CRT v Andy Wingfield Update

[Tony Dunkley]

Perhaps... You are registering that your boat is on a prn river, as required, you do not need to be given licence to use the river but on a Canal you are given licence to use the facility. The certificate proves you have registered the craft.

 

Yes, that sums it up nicely, and is precisely what the law has required since the passing of the 1971 BW Act, that you register your boat if it is to be used or kept within the main navigable channel of a scheduled river navigation.

A licence would be, and is, superfluous because the PRN is a blanket permission to navigate and use any waterway on which it exists.

[bassplayer]

 

Sometimes I get the feeling Shoesmiths are leading the trust along a path that ensures they profit from fighting and losing legal cases and as much job creation as possible ?

No...it's more than that, it's a win win for certain people within Shoesmiths and certain people within CRT.

 

Well lets put it this way, who is actually paying for it? When an injustice is found does anyone get sacked at senior level. Of course not.

 

For others it's all part of some kind of warped entertainment and show of cleverness.

[Jerra]

 

I don't really see that the English language needs to be scrutinized or defined by the legal profession, it's quite convoluted and confusing enough already.

The terms licence and certificate are by no means freely interchangeable in common use, . . . car insurance 'licence', boat insurance 'licence', Boat Safety 'licence', or television 'certificate', fishing 'certificate', pub landlords 'certificated' to sell booze, . . . doesn't make a lot of sense, does it ?

You are Tony being a little silly. Using a synonym doesn't say that you can use any of the synonyms for any other but it does mean you can use some and in this case both are being used for what seems to be similar/the same circumstances. In fact interchangeably by CRT it seems. As a result wanting to know more I need/want somebody who has the legal expertise to explain the legal difference.

 

I assume you don't or you would have explained so why you keep giving me answers which aren't what I need I am not sure.

 

Jerra is desperate - for reasons I can't at all fathom - to make out that everything is fine. It's this desperation that leads him to delve into definitions of words and other such exercises.

No desperation at all see my reply to Tony. I am merely trying to understand the legal situation. Which I would have thought any fair minded person would.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Jerra is desperate - for reasons I can't at all fathom - to make out that everything is fine. It's this desperation that leads him to delve into definitions of words and other such exercises.

 

To be fair to him, I think you should have included a legal definition of 'desperate' in there somewhere.

[Tony Dunkley]

You are Tony being a little silly. Using a synonym doesn't say that you can use any of the synonyms for any other but it does mean you can use some and in this case both are being used for what seems to be similar/the same circumstances. In fact interchangeably by CRT it seems. As a result wanting to know more I need/want somebody who has the legal expertise to explain the legal difference.

 

I assume you don't or you would have explained so why you keep giving me answers which aren't what I need I am not sure.

No desperation at all see my reply to Tony. I am merely trying to understand the legal situation. Which I would have thought any fair minded person would.

 

Instead of persisting with your, and C&RT's, apparent preoccupation with introducing complexities where none actually exist, why don't you get back onto the 'legal situation' and explain why you think, as I presume you will, that it's in order for C&RT to collect VAT at 20% on River Registrations when they know perfectly well, to quote C&RT themselves, from this internal E-Mail :~ https://www.whatdoth...om/request/1... ~ " The EA does not charge VAT because a registration is zero rated. A boat licence is standard rated . . . . ".

Edited February 17, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[boathunter]

You are Tony being a little silly. Using a synonym doesn't say that you can use any of the synonyms for any other but it does mean you can use some and in this case both are being used for what seems to be similar/the same circumstances. In fact interchangeably by CRT it seems. As a result wanting to know more I need/want somebody who has the legal expertise to explain the legal difference.

 

I assume you don't or you would have explained so why you keep giving me answers which aren't what I need I am not sure.

No desperation at all see my reply to Tony. I am merely trying to understand the legal situation. Which I would have thought any fair minded person would.

To any neutral onlooker you're clutching at straws. The difference in actual, real ,everyday use as has been pointed out and is quite clear to all but yourself.

I think you're worried that you might have to start questioning things in life.

[Giant]

The meanings of these terms are summarised well as follows:

 

- A license grants permission to do something.

- A certificate asserts some fact.

 

There is no single "legal definition" of either word. That's not how law works. If you read any Act of Parliament you will usually find a lengthy definitions section at the start. Those definitions explain what certain words or phrases mean where used in the text of that particular Act. You will often find the same word or phrase has different meanings in the context of different Acts.

[NigelMoore]

So unless there is some clearly defined legal difference between a Certificate and a Licence I fail to see the problem of using them interchangeably.

 

Part of the perceptual problem lies in using lists of synonyms in general use, which vary widely in their accuracy as synonyms.

 

If, instead, you look up the Oxford Dictionary of Law, you will get:

 

“licence n.1 Formal authority to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. Examples include a *driving licence, a ...”

 

It has no entry for ‘certificate’ itself, but looking at –

 

“certificate of incorporation” the result is:

 

“A document issued by the Registrar of Companies after the registration of a company, certifying that the company . . . [is registered under company law]”

 

Insofar as a certificate may at times, and in certain circumstances, attest to an authorisation, there could be similarities, but the context of the current discussion makes the legal distinction important. A licence is formal authority to do something; a certificate per se is not; it simply attests to something – in the instant case, a current registration of a boat.

 

The problem in using the two terms interchangeably in referring to the 'pleasure boat licence' vis-a-vis the 'pleasure boat certificate' [aka in CaRT speak: 'rivers only licence'] is that the legislation clearly differentiates between the two, and does so with precise and deliberate accuracy. The reasoning behind BW's correct choice of term when drafting the terms of the separate legislation is further apparent from the Select Committee debates - although recourse to those is really redundant, and even CaRT would hesitate to gainsay the distinction in court pleadings.

 

In sum, it is the consequential effects of the differences that are of import, as Tony betimes elliptically explains.

 

I am going to refer to my licence as a canal and river diploma from this moment on.

 

[boathunter]

The deliberate drip drip use of the wrong terms in corresponence by both CRT and Shoesmiths clearly seeks to create a false illusion of non-existant powers, setting the scene for hopefully bamboozling the judge later.

To think otherwise I think you would have to credit the whole lot of them with no more intelligence and concentration than a disinterested 10 year old. It's a shame some continue to take this line rather than contribute usefully.

[bassplayer]

The deliberate drip drip use of the wrong terms in corresponence by both CRT and Shoesmiths clearly seeks to create a false illusion of non-existant powers, setting the scene for hopefully bamboozling the judge later.

To think otherwise I think you would have to credit the whole lot of them with no more intelligence and concentration than a disinterested 10 year old. It's a shame some continue to take this line rather than contribute usefully.

Exactly, and they say the devil is in the detail...

[Sir Nibble]

I am looking forward to seeing the little man triumph over the unreasoning megalith. Don't let me down will you, this is the greatest show on earth!

[rasputin]

 

Yes, that sums it up nicely, and is precisely what the law has required since the passing of the 1971 BW Act, that you register your boat if it is to be used or kept within the main navigable channel of a scheduled river navigation.

A licence would be, and is, superfluous because the PRN is a blanket permission to navigate and use any waterway on which it exists.

 

Is it possible to "keep" a boat within the main navigable channel. I am assuming "kept" means something like moored or anchored.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Is it possible to "keep" a boat within the main navigable channel. I am assuming "kept" means something like moored or anchored.

 

My understanding is that 'this' is the crux of the claim by C&RT.

 

They are claiming that the full width of the River is 'the main navigable channel' - however, previously (for example when it comes to incurring costs) the 'main navigable channel' is just a 'width' agreed previously and as suggested by the Fraenkel Report in 1975

Edited February 18, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Jerra]

 

Part of the perceptual problem lies in using lists of synonyms in general use, which vary widely in their accuracy as synonyms.

 

If, instead, you look up the Oxford Dictionary of Law, you will get:

 

“licence n.1 Formal authority to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. Examples include a *driving licence, a ...”

 

It has no entry for ‘certificate’ itself, but looking at –

 

“certificate of incorporation” the result is:

 

“A document issued by the Registrar of Companies after the registration of a company, certifying that the company . . . [is registered under company law]”

 

Insofar as a certificate may at times, and in certain circumstances, attest to an authorisation, there could be similarities, but the context of the current discussion makes the legal distinction important. A licence is formal authority to do something; a certificate per se is not; it simply attests to something – in the instant case, a current registration of a boat.

 

The problem in using the two terms interchangeably in referring to the 'pleasure boat licence' vis-a-vis the 'pleasure boat certificate' [aka in CaRT speak: 'rivers only licence'] is that the legislation clearly differentiates between the two, and does so with precise and deliberate accuracy. The reasoning behind BW's correct choice of term when drafting the terms of the separate legislation is further apparent from the Select Committee debates - although recourse to those is really redundant, and even CaRT would hesitate to gainsay the distinction in court pleadings.

 

In sum, it is the consequential effects of the differences that are of import, as Tony betimes elliptically explains.

Thank you.

[OldGoat]

The English language is very flexible - perhaps that may be why it is used all around the world.

That flexibility is anathema to legal processes - for obvious reasons, so it's dangerous to assume common language usage applies in law.

 

If CaRT apply VAR to River registrations - do they pocket the difference? Or pay it over to HMRC. Perhaps it's time folks get together and appeal to a VAT tribunal - probably put Shoesmith's machinations in the dark...

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Is it possible to "keep" a boat within the main navigable channel. I am assuming "kept" means something like moored or anchored.

 

There's nothing specific in the 1971 Act about that, nor as far as I'm aware, anywhere else. I can only assume that when the Bill for that Act was being drafted that the practice of permanently mooring vessels in long wide lock-cuts, as does happen on rivers such as the Trent, was taken into consideration.

On BW/C&RT's river navigations the width of the navigable channel is well defined and documented. In general it's 2 x times the maximum beam of the widest vessel the waterway can take plus a few feet, so for practical purposes, say, roughly two and a half times the maximum beam; so, in practice you wouldn't be likely to be in it or close to it when moored to the bank anywhere on most rivers, and you certainly wouldn't want to leave a boat anchored or on a laid down mooring [anchors and buoys] anywhere in it.

However, it would be difficult, not to say unreasonable, to argue that the whole width of a lock cut, no matter how wide, isn't the main navigable channel despite being wider than the navigable channel elsewhere.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

If CaRT apply VAT to River registrations - do they pocket the difference? Or pay it over to HMRC. Perhaps it's time folks get together and appeal to a VAT tribunal - probably put Shoesmith's machinations in the dark...

 

It's something that should be investigated, not least of all, for the financial benefit of all the boaters who are, and have been for many years, paying a good chunk of money more than they should be for the phony Rivers only 'Licences' that C&RT are deceiving them with.

 

C&RT are limited by law to charging no more for a River Registration [Pleasure Boat Certificate] than 60% of the cost of a boat Licence.

The annual fees for both River Registrations and boat Licences on C&RT waters are misleadingly published together in one table headed ~ Long Term 'Licences' with VAT at the standard rate of 20% added to both, despite Registration fees being zero rated, as recently confirmed by HMRC and the EA who, unlike C&RT, don't con boaters registering a boat for use on their rivers by telling them that they're buying a Licence, and don't charge VAT on the registration either.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Tony Dunkley

[Hawkmoth]

The English language is very flexible - perhaps that may be why it is used all around the world.

That flexibility is anathema to legal processes - for obvious reasons, so it's dangerous to assume common language usage applies in law.

 

If CaRT apply VAR to River registrations - do they pocket the difference? Or pay it over to HMRC. Perhaps it's time folks get together and appeal to a VAT tribunal - probably put Shoesmith's machinations in the dark...

It may be anathema to the legal processes, but its a money spinner for the legal profession.

Bob

[NigelMoore]

If CaRT apply VAR to River registrations - do they pocket the difference? Or pay it over to HMRC.

 

VAT registered bodies are in effect tax collectors; everyone charging VAT does so on behalf of HMRC and must pay that to them. It would be of no benefit to CaRT to charge VAT where not demanded; it simply places an unnecessary financial burden on the customer.

 

CaRT would be guilty of a very serious criminal offence if they pocketed the ‘surcharge’ –that is not to suggest they don’t of course, but even for them I suspect it is unlikely.

 

Anyone who was prepared to challenge unlawful collection of VAT would be entitled to the refund of it.

 

[NigelMoore]

 

Is it possible to "keep" a boat within the main navigable channel. I am assuming "kept" means something like moored or anchored.

 

You assume correctly. On the upper Thames, the relevant legislation being used as a template for the 1971 Act, boats were and are ‘kept’ within the registration area – sometimes in centre stream attached to chains laid in the riverbed.

 

BW took the opportunity when drafting their legislation to include boats ‘kept’ as well as ‘used’ within the registration area, whereas until the 2010 EA Inland Waterways Order, boats merely ‘kept’ unused within the navigation channel of the Thames escaped the registration requirement.

 

[GillianOlcay]

 

It's something that should be investigated, not least of all, for the financial benefit of all the boaters who are, and have been for many years, paying a good chunk of money more than they should be for the phony Rivers only 'Licences' that C&RT are deceiving them with.

 

Have you checked back to calculate how much VAT you have paid on your own past PBC’s Tony?

[mayalld]

 

It's something that should be investigated, not least of all, for the financial benefit of all the boaters who are, and have been for many years, paying a good chunk of money more than they should be for the phony Rivers only 'Licences' that C&RT are deceiving them with.

 

C&RT are limited by law to charging no more for a River Registration [Pleasure Boat Certificate] than 60% of the cost of a boat Licence.

The annual fees for both River Registrations and boat Licences on C&RT waters are misleadingly published together in one table headed ~ Long Term 'Licences' with VAT at the standard rate of 20% added to both, despite Registration fees being zero rated, as recently confirmed by HMRC and the EA who, unlike C&RT, don't con boaters registering a boat for use on their rivers by telling them that they're buying a Licence, and don't charge VAT on the registration either.

 

As I understand it (and I am open to correction), EA registrations are VAT exempt, rather than zero rated. (and if you want to quibble as to whether it matters that you use the term "licence" to refer to licences and registrations collectively, then it is actually considerably MORE important that we are clear on this point.

 

CRT charges VAT on its products (licences and registrations), and it pays VAT on its supplies.

 

Because of the way the finances operate, it actually reclaims MORE in input tax that it pays out for VAT collected.

 

If they opted (and it is an option that they can choose to take or not) to have river registrations exempt from VAT, then not all their supplies would be in scope for VAT, and they would be allowed to reclaim only a portion of the input VAT.

 

Or to look at it more simply, for every pound in VAT that they collect on river registrations, and pay to HMRC, they get MORE than a pound back from HMRC in extra input VAT

[NilesMI]

If they opted (and it is an option that they can choose to take or not) to have river registrations exempt from VAT, then not all their supplies would be in scope for VAT, and they would be allowed to reclaim only a portion of the input VAT.

 

I understand the argument you are making, but why (how?) is CRT able to choose for themselves whether river registrations/licences are liable to VAT or not?

 

Surely it is a matter for HMRC, or, ultimately as with Jaffa Cakes for a court to rule on when a cake is a biscuit or a licence is a registration?

[mayalld]

 

I understand the argument you are making, but why (how?) is CRT able to choose for themselves whether river registrations/licences are liable to VAT or not?

 

Surely it is a matter for HMRC, or, ultimately as with Jaffa Cakes for a court to rule on when a cake is a biscuit or a licence is a registration?

 

There are a limited range of things where the supplier is allowed to make choices.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-742a-opting-to-tax-land-and-buildings/vat-notice-742a-opting-to-tax-land-and-buildings#the-scope-of-an-option-to-tax

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-7181-the-vat-margin-scheme-on-second-hand-cars-and-other-vehicles/vat-notice-7181-the-vat-margin-scheme-on-second-hand-cars-and-other-vehicles

[Alan de Enfield]

 

There are a limited range of things where the supplier is allowed to make choices.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-742a-opting-to-tax-land-and-buildings/vat-notice-742a-opting-to-tax-land-and-buildings#the-scope-of-an-option-to-tax

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-7181-the-vat-margin-scheme-on-second-hand-cars-and-other-vehicles/vat-notice-7181-the-vat-margin-scheme-on-second-hand-cars-and-other-vehicles

 

But as a boat licence / certificate is neither land, buildings or a secondhand car it would appear that C&RT do not have the authority to arbitrarily decide that they can charge VAT.

The Zero rating, exempt or not, charging, or not charging, of VAT on a licence will be specified by HMRCE

The Zero rating, exempt or not, charging, or not charging, of VAT on a certificate will be specified by HMRCE