You think that not chasing a licence fee for 4 years is bad ?

[Alan de Enfield]

From NarrowboatWorld (for those who do not want to go and read it.

 

CaRT's 19 years backdated charges

Friday, 20 February 2015 11:25

 

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) attempts to hike up its surface water discharge income by introducing new agreements (CaRT goes crazy), has taken a bizarre new twist, writes Allan Richards.

Not only is it attempting to increase existing customers charges by up to 13,000%, it now invoiced a company for backdated surface water drainage charges for the last 19 years.

Rejecting the charge

The invoice shown is for ‘additional rent' of £4,743.04 covering a nine years period from 29/11/95 to 28/11/14. However, it does not provide an agreement number which suggests that no agreement currently exists. It is just one of many invoices sent to H2O Building Services who say they have never seen such a back charge imposed and will be rejecting it on behalf of their client.

H2O are calling for regulation of CaRT to curb excessive demands for surface water discharge fees

 

..

[b0atman]

Maybe CRT should be sacking the people responsible for this oversight .

This shows yet again that CRT has no idea of how they should deal with customers.

[stuart]

Its probably incorrectly billed as well, should the historic VAT rates be changed for the old periods rather than 20%

[furnessvale]

Its probably incorrectly billed as well, should the historic VAT rates be changed for the old periods rather than 20%

I thought VAT was chargeable at the rate applicable at the time the invoice was raised, but I may well be wrong.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Suzie_q]

I thought VAT was chargeable at the rate applicable at the time the invoice was raised, but I may well be wrong.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

No your not wrong.

[Machpoint005]

I thought VAT was chargeable at the rate applicable at the time the invoice was raised, but I may well be wrong.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

Yes George. We've had that issue when invoicing for services provided just before or after a VAT rate change and it's a pain in the proverbial to determine the correct VAT rate.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Machpoint005

[madcat]

Could we be pleased that CRT are looking to improve their income from sources other than the boaters. Surface drainage should be charged at market rate , it comes with pollution risk and silt , it's not just free water.

 

Large new developments have huge run off potential and can cause big problems at times of heavy rainfall. The extra water dumped into existing culverts can cause catastrophic failure with the very real risk of local flooding . A lot of the infrastructure is very old and allthough well built at the time wasn't designed for the challenges thrown at it by modern conditions .

 

I'm with CRT on this one at least.

[Machpoint005]

VAT is applicable at the tax point, which is the date of invoice.

 

I'm also with CRT although I suspect this may be a ploy to open negotiations with the consumer, rather than an expectation that the whole lot will get paid.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Machpoint005

[dor]

Good for C&RT getting on top of this. The people who should be blamed are Evans and his cronies who's gross mismanagement allowed this state of affairs to go on for 17 years without any attempt to address it. The market rate should apply, not a small fraction of it. Any new development near a canal has to put in place considerable surface water entrapment including oil traps with constant monitoring. These existing sites have been getting away with it for all this time, with no real control over pollutants going into the canal.

[mango]

I thought that mistakes had to be corrected within six years, but perhaps this refers to individuals rather than businesses.

[MtB]

I thought that mistakes had to be corrected within six years, but perhaps this refers to individuals rather than businesses.

 

This idea stems, I think, from there being a time limit within which a claim for a debt must be pursued through the courts. Once the time limit has expired, the creditor cannot enforce collection of the debt.

 

ISTR the taxman gets 12 years not six. Possibly quangos get the same 12 year window hence CRT asking for money back so far.

 

 

MtB

[Tacet]

Based on the invoice alone, it looks as though an increased rent (sic) commencing 1995 was agreed in August 2014 under the terms of a long duration agreement. Why the new amount payable was not settled until 19 years after the date on which it takes effect is not clear - it is possible, but not likely, that there is an adequate reason. If no action had been taken until 2014 on a 1995 rent review it might be viewed as abandoned, and since it has ostensibly not, it suggests there was some action on the part of the grantor in the meanwhile.

 

It would be conventional for the increased rate to become due only when the level had been established. If so, whilst there is now a debt calculated by reference back to 1995, it would not be due until 2014 - which would therefore be the relevant date for Limitation Act purposes.

[StarUKKiwi]

No your not wrong.

Yes George. We've had that issue when invoicing for services provided just before or after a VAT rate change and it's a pain in the proverbial to determine the correct VAT rate.

 

If it is a hire period then you charge the Vat applicable for that period of charge. So, would need separate VAT rates for periods of charge applicable (hire agreements)

[Machpoint005]

 

If it is a hire period then you charge the Vat applicable for that period of charge. So, would need separate VAT rates for periods of charge applicable (hire agreements)

 

In our case it isn't.

[PaulG]

Whether or not this individual invoice is correct, I applaud CRT's efforts to obtain a commercial rate of return for services like surface water drainage.

I really don't care how many "0000's of %" the increase is, if the charge is reasonable for the service provided, then that is what it should be.

[Machpoint005]

Whether or not this individual invoice is correct, I applaud CRT's efforts to obtain a commercial rate of return for services like surface water drainage.

I really don't care how many "0000's of %" the increase is, if the charge is reasonable for the service provided, then that is what it should be.

 

Well said, and if the businesses who are liable for these charges (and always were) find that they no longer have a viable business, I can find little sympathy. Their profits were being subsidised by somebody else -- by us, CRT's clients.

[madcat]

Well said indeed . CRT need money to spend on keeping our precious waterways going. I'm pleased that they are as an organisation looking into receiving correct levels of payment for services delivered ie drainage.

 

I'm hoping that drainage and flood prevention are going to be an increasing income stream and a very good reason for the canals to continue to exist and be maintained into the future.