ylop
Well-Known Member
e)original historical watercraft and individual replicas thereof designed before 1950 built predominantly with the original materials and labelled as such by the manufacturer;
Importing a boat from Europe, Trading Standards Response
- Thread starter nevis768
- Start date
- Status
westernman
Well-Known Member
Yep. 1966 is not going to work. Although GRP was the original material!
benjenbav
Well-Known Member
A nice wooden Folkboat could well cut it, though. From 1942, iirc.
nevis768
Well-Known Member
It will work, Trading Standards say so.
westernman
Well-Known Member
English comprehension is not your strong point.
nevis768
Well-Known Member
It is certainly not yours the utter crap you've posted on here.
jbweston
Well-Known Member
This thread, and its near-duplicate cousin, are rather like watching a multi-party drunken altercation outside a pub: it isn't clear to an observer what precise point is being argued about, or if there are more than two sides to the argument, or if it has carried on to a point where the only things that could bring it to an end are exhaustion of the protagonists or the intervention of the police.
Something to remember over these disputes is that the law is often hard to interpret and, even when apparently clear, is open to more than one interpretation. It can be difficult for even those that should be expert to get it right, so 'official guidance' from organizations like trade associations, HMRC, the government, trading standards, the RYA, etc. need to be treated with a degree of caution - they can be wrong. Wrong not as often as guys in the yacht club bar or members of this forum, but often enough.
No doubt you'll have noticed that an unfortunate tendency among some forumites is a determination not only that they are right and others wrong, but also not to rest until 'the other guy' acknowledges their rightness. Some hope!
The leading legal case of Donoghue v Stevenson always reminds me not to be overly confident that my interpretation of the law is right and others' wrong. That case is the foundation of the modern law of negligence and possibly the most famous court judgment in UK legal history. When the case made its way to the highest court in the land, five of the most experienced and eminent judges in the whole British Empire (as it then was) heard the case. After the conclusion of the arguments in court, they took five months to think about their decision and discuss it among themselves. And then . . . three of them agreed with one side and two with the other. This wasn't a disagreement about evidence (about who to believe), it was entirely about understanding and applying the law. The majority of 3 over 2 decided the case.
If the best and most experienced judges sometimes have difficulty in agreeing what the law says, it isn't surprising if forumites with varying levels of legal knowledge come to different conclusions.
There really is no point in saying the same thing again and again (and yet again with knobs on) in the hope of altering the other guy's opinion. Like the drunken altercation outside a pub, it might be entertaining for the observer but it's not going to a lead to an agreement between the parties.
Something to remember over these disputes is that the law is often hard to interpret and, even when apparently clear, is open to more than one interpretation. It can be difficult for even those that should be expert to get it right, so 'official guidance' from organizations like trade associations, HMRC, the government, trading standards, the RYA, etc. need to be treated with a degree of caution - they can be wrong. Wrong not as often as guys in the yacht club bar or members of this forum, but often enough.
No doubt you'll have noticed that an unfortunate tendency among some forumites is a determination not only that they are right and others wrong, but also not to rest until 'the other guy' acknowledges their rightness. Some hope!
The leading legal case of Donoghue v Stevenson always reminds me not to be overly confident that my interpretation of the law is right and others' wrong. That case is the foundation of the modern law of negligence and possibly the most famous court judgment in UK legal history. When the case made its way to the highest court in the land, five of the most experienced and eminent judges in the whole British Empire (as it then was) heard the case. After the conclusion of the arguments in court, they took five months to think about their decision and discuss it among themselves. And then . . . three of them agreed with one side and two with the other. This wasn't a disagreement about evidence (about who to believe), it was entirely about understanding and applying the law. The majority of 3 over 2 decided the case.
If the best and most experienced judges sometimes have difficulty in agreeing what the law says, it isn't surprising if forumites with varying levels of legal knowledge come to different conclusions.
There really is no point in saying the same thing again and again (and yet again with knobs on) in the hope of altering the other guy's opinion. Like the drunken altercation outside a pub, it might be entertaining for the observer but it's not going to a lead to an agreement between the parties.
Koeketiene
Well-Known Member
It can be argued that on this subject everything that can be said, has been said - but maybe not by everybody.
westernman
Well-Known Member
It is worth noting then when reading a contract or a law, you do not read it to confirm that it might say what you want, but to confirm that it could not possibly be interpreted in some other way to mean something to your disadvantage. This is hard to do.
Lawyers from other parties (companies in my case) are experts in drafting contracts which seem to say what you negotiated, but can actually be interpreted in a different way.
Our laws are in general drafted by lawyers. They are drafted to satisfy the important parties (i.e. the lobbyists and the MPs in question). Not to satisfy you or me, nor to be anything particularly reasonable or sensible.
For instance, I had a no win no fee contract for a legal case against a customer who was lying to us and not paying the royalties he should do.
We lost (on a technicality) and had to pay in excess of 1/4 million in fees. That customer is still ripping us off big time.
Lawyers from other parties (companies in my case) are experts in drafting contracts which seem to say what you negotiated, but can actually be interpreted in a different way.
Our laws are in general drafted by lawyers. They are drafted to satisfy the important parties (i.e. the lobbyists and the MPs in question). Not to satisfy you or me, nor to be anything particularly reasonable or sensible.
For instance, I had a no win no fee contract for a legal case against a customer who was lying to us and not paying the royalties he should do.
We lost (on a technicality) and had to pay in excess of 1/4 million in fees. That customer is still ripping us off big time.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
That is not quite true. It is not a matter of interpretation that forms the divide, it is the claim by one person (and maybe another) that pre 1998 boats are exempt, and that this has been "confirmed" by Trading Standards. It is aa fact that no such exemption exists in law (although it did in the past). Unfortunately that person is not able to support that position with any written statement, despite offering (and then failing) to provide a transcript. The "evidence" that he did offer from TS in the opening post is the regulations that state clearly that boats have to meet the current standard. This of course is in line with what others who have read the legislation believe to be the case.
You are right it is astonishing that one person in this thread is unable or unwilling to accept this
nevis768
Well-Known Member
P
postmaster@outlook.com
To:
Fri 24/01/2025 11:43
This message is able to be sent again
Send again
Re: Tranona started a conversation (PM) with you: "Importing a boat from Europe"
Outlook Item
Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:
noreply@forums.ybw.com (noreply@forums.ybw.com)
Your message wasn't delivered. Despite repeated attempts to deliver your message, the recipient's email system refused to accept a connection from your email system.
Actually I did reply to your message, as above.
2 of us have phoned Trading Standards now and been told you are talking absolute bollocks.
Give it a rest for Gods sake.
jbweston
Well-Known Member
I didn't say I was astonished. And certainly not that I was astonished by 'one person in this thread'.
It doesn't astonish me at all. Quite a number of people in the forum (not just in this thread) belong to the 'I'm right. You're wrong. Why don't you just admit it' tendency. That's usually an unattractive approach, especially on subjects where opinions vary.
The point I was making - or trying to make - is that even expert lawyers sometimes have different opinions about what the law says, and so we all should accept that we are best to show a little awareness that we might not be right to express a categorical opinion. For someone to think they are right is one thing, but repeatedly telling the other guy(s) he/they are wrong is just silly.
Some things are just unclear, no matter how many times someone tells you that their answer is correct and all others are wrong.
Mister E
Well-Known Member
So basically Trading Standards don't want to know and in more than one case have stated that they will take no action.
TS contacted HMRC on at least one occasion and they said no tax to pay.
This may or may not comply with the law as written and interpreted by others.
So if you want to purchase a boat from the EU you have a choice.
Contact TS and get them to put in writing that you don't have to do anything.
Alternatively contact them and insist they check the boat and insist that you pay import tax.
TS contacted HMRC on at least one occasion and they said no tax to pay.
This may or may not comply with the law as written and interpreted by others.
So if you want to purchase a boat from the EU you have a choice.
Contact TS and get them to put in writing that you don't have to do anything.
Alternatively contact them and insist they check the boat and insist that you pay import tax.
KevinV
Well-Known Member
You replied to a "noreply@.." email address
westernman
Well-Known Member
Import duties for boats are currently 0%. That was not always the case.
VAT is HMRC and not TS and they are pretty hot on that if you turn up in the UK in your new to you boat.
I have no idea whether CE/UK CA conformance (i.e. effectively RCD II) is enforced, however, I have seen several series on TV where customs have opened containers at some dock or the other and confiscated toys from China because they do not conform to UK legislation (what is the harm in a Chinese teddy bear?).
No idea if they check boats or not (except for drugs ;-)
Tranona
Well-Known Member
This particular issue is not in the "unclear" category - it is a matter of fact.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I have been a member of this forum for over 20 years and have never had any difficulty with PMs. Simply send your material in a PM and I will receive it. Alternatively you can send it to my personal email stewart at tranona .co.uk
Mister E
Well-Known Member
Westerman a container is slightly different to a second hand boat.
Also personal is different to commercial.
When contacted hmrc said they were not interested.
Has anyone actually contacted hmrc to actually pay any for of tax on a boat imported boat in the last 4 years?
Also personal is different to commercial.
When contacted hmrc said they were not interested.
Has anyone actually contacted hmrc to actually pay any for of tax on a boat imported boat in the last 4 years?
westernman
Well-Known Member
My boat was a personal import from Canada in 1998. And yes HMRC were contacted and VAT was paid.
Also the boat was certified to RCD by a Dutch company.
billskip
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity, why a Dutch company?
- Status
Other threads that may be of interest
