FWIW it would be a self-employed enterprise. Regardless, I think the salient point from that whole lot of blurb that was written was contained within paragraph 15. The business about whether it is a ‘showmans vehicle’ or not may end up being a separate issue.
Real_Sir_Real:
FWIW it would be a self-employed enterprise. Regardless, I think the salient point from that whole lot of blurb that was written was contained within paragraph 15. The business about whether it is a ‘showmans vehicle’ or not may end up being a separate issue.
And how do you deal with the other 'Showman caveat, that it is used solely by the ‘Showman’, when the OP is quite clear that the veh would also be hired out to others?
Zac_A:
dieseldave:
Some laws that were written many years ago use only “him,” but equality law generally says that references to “him” in such long ago written laws are to be construed in these more enlightened times as automatically meaning ‘him or her.’Safe to say it probably also includes the 99 other ways that people can choose to “identify” these days [emoji38]
The point is, does it include a ltd company which can be a legal person, but is not usually described as he/him?
I’d say the real point is that after considerable input and analysis, OP’s plan to rent out his asset is (a) unfeasible under the Showman’s caveat, and (b) in OPs own opinion, is not financially viable to run as a compliant operation.
Acorn:
Real_Sir_Real:
FWIW it would be a self-employed enterprise. Regardless, I think the salient point from that whole lot of blurb that was written was contained within paragraph 15. The business about whether it is a ‘showmans vehicle’ or not may end up being a separate issue.And how do you deal with the other 'Showman caveat, that it is used solely by the ‘Showman’, when the OP is quite clear that the veh would also be hired out to others?
That’s the thing, the vehicle isn’t being hired out as such - I mean, no-one else will ever be actually driving or operating it. You can see it the same as a fairground ride, like waltzers or whatever - people pay to use that, but it’s not being ‘hired out’ to them. In effect we would be hiring out a service, the same as any showman.
Real_Sir_Real:
Acorn:
Real_Sir_Real:
FWIW it would be a self-employed enterprise. Regardless, I think the salient point from that whole lot of blurb that was written was contained within paragraph 15. The business about whether it is a ‘showmans vehicle’ or not may end up being a separate issue.And how do you deal with the other 'Showman caveat, that it is used solely by the ‘Showman’, when the OP is quite clear that the veh would also be hired out to others?
That’s the thing, the vehicle isn’t being hired out as such - I mean, no-one else will ever be actually driving or operating it. You can see it the same as a fairground ride, like waltzers or whatever - people pay to use that, but it’s not being ‘hired out’ to them. In effect we would be hiring out a service, the same as any showman.
IMHO, yes, para 15.
Anything to do with Showman is therefore irrelevant.