|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 16:25:36 GMT
I'm sorry if you don't understand but it can't be made any more easy to understand. You have avoided c) and d). Why? Here they are again: c) up to now you have provided no paperwork for perusal. d) have you paid money to Peel/Sonny? If so, why? You could have just called the Police if they forced you (physically?) to hand over your dosh. I cannot make them any easier to understand. Several members have posted legal documentation myself included. If not in here then in legal advice or claim your fees back. No I haven't paid any money and I refuse to unless they provide me with their legal authority to charge me. If you were presented with a bill wouldn't you ask if the person presenting it had any right to ask for the money? And if they haven't wouldn't you tell them what to do with their request?
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Aug 16, 2017 16:30:52 GMT
Photo of Doc..
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 16, 2017 17:21:44 GMT
Photo of Doc.. Under the quoted Act the "Statutory Notice" can only have any statutory validity where a vessel has been on the Bridgewater for a period of one month or upwards.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 17:37:52 GMT
I'm no mathematical genius but even i know 23/12-07/01 isn't one month
Let me just make one thing clear though. I did not start this campaign as a result of that notice. I started it because I was harassed in the street by a think he is peel bully. So I decided to show him and peel and cart that. In the words of king boxer 'don't fuck with the wongs'
I was told when I first started this to post that notice and tell my story and I said no i want support for the canal not for me.
I'm happy to fight my own battles with peel. If anyone else cares about our rights then join in.
|
|
|
Post by laxeywheel on Aug 16, 2017 17:48:26 GMT
Funny enough have a boat booked next month on bw canal ..looking forward to it ,our 3rd canal adventure I live round the corner from said heli pad .. and just down the road from the old pipe factory..a force who can ruin anyone...all a bit vague , i know but for good reason Cheers
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 18:03:00 GMT
I think we have a partial result. I'll post this in the other 2 threads as well.
I've just looked at the CaRT web site. They've removed all reference to Bridgewater charges and the only part of the altered reciprocal agreement is the bit about extending Bridgewater boats access to CaRT water.
Sounds like steps in the right direction might be being made?
|
|
|
Post by laxeywheel on Aug 16, 2017 18:07:30 GMT
Gigo...well done and good luck ...many years ago i was sort of in your position ..err vey sort of btw ....the emotional investment was what hurt most
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 19:47:06 GMT
That does seem like a poor appreciation of a potential market! There is a similar situation on the Scottish Lowland Canals, although there potential moorings off the canal are thin on the ground, and a boat suitable for and using such a mooring would probably spend little time on the canals and more time on the more extensive coastal cruising grounds The Bridgewater is different, with nearby moorings on CaRT waters. What? There are no bridgewater moorings on cart waters. Where did you get that idea I meant the Rochdale canal, Leeds and Liverpool Leigh branch and the Trent and Mersey. If a boat moored there spends a lot of time on the Bridgewater, rather than using it as a transit canal, they should have the option of buying a Bridgewater licence, rather than having to leave after 7 days, IMHO
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 20:01:57 GMT
Under the quoted Act the "Statutory Notice" can only have any statutory validity where a vessel has been on the Bridgewater for a period of one month or upwards. Agreed. And the timing of the notice makes it look like Peel are taking lessons from CaRT in bending the law and hoping it doesn't break. Probably for similar perceived reasons! (And before I get accused yet again of being a CaRT yesman, minion, or apologist, that is bending the law too far, is totally out of order, and I do not condone it in the slightest!)
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 20:04:42 GMT
What? There are no bridgewater moorings on cart waters. Where did you get that idea I meant the Rochdale canal, Leeds and Liverpool Leigh branch and the Trent and Mersey. If a boat moored there spends a lot of time on the Bridgewater, rather than using it as a transit canal, they should have the option of buying a Bridgewater licence, rather than having to leave after 7 days, IMHO Well interestingly enough I have been saying that for quite some time. Bridgewater boaters get 50% reduction on a CaRT license. In the original reciprocal agreement that was 1/3 off a short term license. So they could get 3 months in the summer for the price of 2. But BW and now CaRT don't get any reduction they don't have the option. But they do get charged for transit. I've said for ages if there was a reciprocal reduced license fee then I and many others would get one. But Peel want to stifle the canal and if possible close parts of it. So they won't and never have offered it. When the by laws etc were originally drawn up. It was not for the benefit of CaRT to visit the bridgewater it was the other way round. It was never intended, and that is the crux of the matter. It was never intended that MSCC would ever be able to hold BW to ransom. I'm sure if we look back at MSCC accounts there will be reference to payments made from BW to MSCC. I'm not 100% certain but I wouldn't be surprised if CaRT still make a payment to Peel for use of the bridgewater.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 16, 2017 22:20:38 GMT
Photo of Doc.. Gigoguy, If this is the notice that led to you being chased off the Bridgewater by Peel and the local plod, then it is very good news for you and the owners who have already been unlawfully deprived of their boats. Not only does the notice advise of intended action beyond the powers conferred under the 1960 MSC Act in the threat to remove prior to the vessel being 'left' on the canal for the requisite period of at least one month, but the stated intentions in the second paragraph do lay Peel open to the accusation of intending to turn the already groundless proposed removal into the criminal act of levying distress absent the authority of a Court. I suggest that the first course of action is to write to the BCC pointing out the error of their ways and inviting them to consider how best to remedy their actions, past, present and future.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 17, 2017 0:44:01 GMT
Having mentioned in an earlier post the fact that Section 9 the 1960 MSC Act specifically refers to vessels "left" in any part of the "Bridgewater undertaking", it seems to me that this clause is about permitting and controlling mooring of vessels on the Bridgewater canal and NOT about rationing and/or controlling use of the canal. It could well be that Peel (BCCo.) don't have any authority or powers to refuse or time-limit use at all, but merely to regulate and control mooring as an adjunct to use - in other words, 'navigation' in it's fullest sense and as applicable to all inland waterways.
As far as I am aware use of the Bridgewater by any type of vessel remains subject to a Public Right of Navigation which was not extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act, the waterways affected being limited to the canals under the control of the then British Waterways Board.
If the continuing existence of a statutory PRN on the Bridgewater can be verified, then Peel (BCCo.) would not be in a position to effectively suspend it, even temporarily for given periods, by imposing arbitrary limitations on length of periods or frequency of use of the canal, and would be limited to imposing only lawful charges/tolls in respect of pleasure craft exercising the PRN, unless of course, such charges/tolls are prohibited under any of the relevant legislation. Another highly undesirable affect of PRN, for Peel that is of course, would be to render their Statutory Notices ordering boats off the Bridgewater utterly pointless and unenforceable, in addition to the fact that they in any case already exceed the S.9 entitlement to do no more than to simply remove to "a convenient place".
A careful trawl through all of the Bridgewater legislation for references to PRN would seem to be the order of the day !
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 7:45:58 GMT
Having mentioned in an earlier post the fact that Section 9 the 1960 MSC Act specifically refers to vessels "left" in any part of the "Bridgewater undertaking", it seems to me that this clause is about permitting and controlling mooring of vessels on the Bridgewater canal and NOT about rationing and/or controlling use of the canal. It could well be that Peel (BCCo.) don't have any authority or powers to refuse or time-limit use at all, but merely to regulate and control mooring as an adjunct to use - in other words, 'navigation' in it's fullest sense and as applicable to all inland waterways. As far as I am aware use of the Bridgewater by any type of vessel remains subject to a Public Right of Navigation which was not extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act, the waterways affected being limited to the canals under the control of the then British Waterways Board. If the continuing existence of a statutory PRN on the Bridgewater can be verified, then Peel (BCCo.) would not be in a position to effectively suspend it, even temporarily for given periods, by imposing arbitrary limitations on length of periods or frequency of use of the canal, and would be limited to imposing only lawful charges/tolls in respect of pleasure craft exercising the PRN, unless of course, such charges/tolls are prohibited under any of the relevant legislation. Another highly undesirable affect of PRN, for Peel that is of course, would be to render their Statutory Notices ordering boats off the Bridgewater utterly pointless and unenforceable, in addition to the fact that they in any case already exceed the S.9 entitlement to do no more than to simply remove to " a convenient place". A careful trawl through all of the Bridgewater legislation for references to PRN would seem to be the order of the day ! Thanks Tony I've emailed Peel again asking them to confirm their legal authority to charge and, as you suggest in your earlier post. Asking them what they are going to do about the situation past present and future. I'll let you know what they say Steve
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 8:28:18 GMT
Let me just make one thing clear though. I did not start this campaign as a result of that notice. I started it because I was harassed in the street by a think he is peel bully. So I decided to show him and peel and cart that. In the words of king boxer 'don't fuck with the wongs' Aha, we're getting nearer to the truth. Details of harrassment, please. Peel bully or not? Did you take photos, tape recording, contact the Police? Mr Whittake may make exceedigly good cakes when he's in a good mood, but upset him and he will unleash his evil henchmen: All done and dusted mate. Yeah police were informed and after much complaining did take action. Turns out the nob isn't even employed by Peel he just thought I was an easy target. You know what bully's are like. Thing is he's a nobody weasel and anyone else would probably have just kicked him in the nuts. But then he'd have phoned the police on me and I'd have been the baddy. I first started the thread asking for legal advice, as in what legal authority do peel have to charge for return journeys. I didn't want or intend my personal issues to be discussed. As members have taken a greater interest and I've been asked for more information. Those details have come out but my sole intention is still to have other boaters refunded the money that was stolen from them and for Peel to stop harassing boaters and let people get on with their lives and earn a living.
|
|
|
Post by tonyb on Aug 17, 2017 14:49:10 GMT
Another thought: have local newspapers and radio stations brought this subject to attention? How about the village and town councils along the canal? If local businesses are being forced to close because of a lack of boaters, are those owners not kicking up a fuss? (however, we all know how mean/stingy/thrifty boaters are, I certainly wouldn't like to have a business along a canal hoping boaters will drop in to splash their pennies - unless it's a pub or chandlery or dry dock). On that note it is worth mentioning that when CaRT/BW posted notices that they were going to close a large section of the Upton Upon Severn landing stage to boaters to the trip steamer could operate from there a concerted effort by a number of boaters doing exactly what you suggest (also the to the local Chambers of Commerce) resulted in the Town Council discovering that CaRT?BW had no right in law to do that so it was dropped.
|
|