Rescinding Amendment Three???

[securespark]

I am saying you want a regulatory system simply because you want a regulatory system;

Not at all. Personally, I do not 'want' a regulatory system at all.

Pot calling kettle, EFLI.... You want a regulatory system for hole drillers!

Give a full and accurate accounting of the event to HMRC. If they want tax then yes, you are trading.

You have an extreme faith in an extremely unreliable organisation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[EFLImpudence]

Quite a lot about HMRC.

What happens to people when they get jobs like HMRC that they think up rules like this?

Once had a visit from VAT - done nothing wrong. Really pleasant looking young lady but vicious.

 

[JohnW2]

Perhaps they have nothing to gain from another system? Do you really think it would stop the 5-day wonders from undercutting them?

It goes without saying than nothing would stop that (completely). However, if the penalties for trading as an electrician (and getting caught!) without the necessary registration were severe enough, then it would certainly reduce such activities.

There would inevitably be a grey area. If I do some work for a friend, and they give me some money to show their thanks, am I trading? What if I do such work for a friend of a friend?

I think the grey area would only be in relation to 'proof'. If person A undertakes electrical work for person B and person A then receives a payment from person B that they would not have received had they not done the work, then it is clear that they were 'paid for the work'. It might be difficult to 'prove' why the payment had been made (even 'between friends), but I imagine that a Court/jury might well take a 'common sense' view of the situation!

In any event, if someone were successfully trading as an electrician without the required 'registration', one can but presume that the majority of his/her customers would usually be strangers, rather than friends (or 'friends of friends'). Furthermore, as BAS has sort-of implied, unless they were concealing all of their income (for electrical work) from HMRC (and not issuing any invoices/receipts/whatever), there would be documentary evidence of their 'trading'.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro active" regulation

Up-front regulation, rather than punitive action after the event.

Fair enough, but in most cases (as with that of doctors to which you referred) it will be both. In fact, if one doesn't have 'up-front regulation' (a requirement to be registered/licensed in order to practise a trade/profession), then the scope of "punitive action after the event" is seriously limited - since the ultimate sanction would usually be to revoke the registration/licensing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[PBC_1966]

Give a full and accurate accounting of the event to HMRC. If they want tax then yes, you are trading.

As has already been said at length, that's nonsense. HMRC might well demand tax for a multitude of reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with trading, even if their assertions about you owing it are correct in the first place.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Quite a lot about HMRC.

Change your name to Google.

 

[PBC_1966]

say "You owe us this disputed tax, you have to pay it NOW and then we'll discuss the merits of the case" (it's called an Accelerated Payment Notice). How would you stand if you had 90 days to find (say) 100k ? Don't worry, if your case is sound then you'll get it back when you win ... in a few years time..

And that is something which is absolutely wrong and should never have been allowed to happen. If I, as a private individual, claimed that you owe me £2000, would you be required to pay me that amount now and then have it repaid months later when you won a court case? Of course not - It's up to me to establish that you owe me the money in the first place. It should be no different for HMRC.

This doesn't apply just to HMRC. Years ago I had the same sort of thing over a disputed council tax bill and they try to operate by the same "pay what we demand now and you'll get it back if and when you win" principle.

 

[stillp]

Perhaps they have nothing to gain from another system? Do you really think it would stop the 5-day wonders from undercutting them?

It goes without saying than nothing would stop that (completely). However, if the penalties for trading as an electrician (and getting caught!) without the necessary registration were severe enough, then it would certainly reduce such activities.

You could say the same about prosecutions under the Consumer Rights Act. Severe penalties for trading without registration seem unlikely, a warning is more likely. If there was faulty workmanship then that would count as evidence of loss, and I would have expected more severe penalties. That is if either case went as far as a court, which seems unlikely unless someone was injured.

There would inevitably be a grey area. If I do some work for a friend, and they give me some money to show their thanks, am I trading? What if I do such work for a friend of a friend?

I think the grey area would only be in relation to 'proof'. If person A undertakes electrical work for person B and person A then receives a payment from person B that they would not have received had they not done the work, then it is clear that they were 'paid for the work'. It might be difficult to 'prove' why the payment had been made (even 'between friends), but I imagine that a Court/jury might well take a 'common sense' view of the situation!

In any event, if someone were successfully trading as an electrician without the required 'registration', one can but presume that the majority of his/her customers would usually be strangers, rather than friends (or 'friends of friends'). Furthermore, as BAS has sort-of implied, unless they were concealing all of their income (for electrical work) from HMRC (and not issuing any invoices/receipts/whatever), there would be documentary evidence of their 'trading'.

Yes, but at what point does a transfer of money (or other value) stop being a gift and become a payment? What about those 'tradesmen' who only take payment in cash or kind?

 

[JohnW2]

You could say the same about prosecutions under the Consumer Rights Act. Severe penalties for trading without registration seem unlikely, a warning is more likely.

That obviously depends on how the system decides to play it. We have just heard of a case in Ireland in which someone ended up in jail for six months simply for doing electrical work without registration, and for falsely claiming to be registered, without any prosecution for the (apparent) poor quality of work (and, AFAIAA, in the absence of anyone having been harmed).

Yes, but at what point does a transfer of money (or other value) stop being a gift and become a payment?

That's obvioulsy for a Court to decide - but if it is a payment from a stranger for whom one has jhust undertaken some electrical work "for free", I suspect that the Court might get the right answer when they "added two and two together". Furthermore, they would probably take evidence, under oath, from the person who made the payment - and I would imagine that most such witnesses would tell the truth about the payment having been for electrical work undertaken.

What about those 'tradesmen' who only take payment in cash or kind?

As I said, if they conceal all their 'electrical income' from HMRC and never issue written quotations, invoices or receipts, and never advertised their services, then they might 'get away with it', but having broken the law by not being a registered electrician would probably be the least of their legal problems (if they 'got caught') in that situation!

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

We have just heard of a case in Ireland in which someone ended up in jail for six months simply for doing electrical work without registration, and for falsely claiming to be registered, without any prosecution for the (apparent) poor quality of work (and, AFAIAA, in the absence of anyone having been harmed).

Yes, but this is the UK forum. AFAIK we didn't get any information about the quality of the work.

That's obvioulsy for a Court to decide

That's if it got past the Crown Prosecution Service.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes, but this is the UK forum. AFAIK we didn't get any information about the quality of the work.

We were told that it was apalling and dangerous work, and (whether he was allowed to or not) the judge apparently mentioned that as a reason for the severity of his sentencing. However, the individual faced no prosecution related to the standard of his work.

That's obviously for a Court to decide

That's if it got past the Crown Prosecution Service.

OK, it's for the CPS and Courts to decide. In any event, AIUI, CPS decisions as to whether or not to prosecute are usually based primarily on their view of the likelihood of a conviction. Most cases of undertaking electrical work without having the required registration would presumably be pretty 'barn door' (the absence of registration could not be disputed, and the fact that work had been done would usually be fairly obvious), so I don't see why they would not prosecute in most cases.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

CPS decisions as to whether or not to prosecute are usually based primarily on their view of the likelihood of a conviction

And on their opinion on whether the 'public interest' is better served by a prosecution, or by a warning. It's a whole lot easier to decide the latter.

 

[JohnW2]

CPS decisions as to whether or not to prosecute are usually based primarily on their view of the likelihood of a conviction

And on their opinion on whether the 'public interest' is better served by a prosecution, or by a warning. It's a whole lot easier to decide the latter.

Well, as I wrote ...

That obviously depends on how the system decides to play it.

If, having been given a law which allows them to prosecute people for undertaking electrical work without the required registration, then if the CPS decided that it was "not in the public interest" to prosecute, even if the chances of a conviction were very high, that would make a total joke of the legislation having being introduced.

FWIW, I personally think that it wrong that the CPS should be allowed to undermine the work/wishes of legislators in this way. If legislators have seen fit to make a certain act unlawful, then I don't think it is (or should be) for the CPS to decide not to prosecute people who have committed that act, if they believe the chances of conviction are high. Apart from anything else, unlike the legislators, the CPS are not elected by the public, and hence are not really 'accountable'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Echo the husky]

Brilliant - didn't know that existed. Then I tried to find some, and was going no-where until I hit the magic number 6381Y. Now I find that my local wholesaler (CEF) only does 25mm², and only in Blue and Grey which seems an odd combination of colours, and only by the roll. They do 6181Y tails by the meter in Blue, Brown, and Grey - but no black. Still, there are other suppliers out there.

Blue and grey are the colours we use for the DC supplies, Blue 0V earthed positive, Grey -48V.

 

[PBC_1966]

Blue 0V earthed positive, Grey -48V.

Ugh! Another horrible consequence of the messing around with the colors.