|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 26, 2017 19:13:37 GMT
A concerted effort could be fun - four hundred CRT-licenced boats to the Bridgewater now, please, and just sit there for... well, as long as you like. It worked on Kinder Scout. Well I've proved the no return fraud is unenforceable. Next I'm going for the 7 day rule. From what I can tell, from the information given to me by erivers, nigel and tony. The 7 day stay rule isn't enforced by Peel or BCCL but by British Waterways as was, so now CaRT as is, I assume? If that's the case then I should get an overstay email from CaRT and not a threat of removal notice from Peel. If I do, then that proves the CaRT claim that the Bridgewater is beyond their jurisdiction, is false. And their inaction amounts to collusion. 'Very disappointed' my arse! Anyone fancy a couple of weeks in Lymm?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 26, 2017 20:47:30 GMT
Well I've proved the no return fraud is unenforceable. I must say Thunderboat's system is a bit wonky - you never know which 'window' you'll be replying in; I've experienced all kinds of combinations. Anyway, what do you mean by 'proved'? You returned within less than 28 days and got a 'see enforcement officer' notice slapped on your boat, and as far as I can make out, you haven't done much about it, despite Peel's office being a stone's throw away. Yes, perhaps they're closed for the weekend, but you could have an agreeable weekend admiring the Trafford centre, and calling in to their head office first thing Monday morning....?
Next I'm going for the 7 day rule. From what I can tell, from the information given to me by erivers, nigel and tony. The 7 day stay rule isn't enforced by Peel or BCCL but by British Waterways as was, so now CaRT as is, I assume? If that's the case then I should get an overstay email from CaRT and not a threat of removal notice from Peel. If I do, then that proves the CaRT claim that the Bridgewater is beyond their jurisdiction, is false. And their inaction amounts to collusion. 'Very disappointed' my arse! Anyone fancy a couple of weeks in Lymm? There's no-one up that way except boats licenced with the Bridgewater, and they are hardly likely to upset those who provide them with moorings, are they? Although I agree with your sentiments and principles (to a degree), I really think you need a 'bigger gun' to bring to the party. A billionaire is hardly likely to feel threatened by a sardine, and may have you on toast for breakfast.A contact notice is not legal authority to charge is it? And as for a billionaire being bothered by me. There are 2 people that run the Bridgewater canal and a higher manager from Peel land and properties as an overseer. They are the ones dealing with the problem not Mr Whitacker. In fact he's probably looking to replace them now for causing the problem in the first place. And why should i go in and see them? What do I want to see them for? They are the ones who have a right to charge me or to remove my boat and scrap or sell it. Surely they need to come and see me, not the other way around. How many threads are there on here about CaRT lies, rivers being closed, canal moorings being reduced etc etc? And saying there are only Bridgewater boats here just shows your ignorance. If you don't know the area you can't comment on boating activity. To you this might not be an important issue but it's the thin end of the wedge. Only it's not so thin anymore it's happening all over the country. CaRT and anyone else that has anything to do with the waterways. Acting illegally and no one doing anything about it. Divide and conquer, always a good tactic and some of us are doing the dividing for them. Not just on the Bridgewater but on a number of issues
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 26, 2017 21:30:02 GMT
It is important to me. I don't like bullies bulldozing over what they claim 'is theirs'. I am on your side but fear you may end up in the Bridgewater with concrete wellies. Billionaires have a lot of clout. Full credit to you if you can pull this one off, I tip my hat to you for your bravado. I would probably come and assist if I were up that way, but I am more of one for storming the Eagle's Nest and confronting anyone who got in my way. Always have a pen and notebook, take names, and watch your back. I think that's a bit paranoid to be honest. I know Peel are ruthless b'stards but Parkinson and co are just idiots and don't have a clue what they are doing. There is obviously a long term plan here and it will involve property and development. And to add to another thread probably gentrification. And to be fair there are parts of the canal that could do with a bit of that. And I'm sure with the right consultation and input from all parties it could well be achieved amicably. Only the idiots they've got in charge at the minute couldn't amicably achieve a piss up in a brewery. And they're so arrogant and sure of themselves they make you want to shit. I don't know if I do or don't want to halt Peel's plans for the waterway because I don't know what they are. But I do want to halt the rampant decline of the Bridgewater. Because believe me, if they get away with this for another year. I doubt there'll be a n/s link this end of the country in five. Or not one you can use without paying. All it needs is a camera at each end. And if you haven't pre paid CaRT will pass them your details. In fact when we've all got to be chipped they won't need a camera just a bar code reader.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 28, 2017 9:31:59 GMT
Peel had a go at flogging some of their land to the Chinese. Did that deal go sour, or will it come to fruition? China is a country that has so much money now that they don't know what to do with it. Finland has considered selling a chunk of south-east Finland to China for them to build one of their industrial complexes. Only when you really know about who has what money and about all their bank transactions can you begin to get an idea. Paranoid? No. I just know that when you come between people and their money they will protect it to the end. In my fantasy world the canals and other waterways would be nationalised and run 'properly and transparently'. They are a huge asset to Britain, the massive task of digging them (workers paid piss-poor wages to do this, by the way, so the current generations are "riding on their backs") has already been done. They have changed the landscape. They should be used. We can zoom into this and look at the details, starting with why Peel won't answer your communications. You were a bit slow there, though, weren't you, being away from the boat whilst someone slapped the notice on it. You could have pretended to walk away but hid behind the bushes and caught that person, demanded to know who sent them, and followed them back to their lair. Two can play cat-&-mouse. Perhaps they were looking at you/your boat the whole time with the CCTV camera and having a chuckle in the control room, watching your every move. For now, we shall have to wait and see... regular updates appreciated! At the start of the year Peel closed the bridgewater for 4 months, they wanted to close it for 6. They said it was to repair vicars hall bridge. After much complaining by cart because the stoppage would have affected all of the festivals from Etruria to Liverpool. They agreed to four months. If you noticed as you came through there is a nice new brick faced bridge at vicars hall. There is also a nice new road and access to what was just derelict ex mining land. That land is to be sold to whoever to build the northern kew gardens. Millions upon millions of public money being spent on Peel projects again. I spoke to the project manager. He told me the previous bridge needed pinning it was sinking but as there was no traffic a simple jack would have been enough. The new bridge he said was over engineered, over priced and over ran by 3 months at least. Because the bridge was manufactured off site and swung into place with a mobile crane. It took one day to remove the old bridge and two days to replace the new one. All the over run was on the new road and footings for the heavy traffic that will now run over the bridge. So yet another Peel lie and yet another Peel/Public con. In the next 5 years Peel will have a toll gate at every entrance to the canal and charge everyone at least £20 to cross. They have a toll gate on Warburton bridge and they pay staff to sit in a booth and take 12p off ever car that crosses. So they'll sure as hell take 20 quid off every boat. Oh that can't do that!......you just watch em. And no one, apart from me, is doing anything to try and stop them. As you know Foxy there's no way back without the bridgewater. There might not be many people that stay any more but I bet there's best part of a thousand boats cross it a year. If not more if you count the locals who are on and off all the time.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 28, 2017 17:33:01 GMT
They are holding the country to ransom, being a major north-south waterway. But then one could say the same of the Dartford Crossing - how much is that raking in every... well... minute! Liars.... or 'being very economical with the truth' ?! Anyway, subject of interest to me. But at least the dart charge is a government charge and they do have legal authority to charge it. It's like the m6 toll road. You can pay to use it or you can use the old road. I spend quite a bit of time in France and pay loads of tolls over there. It pisses me off sometimes but as i said at least if you question them they have legal authority to charge. And fine you for not paying. Peel Holdings have no such legal authority and can't fine you or even pursue a claim through the county court. Because a county court judge would simply ask. 'And where is your legal authority to make this charge' And they couldn't provide any because they HAVEN'T got any. If anyone is up for a bit of 'occupy the bridgewater' They are more than welcome to join me
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 28, 2017 18:07:26 GMT
"As you know Foxy there's no way back without the bridgewater." - everyone can return via Castleford, and then via Hebden Bridge and Rochdale Canal, or Slaithwaite and Huddersfield Narrow Canal (and then, for both of those, Ashton Canal - Peak Forest Canal - Macclesfield Canal). Are you the only one actively engaged in this? I haven't seen any others. It's an interesting case, but then this could have been brought up years ago, Peel Holdings have had the Bridgewater in their pocket a long time. it's bloody 150 miles round you barm cake. It might be ok for you on a jolly but it's not for us who need to do the trip in a day. This only started in 2014 when Parkinson and Morrissey were appointed. Before that there was no charge for return passage and it was BW's responsibility to get boats off after a week, if they stayed. Which they tended not to anyway. They revoked your BW license. Peel never have had any authority to remove boats or to charge pleasure boats. The only charges ever made were for working boats. I've been chatting to a bloke here in Leigh that worked on the canals all his life. He paid a toll for the bridgewater for his haulage boat but never for his house/pleasure boat. There's no other way to put it. They are breaking the law and no one gives a fuck. If I put a couple of heavy's outside my boat and tried to charge 20 quid for everyone that passed by, plod would be on me like a shot. Peel however can do what they like. No foxy no one has offered to join me. Just like no one ever offers to do anything unless it affects them personally. Well by the time this affects them personally it will be too late. That's not going to stop me trying to bring them to task, I couldn't give a toss if I do it on my own or half the boating population joins in. At least if they do get their own way. I can say I did my bit to try to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 28, 2017 21:29:54 GMT
How about reporting them to the Police? For harrassment, if nothing else? What happened about the notice slapped on your boat? -but then I remember now it's Bank Holiday in Britain today, Peel's office closed probably. As I said, anything written about what they're up to on that wasteland? What are they building? I agree with you - but as I said earlier, no-one here cares a jot as they're all on their boats down south. Bringing everyone's attention to this subject deserves credit. Have CRT said anything about this? If not, why not, and perhaps they should be chased up? Read previous posts you'll find all the answers there........But I have reported them to the police. They've passed it to tradings standards, who might look into it. I've reported it to cart....to richard parry no less. He's passed it legals, who are on holiday. I've reported it to IWA who haven't responded recently. Towpath think it might be sub judice if the police get involved. Everybody and I man everybody. Is running scared because they don't know what to do. CaRT want to privatise as many canals as they can. And the Bridgewater is a great place to start. And Peel are so strong and so powerful in the north west that they can virtually do what they want. As for the land. That's all Peel care about. Land and money, absolutely nothing else. You can bet your life they've not only got something planned for the land. But if it's one of their own projects they'll already have the government funding to pay for it. I've heard a northern kew gardens. Planning permission, what's that? Peel write their own planning permission they don't apply for it like regular human beings. But what people fail to realise is that Peel Holdings is just a group of people. Divide and conquer, get each department fighting amongst themselves blaming each other for the cock ups. Because there are loads and loads. It's just only a few are trying to highlight them. But I'm making quite an impact on my own and I've already got them at each others throats. It won't be long before one drops the other in the shit. Because they'd each of em sell their grannies for pat on the head from whitacker. Who couldn't give a toss about any of them. Let's see who's left standing after this carbuncle bursts. There are only 3 people that run the bridgewater and there isn't a brain cell between them. A bit of actual turn up an show solidarity support wouldn't go amiss. But to be honest they know they're beat. It's just how long are they going to take to die?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Oct 1, 2017 15:24:57 GMT
It was suggested in another thread that I should start a campaign if I feel so strongly about the Bridgewater canal. Well I though I had started a campaign in this thread. So to recap. If anyone feels that what Peel holdings are doing by charging a toll for a return journey within 28 days, charging for a stay longer than 7 days, posting notices that are unlawful and legally unenforceable, impounding boats under legislation that does not exist. All without legal authority, is wrong. The please help by at least using the link and sending the letter to your MP www.waterways.org.uk/news/view?id=280Thank you all for your anticipated support
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Oct 1, 2017 15:49:48 GMT
Can I just try to get this clear in my own mind? It was 7 days one way, and no return within 28 days. You now say CRT-registered boats are allowed 1 month (28 days?) on the Bridgewater. Why 1 month? You also say Peel Holdings have no right to even charge for use of the Bridgewater, so why even 1 month? Why even such a limit? Also the return period. Let's say (for argument's sake) it is still 7 days one way.... what should the no-return-by period be? If there was none, then the 7-day or 1-month period makes no sense at all, 'cos after 7 days (or a month) you can just turn round and be there again for 7 days (or a month). It seems to me now, that you are saying Peel Holdings have no right to charge for use of the Bridgewater Canal at all - apart from moorings they provide. Is that correct? That is correct. Look if you park your car in a restricted area you get a ticket or you get towed away. If you get a ticket and you don't pay they can take your car off you and sell it or break it. But if you are objecting to the charge they can only hold it until a court makes a decision. If you're right they give it you back and pay you compo. If they win the sell or scrap it. If it is causing an obstruction or is parked illegally or is abandoned they can take it to a compound. If after however long they give you you've still not collected they can again dispose of it. If you turn up at the compound with the 150 quid or whatever they screw you for, within the allowed period, they've got to give you the car back. If you're getting into your car and warden comes along he can't send for a police BMW to chase you off the road or out of the county. Peel holdings can only charge for what they can charge. And they can't charge pleasure boats anything. It's like a blue badge in Tescos. So long as you're otherwise legal they can't touch.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Oct 1, 2017 16:13:36 GMT
I need to be careful what I disclose i have got on here, spies you know, but I've got more than enough and they know it only too well. Trading standards will be knocking on their door this week and who knows? maybe the police next. If they are legal just take me to County Court for not paying a return within 28 days toll. Or stop defrauding people, giving false and misleading information and return to the original reciprocal agreement until or unless a new one is formalised.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 17:47:23 GMT
Herewith my own hasty synopsis of the relevant Acts affecting PRN & pleasure boat charges on the Bridgewater Canal. Question marks denote legislation I do not have copies of.
1759 Bridgewater Canal Act s.29 - 2 interpretations possible respecting PRN: no mention of pleasure boats, but ambiguity could potentially support use of any boat at all.
1760 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1762 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1766 Bridgewater Canal Act Riparian owner/occupiers to have free use of pleasure boats without charge, so long as no lock passage without consent. Note: if riparians granted free use of pleasure boats, implication is that others have not been.
1794 Bridgewater Canal Act s.73 Riparian boats may pass locks if either: a) consent of company, or b) pay tonnage equal to 6 tons. Note: combining this section with previous, would suggest that ‘consent’ in 1766 was an ex-gratia one, and that henceforward an alternative to such consent was payment of a fixed charge. It might seem from this that even if consent for something was needed from the company, they were free to give or refuse that consent, but not on the basis of charging for that consent – perhaps.
1795 Bridgewater Canal Act ?
1847 Harbour Clauses Act ?
1870 Bridgewater Rules - nothing relevant
1885 Manchester Shipping Canal Act Interpretation: “vessels” includes “craft of every class & description however propelled.” s.62 provides that any riparian owner/occupier may construct wharves, landing places, side basins and lay-byes with suitable access to the canal, free of wharfage rates. s.128 provides that the company may demand dues in respect of every vessel specified in 3rd schedule to the Act on entering or leaving the canal [relating only to commercial craft]. s.129 provides for charges for carriage of both passengers & cargo s.130 provides that “light or empty vessels shall be at liberty to pass one way between the extreme points before mentioned or any intermediate places toll free.” s.138 provides that charges may be made for any vessel using the ‘communications’ to be built at Barton, unless repairs interrupt passage. s.139 provides that use of the canal for conveying fertiliser for field within a mile of the canal is free. s.149 provides that the company may licence lighters s.196/7 provide that the company may licence steam powered tugs for towing s.196 added byelaw powers – for regulating use of wharves, landing places, quays, basins and lay byes, but not private ones; for regulating speed limits of steam-powered vessels of all sorts; for regulating the T&C’s and charges for the grant of any licences as aforementioned; s.213 provides that unless expressly provided in this 1885 Act, nothing is to extend to prejudicially affect the provisions of the Bridgewater & etc Canal Acts Note: there are 2 classes of commercial vessel that they get power to licence here [which is later extended to other classes] but not including pleasure boats.
1886 MSC Act ?
1887 MSC Act?
1888 MSC (additional lands) Act
1888 MSC (alteration of works) Act
1888 Railway and Canal Traffic Act - qualifies MSC under Transport Act 1962 s.52.
1890 MSC (tidal openings & etc) Act
1890 MSC Act - s.19 extension of Byelaw powers – nothing relevant
1891 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1893 Manchester Corporation (ship canal) Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC (additional capital) Act - nothing relevant
1893 MSC (surplus lands) Act - nothing relevant
1894 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1894 Canal Rates Bridgewater & etc Act General Schedule applicable to all listed canals s.7(viii) expressly excludes charges for the boat occupation of any private wharf on the canal, in any private lay-by or in any private canal basin. Also provides for free overnight mooring at any Company berth, and for any reasonable time when not at work [providing no impediment to navigation or the facility]. Amended later in 1960. s.25 provides that “nothing in this schedule shall apply to pleasure boats or affect the tolls or charges (if any) which the Company are authorised to make in respect of such boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament”. Note: the company were authorised by the 1794 Act to charge for pleasure boats to pass through a lock
Special section Applicable Only to the Bridgewater Canals s.(i) provides that any empty boat passing through one or more locks, or entering the canal from another navigation, may be charged 5 shillings [unless on a return passage having paid toll on cargo carried Note 1: on its own, this could be interpreted as applying to any pleasure boat - which will fit the definition of an empty boat so far as carriage of cargo is concerned. The query would arise: does the special section come under the s.25 exemption of the general section? It seems to me that it must, but it is possibly arguable, demanding more attention. IF it could be said to apply to pleasure boats, then a charge for entering or leaving the canal from or to an adjoining navigation is authorised. It would not affect the freedoms of riparian boats, so long as they remained at private berths, and when leaving those to navigate did not either use a lock or leave the canal. Note 2: – on reading the 1960 Act, it is apparent that the special section did not include pleasure boats, hence the remedy of the additional clause.
1896 MSC Act - extension of byelaw powers for Bridgewater – nothing relevant
1897 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1900 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1904 (finances) Act - nothing relevant
1907 (various powers) Act - nothing relevant
1907 MSC (Bridgewater) Act – nothing relevant
1911 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1912 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1913 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1919 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1920 MSC Act - increase of Bridgewater rates; nothing relevant
1924 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1925 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1926 MSC (general powers) Act - nothing relevant
1926 MSC (staff superannuation) Act - nothing relevant
1928 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1933 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1936 MSC Act - s.32 removal of sunk stranded or abandoned vessels – not relevant
1945 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1947 Transport Act - nothing relevant
1949 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1950 MSC Act s.18 increase Bridgewater rates; s.25 abandon Bridgewater lock; undertakings re: other locks [repealed 1975]
1952 MSC Act - increases Bridgewater rates
1954 Transport Charges &etc (miscellaneous provisions) Act – applied national charges schemes to private undertakings – nothing relevant – abolished in 1962
1956 MSC Act - ?
1960 MSC Act s.3 - application of Harbour Clauses Act 1847 – not relevant s.4 – additional canal tolls s.6 – company can charge any boat at all that remains in Runcorn Dock, and for use & occupation of any berth in Runcorn Docks s.6( b ) – extends definition of vessel to special section of the 1894 Rates Act applicable to Bridgewater, to embrace every type of craft, however propelled [hence pleasure boats]. Hence the entry & exit toll now applied to pleasure boats. s.9 – powers of removal of Bridgewater boats left therein without consent Note: consent not required for boats at private property/moorings, but is required for longer than overnight on company premises &/or towpath, for lock passage if not paid for, & for entering and exiting the canal. Schedule 3 – articles to be carried by pleasure craft in the harbour
1961 Byelaws - nothing relevant
1962 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1962 Transport Act - applies s.43(1)( b ) (2) (3) (5) & (6) to the charges of the Bridgewater
1966 MSC Act - nothing relevant
1970 MSC Revision Order - extension of byelaw powers
1975 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1976 MSC (black bear canal) Act - abolished PRN, but nothing relevant to Bridgewater Note: I have not seen the original Act for the waterway affected; if couched in the same terms as the Bridgewater, might affect the interpretation of PRN there.
1983 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1984 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1987 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1990 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
1992 MSC Revision Order - nothing relevant
2012 Bridgewater Canal (Transfer of Undertakings) Order s.4 - affirms existing byelaws, extends byelaw making powers to include registration, T&C’s etc, subject to a penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. s.7 – affirms power to make reasonable charges, though that subject - s.7( c ) - to any prior enactment which “expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.” Note: that last respecting “reasonable” is odd, given the TA 1962 which had specifically removed the need for reasonableness in charges – maybe government were having a change of heart?
Apart from the missing Acts, there will be sections bearing on consent for berthing at private premises which I have skimmed over and which I don’t feel like going back to look for at the moment.
So far as PRN is concerned, it is now irrelevant, given that Parliamentary sanction for transit charges to be levied has been confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 17:49:15 GMT
The situation regarding detention of boats needs to appreciated also; it is far worse than with CaRT!
Boats and any goods may be detained for any sums owing under the Acts – whether for fees, passage toll, moorings etc. The boats are already on the company’s property, so any debt creates an automatic lien such that they can prevent the boat being removed from the canal, even if they do not seize it under s.9.
In the event that a boat owing sums ‘escapes’ the canal, the company can detain anything else of yours – another boat for example, whether that had paid charges or not – and sell it to recover the debt [giving you the remainder of course].
The company is even empowered under 1894 Act to act as bailiffs and to visit whatever premises you may have out of their jurisdiction [should you have escaped that], to take control of goods.
Naturally, The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act will now control how they may go about recovering their sums respecting a detained boat, while the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act will now govern the exercise of their bailiff powers for boats that have left.
The remaining alternative for them of course, is to sue for the debt in court as normal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 17:58:41 GMT
The situation regarding detention of boats needs to appreciated also; it is far worse than with CaRT! Boats and any goods may be detained for any sums owing under the Acts – whether for fees, passage toll, moorings etc. The boats are already on the company’s property, so any debt creates an automatic lien such that they can prevent the boat being removed from the canal, even if they do not seize it under s.9. In the event that a boat owing sums ‘escapes’ the canal, the company can detain anything else of yours – another boat for example, whether that had paid charges or not – and sell it to recover the debt [giving you the remainder of course]. The company is even empowered under 1894 Act to act as bailiffs and to visit whatever premises you may have out of their jurisdiction [should you have escaped that], to take control of goods. Naturally, The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act will now control how they may go about recovering their sums respecting a detained boat, while the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act will now govern the exercise of their bailiff powers for boats that have left. The remaining alternative for them of course, is to sue for the debt in court as normal. So what would you suggest Gigoguy do then?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:11:54 GMT
Full marks to gigoguy for highlighting the problem and provoking the research that got some at least of the answers - the Peel lawyers came up with nothing but bullshit, and anyone relying on the paucity of their responses could have found themselves in deep trouble, if Peel wanted to make an issue of it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 15, 2017 18:13:49 GMT
So what would you suggest Gigoguy do then? Carry on investigating for now. And carry on campaigning for CaRT to get behind their boaters for a change, to encourage a return to the historic 'gentleman's agreement'.
|
|