because of inadequate signage, to discover that, after you have fuelled up and are presented with the bill.

 

I am pointing out that if a retailer was not able to supply the splits I want, and I therefore must declare, I would not go back there (ever) again - It is no victory for me, and am not looking for victories, but neither for him, as I would organise my next fuel stop at somewhere who could sell me what I need, if I had to buy. Quite honestly, with the difference between full propulsion price and roadside pump (white) diesel (which I would rather put in my tank as I think it is a better fuel) price being so small, I can't be bothered with the canalside diesel.

 

I am fortunate to be fit enough to carry a jerry can or two ( and even 3 or 4) a week to the boat - 40 litres would last me around 27 hours, and that's more than an average week's cruising for us.

 

I am pointing out that I am very ready to not use these canalside retailers if they put any obstacles up to make the transaction anything less than perfectly smooth - I don't consider it any hardship to go elsewhere. The cost doesn't come into it - it's the principle. The cost difference is minimal anyway.

 

I have two tanks and run the heating from another tank using home-heating 28 second oil at around 40p/litre and carry that all to the boat, ( all 10 feet of it, from the car) thinking the savings are well worth it. The fuel is around 30p/litre cheaper, is cleaner, and "subsidises" the cleaner white diesel that may be only a few pence/litre more expensive. At least it is likely to be cleaner and fresher than that emanating from some tanks, as it's higher turnover and policed by trading standards more regularly and heavily, and possibly more accurately too.

 

This is not directed at the mobile vendors, as I believe they generally do a good job, are fair and more upfront about their pricing than some ( most?) marinas, especially those who think they have a "captive market".

 

I don't consider myself confrontational, but if any vendor of any product tries to "wave the finger" at me, he only gets the one chance - I am quite sure there are less tolerant people around. Britain needs to be less meek - it's what has caused "RIP-OFF BRITAIN".

 

Nick

Edited July 27, 2010 by Nickhlx

[Tim]

Knowing that the advertised prices can be misleading, it would make a lot of sense to clarify the price, split etc with the retailer before fuelling to avoid disappointment!

[cotswoldsman]

"Proves"

 

No, it doesn't prove that in the normal course of events you can get a refund simply because the nasty retailer won't offer any split you want.

 

To date, we have a written reply from HMRC that says that retailers are allowed to do just this, and an anecdote that says somebody got a refund. On the face of it, the anecdote and the position taken by HMRC are incompatible, which leaves a number of possibilities;

1. HMRC have changed their stance on this, and haven't told anybody.
   
2. Somebody at HMRC doesn't know what the official position is, and the boater in question got lucky in getting a refund.
   
3. There is some aspect of the way the transaction was conducted which caused this to be regarded as an extraordinary case
   

 

Now, the post refers to being forced to sign a false declaration. Surely if it was clear that signing a 60/40 declaration would be required before fuel was dispensed, the boater could have declined to accept the fuel, and would not have been forced to sign anything.

 

The thing I admire you for David is that you won't give up.

 

We have two cases from HMRC and for your discussion you chose to imply that the person at HMRC who arranged the rebate, and I am sure he could not do this without authority from up high is wrong and the person who wrote the letter that you quote is right. I don't know the answer to that. But again I go back to my point where you said NO when someone asked was there anything you could do about an over charge and in that case you were wrong whatever the circumstances so maybe your answer should have been "there are cases where you can get a rebate"

[alan_fincher]

I'm on a slow connection, and cannot be bothered to read through all the stuff not directly related to my whinge to see if some questions have been answered.

 

Simple question......

 

On (or near the pump)

 

"70 pence per litre + Duty + VAT"

 

Trading illegally, or not ?

 

References to support the answers given, please.

 

 

And if the pump just says 70p, and doesn't mention duty or VAT, but they then add it anyway?

 

Again references that support this please.

 

(Not interested in 60/40 here - I just want to understand what an outlet legally can and can not do).

 

Thanks.

[Derek R.]

Try this Alan LINKY

There are external links in that post.

 

Basically - grey area, buyer beware.

Displaying base price only = misleading. Unlawful? Don't know.

Displaying Base + duty + VAT - probably OK, but still unsure.

Seek trading standards for clarification.

 

A standard of displaying both propulsion and domestic should be established. Possibly by lobbying British Marine Federation.

 

Derek

[magpie patrick]

Judging from Allan's exploding petrol boat thread, no it isn't!

 

Richarsd

 

well, I can always TRY to find a diesel outboard...

 

they have been said to exist, but an internet search for sidepond cider has more results, mainly on this forum I will admit

[RLWP]

well, I can always TRY to find a diesel outboard...

 

they have been said to exist, but an internet search for sidepond cider has more results, mainly on this forum I will admit

 

 

Richard

[paulcatchpole]

 

Richard

 

Do you drink the diesel to power those?

 

How does it work?

 

PC

[furnessvale]

well, I can always TRY to find a diesel outboard...

 

they have been said to exist, but an internet search for sidepond cider has more results, mainly on this forum I will admit

 

I have seen two different ones. The Ruggerini F15 and a larger one by Yanmar. However, I have never tried to source one.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mayalld]

The thing I admire you for David is that you won't give up.

 

We have two cases from HMRC and for your discussion you chose to imply that the person at HMRC who arranged the rebate, and I am sure he could not do this without authority from up high is wrong and the person who wrote the letter that you quote is right. I don't know the answer to that. But again I go back to my point where you said NO when someone asked was there anything you could do about an over charge and in that case you were wrong whatever the circumstances so maybe your answer should have been "there are cases where you can get a rebate"

 

No, we don't have two "cases".

 

We have one statement from HMRC as to what is legal. We have one anecdote about a particular case. In the second case, we don't have sight of what HMRC actually said.

 

As such, I maintain that the statement carries more weight, and that no evidence has been presented that would "prove" that one can get a refund from HMRC simply because a retailer only does fixed splits.

[magpie patrick]

The trouble I have with "fixed split" is that the outlets doing it are reliant on others being more flexible, otherwise they will be forcing some poor sod to break the law.

 

I doubt it is illegal to pay more tax than you are supposed to, but it certainly is to pay less. So someone who feels that, this time round they ought to be buying 80% propulsion needs to find an outlet that is flexible to stay within the law. If they can't, then the vendor who sticks to their split of 60/40 is giving them a stark choice between running out of diesel or breaking the law. Of course, they could calculate the extra and send HMRC a cheque, but in doing so they'd have to explain why, at which point HMRC are going to go to the outlet and say "you forced someone to sign a false declaration"

 

On the main canal system you are alright, but what if your are on the middle level, where I believe the only outlet sticks to 60/40. What happens if all the outlets on the Lancaster Canal follow this route?

[mayalld]

The trouble I have with "fixed split" is that the outlets doing it are reliant on others being more flexible, otherwise they will be forcing some poor sod to break the law.

 

I doubt it is illegal to pay more tax than you are supposed to, but it certainly is to pay less. So someone who feels that, this time round they ought to be buying 80% propulsion needs to find an outlet that is flexible to stay within the law. If they can't, then the vendor who sticks to their split of 60/40 is giving them a stark choice between running out of diesel or breaking the law. Of course, they could calculate the extra and send HMRC a cheque, but in doing so they'd have to explain why, at which point HMRC are going to go to the outlet and say "you forced someone to sign a false declaration"

 

On the main canal system you are alright, but what if your are on the middle level, where I believe the only outlet sticks to 60/40. What happens if all the outlets on the Lancaster Canal follow this route?

 

People would have to buy sufficient white from a petrol station to make up the difference.

[Tim]

I would imagine HMRC would be ok with you adjusting your split on the next fill, when I mess up my VAT all I need to do is make a negative / positive adjustment on the next return and everybody is happy - apart from me having to pay in the first place!

[Derek R.]

Shame on you all! No-one has noticed my faux pas over the duty payable on red diesel for propulsion. I stated it was 10.99ppl, it is 46.20ppl, being a 10.99p reduction from 57.19p. Making 70p + 46.20p = 116.2p x 5% VAT 5.81 - £1.22p for propulsion.

Domestic (non-propulsion) 70p x 5% VAT 3.5p = 73.5p

 

I know - all got carried away with splits.

 

Derek

[Speedwheel]

References to support the answers given, please.

 

Funny how when you ask for references to back up the statements that the 'experts' on here are making, you suddenly get no response. Clearly alot is what they were told by a man in a pub.

 

Alan, have you considered phoning some of these boatyards, which you seem to think are acting so underhandedly, and ask them why they display the price in the way they do?

 

 

 

Shame on you all!

 

Well no-one on here anyway

 

You seem to have got some considerably more intelligent answers to your email elsewhere.

 

I have been in contact with Trading Standards over the last couple of days who have been suitable unhelpful. They don't seem to be sure what answer to give.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Speedwheel

[alan_fincher]

Alan, have you considered phoning some of these boatyards, which you seem to think are acting so underhandedly, and ask them why they display the price in the way they do?

Well I have only encountered this kind of thing twice so far.

 

The first was the worse, as there was no mention of the price being ex-duty and ex-VAT, and we actually got stung by that one.

 

Once we had calculated just what we had been charged we went back to protest.

 

They had the cheek to tell us they did it that way because some customers had asked them to.

 

I have not challenged the second case, that prompted me to start this thread, as at least there was enough of a clue to those in the know that it was actually very expensive, not a fair price.

 

My guess is that the first is acting illegally, whereas the other one is covering themselves so they are not.

 

Perhaps you don't think it is underhand to display a price that appears low, but is actually a rip off ? I do, but doubt I'd get much joy from a conversation with outlets that think it is a good idea.

 

I can see no other reason for doing it, than to try and make customers think it is less expensive than it is. Can you think of any other one ?