Justme

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.

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.

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.

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

The legislation says that the supply is taken to have taken place 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; So if when selling it (ie for collections) or if later dispatching the goods it not 2m3+ you are in breach. But like most stuff only a court can decide what the law actually means so again good luck on being the test case.

Do you really want to be the one to try and prove this in court? Better have deep pockets.

Good luck with that. Splitting a sale / order/ supply/ delivery. Is not going to get round the rules. Holding large orders for people and dropping off smaller sections when needed wont cut it. Each single supply / delivery / collection must be 2m3+ to be exempt and must have their sneaky worded scare tactics note with each supply. The only way round it is to supply / deliver in units of 2m3 or more.

No need to read it as I am not pedantic over wording. Means basically the same thing. Each order delivered or supplied (could be collected) has to be over 2m3. Either way its got to be over 2m3 in one go. No ordering 3m3 but in 6 collections or deliveries.

Inputs would cost more on oak & take much longer to dry. Possible slightly more cost to process too. But then hardwoods tend to get sold for more to cover that.

Yup total pain the the butt. Loose tipped volume just seems the easiest way.

If the wood is all at the same % moisture then kWh per kg is almost the same for all wood types. It should not be hard to calc a price per kWh & then adjust for %moisture x by actual weight sold. But what a pain weighing it all & getting an average % for each load to work out the price. Cant see Joe public being happy with being told your delivery will cost between X & Y & you wont know till its loaded.

Per delivery not per order. The 2m3 has to be all at once.

That def does need a redesign so that it drops fast to where it hits the log & then adjusts speed / pressure to suit log diameter & hardness automatically.

I think I might have remembered wrong on the 0.6L per kWh. More like 0.36L per kwh on smaller units but still bad. From memory diesel engines loose 1/3rd to wet heat, 1/3rd to dry heat & noise & 1/3rd to rotational force. Then add in the electrical efficiency & you can see why its not very efficient to use a genny.

That is a very interesting question. Currently my info is that the insurance world was not happy with the removal of the test & that they are looking at what they will do re this. Things that have been mentioned are, insisting on training (which is assumed will be the gov scheme), increasing premiums (which is what I think they will do as its the easiest for them & makes more money) or not covering towing without further costs & or proof of training. Time will tell. They might do nothing but I can see that it would be an easy way to increase fees that I cant see them missing. The other big question is how will the rest of the world treat people that have been given the BE when they have to take a test to get it. Currently no one knows. Re the cars the test was for all vehicles up to 3500kg. You can take the test is most sub 3500kg vehicle, I have seen a few do it in vans. The few learners I do take to test do it in a 4x4 thats about 2800kg so not your standard learner shopping trolley car.

Home made weren't regulated till 2014.

You just love making personal insults dont you. So sad.

You Might Not feel the got it right when your insurance asks you for proof of certified training, loads your policy or refuse to insure. All of which is being talked about by Underwriters. But then seeing as you have been towing uninsured so far I guess you wont care.

Its 67% reduction in trailer crashes. On the same dates other vehicles reduced by about 47%. So yes its a 67% reduction but only 20% can be purely attributed to the BE training and test.

Taken into account when you look at the stats for all other vehicle types which is about a 20% lower reduction.

Prob before I saw the baronesses very recent reply. I knew we had more recent data in the 2018 trailer report but had never seen data pre 97.

Plenty round here you can loose your door mirror on even with all the wheel on the black stuff.

No worries. Used to hate clients like that, now I would be happy to have any clients at all.

Ok found it. It was a reply that Baroness Vere gave & she referenced the 2019 accident stats.

I dont think it was for the furloughed years that would just be when the report came out / published. Also my last year comment totally ignores the covid period. I will try to find the report again to see if it actually mentions the dates. It might have been a ministers summarising statement that I am quoting. In addition to the 67% reduction traffic & trailer use has risen so the 67% is actually more per mile driven. From memory other accident stats went down about 20% less so road safety & vehicle improvements dont account for all of the reduction. If you also take into account that the training & testing really only took off in the last 5-7 years so there was still a long way to go to get the majority of drivers qualified the reduction is quite significant.