|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 11, 2017 16:30:47 GMT
. There isn't going to be any sort of help or support forthcoming from C&RT Tony. I don't know the ins and out of this but as a side issue do you feel or know that if Bridgewater broke the agreement they have in place with crt. That crt wouldn't help even though it's their agreement. and their customers getting shafted. I asked CaRt what legal authority BCCL have to charge. They said they didn't know and I should ask Peel. CaRT are colluding with them by passing on boater details and by posting the change in agreement on CaRT web site. Giving it legitimacy. Instead of telling boaters not to pay and supporting them. CaRT do not enforce their side of the agreement and BCCL boats are regularly far beyond their permitted reach and for months not weeks on end. CaRT have done nothing apart from be disappointed. Well as usual they've been disappointing. They're quite happy throwing thousands of pounds at fighting their own customers but wont lift a finger to support them.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 11, 2017 16:41:11 GMT
IWA letter ammended and sent to my MP, Tony Lloyd.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 11, 2017 16:56:09 GMT
IWA letter ammended and sent to my MP, Tony Lloyd. Cheers jim
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 11, 2017 16:56:45 GMT
. There isn't going to be any sort of help or support forthcoming from C&RT Tony. I don't know the ins and out of this but as a side issue do you feel or know that if Bridgewater broke the agreement they have in place with crt. That crt wouldn't help even though it's their agreement. and their customers getting shafted. C&RT in it's present incarnation hasn't done anything positive or helpful for boaters so far, and I've no reason to suppose that will change. In fact, I would think they probably admire and approve of what Peel are doing on the Bridgewater. I'm not even convinced that there is any formal agreement in place for C&RT Licensed pleasure craft to use Peel owned waters. All we have, after all, is some vaguely worded mention of what C&RT call a 'reciprocal arrangement' with Peel, . . . for all we know it could boil down to little else than an informal contest between them to see who can shit on boaters to the greatest effect !
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 11, 2017 17:17:57 GMT
Tony. I don't know the ins and out of this but as a side issue do you feel or know that if Bridgewater broke the agreement they have in place with crt. That crt wouldn't help even though it's their agreement. and their customers getting shafted. C&RT in it's present incarnation hasn't done anything positive or helpful for boaters so far, and I've no reason to suppose that will change. In fact, I would think they probably admire and approve of what Peel are doing on the Bridgewater. I'm not even convinced that there is any formal agreement in place for C&RT Licensed pleasure craft to use Peel owned waters. All we have, after all, is some vaguely worded mention of what C&RT call a 'reciprocal arrangement' with Peel, . . . for all we know it could boil down to little else than an informal contest between them to see who can shit on boaters to the greatest effect ! Now I don't disagree with you there. What CaRT call a reciprocal agreement was signed in 1967 between the then head of Manchester Ship Canal Company and The Minister of Transport. A gentleman's agreement nothing more. No basis in law what so ever There is no formal contract. What the agreement actually says is that BW boats can have 7 consecutive days on The Bridgewater. and that Bridgewater boats can have 7 days, no return withing 28 days on BW water. It also gives Bridgewater boats a 33 1/3 discount on a short term license for longer journeys or stays. This has now somehow become a 50% on an annual license. Yeah they get 50% off their license and yet they shaft us every time we want to use their water. I wrote to CaRT asking why they don't stop the reduction altogether. They said it's because of the reciprocal agreement. When I asked CaRT for a copy of it they didn't have one. It was sent to me by Alison Smedley at IWA.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 11, 2017 17:44:59 GMT
Tony. I don't know the ins and out of this but as a side issue do you feel or know that if Bridgewater broke the agreement they have in place with crt. That crt wouldn't help even though it's their agreement. and their customers getting shafted. C&RT in it's present incarnation hasn't done anything positive or helpful for boaters so far, and I've no reason to suppose that will change. In fact, I would think they probably admire and approve of what Peel are doing on the Bridgewater. I'm not even convinced that there is any formal agreement in place for C&RT Licensed pleasure craft to use Peel owned waters. All we have, after all, is some vaguely worded mention of what C&RT call a 'reciprocal arrangement' with Peel, . . . for all we know it could boil down to little else than an informal contest between them to see who can shit on boaters to the greatest effect ! thanks Tony. I thought so but there was always hope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 17:55:03 GMT
Oops thought I'd posted a reply, but it's lost in the ether. Gigoguy sent me a pm with his story, I've asked him to post it for all to read. Peel are bastards! However they can probably charge non licence holders passing through, but there should be clear signage if there isn't, and boaters should be treated with respect and sympathy if they have a genuine problem. Overstayers should be dealt with according to the act, 1 month notice etc, not just summarily snatching boats. I'm tempted to get £40 in pennies from the bank, hand it to them if requested, more hassle than a cheque. Are that many pennies legal tender? I reckon the problem has been caused by piss taking CMers, when CART tightened up on them some moved onto the Bridgwater. Having passed through 2 of the boundaries in autumn last year, Leigh and Castlefield, I saw several scruffy boats just in the CART side of the border, complete with the mandatory towpath full of junk with each boat. Looked like they had been chased off the Bridgewater, why else moor there? Maximum amount of pennies 20 (20p) that is legal tender. Source www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 11, 2017 21:28:42 GMT
I don't doubt any of what you're saying about Peel as a NA and waterway owners. However, I'm still not quite sure what you're after here, can you be more explicit and detailed about what needs to be 'stopped', and how you think that goal could be achieved. The plain truth is that the Bridgewater is privately owned, and it's in the hands of an outfit who have no interest in running or retaining anything that doesn't make heaps of money. There isn't going to be any sort of help or support forthcoming from C&RT, nor would there be any enthusiasm for involvement from the Government, who have in effect already privatised all the C&RT controlled waterways on the sly with the intention of ridding themselves of responsibility for funding and operation. In the first instance what needs to be stopped is BCCL from extorting money from boaters with no legal right to do so. I get the impression from your post that you're suggesting we just roll over and accept it. As I've already said. Just because it's privately owned doesn't mean they can do what they want with it. There are hundreds of jobs that depend on this waterway. There are communities and businesses that only survive because of it and it is an integral and vital part of the canal system in the north west and one of the most popular cruising rings in the country. And it's dead!!!! For goodness sake am I the only boater in here north of watford? Not at all, that's not something I would ever advocate with regard to the authoritarian excesses that navigation authorities have, and always have had, a tendency to indulge in. If you're reluctant to post anything which you feel may be libelous re. Peel and their antics, then you're very welcome to either PM me with it, or e-mail me at > tony@canalrivertransport.com <. You definitely aren't the only boater on this forum who is North of Watford, but with one notable exception, I've probably got longer established and closer connections with the Bridgewater than any other member. Back in the early 1960's I used to earn my living on it when it was a busy commercial waterway under the control of the Bridgewater Department of the MSCCo.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 12, 2017 17:20:29 GMT
I don't doubt any of what you're saying about Peel as a NA and waterway owners. However, I'm still not quite sure what you're after here, can you be more explicit and detailed about what needs to be 'stopped', and how you think that goal could be achieved. The plain truth is that the Bridgewater is privately owned, and it's in the hands of an outfit who have no interest in running or retaining anything that doesn't make heaps of money. There isn't going to be any sort of help or support forthcoming from C&RT, nor would there be any enthusiasm for involvement from the Government, who have in effect already privatised all the C&RT controlled waterways on the sly with the intention of ridding themselves of responsibility for funding and operation. In the first instance what needs to be stopped is BCCL from extorting money from boaters with no legal right to do so. I get the impression from your post that you're suggesting we just roll over and accept it. As I've already said. Just because it's privately owned doesn't mean they can do what they want with it. There are hundreds of jobs that depend on this waterway. There are communities and businesses that only survive because of it and it is an integral and vital part of the canal system in the north west and one of the most popular cruising rings in the country. And it's dead!!!! For goodness sake am I the only boater in here north of watford? Virtually ALL of the canals were privately owned, other than those the Romans built. But they were owned by statutory bodies bound by the terms of their enabling statutes. Those still apply, unless expressly modified by later legislation [as happened a fair bit with the nationalised waterways]. There are two ways to resist unlawful demands for payment when/if that arises – legal action or waterlevel action. For one you need deep pockets and years of time; for the other you need massive public interest [not just from boaters]. I have just come back from another day poring through the Parliamentary records surrounding BW’s 1990 Bill [such as the public are permitted access to], and was impressed with the efforts of the Brentford Boaters Association. They included as evidence of BW’s malign management, the [then recent] mass section 8’ing of some 30 boats above and below the Gauging Locks, together with the BBA efforts to raise public condemnation. They amassed thousands of signatures from the locals, and produced photos of removed boats sunk through incompetence and negligence etc, etc. I have not had time to peruse in depth, to see what the immediate outcome of that campaign was, but they most definitely impressed the Select Committee, because a recurring refrain from the Committee was distaste for such draconian actions, with the result that various mooring clauses were heavily modified or removed altogether – faced with such evidence of the BW approach to enforcement, the Committee were unimpressed by protestations from BW that they were a benign organisation for whom such drastic actions were almost never employed! So it can work, but takes extraordinary work, organisation, and sustained effort in getting the public interested.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 17:33:43 GMT
In the first instance what needs to be stopped is BCCL from extorting money from boaters with no legal right to do so. I get the impression from your post that you're suggesting we just roll over and accept it. As I've already said. Just because it's privately owned doesn't mean they can do what they want with it. There are hundreds of jobs that depend on this waterway. There are communities and businesses that only survive because of it and it is an integral and vital part of the canal system in the north west and one of the most popular cruising rings in the country. And it's dead!!!! For goodness sake am I the only boater in here north of watford? Virtually ALL of the canals were privately owned, other than those the Romans built. But they were owned by statutory bodies bound by the terms of their enabling statutes. Those still apply, unless expressly modified by later legislation [as happened a fair bit with the nationalised waterways]. There are two ways to resist unlawful demands for payment when/if that arises – legal action or waterlevel action. For one you need deep pockets and years of time; for the other you need massive public interest [not just from boaters]. I have just come back from another day poring through the Parliamentary records surrounding BW’s 1990 Bill [such as the public are permitted access to], and was impressed with the efforts of the Brentford Boaters Association. They included as evidence of BW’s malign management, the [then recent] mass section 8’ing of some 30 boats above and below the Gauging Locks, together with the BBA efforts to raise public condemnation. They amassed thousands of signatures from the locals, and produced photos of removed boats sunk through incompetence and negligence etc, etc. I have not had time to peruse in depth, to see what the immediate outcome of that campaign was, but they most definitely impressed the Select Committee, because a recurring refrain from the Committee was distaste for such draconian actions, with the result that various mooring clauses were heavily modified or removed altogether – faced with such evidence of the BW approach to enforcement, the Committee were unimpressed by protestations from BW that they were a benign organisation for whom such drastic actions were almost never employed! So it can work, but takes extraordinary work, organisation, and sustained effort in getting the public interested. There have been hundreds of boaters charged for a return passage over the past 3 years. I would consider it a great victory if Peel were forced to repay all those toll fees, with interest. And for them to be told to cease and desist from charging for return passage. I don't have a problem with the original 1967 agreement. I don't even having a problem with the agreement being altered. If it is altered with discussion and is agreed. Then it's an agreement. What's happened here is that Peel have said they are changing the agreement and have started to charge for return passage. Well CaRT don't like it and want it changed back. So it's not an agreement is it? It's a set of demands that have NO, none, not any NO NO NO basis in law. If only the people that have been charged ask for their money back and the boating press print that it has happened. Then in future, hopefully, no one else will pay them. And the canal will get back to being the vibrant, busy and enjoyable place it has been for 300 years.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 12, 2017 18:05:05 GMT
Virtually ALL of the canals were privately owned, other than those the Romans built. But they were owned by statutory bodies bound by the terms of their enabling statutes. Those still apply, unless expressly modified by later legislation [as happened a fair bit with the nationalised waterways]. There are two ways to resist unlawful demands for payment when/if that arises – legal action or waterlevel action. For one you need deep pockets and years of time; for the other you need massive public interest [not just from boaters]. I have just come back from another day poring through the Parliamentary records surrounding BW’s 1990 Bill [such as the public are permitted access to], and was impressed with the efforts of the Brentford Boaters Association. They included as evidence of BW’s malign management, the [then recent] mass section 8’ing of some 30 boats above and below the Gauging Locks, together with the BBA efforts to raise public condemnation. They amassed thousands of signatures from the locals, and produced photos of removed boats sunk through incompetence and negligence etc, etc. I have not had time to peruse in depth, to see what the immediate outcome of that campaign was, but they most definitely impressed the Select Committee, because a recurring refrain from the Committee was distaste for such draconian actions, with the result that various mooring clauses were heavily modified or removed altogether – faced with such evidence of the BW approach to enforcement, the Committee were unimpressed by protestations from BW that they were a benign organisation for whom such drastic actions were almost never employed! So it can work, but takes extraordinary work, organisation, and sustained effort in getting the public interested. There have been hundreds of boaters charged for a return passage over the past 3 years. I would consider it a great victory if Peel were forced to repay all those toll fees, with interest. And for them to be told to cease and desist from charging for return passage. I don't have a problem with the original 1967 agreement. I don't even having a problem with the agreement being altered. If it is altered with discussion and is agreed. Then it's an agreement. What's happened here is that Peel have said they are changing the agreement and have started to charge for return passage. Well CaRT don't like it and want it changed back. So it's not an agreement is it? It's a set of demands that have NO, none, not any NO NO NO basis in law. If only the people that have been charged ask for their money back and the boating press print that it has happened. Then in future, hopefully, no one else will pay them. And the canal will get back to being the vibrant, busy and enjoyable place it has been for 300 years. Whether, and if so to what extent, they are entitled to charge for the passage of pleasure boats, will be set out in the relevant Act, presumably the “ Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894.” The Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960 has nothing of relevance to such charges; modifications and extension to certain charging schemes were incorporated, but nothing that I see relevant to this issue. You would need to see what the specific Act cited has provided respecting charges for use by pleasure boats of the Bridgewater Canal. Whatever "agreement" between third parties might be, those are of no legal impact between Peel as successors of the Bridgewater Canal Company and the boaters using the canal. The charges schemes must be based upon that legislated.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 20:07:39 GMT
There have been hundreds of boaters charged for a return passage over the past 3 years. I would consider it a great victory if Peel were forced to repay all those toll fees, with interest. And for them to be told to cease and desist from charging for return passage. I don't have a problem with the original 1967 agreement. I don't even having a problem with the agreement being altered. If it is altered with discussion and is agreed. Then it's an agreement. What's happened here is that Peel have said they are changing the agreement and have started to charge for return passage. Well CaRT don't like it and want it changed back. So it's not an agreement is it? It's a set of demands that have NO, none, not any NO NO NO basis in law. If only the people that have been charged ask for their money back and the boating press print that it has happened. Then in future, hopefully, no one else will pay them. And the canal will get back to being the vibrant, busy and enjoyable place it has been for 300 years. Whether, and if so to what extent, they are entitled to charge for the passage of pleasure boats, will be set out in the relevant Act, presumably the “ Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894.” The Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960 has nothing of relevance to such charges; modifications and extension to certain charging schemes were incorporated, but nothing that I see relevant to this issue. You would need to see what the specific Act cited has provided respecting charges for use by pleasure boats of the Bridgewater Canal. Whatever "agreement" between third parties might be, those are of no legal impact between Peel as successors of the Bridgewater Canal Company and the boaters using the canal. The charges schemes must be based upon that legislated. So where can I find a copy of the 'Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894'? They cite but never quote the mcc act 1960 section 9 as their legal right to remove boats. On 23rd Dec 2015 I went on to the Bridgewater but needed to stay until after new year. On 7th January they issued a possession order for my boat and on 17th Jan, while I was in hospital, they attempted to remove my boat. MCC act sec 9 says 'if a boat is left unlicensed for more than one month etc etc' 23rd Dec-7th Jan is barely 2 weeks. Unlawful issue of notice. Had i known then what I know now.....I know what I'd have done with their notice! I had refused to pay any toll or any over stay amount as they did not show me legal right to charge it. They never have shown me legal right to charge it. Nor have they ever shown anyone else their legal right to charge. Even the receipts they give for the payment do not say what gives them the right to charge. If they had a right to, then they would push it well and truly up my arse.......so i don't think they've got any legal right to charge CaRt boats. If you can find the legislation you're talking about and quote what it says regarding them charging. And if it gives them the right to charge, then I'll accept it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 20:36:22 GMT
They cite but never quote the mcc act 1960 section 9 as their legal right to remove boats. I found this document which is dated 2014....... "Conditions of licensing for pleasure craft on the Bridgewater Canal & Upper Reach of the Port of Manchester between the Lowry Lift footbridge and Hunts Bank"
This seems to be the relevant section (8)..... "Attention is drawn to Section 9 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960:- 1(a) If any vessel is left in any river canal waterway navigable channel lock or dock forming part of the Bridgewater undertaking without consent in writing of the Company for a period of one month or upwards the Company may after giving seven day's notice to the owner of the vessel at the time when such notice is given remove the vessel to a convenient place and such owner shall pay to the Company the cost of removal and a sum not exceeding twenty five pence (25p) for each day during which any part of the river, canal, waterway, navigable channel, lock, or dock is occupied by the vessel after the giving of such notice and until such removal and any such cost and sum may be recovered by the Company either summarily as a civil debt where the amount does not exceed twenty pounds or as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction."
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 12, 2017 20:58:54 GMT
So where can I find a copy of the 'Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894'? If it helps, I've posted a copy of the 1894 Act here: Canal Rates, Tolls .... Bridgewater.... 1894It goes into great detail about charges for merchandise carried by vessels but on a very brief reading Section 25 appears relevant: "25. Nothing in this schedule shall apply to pleasure boats or affect the tolls Schedule or charges, if any, which the Company are authorised to charge or make in respect of such boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament."
with the marginal note - "Schedule not apply to pleasure boats"
There was a much more recent Statutory Instrument - The Bridgewater Canal (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 2012 which includes the following: "Charges 7.-(1) On and after the transfer date the Company in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal, has power to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate or use the Bridgewater Canal.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) affects the right of the Company to make charges in respect of other services or facilities provided by the Company in relation to a vessel which navigates or uses the Bridgewater Canal.
(3) This article does not authorise the making of any charge in a case where an enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge."
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 12, 2017 22:14:55 GMT
Effectively, then, given that the tolls schedules were NOT to apply to pleasure boats, the 2012 Order recognises that it [the 2012 Order] gives NO authorisation for making ANY charges for them.
|
|