BSL changes

[Logsnstuff]

anyone else gone through the Survey for upcoming changes to BSL and implementing charges to be registered.

 

£95 a year + 11 or 12p a ton I think was one price they are considering.

 

as in 2 years I have had 1 order and 1 enquiry for BSL logs it's not worth paying a penny imo.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I got the email today, haven't done the survey, seen the figures or read the text yet but already thinking what a total waste of money. Damned if I'm going to pay for the privilege of some desk monkey having his job funded.

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

I got the email today, haven't done the survey, seen the figures or read the text yet but already thinking what a total waste of money. Damned if I'm going to pay for the privilege of some desk monkey having his job funded.

 

Ditto.

[muldonach]

anyone else gone through the Survey for upcoming changes to BSL and implementing charges to be registered.

 

£95 a year + 11 or 12p a ton I think was one price they are considering.

 

as in 2 years I have had 1 order and 1 enquiry for BSL logs it's not worth paying a penny imo.

 

Tried to go through the survey but when I got to Q6 there was no option I agreed with and the software would not let me proceed without making a selection to say I agreed with one option or the other.

 

Likewise have only ever had one enquiry and all they wanted was a token invoice from a registered supplier

 

Cheers

mac

[Breezeblock]

got the email yesterday from them looked about as clear as mud what are slf suppliers going to get charged

[Marko]

Got the email yesterday and did the survey.

 

The bit I could not find was justification for the number that they 'need' to recover. It seemed that it was a given and all the options were all about potential ways to raise it.

 

I will be dropping off the list rather than pay. It has made no difference at all to business (other than add a small administrative burden). I suspect they might be in for a shock when they try and load all their costs onto those who remain. I fear for the 'self suppliers' who can be held to ransom.

 

Doesn't seem right at all. Why not take it off the FIT payment then those who are benefitting from it pay proportionally.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Got the email yesterday and did the survey.

 

The bit I could not find was justification for the number that they 'need' to recover. It seemed that it was a given and all the options were all about potential ways to raise it.

 

I will be dropping off the list rather than pay. It has made no difference at all to business (other than add a small administrative burden). I suspect they might be in for a shock when they try and load all their costs onto those who remain. I fear for the 'self suppliers' who can be held to ransom.

 

Doesn't seem right at all. Why not take it off the FIT payment then those who are benefitting from it pay proportionally.[/QUOTE]

 

I get the logic....

 

Talking to self suppliers locally, it was the requirement for accredited fuel source for audit and receipt of RHI that caught out most of the people I know. They were tinkering around with their little bits of woodland and supplying their own timber. Then the audit trail for fuel came in and they couldn't be bothered with the admin. That seemed to coincide with an apparent sudden price hike from the mainstream suppliers.

 

Getting BSL registered for arb arisings was really straight forward and provided an opportunity to have a few trusted people clear direct from site after a take-down or a reduction where I didn't want, or have time, to clear the timber.

 

I guess the reason the price went up was a reflection of the administrative costs for the big players.

 

I think this will kill dead the incentive for small home self-sufficiency users and close out all but the biggest players in log supply.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Tried to go through the survey but when I got to Q6 there was no option I agreed with and the software would not let me proceed without making a selection to say I agreed with one option or the other.

 

Likewise have only ever had one enquiry and all they wanted was a token invoice from a registered supplier

 

Cheers

mac

 

Just spent 10 minutes on the ridiculous links in the email and the subsequent pages which simply link back to stuff I'd already read. Pointless waste of time!

 

Didn't get far with the survey either.... Wrong questions and even worse answer options that didn't work from a producer supplier perspective.

 

That questionnaire must have been designed by some clown that isn't familiar with the practicalities of being registered.

[gdh]

It's bad enough charging businesses to be on the list who can, and I expect will, leave but it's basically being forced on self suppliers.

 

The surveys not much use but at least you can make your own suggestions at the end.

 

Edit: My suggestion to them:

I would scrap the tonnage fee as you won't get the income expected from it. Currently BSL registered businesses will sell all their wood as BSL registered even though only a very small percentage of customers require it. If a fee was charged per ton businesses will only sell the bare minimum as BSL registered, not to mention issues with tons and cubic meters.

 

If a fee must be charged (which I don't think it should for a scheme which is compulsory for self suppliers) then it should be a standard membership fee for all traders of no more than £100 to try minimise people leaving and keep things simple.

Edited August 11, 2016 by gdh
added

[MonsterMonster]

The only slimmest of positives to come from this is that the BSL will collapse and put an end to this joke of bureaucracy. However, I suspect that log suppliers make up a tiny percentage of all registered BSL users with the majority being pellet producers who tend to be larger commercial entities that can absorb the fees. RHI recipients using logs are screwed either way unless they are self suppliers that can register fewer larger volumes of fuel per application.

 

Sent from my Alba 10" using Tapatalk