|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 9:26:13 GMT
IWA have asked every boater to write to their MP to help protect the first commercial canal in the country. Without The Bridgewater there would be no other canals. It is of outstanding historic significance. It is also on one of the most popular canal rings in the country and an essential waterway to cross the country s/n or n/s without a 200 mile detour. Peel Holdings, who now own the canal. Have tried to introduce a toll for using the canal of £40 per transit. This is looking to be unlawful and I have asked them to prove they have any legal authority to do so. As yet they have not sent me anything. I asked CaRT what legal authority Peel have but they said they don't know and I should ask Peel. But CaRT are happy to post on their web site that the toll is now being charged. I don't know why they didn't challenge the toll but I can have a wild guess. If you have paid this toll you might now be due a refund. I suggest you first write to BCCL and ask them to provide you with the legal authority or to return your payment. In the meantime could everyone please amend this letter and send it to your MP www.waterways.org.uk/news/view?id=280You probably won't get a reply from BCCL. So if you don't after a week then write to the director of land and properties at Peel Holdings. I can provide you with her direct email address so please message me if you get no joy from Peter Parkinson
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 15:10:34 GMT
"The Head of Security then told us that the police would not be involved as they (the police) are only allowed onto Peel property when invited!" www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1210"Typical how a grubby company like Peel , stuffed with taxpayer's money , ably assisted by a grubby council , uses bullying anti-union thicko thugs to deter legitimate pickets and strikers . Perhaps we taxpayers should use 'reasonable force ' to stop OUR money being thrown away at anti-union companies like Peel." Well when Cheshire police refused to act on a complaint I made about a member of staff from Peel. I complained to the IPCC and directly to the chief constable. I asked if Cheshire police were knowingly acting as a private security company. I also complained to HMIC and threatened to write to the home secretary if action wasn't taken. The police did then agree to act. They then called me back and said Mr Parkinson from BCCL was 'vague' However they did say that after looking at a number of cases involving BCCL staff they are no longer prepared to act as peacekeepers if BCCL try to possess boats in future. If you don't have an MP to sent the letter to. Then send it to Dr Theresa Coffee at DEFRA. I think we need to make lot of noise about this. And we need to visit the waterway and blatantly refuse to pay for a return journey or staying more than 7 days. I've asked countless times for their legal authority to charge and they have sent nothing. Don't you think if they had any authority they would have sent it by return of email? I am fairly sure that demanding money under false pretences is a criminal offence. If I find they have nothing I'm going to report them to the police again. I don't think it will be the traffic warden....sorry enforcement officer......that gets arrested. It's more likely to be the general manager. As he is the one with ultimate responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 16:09:40 GMT
You're on the right lines but I think you need to calm down and have a list of 'how to go about it'. Do you think a billionaire might be able to bend a few Policemen and Government ministers? The list of how to go about it 1) Complain directly to Peel (done) 2) Complain to official bodies. Secretary of state, police, CaRT, AIWA etc (done) 3) Start a campaign...........Please send the letter, please use the waterway and refuse to pay, please write to Peel and ask for your money back........Like all campaigns it only has any effect if anyone joins in and helps. This is not a rant or a personal vendetta. I think I am calm and I'm fairly level headed in my emails to all concerned. But I can't do it on my own. So if everyone would stop making excuses for why it won't work and actually get involved....who knows? we just might win!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 16:23:00 GMT
I'm sorry but you have lost me already.
I understood that access to the Bridgewater was by a reciprocal arrangement between BW (C&RT) and the Bridgewater Canal Company (Peel Holdings), and was for 7 days only each month. Additional time on that waterway was available on payment.
I am aware that for many years this wasn't enforced, but in recent years boaters are being encouraged to pay for extended stays.
Are you saying that access to the Bridgewater is now being denied without the purchase of a licence from Peel Holdings?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 16:35:47 GMT
I'm sorry but you have lost me already. I understood that access to the Bridgewater was by a reciprocal arrangement between BW (C&RT) and the Bridgewater Canal Company (Peel Holdings), and was for 7 days only each month. Additional time on that waterway was available on payment. I am aware that for many years this wasn't enforced, but in recent years boaters are being encouraged to pay for extended stays. Are you saying that access to the Bridgewater is now being denied without the purchase of a licence from Peel Holdings? Rog Rog I own a piece of forest but I can't build a house on it, I can't hunt on it and I can't put a fence round it and charge people to walk on it. Peel Holdings might own the Bridgewater Canal but it isn't theirs to do with as they want. There is, or rather was, a reciprocal agreement. It was just that an agreement. It was not and never has been an enforceable legal contract. In that agrement it said BW craft could stay on the bridgewater for 7 consecutive days. It did not say no return nor did it say there would be a charge for any longer stay. It allowed Bridgewater boats on BW water for 7 days......NO RETURN within 28 days. They can't come on here not the other way around. It also offered Bridgewater a license concession on a short term BW license of 33 1/3%. Somehow they now get 50% off a year! Yeah stick that in your privatisation bonnet and set light to it. Peel Holdings have no right at all to charge anyone for entering or staying on the canal. The only legislation is the Manchester Ship Canal act 1960. And that says that any vessel left without a valid license for more than one month, can, after one week. have a notice of removal posted. It doesn't even say a valid Bridgewater license. I think valid license means valid BW or now CaRT license. But no one seems to know. In the by laws there is a note that says no charge can be made to craft that are excluded from charge either implied exclusion or specific exclusion. I also think that means CaRT but again there is no clarification. Only Peel seem to know and they wont tell anyone. So I hope I've managed to stop you from being lost?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 21:53:45 GMT
No, sorry for being dim, but you don't seem to have answered my questions.
I can, as a C&RT licence holder visit the Bridgewater for 7 days each month.
Has that changed please?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 12, 2017 23:44:34 GMT
No, sorry for being dim, but you don't seem to have answered my questions. I can, as a C&RT licence holder visit the Bridgewater for 7 days each month. Has that changed please? Rog No Roger. What has changed is that we used to be able to visit it for 7 consecutive days. Then go off and after a day go back on for another 7 days. Now Peel are saying, unilaterally and without the agreement of CaRT. That we are restricted to 7 days no return within 28. That was not the agreement. So what has changed is nothing, as far as I'm concerned. The agreement says 7 consecutive days. End of...... Now I was moored in Northwich and I needed to go to Leigh. That takes me about 10 hours. When I want to go back again because I've finished the job I was doing and want to go home. I have 4 options. 1) Wait 28 days 2) Travel 150 miles and 200 locks and work my arse off for 17 days 3) Pay Peel Holdings £40 4) Tell them to F..k right off they have no right to charge me Which option would you choose?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 8:44:32 GMT
Thank you, I understand now.
Have they started to employ enforcement officers now to implement this new fee structure too?
I have not been on the Bridgewater for two years.
When last there we visited Liverpool, and on our return a week later we visited Castlefield basin, to go into Manchester for a few days.
We did not encounter any difficulties, and did not meet or see any enforcement.
I take it this is a new initiative.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 13, 2017 13:41:33 GMT
He's called Sonny Smith, "customer engagement skills" of a bull elephant in must. Not met him personally, read plenty, only his mother loves him and she could be jiving too.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2017 14:30:12 GMT
I thought it might help if we knew what we were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Aug 13, 2017 14:36:41 GMT
"I had that Daft Vader in the back of me cab once, Guv, nice fella, gave me a tip (on how to blow up planets)."
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 10:35:32 GMT
No Roger. What has changed is that we used to be able to visit it for 7 consecutive days. Then go off and after a day go back on for another 7 days. Now Peel are saying, unilaterally and without the agreement of CaRT. That we are restricted to 7 days no return within 28. That was not the agreement. So what has changed is nothing, as far as I'm concerned. The agreement says 7 consecutive days. End of...... Now I was moored in Northwich and I needed to go to Leigh. That takes me about 10 hours. When I want to go back again because I've finished the job I was doing and want to go home. I have 4 options. 1) Wait 28 days 2) Travel 150 miles and 200 locks and work my arse off for 17 days 3) Pay Peel Holdings £40 4) Tell them to F..k right off they have no right to charge me Which option would you choose? The bit I've put in bold is probably the reason Peel are acting as they are, with too many boats adopting that cruising pattern and Peel feeling that if a boat spends most of its time on the Bridgewater, it should have a Bridgewater licence, a stance with which more than a few Bridgewater licence holders agree with. More than one Bridgewater licence holder was under the impression that some boats with this cruising pattern did not have a CaRT licence either, and used the Bridgewater to escape CaRT enforcement. (Says he picking his words carefully! ) As with CaRT's attempts to deal with similar problems, there is collateral damage, with "innocent" boats getting caught in the crossfire, and dubious legal tactics being employed. Option 4, although I'd be surprised if Sonny noticed us on both transits!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 14, 2017 17:07:41 GMT
No Roger. What has changed is that we used to be able to visit it for 7 consecutive days. Then go off and after a day go back on for another 7 days. Now Peel are saying, unilaterally and without the agreement of CaRT. That we are restricted to 7 days no return within 28. That was not the agreement. So what has changed is nothing, as far as I'm concerned. The agreement says 7 consecutive days. End of...... Now I was moored in Northwich and I needed to go to Leigh. That takes me about 10 hours. When I want to go back again because I've finished the job I was doing and want to go home. I have 4 options. 1) Wait 28 days 2) Travel 150 miles and 200 locks and work my arse off for 17 days 3) Pay Peel Holdings £40 4) Tell them to F..k right off they have no right to charge me Which option would you choose? The bit I've put in bold is probably the reason Peel are acting as they are, with too many boats adopting that cruising pattern and Peel feeling that if a boat spends most of its time on the Bridgewater, it should have a Bridgewater licence, a stance with which more than a few Bridgewater licence holders agree with. More than one Bridgewater licence holder was under the impression that some boats with this cruising pattern did not have a CaRT licence either, and used the Bridgewater to escape CaRT enforcement. (Says he picking his words carefully! ) As with CaRT's attempts to deal with similar problems, there is collateral damage, with "innocent" boats getting caught in the crossfire, and dubious legal tactics being employed. Option 4, although I'd be surprised if Sonny noticed us on both transits! spot on! I saw several scruffy boats moored on the CART side of the Castlefield and Leigh borders when I went through last year. I would just go straight through and hope not to get spotted. Don't moor anywhere obvious if you need 2 days. The main problem it is causing for boaters is that it's not possible to spread the seven days over a month, to enable a return journey, e.g. Rochdale to liverpool or the river weaver. That would styme the rat boats and pisstakers but allow for normal travel through.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 14, 2017 18:57:53 GMT
You guys really should try to stop yourselves associating scruffy boats with piss taking freeloading. In the marina I'm parked in there are plenty and they aren't taking any liberties.
I have also just bought a very scruffy (outside) boat and I'm not a freeloading piss taker either.
All you do by expressing your prejudices in this way is make yourselves look like offended of Basingstoke snobs, which I hope you are not.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 14, 2017 19:03:22 GMT
You guys really should try to stop yourselves associating scruffy boats with piss taking freeloading. In the marina I'm parked in there are plenty and they aren't taking any liberties. I have also just bought a very scruffy (outside) boat and I'm not a freeloading piss taker either. All you do by expressing your prejudices in this way is make yourselves look like offended of Basingstoke snobs, which I hope you are not. whilst I agree with you, when we left castlefield up the Rochdale. one or two locks up were two boats. they had obviously not moved in a very long time. I won't comment on their appearance. I do remember hearing about them before hand on the other side. a broken down boat comes to mind for some reason. some people have shiny boats and some don't, I don't think you can categorise the type of boater they are because of it.
|
|