Puffingbilly413

Undecided on that one Steve!

I had the VAT registration discussion with my accountant last year as I was thinking of registering voluntarily for the reasons many have said. He told me I was bonkers and only do it when you have to. i guess even accountants have different thoughts on the subject.

Well it's not the 'the' definition, it's HMRC's and they are not the law nor are they infallible. But I wasn't really disputing that bit. Rather I meant that running three separate businesses all under the threshold (trees, milling, timber sales) could be perfectly legit. It's just how and why you arrive there. Even if you were approaching the threshold, you could still have legitimate operational reasons for splitting up the firm. Firewood takes time to process, timber takes time to mill. If you're out doing tree work 5 days a week then you can't be doing the other two. That's not to say you mightn't have avoidance of VAT registration as a motivation, but if you can successfully demonstrate operational/commercial reasons then it could still work fine. It's a bit like the tick box on the tax self assessment forms where you're asked if you are involved in a tax avoidance scheme. I wonder how many people actually tick to say yes.

I do see what you mean Steve, but everyone has different ambitions. Turnover is a poor measure of success (at least it can be). If a small, well-run firm with manageable overheads can operate under the VAT threshold then a decent profit could still be made. Interesting thread!

Perhaps. But not if it's done properly. There are of course plenty of mills that just mill, tree firms that just do trees, timber merchants that just sell timber, firewood people that just do firewood. That is, the precedent is well set for these being legitimately different businesses. Granted, you would risk having to convince the Revenue that splitting up an existing business was done for commercial or operational reasons rather than merely avoidance of VAT registration but that is do-able. Sound accountancy advice as most have said is key though...

Just confirming that price is powerhead only? Ta.

What do you use as the anchor for your tirfor there Matty?

580kg per m cube according to Wood Species Database | TRADA WWW.TRADA.CO.UK From abura to yew: Filter by use, colour, durability, density, availability and price to choose the right wood species for... But on reflection having read other posts below I think that’s probs dry weight! I've always worked on wet beech as being around the tonne mark per cube. Appreciate your post as it got me thinking about parbuckling and there are some great links out there for people like us who might occasionally need to move heavier stuff but aren't set up for it with a crane or loader etc. I liked this guy's one but there are loads more.

Sounds horrible. I did notice the last bit from the article - it seems this is the second such incident. I'm not working with MEWPs this week thankfully. ''We have no idea what happened in this case, or the one we covered yesterday, but hopefully we will all learn from both incidents, in the meantime two people in their 50s are gone. PS: Oh and if you are superstitious you might well subscribe to the belief that 'bad things come in threes'. If so and you are using a platform or a crane this week, use this as an excuse to take extra care and follow the recommended pre-use inspection protocols.''

I do agree with you Jules in broad principle but didn't you say earlier you were living in a Barrat box with a garden with 6" of topsoil over rubble? Joyless, sterile and grim don't sound bad adjectives to describe such a predicament!

Evening all, My old man needs some tree work done down in the Wirral. Too far for me to go with all the kit and a bit much for me on my own anyway. Anyone know a good firm? Thanks in advance.

Not milled any myself but @Rough Hewn certainly has

That would be what I’d go with. Any leaf pics?

Love the way the guy hardly even breaks step and just keeps going...

Was close your honour.

As others have already commented, talking about day rates v salary can confuse and skew things. A salaried employee is (should) get the benefits of employers NI plus company pension, sick pay, etc etc. That goes a long way. Freelance on the other hand you have to worry about all that yourself plus other running costs hence the pro rata higher day rate. And then there's before and after tax when comparing a day rate - know what you're discussing to be able to gauge it properly. I have to pay non-arb groundstaff £120 a day (Scotland). Climbers £150-180 +. I don't begrudge it, just need to factor it into the quoting. But yes it can be tricky.

That's what I have on mine I think - ie it reduces you to what 8.5 tonne? Unless you get the test done fresh of course.

I have the 6100 too. It's an outstanding saw. I've used a 261 quite a lot too and it is considerably lighter - but I don't think it has quite the same grunt. Very good saw too though. Not used the 550 but seen them in use often enough and they cut well. I suppose the ideal solution is to get hands on first on a pal's saw and see what you prefer?

Ah thanks Chris. That catches me up a bit. Could it not come under ‘expediency’ in that there is little point (arguably) in placing a TPO on a tree with serious defects as it may well need to come down anyway. Or be heavily reduced thus (arguably again) reducing amenity value to the point of not fitting the bill for a TPO? I guess I return to my earlier point about the TO needing to get closer / inspect more thoroughly to be able to pass comment on the expediency element. The LPA should have an in place methodology for assessing for TPOs - I wonder what the one used was here? I’m not sure I’m convinced on the liability aspect - from a purely logical perspective. No idea if there’s any case precedent on it. I would say that if a mechanism like a TPO being in place has prevented timely action by a tree owner (and that TPO could have been more diligently put together), and failure occurs in the meantime then would a court deem the owner responsible? Am enjoying this thread - many thanks.

I could look it up but it's nearly time for tea... Am trying to remember whether amongst the criteria for deeming a tree worthy of a TPO, a TO is supposed to consider defects, safety issues etc as a matter of course ie can they even put a TPO forward without having satisfied themselves of the absence/existence of such things? I'm guessing that due to COVID-related restrictions on entering properties etc, the TO concerned (as hinted at by the OP) didn't inspect the tree other than from the road - hence issues with the root plate etc and proximity to targets were not properly observed? I wonder who carries the liability in such cases where hurdles have, possibly incorrectly, been put in the way of removal and the tree then fails and causes damage? Interesting one.

I was going down the same road for some rusted sections on the bulkhead of my 130 but came across this other stuff (rust converter and paint in one with penetrating capacity) so I went for that. I had some issues re-spraying a panel (my bad prep not the product) and they talked me through it over the phone there and then and all sorted. Seem to remember he had a video on youtube comparing various products painted on a piece of RSJ left out in the rain and it was interesting to see how bad some of the main brand stuff was. Anyhow - the bits of shoddy rusty Landy that I've painted are still good about 2 years down the line.

Not sure how it works on already galvanised metal but Buzzweld make some cracking products for anti-rust applications. As a Defender owner I have bought a lot from them. Rust Converter, Chassis Paint, Rustproofing, Sound Deadening Buzzweld Coatings WWW.BUZZWELD.CO.UK Everything you need to restore your project, make it, sell it, use it. Thats why we provide the best advice in the UK!

And in a further derail - apologies - I nearly always get acknowledgement letters from our LPA for receipt of a notification of works in a CA stating the 6 weeks begins from the date of said letter. The notification was invariably sent in via the planning portal online and confirmed as received as such several weeks earlier. Makes no odds to me as I know I can start work (all other things considered) after the 6 weeks as I know the original notification was explicitly to the required standard. But I then have to spend time placating a client because they are reluctant to believe the LPA are incorrect - and the LPA won't respond and can only be reached through a central email. I do politely email the LPA to suggest they might re-word what they send out but to this day have not had a reply...

Not really my plaice to comment.

Sounds like a shit show all round - no offence meant - hope it gets sorted