RupertW
Well-known member
I take it you haven't been through the process of Croatian registration?
Captain Calamitys
- Thread starter snowleopard
- Start date
I take it you haven't been through the process of Croatian registration?
RichardS
N/A
That's why my boat is in Croatia but registered in the UK.
Different rules seem to apply to Croatian registered boats and, so far, I haven't come across any downside to SSR registration.
Richard
prv
Well-known member
Agree I don't think they should be officially restrained. I just think they should either get a clue or stop of their own accord, and until they do one of those things and cease crashing about, inconveniencing other people and giving the rest of us a bad name, I will continue to view them in a negative light.
Pete
RupertW
Well-known member
So was ours before and after the EU accession but to get the 5 percent VAT and suitably low valuation we played the game for 3 months. SSR rules being rather slack we forgot to tell UK we were deregistering so just kept the same number and cert.
RupertW
Well-known member
I think they a pair of irritating incompetent fools in a boat they are making less safe by the minute so we agree on that. I just think their lives are worth my freedom.
Corribee Boy
Well-known member
I see your point but surely, if such a high-profile pair of incompetents did manage to lose their lives at sea, there'd be a slew of bureaucrats determined to pass legislation to ensure that no yachty ever went within a mile of the water without certificates and inspections and and and...
prv
Well-known member
I think we share the same goal but have different views on how people like this relate to it.
When bureaucrats want to bring in regulation, part of the defence is "show me the problem that this is supposed to solve". If they can only mutter and mumble and say "well it shouldn't orta be allowed", their case is weakened. I understand that this exact process has happened a couple of times over the introduction of alcohol limits for leisure mariners - there aren't scores of people sailing around pissed and causing accidents, so the MCA keep being forced to back down on that one.
Visibly safe and orderly sailing by people without formal training, or with qualifications voluntarily obtained, in boats maintained and equipped according to their own sound judgement, is the best way to ensure that things remain as they are. Whereas every "Captain Calamity" is another example that would-be regulators can point to to justify the expansion of their empire.
Pete
Last edited:
dom
Well-known member
A positive side effect of Government spending cuts is that many bureaucrats are having their budgets severely trimmed. The upshot is that many find themselves swimming around smaller and more irrelevant ponds -- irrelevant because nobody is prepared to spend the money enforcing even those laws they do manage to get through.
BTW my instinct is that this boat will never set sail across the Atlantic; their momentum seems well and truly broken.
Resolution
Well-known member
More sensible comments - as I have come to expect from you. Please keep it up.
Peter
marie galante
N/A
Fully endorsed. And I have just about all the 'voluntary sustificates' that Blighty offers.... so I'm close to fireproof.
It may be worth remembering, in this context, that the 'miscreants' are 'Murricains. Not even the execrable Frogs would admit to standards as low as theirs..... "Surely, and of course, we Brit/French/Norwegians/Irish are better at that than those muppets...?"
They will have a hard job selling their tired old boat in Hayle ....especially as that would IMHO contravene a host of RCD/EU Regs. The Hayle harbourmaster certainly would not want it left as a derelict on his patch. They ( he? ) will need to sail it away.
It's not going anywhere soon. Let's be charitable for a while, and hope the old codger gets his act together just a little bit, finds a forecast of a good-weather spell, and gets out of there and away across the Western Approaches. If he manages that, can't we all wish him 'Gods Speed'....?
Sundowner 39
Member
Agreed..........
macd
Active member
A tiny matter in the scheme of things but, as noted earlier, the vessel seems to be fine on RCD, having been built in the EEA before the introduction of RCD.
knuterikt
Active member
Boat was built in Norway (EEA member) in 1979 so RCD is not in force for this boat.
https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollecti...ents/RCD Documents/1 RCD Compliance Guide.pdf
http://www.woodenships.co.uk/sailing-yachts/colin-archer-gaff-cutter/
Hadenough
Well-known member
Whoops, sorry just came across this thread and thought you were talking about Timothy Spall. Perhaps the media could pay for this poor auld sod to continue his adventure and recompense the rescue facilities.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
And anyway, whoever buys her will not be putting her into use in the EU, so the hordes of Trading Standards officials who haunt the coasts of Britain looking for RCD sins will have to chase the American pair who did put her into use in the EU.
Tranona
Well-known member
That is confusing. Of course somebody who buys it may want to use it in the EU, in which case they will have to formally import it an pay VAT - although legally that is the responsibility of the Non EU vendor if he wishes to take the boat out of temporary importation and sell it in the EU. Wherever it is used, in or out of the EU the RCD - or any other EU regs are completely irrelevant, so not sure why you are raising it yet again.
macd
Active member
RCD says nothing about putting into use in the EU. It is an EEA measure. Norway is part of the EEA, so whoever put her into use there was not the current owner(s). But it doesn't matter, anyway, because of the fact she was built in the EEA long before RCD was ever dreamt of.
Last edited:
awol
Well-known member
Ok, so now we're clear on RCD requirements, what about VAT? Will it be levied on the sale price or on the present value now she has been trashed and burnt?
Tranona
Well-known member
Rules are quite clear, it is "value" - not surprising as the tax is called VALUE Added Tax. However in day to day transactions, the transaction price (invoice) is used to determine value. In the special case when VAT is used effectively as an import tax there may not be a commercial transaction going on simultaneously so customs have to establish a market value.
In this case it would be up to the importer to submit a value with some evidence for the basis of the valuation which customs may accept or dispute. Then a negotiated value would be agreed. In this case it would not be difficult to show that what they paid when they bought the boat would not reflect its current value. So pay a surveyor a couple of hundred to say it is worth peanuts given the condition.
All good fun!
dom
Well-known member
Personally I'd keep the peanuts.