|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 21:16:27 GMT
Does anyone know if The Peel Group or anything to do with Peel, are large donors to CaRT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 16, 2017 0:20:27 GMT
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. A copy of the 7 day notice is needed in order to establish precisely what the originators of the notice were stating as their intentions. We also need to establish if in fact they were intent on levying distress when they were chasing you off the canal, and if that is what was done when they took possession of, or 'removed', the three boats mentioned earlier.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Aug 16, 2017 1:16:58 GMT
I'm at a loss.
Whilst its all very well bemoaning changes to what was only apparently a handshake agreement and being in no way an apologist for Peel Holdings, if they feel that their 'goodwill'(because like it or not that's what it is)is being abused and revenues lost I wouldn't blame them.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 8:45:56 GMT
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. I'm more confused now. With a CRT licence you get 7 consecutive days to make the run along the Bridgewater (it takes two in practice, from end to end; we started at Preston Brook early in the morning, stopped at a pub and a snooze on the boat, overnight Dunham Massey, next morning up early and first stop Stretford Marina, and stopped overnight Astley which is still on the Bridgewater. Next morning onto the L&L near Leigh). 23.12 to 31.12 makes 8 days, and if notice was served on 7.1 that makes another 7 = 15 days in all. So you're allowed 7 days but then you moan when you've been on it for 15 and only then get the fee slapped on you? Look I was given until the 8th by the boss of BCCL because I was broken down and it was christmas so couldn't get help before then. However they are breaking the law they have no right to charge anyone for overstaying or for returning. As was said above it was a handshake agreement NOT! a legally binding contract. So completely unenforceable. As I've already said the new arrangement might be fine for holiday boaters or those passing through. It isn't fine for those of us who live and work here. I'm glad you enjoyed your visit why can't you support me in carrying on my lawful duty. Lawful as in legal not lawful as in made up as I go along?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 11:41:11 GMT
1. Why did the boss of BCCL give you extra time? Did you ask for it? (And if so, then why did you ask as, as you say, they're not entitled to if charge you. So why worry about informing them you're gonna be more than 7 days?) 2. Originally I was supporting you but: a) even the experts are confused as to whether charges can be levied on leisure boats using the Bridgewater, and the legality of the fines. b) I feel the 'handshake gesture' was to allow passage of CRT(only)-licenced boats to jump from the T&M Canal to the L&L/Ashton/Rochdale Canals. If you're constantly up & down the Bridgewater does it seem so unfair for you to get a Bridgewater licence - that money goes into maintenance of the canal. Otherwise who is paying the blokes we saw pulling junk out of the canal? 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. It's not that it's unfair to get a brgwtr license. They can't or couldn't get one. Only boats with a permanent mooring on the bgwtr can have a bgwtr license. BW paid MSCC in full for the use of the water for their boats. Bgwtr boats had no rights on bw water. They were only allowed under the terms of the agreement. Peel have broken that agreement so their boats can't access cart water without a cart license. I'm not a great lover of cart but i'm not having a private company telling them wha they can and can't do.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 16, 2017 13:13:22 GMT
1. Why did the boss of BCCL give you extra time? Did you ask for it? (And if so, then why did you ask as, as you say, they're not entitled to if charge you. So why worry about informing them you're gonna be more than 7 days?) 2. Originally I was supporting you but: a) even the experts are confused as to whether charges can be levied on leisure boats using the Bridgewater, and the legality of the fines. b) I feel the 'handshake gesture' was to allow passage of CRT(only)-licenced boats to jump from the T&M Canal to the L&L/Ashton/Rochdale Canals. If you're constantly up & down the Bridgewater does it seem so unfair for you to get a Bridgewater licence - that money goes into maintenance of the canal. Otherwise who is paying the blokes we saw pulling junk out of the canal? 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. It's not that it's unfair to get a brgwtr license. They can't or couldn't get one. Only boats with a permanent mooring on the bgwtr can have a bgwtr license. BW paid MSCC in full for the use of the water for their boats. Bgwtr boats had no rights on bw water. They were only allowed under the terms of the agreement. Peel have broken that agreement so their boats can't access cart water without a cart license. I'm not a great lover of cart but i'm not having a private company telling them wha they can and can't do. I think you or someone needs to find the paperwork from when bw paid the Bridgewater for letting their licenced boats have access. this will determine what's what. so is the crux of it that the Bridgewater do not have any boats ccing and that's what you want to do.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Aug 16, 2017 13:14:48 GMT
Gigoguy,
I've replied to your message re. levying distress. This is a subject of interest to and potentially affecting many boaters, so let's have everything from now on posted up in the relevant thread, for everyone's perusal and benefit. You need have no fear of repercussions from publishing accounts of actions/conduct, communications, and/or copies of notices from outfits such as Peel in threads for everyone to see.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 13:41:40 GMT
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. A copy of the 7 day notice is needed in order to establish precisely what the originators of the notice were stating as their intentions. We also need to establish if in fact they were intent on levying distress when they were chasing you off the canal, and if that is what was done when they took possession of, or 'removed', the three boats mentioned earlier. I've just had a call from the owner of one of the boats taken off the Bridgewater. He said he has had nothing in writing regarding removal of his boat. All he has ever had is a license application form. That was sent to his home address 18 months ago. So they have contact details for him. He said when he called BCCL and spoke to Peter Parkinson (Boss) Peter didn't know where the boat was or even that it had been removed. He thinks there might have been an MSC sec 9 order on it but he doesn't know. The first he knew was when a boater phoned him and told him his boat had been removed by BCCL. The section 9 notice only ever cites the msc act it does not quote it. It is always signed by the head of bccl and never by a court officer. The one posted on my boat had the date it was posted but not the date I arrived on the canal. The notice says that the boat will be removed to another place and held until the removal and storage fee are paid along with the license. Failure to pay will result in the boat being sold or broken and the sum recovered through the court. On the paying for a license. It is mandatory to have a bridgewater home mooring to apply for a bridgewater license. So how can they charge it if their own regulations don't allow it? I will post a copy of the notice I received later
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 14:14:21 GMT
(snip) On the paying for a license. It is mandatory to have a bridgewater home mooring to apply for a bridgewater license. So how can they charge it if their own regulations don't allow it? I will post a copy of the notice I received later 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.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 16, 2017 15:33:25 GMT
I've just perused their licencing conditions and having a hone isent one of them.
I do believe you when you say that it's the case but can they enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 15:44:32 GMT
(snip) On the paying for a license. It is mandatory to have a bridgewater home mooring to apply for a bridgewater license. So how can they charge it if their own regulations don't allow it? I will post a copy of the notice I received later 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
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 15:49:30 GMT
It's not that it's unfair to get a brgwtr license. They can't or couldn't get one. Only boats with a permanent mooring on the bgwtr can have a bgwtr license. BW paid MSCC in full for the use of the water for their boats. Bgwtr boats had no rights on bw water. They were only allowed under the terms of the agreement. Peel have broken that agreement so their boats can't access cart water without a cart license.I'm not a great lover of cart but i'm not having a private company telling them wha they can and can't do. Yellow: I did not know that. Red: I did not know that either. I thought Bridgewater-licenced boats could go onto CRT waters for 7 consecutive days, the same as CRT boats could be on Bridgewater territory for 7 consecutive days. Since when have these changes occurred? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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. THESE REMAIN UNANSWERED.For goodness sake how many times do I have to say this? The reciprocal agrement was set up solely to allow bridgewater boats freedom to use BW water for a period of 7 consecutive days. No return within 28 days. That was the agreement. Bgwtr boats only have access to CaRT water as a result of that agreement. What don't you understand it can't be any simpler. Peel have said it is now the other way round and have started charging cart boats for a return passage. £40 to go back. So you can imagine how many holiday boaters are noww saying they won't go on at all. I'm sorry if you don't understand but it can't be made any more easy to understand. Peel are breaking the law by asking for the toll in the first place. Plain and simple. It's illegal they must stop doing it.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 16:07:35 GMT
I've got the picture of the notice but don't know how to post it. It won't copy and paste. Can anyone help?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 16, 2017 16:16:15 GMT
[quote author=" gigoguy" The reciprocal agrement was set up solely to allow bridgewater boats freedom to use BW water for a period of 7 consecutive days. No return within 28 days. That was the agreement. Bgwtr boats only have access to CaRT water as a result of that agreement. [/quote] to be fair that's the first time you have said it that way. but I thought you said it was just a handshake agreement with no legal basis. I've said it before, I f money was exchanged then there will be details. I would expect bw to have a signed agreement allowing bw/crt boats full transition along the Bridgewater.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 16, 2017 16:17:41 GMT
I've got the picture of the notice but don't know how to post it. It won't copy and paste. Can anyone help? you will have to host the picture elsewhere as there is no space for storing pictures on TB
|
|