|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 12, 2017 22:22:48 GMT
Section 25 provides that nothing in the schedule referred to shall apply to pleasure boats – “or affect the tolls 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.”
That could suggest the possibility that some other Act of Parliament HAS authorised certain charges with respect to pleasure boats. As always, one has to be careful and dig deep for any such thing.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 12, 2017 22:54:26 GMT
Section 25 provides that nothing in the schedule referred to shall apply to pleasure boats – “ or affect the tolls 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.” That could suggest the possibility that some other Act of Parliament HAS authorised certain charges with respect to pleasure boats. As always, one has to be careful and dig deep for any such thing. Nigel, as Section 25 is part of the 1894 Act would that suggest that any authorisation for charges would have been in prior legislation? I cant find anything relevant in any specific Bridgewater Canal Acts.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 23:10:03 GMT
Section 25 provides that nothing in the schedule referred to shall apply to pleasure boats – “ or affect the tolls 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.” That could suggest the possibility that some other Act of Parliament HAS authorised certain charges with respect to pleasure boats. As always, one has to be careful and dig deep for any such thing. Nigel, as Section 25 is part of the 1894 Act would that suggest that any authorisation for charges would have been in prior legislation? I cant find anything relevant in any specific Bridgewater Canal Acts. Gentlemen............AT LAST!!!!!!!! someone is talking sense. Or at least asking sensible questions. I found the part 7 clause 3, a week or so ago and I asked Peel for clarification. I also asked Theresa Coffee for clarification. She said it was day to running and not her concern. Peel said my question was 'obscure' but had passed it on to their legal dept. I've asked them Who or what is exempt in that section and when and where the by laws were posted and where they were declared in the local press. And I've asked them for any legal authority they have to charge for transit. I have had jack diddly. I personally was issued with and unlawful possession notice and an attempted unlawful possession. They are liars, thieves and I'd say murderers. If you count the undetermined cause of death of a harassed boater murder. We'll never stop Peel Holdings. But if we can save the Bridgewater and give them a bloody nose in the process. Then Hell Yeah!!
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 13, 2017 2:28:18 GMT
Nigel, as Section 25 is part of the 1894 Act would that suggest that any authorisation for charges would have been in prior legislation? I cant find anything relevant in any specific Bridgewater Canal Acts. Of course it does. Curiously, and lazily, it says "if any" - they hadn't bothered to check? If there is nothing specific in any prior Bridgewater Canal Act, then s.7(3) of the 2012 Order confirms that no charges can be made; it is worded much the same as the 1962 Transport Act - if a charge has not been expressly laid down, then it is forbidden.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 13, 2017 10:55:03 GMT
As there appears to be nothing in specific Bridgewater Canal Acts or Orders that authorises charges for pleasure vessels it seems likely that, if they are lawful, then provision could only have been made within the Manchester Ship Canal Acts.
The Manchester Ship Canal Acts of 1886, 1887, 1891, 1893, 1900, 1904, 1907, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1933, 1949, 1960 and 1966 contain nothing relevant to Bridgewater Canal charges.
The MSC Act of 1919 increases existing cargo tolls and is amended by the 1920 Act to include the Bridgewater in that provision.
The MSC Act of 1950 increases existing Bridgewater tolls by 75%.
The MSC Act of 1952 increases existing Bridgewater tolls by 50%.
The MSC Act of 1956 increases existing MSC tolls by 20% but excludes the Bridgewater.
Hope that helps with ongoing research but as the topic is headed "Legal Advice" I must stress that this is not to be taken as such.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 16, 2017 15:31:36 GMT
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
unless they take you to court they can only claim £25 anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 17:06:42 GMT
As there appears to be nothing in specific Bridgewater Canal Acts or Orders that authorises charges for pleasure vessels it seems likely that, if they are lawful, then provision could only have been made within the Manchester Ship Canal Acts. The Manchester Ship Canal Acts of 1886, 1887, 1891, 1893, 1900, 1904, 1907, 1925, 1926, 1928, 1933, 1949, 1960 and 1966 contain nothing relevant to Bridgewater Canal charges. The MSC Act of 1919 increases existing cargo tolls and is amended by the 1920 Act to include the Bridgewater in that provision. The MSC Act of 1950 increases existing Bridgewater tolls by 75%. The MSC Act of 1952 increases existing Bridgewater tolls by 50%. The MSC Act of 1956 increases existing MSC tolls by 20% but excludes the Bridgewater. Hope that helps with ongoing research but as the topic is headed "Legal Advice" I must stress that this is not to be taken as such. But do any of these tolls refer to pleasure craft, or is there any legislation or amendment to by laws that includes pleasure craft After the initial 1894 exclusion clause?
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 16, 2017 17:12:25 GMT
Please see my reply to Iain in the "Bridgewater Canal claim back your toll fees" topic for my understanding of the current position.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 18:04:56 GMT
Please see my reply to Iain in the "Bridgewater Canal claim back your toll fees" topic for my understanding of the current position. Yeah sorry I saw that after I asked the question, thanks it was just what i was hoping. I think we have a partial result. 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 IainS on Aug 16, 2017 19:40:24 GMT
Possibly, but I doubt it's a result of discussion here!
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 8:00:10 GMT
Possibly, but I doubt it's a result of discussion here! Well actually it is, indirectly. I've been having this argument with CaRT and Peel for 18 months or more. Information that I have gleaned from discussions here and the enormous help Nigel and erivers have been, has moved the situation along extremely well. All I had been able to do in the past was ask Peel what their legal authority was. And in true Peel style they either didn't reply or gave false or misleading information. Now that I know, almost for certain, that they are breaking the law. And that they did certainly act unlawfully in the attempted possession and physical endangerment of myself and my boat. I can report them to the police for fraud and for levying distress. As a result of the possible fraud investigation and the fact that CaRT would be involved as a result of their collusion with Peel to unlawfully charge. Making CaRT officers personally open to criminal prosecution. They have obviously decided to distance themselves from Peel before the proverbial. I have taken Tony's advice and written AGAIN to Peel asking for their legal authority and presenting them with a copy of the section 9 notice and asking what they are going to do about it all past, present and future. I will keep the forum informed
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 17, 2017 11:20:37 GMT
Well done!
Certainly, IMO, the notice breaks the law, as the statutory requirement of a month before issue has not been complied with.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 16:32:02 GMT
Has anyone written to John Whittaker himself yet? Oooh, I just found this!: "Up north you've got that fucker John Whittaker of Peel Holdings who is involved in fracking and has previously allowed frackers who were leasing land from him to dump toxic waste into the Manchester ship canal which he (somehow) also owns." From here: www.urban75.net/forums/threads/fracking-the-general-discussion.353276/ (15th comment down from top) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Whittaker_(businessman) "Whittaker hopes the Manchester development will become a Chinese business hub." "The group is also behind MediaCityUK, a development in the northern English city of Salford, Greater Manchester, that will serve as the BBC’s new headquarters." - so paying your TV licence keeps him happy. "PEEL HOLDINGS BEAST EXPOSED IN SALFORD AND LIVERPOOL" "Peel is heavily reliant upon other people's money to fund its enormous ambitions" www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1761 (the comments are good) I'm not sure what you mean by has anyone written to John Whitaker. Do you think his staff are behaving like c**ts without his complete support? He's the worse of the lot. Every penny he's made has been from other people and even with the bgwtr Peel have never put a single penny of their own money in. Even the cycle/walkway was paid for by Europe. £5m they got for that and not a penny of their own. But who got all the contract work and who do you think charged EU and lottery for access to do the work? If the staff won't reply to a simple request for information do you think he's going to if he's in the wrong?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 21:20:52 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 ! CaRT have asked me for all the legislation, which erivers has been kind enough to allow me to pass on. They say it also puts the discussions with Peel in a different light. I have suggested that CaRT make the complaint as it will give more weight and will also show Peel that CaRT can and will stand up to them. Well if they're forced hard enough to that is What I need now is help to write the formal letter to the police. If CaRT don't act quickly enough. I think they are all aware now that I'm not prepared to let this drag on and on. If we're going to get some real money out of them though we need more victims. I wonder if the police will give it an operation name? Suggestions please
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 27, 2017 22:27:15 GMT
Some may have seen in the other thread that peel have acknowledged that the only way for them to prove they have authority to charge is to test that authority in court. I believe the grounds they have to insist on a toll are very shaky.
But what's interesting me now is. If they took me to court for not paying a toll, what toll am I not paying?
They have no chance at all of charging for return journey as even the original agreement specifically exempts charge for that. For being on the canal at all? Well then they have to charge everyone. Because all the legislation says tolls have to be equal For being a naughty boy.....well we all know that.
And in the bull shit they send out to their own boaters they again cite but don't quote the elusive 61 by laws to insist on a license. There's no mention of s52 there and just for good measure there's no mention of a pleasure boat license in the 61 by laws. But hey this is Peel we're talking about they can do anything they want.
Any suggestions on what they'll charge me for and any hints on defence. Apart from insanity coz that's far too easy
|
|