Have the definitive regulations regarding firewood?

[renewablejohn]

16 minutes ago, Justme said:

Do you really want to be the one to try and prove this in court?

Better have deep pockets.

 

Not breaking the law so will not be ending up in court.

[Justme]

6 minutes ago, renewablejohn said:

Not breaking the law so will not be ending up in court.

You have been heavily hinting that you will be "supplying" less than 2m3 per delivery.

 

 

[Justme]

PS I love a good loop hole I really do,

 

I just dont see selling Mrs muggins 5m3 & then dropping it off in 0.5m3 loads is one.

[renewablejohn]

37 minutes ago, Justme said:

PS I love a good loop hole I really do,

 

I just dont see selling Mrs muggins 5m3 & then dropping it off in 0.5m3 loads is one.

So in your example Mrs Muggins cannot accept more than 0.5m3 loads at a time so she tells you to put the 5m3 in her self storage locker with the required 'note'. She then goes and picks 0.5m3 from her locker at a time. What rules are being broken.

[Justme]

15 minutes ago, renewablejohn said:

So in your example Mrs Muggins cannot accept more than 0.5m3 loads at a time so she tells you to put the 5m3 in her self storage locker with the required 'note'. She then goes and picks 0.5m3 from her locker at a time. What rules are being broken.

Her own locker with her moving it none.

From her locker with a contractor moving it none.

 

But if you are supplying it in 0.5m3 deliveries from your yard then it looks very much like you would be pending an actual court case. As the regs are clear that if the delivery is after the sale than that is what counts.

 for these purposes the supply is to be taken to have occurred at the point of sale, or if later, on the dispatch of the fuel; 

 

You could argue you dispatched it to the corner of your yard into a client storage area. It will be interesting to see how the courts will look at this.

 

I guess you could set up storage space for individual clients to keep their logs.

 

I would also guess the enforcers would look long & hard at this & if it was truly kept individualised or not.

 

I would also expect that insurance for self store could be an issue.

 

In the end is all this effort & potential risk worth the savings?

 

do I think the scheme is a good idea? Hell NO

Will I be signing up when this hits Wales? Hell NO but I am lucky as I dont sell a huge amount & every one can take 2 x IBC at a time.

Also by then with luck someone in England will have been the first test case & we will have a better picture of just what is what.

[renewablejohn]

30 minutes ago, Justme said:

Her own locker with her moving it none.

From her locker with a contractor moving it none.

 

But if you are supplying it in 0.5m3 deliveries from your yard then it looks very much like you would be pending an actual court case. As the regs are clear that if the delivery is after the sale than that is what counts.

 for these purposes the supply is to be taken to have occurred at the point of sale, or if later, on the dispatch of the fuel; 

 

You could argue you dispatched it to the corner of your yard into a client storage area. It will be interesting to see how the courts will look at this.

 

I guess you could set up storage space for individual clients to keep their logs.

 

I would also guess the enforcers would look long & hard at this & if it was truly kept individualised or not.

 

I would also expect that insurance for self store could be an issue.

 

In the end is all this effort & potential risk worth the savings?

 

do I think the scheme is a good idea? Hell NO

Will I be signing up when this hits Wales? Hell NO but I am lucky as I dont sell a huge amount & every one can take 2 x IBC at a time.

Also by then with luck someone in England will have been the first test case & we will have a better picture of just what is what.

Pleased we agree that we dont have a problem.

[Justme]

1 hour ago, renewablejohn said:

Pleased we agree that we dont have a problem.

I have no idea if we agree as you have never stated your actual position or plan.

 

Will I have a problem?

No all my deliveries will be over 2m3 & have the stupid note.

 

Will you have a problem?

I dont know, As you have not said what you are doing.

You seem to know your ok so crack on & good luck.

 

 

[gdh]

Just found out that anyone on the biomass suppliers list (required to claim RHI or supply anyone who does) will require full woodsure accreditation, not just ready to burn.

 

Looking at the paperwork now and it's a ridiculous amount...

[john87]

6 hours ago, Gav73 said:

 

I have to agree with this, which words are used in legislation can open up something, which should be relatively simple, to a wide version of interpretations.

But that doesn’t mean it will be easy to prove that a chosen interpretation is valid, it would still need to be tested in a court of law and for the judge to decide it’s correct or whether the “spirit of the legislation” has been broken.

Personally I think you’d be on a hiding to nothing trying to justify your interpretation of the 2 cube rule and it was probably cost you more in legal fees than just paying woodsure.

Correct, 100% correct.. When a judge interprests the law, he reads the words of the act in question. The words are then, as far as possible, given their usual meaning. For example; the word "animals" has been held to mean ordinary everyday animals, and not for instance, lions and tigers.. Likewise, when trying to interpret acts, the judge loks at the intention of the legislators, in legal terms, what was the; "disease that inflicteth the commonwealth" that the legislators were seeking to legislate about..

 

So, no matter what clever devices designed to thwart the legislation that one might come up with, the judge will look at the intention behind the act, look at your actions, and decide and act accordingly..

 

It would not end well..

 

Having said all that, it has already been decided that the penalty for breaches of the act will be a civil penalty, a fixed penalty of £300 and this would be enforced as a civil debt [like a parking fine say] so the only time anyone would end up in a court is if they CHOSE to, which bearing in mind the above, would be a bit daft!!

 

john..

[AHPP]

Correct, 100% correct.. When a judge interprests the law, he reads the words of the act in question. The words are then, as far as possible, given their usual meaning. For example; the word "animals" has been held to mean ordinary everyday animals, and not for instance, lions and tigers.. Likewise, when trying to interpret acts, the judge loks at the intention of the legislators, in legal terms, what was the; "disease that inflicteth the commonwealth" that the legislators were seeking to legislate about..
 
So, no matter what clever devices designed to thwart the legislation that one might come up with, the judge will look at the intention behind the act, look at your actions, and decide and act accordingly..
 
It would not end well..
 
Having said all that, it has already been decided that the penalty for breaches of the act will be a civil penalty, a fixed penalty of £300 and this would be enforced as a civil debt [like a parking fine say] so the only time anyone would end up in a court is if they CHOSE to, which bearing in mind the above, would be a bit daft!!
 
john..

Oh, John. Don’t say things like “100%” and then straight away drop a bollock (the golden rule and a load of other stuff). You come off like Vespasian, a former member and pretty serious know it all.