sh!t fuel - ghastly price

[mayalld]

I would be interested to hear how a boater calculates the split. I have done one for Theodora taking into account:

 

1. Use of the Mikuni

2. The energy taken by the alternator while cruising.

3. The heat recovered from the cooling water which runs CH and HW systems

 

The results I got were rather worse (from my point of view) than the 60:40 split so after that I just quote 60:40 and keep every one happy.

 

Nick

 

I did some analysis (well what would you expect), and derived a way of approximating use.

 

The analysis looked at fuel consumption based on long days, short days and charging only, and looked at how much of the day the alternator was adding significant load to the engine.

 

The conclusions that I came to were;

 

The engine, providing propulsion only consumes 1l/hr

The engine providing charging only also consumes 1l/hr

The engine when cruising and also charging the batteries consumes 1.5l/hr

After an average of 4hrs cruising, the engine load is effectively all for propulsion.

The bubble stove burns an average of 0.5l/hr

 

So....

 

When cruising, the first 4 hours each day ar 1l prop/0.5 non-prop. All additional hours are 1l prop

When moored with engine running, it is a litre per hour non-prop

All taken from the log, where I note any generation time.

 

I've rigged an hour meter up to the bubble stove, and note the readings every 6 months.

 

Actual fuel consumption and predicted are pretty much spot on, so it gives me a result to use.

[BlueStringPudding]

{typed loads, then hit wrong button and it was alll lost grrr quick sumup}

problem gone

refuelled twice since

still no prob

on journey so no time to waste going backwards for a day to 'discuss' fuel.

it was the fixed 60/40 split that p*ed me off enough to make it mention worthy.

not a public dissing

no way a public blacklisting (leave it out will ya)

 

 

Problem will have gone soon as they get a fuel delivery and may already have.

 

You're not the first to have been disgruntled with the way Kate Boats sell their fuel, and not the first to discuss it on this forum.

Edited August 22, 2011 by BlueStringPudding

[mayalld]

You're not the first to have been disgruntled with the way Kate Boats sell their fuel, and not the first to discuss it on this forum.

 

Nor the first to take the view that just because one aspect of the way they do business rankles, it is fair game making unsubstantiated claims about them.

[sebrof]

How did you come to that conclusion? wtf?

 

By reading what you wrote.

[Dominic M]

I disagree -

The instructions from HMRC to RDCO's - (Registered Dealers in COntrolled Oils) are that the purchaser is to make a declaration as to the split required. Therefore it is not up to the dealer to make a mandatory split.

It is not a matter of "invitation to treat" - the revenue works at a higher point of law than general contract.

The dealer is in breach of his terms of regulation from HMRC and in theory could / should lose his licence.

 

However, HMRC are unlikely to take any action, or Trading Standards either.

 

The only practical course of action is for IWA or RBOA is to bring pressure on recalcitrant dealers.

That will only happen if enough people make a fuss - which I think is highly unlikely....

HMRC have already, in writing, stated that RDCOs are entitled to set a fixed split of 60/40. It must be made clear to the purchaser that is the case before fuelling commences of course.

 

Has anyone ever had their percentage questioned?

 

My theory is that no one at HMRC has ever looked at a return form & never will.

 

I think that it was all done to placate the EU.

Yes. There have been several random inspections of the declarations RDCOs hold. I believe there is a prosecution in process against at least one boat owner. One thing that HMRC have stated in writing is that "continuous cruisers cannot possibly claim 100% relief" so I suspect that is the people they may well go after.

 

However you'd be wrong.

 

It is indeed up the customer to declare the split.

 

But the seller is perfectly within his rights to say "I will only sell my diesel to you if you have the split I want you to have because I can't be bothered otherwise".

 

There is no law in this country that can force a seller to sell anything on terms other than those which he chooses. If he refuses to sell to you on your terms (ie your declared split) he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Correct.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Dominic M

[cotswoldsman]

 

One thing that HMRC have stated in writing is that "continuous cruisers cannot possibly claim 100% relief" so I suspect that is the people they may well go after.

 

 

Correct.

 

Ah well another person after CCers. Still most probably the most difficult to find!!!

[Ex- Member]

Yes. There have been several random inspections of the declarations RDCOs hold. I believe there is a prosecution in process against at least one boat owner. One thing that HMRC have stated in writing is that "continuous cruisers cannot possibly claim 100% relief" so I suspect that is the people they may well go after.

Im really surprised this prosecution isn't quite a big news story, It would be a first following new government legislation and and any first prosecution even if plead guilty can set presidents for future cases.

[BlueStringPudding]

If you've been iced in for weeks and the second it thaws you manage to get a visit from the icebreaking fuelboat, you'd declare 100%. There's one scenario.

[Dominic M]

Im really surprised this prosecution isn't quite a big news story, It would be a first following new government legislation and and any first prosecution even if plead guilty can set presidents for future cases.

Probably because sub judice applies. Or perhaps urban myth, but it is a story that has been related to me from several different sources. Certainly some RDCO's declaration records have been inspected. It would not be especially difficult for HMRC to match up a handful of selected 100% declarations to BW's licence records and where they found that the licensed boat owner claimed to be "continuously cruising", bingo!

 

I'm not supporting this course of action, and I think the current system is a largely pointless hassle, especially for people like me who sell the stuff. But it is the law, and if you pick a fight with HMRC, there is usually only one winner. I'd like to know why in 1994 some British civil servant(s) agreed to this change in taxation on diesel for private pleasure craft, but they did, with a derogation until 2006, when the EU demanded that they enforce what they'd signed up to.

 

If you've been iced in for weeks and the second it thaws you manage to get a visit from the icebreaking fuelboat, you'd declare 100%. There's one scenario.

I agree BSP. But the HMRC guidelines clearly state that. It would suggest that they would accept the legitimacy of the claim if you were iced in. They state:

 

4.8 I am a continuous cruiser

If you are a ‘continuous cruiser’ you may not claim all of your fuel for non propulsion

purposes under the arrangements for residential boat owners. Even if you reside

permanently on your craft, you must declare your actual intended usage for

propulsion.

 

They don't ask RDCOs to police it or deny someone the right to self declare. They state:

3.8 What if a private user claims 100% is used for non propulsion purposes?

In recognition of their status, residential boat owners, whose primary, or often their

only, place of residence is their boat, are allowed to purchase all of their fuel at the

rebated rate. If a private user claims such status and claims that 100% of their fuel is

for purposes other than propulsion, then you may supply the fuel without charging

any additional duty and without a declaration, but you should note your records

accordingly. See paragraph 4.7 for more information.

If you have any reason to doubt the validity of the status being claimed then you

should note your records to that effect.

 

I find the last sentence pretty dubious. Am I, as a supplier, going to pass judgement on the validity of the purchaser's claim, and if so, on what basis?

 

Edited to add reference to 4.7:

 

4.7 I am a residential boat owner and only move my boat a short distance occasionally

We recognise that there are boat owners whose primary, or only, residence is their

boat. Some of these will be at fixed moorings or move just a very short distance

along the tow path from permanent moorings. If you live aboard your craft

permanently and hold certain documentation, such as a Houseboat Licence,

Residential Mooring Licence, Council Tax bill in respect of the mooring, or other

documentation, such as invoices or bills which provide proof of permanent residency,

you may purchase all your fuel at the rebated rate (as if you owned a commercial

vessel). You are not required to make a declaration.

However, it will be your responsibility to ensure that you hold the requisite

documentation should we wish to check this at a future date.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Dominic M

[alan_fincher]

Im really surprised this prosecution isn't quite a big news story, It would be a first following new government legislation and and any first prosecution even if plead guilty can set presidents for future cases.

Surely President is one of the very few powered boats that has no interest in the tax regime on red diesel !

 

 

(President being coal powered.....)

 

If you've been iced in for weeks and the second it thaws you manage to get a visit from the icebreaking fuelboat, you'd declare 100%. There's one scenario.

Except that you are declaring how you expect the fuel you are buying will be used, rather than how you have already used any fuel you are replacing.

 

So 100% non-propulsion would only be valid if the fuel boat turned up just before a big freeze set in, and you could predict you were going to use it all before you were next able to go anywhere!

[Dominic M]

Surely President is one of the very few powered boats that has no interest in the tax regime on red diesel !

 

 

(President being coal powered.....)

It's not is it??? I just assumed each time I see it go past Stowe Hill that the lads on board like a fag or three.

[cotswoldsman]

I would be amazed if they were prosecuting anyone but just slightly more amazed if it was a Continues Cruiser. I can only speak for myself but since the new regulations came in I have never fuelled up at the same place twice, so if they were to go after myself (and they would be welcome to as I feel I declare to the best of my knowledge) they would have to check every retailer on the system, and then I guess they would have to follow me for a while to see how much I run my engine for charging (about 4- 5 hours a day) Sometimes I move maybe every 2-3 days and sometimes such as now I have not moved for 12 days. I very rarely cruise for more than 4 hours when I cruise. I just think it would be a very difficult case to bring for genuine CCers but I guess if someone declares 100% every time they fill up then it might not be that difficult. I have to also mention I did fill up earlier this year from a Fuel Boat and he would only allow 100% non propulsion declaration!!

[BlueStringPudding]

Surely President is one of the very few powered boats that has no interest in the tax regime on red diesel !

 

 

(President being coal powered.....)

 

 

Except that you are declaring how you expect the fuel you are buying will be used, rather than how you have already used any fuel you are replacing.

 

So 100% non-propulsion would only be valid if the fuel boat turned up just before a big freeze set in, and you could predict you were going to use it all before you were next able to go anywhere!

Look at the weather report. I do. That's that's why I've never been iced in anywhere I can't commute from. But if the weather's bad enough and so you move the boat solely to get fuel, that's still gonna be 100% domestic use

[mayalld]

Im really surprised this prosecution isn't quite a big news story, It would be a first following new government legislation and and any first prosecution even if plead guilty can set presidents for future cases.

 

If there is a prosecution, and a conviction results, then you can expect it to be big news. HMRC are ruthless in publicising stories to get the "don't screw with us" message out there.

 

However, until there is a conviction, HMRC have no interest in publicising it.

 

They could lose, and if they do, they would want to bury the news, so they have every interest in keeping their powder dry. The person being prosecuted has almost certainly been advised to keep quiet by his solicitor, an the grounds that he is going to lose, and that HMRC will seek a smaller penalty if he is a good boy.

 

I would be amazed if they were prosecuting anyone but just slightly more amazed if it was a Continues Cruiser.

 

HMRC are shrewd operators, when it comes to encouraging compliance.

 

Mounting a prosecution for incorrect declarations will be an expensive job, way out of proportion to the penalties that will result, but that doesn't matter to them. The fact that they HAVE prosecuted will ensure that the laisez faire attitude of "well, they will never come looking" is gone forever. One prosecution to prove that they can should ensure a massive improvement in compliance from other boaters for a good couple of years.

[David Schweizer]

I would be amazed if they were prosecuting anyone but just slightly more amazed if it was a Continues Cruiser. I can only speak for myself but since the new regulations came in I have never fuelled up at the same place twice, so if they were to go after myself (and they would be welcome to as I feel I declare to the best of my knowledge) they would have to check every retailer on the system, and then I guess they would have to follow me for a while to see how much I run my engine for charging (about 4- 5 hours a day) Sometimes I move maybe every 2-3 days and sometimes such as now I have not moved for 12 days. I very rarely cruise for more than 4 hours when I cruise. I just think it would be a very difficult case to bring for genuine CCers but I guess if someone declares 100% every time they fill up then it might not be that difficult. I have to also mention I did fill up earlier this year from a Fuel Boat and he would only allow 100% non propulsion declaration!!

Talk to any farmer and you will soon discover how diligently the Inspectors persue the illegal use of red diesel, why should they show any lesser enthusiasm for boat owners?

 

Admittedly it would be a bit more difficuot to persue someone on the move, but if they found good reason to suspect fraudulent declarations, they would work very hard find the offending boat, that is what they are like, and they don't take prisoners.

[cotswoldsman]

HMRC are shrewd operators, when it comes to encouraging compliance.

 

Mounting a prosecution for incorrect declarations will be an expensive job, way out of proportion to the penalties that will result, but that doesn't matter to them. The fact that they HAVE prosecuted will ensure that the laisez faire attitude of "well, they will never come looking" is gone forever. One prosecution to prove that they can should ensure a massive improvement in compliance from other boaters for a good couple of years.

 

Having owned and operated 3 Bonded warehouses I can say that you are correct. In the case of the small amounts involved in the case of duty payable on diesel by boaters I doubt they would invest to much time and money, especially in these times of staff cuts. But I would say that anyone that is making false declarations is playing a very dangerous game. At some stage they will make an example of someone but think it might be an easier target than a CCer.

Edited August 23, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Tim]

So I fill up with the intention of going nowhere at all, then have a change of mind and cruise all over the place. Do I have to balance this next time I fill up, or is that just my good fortune?

[Dominic M]

Contemplate this scenario. For example, on the 9 mile pound between Bradford and Bath on the K&A there are a good number of continuous cruisers (without wishing to enter the debate about what constitutes "cc"). How many fuel outlets do they have to choose from? How many places do HMRC have to go and look at the records? Yet, I am told, many are claiming 100% as the boat is their residence, which is correct but not acceptable to HMRC according to the guidelines I quote from above. Given that BW are not prepared to accept that a 9 mile stretch of waterway is sufficient to "cc", what does it take for BW and HMRC to put their records together and determine, in their view, that you cannot have your cake and eat it? Not much.

 

Anyone who has been the subject of a tax investigation will know that HMRC will devote considerable time and effort into finding out whether or not they have been diddled out of a few bob, whether or not the reward is far outstripped by the cost.

 

I'm not saying this will happen, but I would not be so complacent as to think that they will simply sit on their hands.

[cotswoldsman]

Contemplate this scenario. For example, on the 9 mile pound between Bradford and Bath on the K&A there are a good number of continuous cruisers (without wishing to enter the debate about what constitutes "cc"). How many fuel outlets do they have to choose from? How many places do HMRC have to go and look at the records? Yet, I am told, many are claiming 100% as the boat is their residence, which is correct but not acceptable to HMRC according to the guidelines I quote from above. Given that BW are not prepared to accept that a 9 mile stretch of waterway is sufficient to "cc", what does it take for BW and HMRC to put their records together and determine, in their view, that you cannot have your cake and eat it? Not much.

 

Anyone who has been the subject of a tax investigation will know that HMRC will devote considerable time and effort into finding out whether or not they have been diddled out of a few bob, whether or not the reward is far outstripped by the cost.

 

I'm not saying this will happen, but I would not be so complacent as to think that they will simply sit on their hands.

 

I think you are confusing 2 different issues. HMRC do not care about the difference between CCing and CMing and declaring 100% non propulsion. If they do not move then they can declare 100%

[furnessvale]

I would be amazed if they were prosecuting anyone but just slightly more amazed if it was a Continues Cruiser.

<SNIP>

I have to also mention I did fill up earlier this year from a Fuel Boat and he would only allow 100% non propulsion declaration!!

 

I know of at least one fuel boat that does this. It is a high risk strategy. I think if there is to be any prosecution it will be based on this boat and possibly a selection of its customers.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Dominic M]

I have to also mention I did fill up earlier this year from a Fuel Boat and he would only allow 100% non propulsion declaration!!

There are a few operating in this manner. It plainly contravenes the guidelines and in time I would not be surprised to see their RDCO permits revoked. I don't agree with it, but if the HMRC think you are blatantly flouting the law (and insisting on 100% only unless you confine yourself to selling diesel only to genuine residential boats as defined in 4.7 above is obviously outside the guidelines) they will come down hard.

 

I think you are confusing 2 different issues. HMRC do not care about the difference between CCing and CMing and declaring 100% non propulsion. If they do not move then they can declare 100%

But if they do not move and declare 100%, then BW have prima facie evidence that they are not entitled to a licence unless they pay for a mooring. That is the possibility which I could well imagine happening. They can't have it both ways.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

But if they do not move and declare 100%, then BW have prima facie evidence that they are not entitled to a licence unless they pay for a mooring. That is the possibility which I could well imagine happening. They can't have it both ways.

 

Dominic I am not disagreeing with you but I am sure under data protection BW and HMRC can not merge these files, HMRC have no interest in BW problems.

[Smelly]

Dominic I am not disagreeing with you but I am sure under data protection BW and HMRC can not merge these files, HMRC have no interest in BW problems.

 

I'm sure Dave will correct me but I think it's S 37 DPA that exempts information disclosed in the course of Legal Proceedings.

 

Sadly a lot of departments take this as "Criminal Proceedings" which from my professional point of view can be a PITA...

[cotswoldsman]

I'm sure Dave will correct me but I think it's S 37 DPA that exempts information disclosed in the course of Legal Proceedings.

 

Sadly a lot of departments take this as "Criminal Proceedings" which from my professional point of view can be a PITA...

 

I am no expert but surely this would mean the merging of Data for a possible prosecution before the start of legal proceedings?

[mayalld]

I'm sure Dave will correct me but I think it's S 37 DPA that exempts information disclosed in the course of Legal Proceedings.

 

Sadly a lot of departments take this as "Criminal Proceedings" which from my professional point of view can be a PITA...

 

I have not the slightest intention of correcting you.

 

Dominic I am not disagreeing with you but I am sure under data protection BW and HMRC can not merge these files, HMRC have no interest in BW problems.

 

You have fallen into the trap of believing that DPA prohibits sharing data.

 

Whilst this myth has grown up, largely due to the "can't do that because of DPA", it is crap.