Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 19:16:33 GMT
I believe the discussion was focussed on classifying the style of boating through the Bridgewater, rather than classifying the boaters.
The issue is of particular interest, as we love a visit to Manchester every few years.
The suggestion of the opening posts was that, without payment this may not be as easy in the future.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 14, 2017 19:17:47 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! Look The Bridgewater Canal is THE main way through from North South/South North. It's like saying you can travel north up the M6 but can't come back again for 28 days. The point is they have NO right to charge. None, None, None. It is against the law so they shouldn't do it, Regardless of whether the nazi traffic warden sees you or not. And as for Bridgewater boats please don't get me started. They race up and down the T&M and the L&L. and think they own every canal. They shouldn't even be on CaRT water. The reciprocal agreement was to allow Bridgeawater boats on BW water in the first place. Not the other way around. Peel have no right to restrict passage of CaRT boats in any way shape or form. And if they have a problem with boaters overstaying then use the act of parliament that allows them to deal with it. Do not make up rules as you go along. If boats don't have a valid CaRT license then they can be removed from the water legally. There are hundreds of people suffering as a result of this action, countless business in trouble, peoples holidays being ruined and vulnerable people threatened and intimidated by a bully with no legal right to do what he is doing.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 21:25:49 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. I trust I'm not one of "You guys". I don't recall saying anything about appearance.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Aug 14, 2017 21:32:01 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. I trust I'm not one of "You guys". I don't recall saying anything about appearance. Can't be you then. 👍 Not just thread it's been a bit of a theme today.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 22:15:16 GMT
1)Look The Bridgewater Canal is THE main way through from North South/South North. It's like saying you can travel north up the M6 but can't come back again for 28 days.
2)The point is they have NO right to charge. None, None, None. It is against the law so they shouldn't do it, Regardless of whether the nazi traffic warden sees you or not.
3)And as for Bridgewater boats please don't get me started. They race up and down the T&M and the L&L. and think they own every canal. They shouldn't even be on CaRT water. The reciprocal agreement was to allow Bridgeawater boats on BW water in the first place. Not the other way around. 4)Peel have no right to restrict passage of CaRT boats in any way shape or form. And if they have a problem with boaters overstaying then use the act of parliament that allows them to deal with it. Do not make up rules as you go along. 5)If boats don't have a valid CaRT license then they can be removed from the water legally. 6)There are hundreds of people suffering as a result of this action, countless business in trouble, peoples holidays being ruined and vulnerable people threatened and intimidated by a bully with no legal right to do what he is doing. 1) I agree
2) I haven't trawled through all the legislation (much most of it unavailable on uk.legislation), and would hesitate to state this categorically. They could, like other canal authorities , insist that ALL boats using their canal held one of their licences.3) The conduct of Bridgewater licensed boats on CaRT water is irrelevant, and would be a separate issue. (Can't say I've noticed a problem!)
4) See 2), plus Which Act of Parliament would that be? I am not the one making up rules as I go along, although Peel Holdings may be.
5) Not by the Bridgewater Canal Company, although they could remove it for not having a Bridgewater licence. 6) I agree, but what is the cause of the problem in the first place? Most entities avoid confrontation, unless they have something to gain. Peel's motives can hardly be financial : £40 from boats passing through twice in a month is not going to affect their bank balance, except possibly negatively when the cost of recording and collection is taken into account. I suggest that their motive is to deal with a perceived problem; that of CaRT boats over using the reciprocal agreement.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 14, 2017 22:30:57 GMT
is what the BW doing any different to say the avon or the basinstoke canal.
I would of thought. However I have not seen it that they have the legal entitlement to ensure any boat on their water was licensed by them.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 14, 2017 22:43:53 GMT
1)Look The Bridgewater Canal is THE main way through from North South/South North. It's like saying you can travel north up the M6 but can't come back again for 28 days.
2)The point is they have NO right to charge. None, None, None. It is against the law so they shouldn't do it, Regardless of whether the nazi traffic warden sees you or not.
3)And as for Bridgewater boats please don't get me started. They race up and down the T&M and the L&L. and think they own every canal. They shouldn't even be on CaRT water. The reciprocal agreement was to allow Bridgeawater boats on BW water in the first place. Not the other way around. 4)Peel have no right to restrict passage of CaRT boats in any way shape or form. And if they have a problem with boaters overstaying then use the act of parliament that allows them to deal with it. Do not make up rules as you go along. 5)If boats don't have a valid CaRT license then they can be removed from the water legally. 6)There are hundreds of people suffering as a result of this action, countless business in trouble, peoples holidays being ruined and vulnerable people threatened and intimidated by a bully with no legal right to do what he is doing. 1) I agree
2) I haven't trawled through all the legislation (much most of it unavailable on uk.legislation), and would hesitate to state this categorically. They could, like other canal authorities , insist that ALL boats using their canal held one of their licences.3) The conduct of Bridgewater licensed boats on CaRT water is irrelevant, and would be a separate issue. (Can't say I've noticed a problem!)
4) See 2), plus Which Act of Parliament would that be? I am not the one making up rules as I go along, although Peel Holdings may be.
5) Not by the Bridgewater Canal Company, although they could remove it for not having a Bridgewater licence. 6) I agree, but what is the cause of the problem in the first place? Most entities avoid confrontation, unless they have something to gain. Peel's motives can hardly be financial : £40 from boats passing through twice in a month is not going to affect their bank balance, except possibly negatively when the cost of recording and collection is taken into account. I suggest that their motive is to deal with a perceived problem; that of CaRT boats over using the reciprocal agreement. If you go to the thread 'legal advice' you'll see a post by erivers. He quotes the section and the act that explicitly denies them the right to charge pleasure boats. Now I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't be surprised if that includes charging a pleasure boat license. So maybe the bridgewater boaters would all be entitled to a pay back? Peels financial incentive is not the £40 it's to kill the canal. Then they can come along, like they do everywhere, and buy up all the empty and derelict property for feck all. Then they get huge grants from local authorities and central government to develop it. Trafford centre, Media city, Csstlefield etc etc etc. Shop rents and values all along the canal are dropping like mad. Lymm village has always been used to 30-40 boats every day all through the summer. That number has dropped to 5......fucking 5!!! The post office is now a charity shop, 3 pubs have closed, 2 restaurants closed, 3 banks closed. It's a bloody ghost town. And that's everywhere along the canal. What they want is for it to become an open sewer that no one wants to go near. They don't even respect their own boaters. Moorings are overgrown and unsafe, trees aren't being cut parts of the towpath are just mud. They got £5m from Europe for a walk/cycle way. They did the work to the meter not one single penny of their own money has been used to extend it the mile or so that it still needs. But hey I'm just a nutter who doesn't like paying my dues!
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 14, 2017 23:08:33 GMT
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! If boats don't have a valid CaRT license then they can be removed from the water legally. Not strictly correct - on either C&RT or Peel waters ! Removing boats FROM the water, as opposed to simply 'removing' them to another location, are two distinctly different processes, but it seems to have become commonplace for the terminology to be used interchangeably and for the practice to invariably include the 'from' element. In truth, neither C&RT's, nor the Bridgewater's legislation compels either body to remove vessels FROM the water, and the powers conferred under S.9(1)(b) of the 1960 MSC Act to take possession of, in other words levying distress absent the authority of the Court, preliminary to selling or breaking-up a supposedly abandoned vessel were rescinded under the 2007 TC&E Act - S.62 and Schedule 12. It is important to note that S.9 of the 1960 MSC Act is directed at vessels which are 'left' in any part of the Bridgewater undertaking and NOT to vessels being 'used' in/on any of the specified parts of the waterway/navigation.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 23:50:41 GMT
Not strictly correct - on either C&RT or Peel waters ! Removing boats FROM the water, as opposed to simply 'removing' them to another location, are two distinctly different processes, but it seems to have become commonplace for the terminology to be used interchangeably and for the practice to invariably include the 'from' element. In truth, neither C&RT's, nor the Bridgewater's legislation compels either body to remove vessels FROM the water, and the powers conferred under S.9(1)(b) of the 1960 MSC Act to take possession of, in other words levying distress absent the authority of the Court, preliminary to selling or breaking-up a supposedly abandoned vessel were rescinded under the 2007 TC&E Act - S.62 and Schedule 12. It is important to note that S.9 of the 1960 MSC Act is directed at vessels which are 'left' in any part of the Bridgewater undertaking and NOT to vessels being 'used' in/on any of the specified parts of the waterway/navigation. I apologise for my loosely worded reply a few posts ago!!!!
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 15, 2017 0:02:18 GMT
If you go to the thread 'legal advice' you'll see a post by erivers. He quotes the section and the act that explicitly denies them the right to charge pleasure boats. Now I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't be surprised if that includes charging a pleasure boat license. So maybe the bridgewater boaters would all be entitled to a pay back? (snip) Also quoted by you in "Bridgewater Canal claim back your toll fees" I have responded there, and see no point in cutting and pasting it here as well. Suffice it to say that I have reluctantly concluded that that argument is a loser.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 19:04:53 GMT
If boats don't have a valid CaRT license then they can be removed from the water legally. Not strictly correct - on either C&RT or Peel waters ! Removing boats FROM the water, as opposed to simply 'removing' them to another location, are two distinctly different processes, but it seems to have become commonplace for the terminology to be used interchangeably and for the practice to invariably include the 'from' element. In truth, neither C&RT's, nor the Bridgewater's legislation compels either body to remove vessels FROM the water, and the powers conferred under S.9(1)(b) of the 1960 MSC Act to take possession of, in other words levying distress absent the authority of the Court, preliminary to selling or breaking-up a supposedly abandoned vessel were rescinded under the 2007 TC&E Act - S.62 and Schedule 12. in/on any of the specified parts of the waterway/navigation.It is important to note that S.9 of the 1960 MSC Act is directed at vessels which are 'left' in any part of the Bridgewater undertaking and NOT to vessels being 'used' Good point, I'll add it to the list. On the removing from the water though. From where I am moored I can see 3 boats that have been 'removed from the water' in addition to being taken to another place. Hopefully the wording will help to get them returned to the rightful owners.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 15, 2017 20:46:18 GMT
Not strictly correct - on either C&RT or Peel waters ! Removing boats FROM the water, as opposed to simply 'removing' them to another location, are two distinctly different processes, but it seems to have become commonplace for the terminology to be used interchangeably and for the practice to invariably include the 'from' element. In truth, neither C&RT's, nor the Bridgewater's legislation compels either body to remove vessels FROM the water, and the powers conferred under S.9(1)(b) of the 1960 MSC Act to take possession of, in other words levying distress absent the authority of the Court, preliminary to selling or breaking-up a supposedly abandoned vessel were rescinded under the 2007 TC&E Act - S.62 and Schedule 12. in/on any of the specified parts of the waterway/navigation.It is important to note that S.9 of the 1960 MSC Act is directed at vessels which are 'left' in any part of the Bridgewater undertaking and NOT to vessels being 'used' Good point, I'll add it to the list. On the removing from the water though. From where I am moored I can see 3 boats that have been 'removed from the water' in addition to being taken to another place. Hopefully the wording will help to get them returned to the rightful owners. Do you have a copy of the Notice that was served on the owners of these boats when they were targeted for 'removal' ? The wording of any such documentation could prove useful in determining whether or not Peel have in fact levied distress. If they have done so, then it could be argued that they have have committed criminal offences under the 2007 TC&E Act, . . . it would however, be unarguable that there has been an offence under the oldest piece of legislation still on the books and still in effect - the Statute of Marlborough from 1267, which made a criminal offence of distress outwith the authority of a Court. What actions have the owners of these impounded boats taken, have they been refused access to them, and have they been served with Tort Notices in relation to them ?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 20:50:06 GMT
Good point, I'll add it to the list. On the removing from the water though. From where I am moored I can see 3 boats that have been 'removed from the water' in addition to being taken to another place. Hopefully the wording will help to get them returned to the rightful owners. Do you have a copy of the Notice that was served on the owners of these boats when they were targeted for 'removal' ? The wording of any such documentation could prove useful in determining whether or not Peel have in fact levied distress. If they have done so, then it could be argued that they have have committed criminal offences under the 2007 TC&E Act, . . . it would however, be unarguable that there has been an offence under the oldest piece of legislation still on the books and still in effect - the Statute of Marlborough from 1267, which made a criminal offence of distress outwith the authority of a Court. What actions have the owners of these impounded boats taken, have they been refused access to them, and have they been served with Tort Notices in relation to them ? Well unfortunately one has died since his boat was taken, one I am waiting a call back from and I don't know who owns the other one but I will try and find out.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 15, 2017 21:03:08 GMT
Do you have a copy of the Notice that was served on the owners of these boats when they were targeted for 'removal' ? The wording of any such documentation could prove useful in determining whether or not Peel have in fact levied distress. If they have done so, then it could be argued that they have have committed criminal offences under the 2007 TC&E Act, . . . it would however, be unarguable that there has been an offence under the oldest piece of legislation still on the books and still in effect - the Statute of Marlborough from 1267, which made a criminal offence of distress outwith the authority of a Court. What actions have the owners of these impounded boats taken, have they been refused access to them, and have they been served with Tort Notices in relation to them ? Well unfortunately one has died since his boat was taken, one I am waiting a call back from and I don't know who owns the other one but I will try and find out. I recall, I think, somewhere back in one of these recent threads you mentioned being chased off the Bridgewater by their enforcement orifice and the local plod, . . . . did they issue you with any notices or other paperwork prior to doing this ?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 21:13:13 GMT
Well unfortunately one has died since his boat was taken, one I am waiting a call back from and I don't know who owns the other one but I will try and find out. I recall, I think, somewhere back in one of these recent threads you mentioned being chased off the Bridgewater by their enforcement orifice and the local plod, . . . . did they issue you with any notices or other paperwork prior to doing this ? They issued me with a section 9 msc act 7 day notice and they tried to enforce that notice 8 days later. I arrived on bgwtr on 23/12/15 and notice was served 7/1/16. Less than 3 weeks after I arrived and completely unlawful.
|
|