kevinjohnsonmbe

RAF kit isn't designed or intended for use in the field 😁😁😂😂😁😁

Yep, these are obscene amounts of money for anyone to be earning. Makes me puke.

👍🏻 yep!

No surprise there! You've only to look at / listen to them on the road to see they are loaded. And there we have a (supposedly) national, reputable company - seemingly, money no object - skirting the edge of the possible in terms of appropriate loading.

That's a valid point! After all, it's a government policy rather than a quasi-autonomous corporation policy. Those that shout loudest for this elusive "equality" might well have more to lose than might immediately be apparent.

It's the only sensible option! 😣

I think (respectfully) you've maybe missed the point. The price you quote, the amount you lose to CIS and the affect it has on yr end of year SATR all completely equal out - if you're cosher - there's actually no need to change anything. Example: You quote a job at 1k You lose 20% (or 30 %) to CIS You get 800 (or 700) squid End of year SATR (you've already paid yr tax) if you had the 1k after the job you'd lose 200 squid to HMRC. It all equals out, it's just that someone else has forwarded (not paid because it's your money) your tax in advance.

FI's the lot of 'em! Just punching a card and riding the Public sector gravy train. I'd flog the lot of 'em.

Alternatives? Many have been provided - and it seems what works for 1 is an anathema to others! I have 1 that I use and which hasn't been thrashed out already in the thread. It works for me, in the right circumstances and within the rural environs of my usual operating area. It involves turning the problem around and looking at it differently. The "problem" is removal / legal transport of Arb arisings within vehicle capacity. Solution - don't remove the timber, get someone else to do it for you. I have a small network of BSL qualifying wood burning stove owners. Im a BSL accredited supplier of logs. In the right circumstances, this has proved highly beneficial to all parties. It doesn't work for every job, some might not see it as viable to their set-up but it has proved advantageous on a number of occasions over the period since BSL has been in operation. That's log of course. Chip, not so easy but it is, in the rural workplace, rarish to have to remove chip.

If there was a site clearance job you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really wanted, more than any other job you'd ever wanted, ever, and your entire universe depended upon it, and you could retire to the Dutch Antilles and drink Mojitos into a ripe and content twilight of your years.... But.... The main contractor didn't recognise your letter, and, after spending more time than it took to crack the Enigma code trying to get through to the CIS helpline (I think their actual target time for customer contact is measured in multiples of Enigma code breaking periods) and, when you did get through, the bowler hat said "no mate, that was nearly 20 years ago, we won't give you an updated copy, we don't work like that these days!" Would you: (A) sack the job off (B) register and cop for 20% up front © not register and cop for 30%

The circumstance leading to the original question has now passed (in quite a petulant and drama queen fashion with the resignation of the bloke driving the project) and is now likely to be subject to a more comprehensive and appropriate design and planning process. Essentially, the quick-fix bodge job that was being proposed was scuppered by the injection of logic which provided the revelation that a planning app would be required. Happy, as above, that later standards don't apply retrospectively to existing structures - that might be considered as inappropriate and unworkable (residents of tower blocks may disagree 🤔) But, if making a significant addition / adjustment to an existing structure, would it not be wise / required to bring the existing structure up to current spec prior to adding additional stress / load?

Get a room you 2!

To capitalise on the de-rail theme whilst it's still warm: "Snork" nominated as the funniest word of the thread thus far! "Landrover swing shovel" nominated as most pointless combo of the thread thus far (and also a candidate (against notable opposition) for least relevant to the OP question!) (apols pic quality, lifted straight out of LRO mag) 😂 [ATTACH]222667[/ATTACH]

My understanding Mr E, (FWIW) is that it was the exact vagaries, skulduggery and questionable employment / tax practices to which you refer that had, apparently, become so commonplace and widespread throughout the construction sector, that lead to the imposition,by HMRC, of CIS upon the sector. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to compare the UK average tax take for the sector before and after the start of the scheme (adjusted for No. of houses built to try and equalise the sum a bit.) It wasn't an easy process and my interest faded 🤔 If I were a betting man, I bet it went up markedly - enough to justify a gong for the bowler hat that devised it and so long as it remains sufficiently high, they'd accept that some minnows are still slipping the net.

It is a hellish, but entirely possible, scenario! And it applies to a good few towing situations, obviously including Arb but the builders with mini digs and the Ag contractors with too much speed and weight are an almost daily occurrence hereabouts. Truly terrifying driving by some.

😂 What is that? A contender for the worst possible combo?

Unless prior to planning submission, Arb site clearance would be a CIS activity under "site preparation." Gov.page = here: https://www.gov.uk/what-is-the-construction-industry-scheme

Can I delete post 30 and pretend none of this ever happened now.... 🤔😂

No, fair one! I'm on year 7 of a HMRC battle which has gone through internal, First Tier and Upper Chamber and complaints processes and is still bumbling along with consistent and reliable HMRC ineptitude despite written apologies and compensatory payments for unacceptable (HMRC) administrative behaviours (cheques not been cashed!) And Im on the cusp of taking out an injunction against them. It's just my experience, but they are not to be feared (so long as you're not on the fiddle) but rather to be treated as contemptible bullies.

I can see your logic, but it still wouldn't be the appropriate course of action. In the described circumstances, the main contractor makes CIS deductions from sub contractor. Sub contractor "cashes in" CIS credit notes on SATR. If HMRC came after main contractor, they'd still have to cough for (a) calling it SE when it appears not to be and (b) NI and CIS credits. The employer's responsibility (in regard to a BF sub contractor) would be limited to proof of due diligence - for example, recording the (BF) sub contractors UTR and keeping appropriate records of gross payments. They are not responsible to HMRC for ensuring a (BF) sub contractor submits an accurate and timely SATR. That will always be the responsibility of the individual.

4 days a week (every week?) for the same firm - self employed? Questionable. How long has that been the case? As mentioned, if all the work is site clearance for construction, then CIS deductions are probably appropriate but what happens if it's not all site clearance - probably not appropriate. Sounds like the firm are taking advantage (possibly even stretchy the bounds) of the regs, but also sounds like you could do without losing the regular income from them.

Not picky at all Josh, spot on really. Absolutely, technically, it probably DID, but I called it on the balance of probability. If there had been SLG, chipper and operators set up in the road it would have been impossible to argue that it didn't need all the bells and whistles. Also, it's a fairly busy residential road so heavily parked prior to rush hour then used as daytime parking for workers and visitors to the Vets practice around the corner. Would have been near on impossible to get gear close enough to be useful without a visit the night before to cone it off. The trailer was on double yellows. As it was, manageable piles of brash were built inside the fence, once big enough it was possible to pass by hand to the guy standing in the trailer to chip. If LA parking / street works nazis arrived, just move the trailer, it was still hitched. In hindsight, probably not the best example to throw into the debate in this thread since it was a fairly unique set of circumstances that coincided to make that choice of set up the favoured option. Ever get that feeling where you wished you hadn't bothered... 🤔

[attach]222641[/attach]👍🏻😂

Many ways to skin each cat Dave! That grass strip was approx 2.5m wide and at about 30 degrees. Anything dropped there would likely have bounced into the fence or over it into the road. So, if I'm keeping tally accurately, we're now up to another 2 guys catching wild lumps from the road, a Section 50 app, TM, a crane, an extra vehicle to tow a chipper, a quote from the fabricator for new fence sections... what's the price tag on that? Did I miss anything? Apart from the potential to rush everything in the desperate aspiration to try and cram 1/2 a hedge job in on the way home? Genuinely, and obviously mindful that (domestic) customers can be a funny bunch, there can also be an element of needing to reassure the uninitiated that they are receiving VfM. If they're spending good money, seeing a team trundle away with big kit after 1/2 a day with a fat cheque it can be unsettling. (Not all customers but some) I would stress, as I think I did previously, it only worked in that instance because it was Euc. Wouldn't have dreamt of using a small chipper on something less accommodating. OP was looking for ideas that's all.... Small chipper, sharp blades, right tree, restricted access - can be an option but has notable limitations.

Interesting to see how this rolls out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-40673559