|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 13, 2017 20:26:02 GMT
Anyone who has visited The Bridgewater Canal and been charged a return toll or over stay charge can now claim a full refund.
email The Bridgewater Canal Company (Bridgewatercanal@peel.co.uk) and tell them that under
'Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894'
"25. Nothing in this schedule shall apply to pleasure boats or affect the tolls Schedule
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."
with the marginal note - "Schedule not apply to pleasure boats"
And therefor you demand a full refund. You can also ask for interest but I don't know how you'll get on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 19:37:19 GMT
I take it from the lack of responses, nobody on here has been charged or paid for any Bridgewater licence?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 14, 2017 22:08:35 GMT
I take it from the lack of responses, nobody on here has been charged or paid for any Bridgewater licence? Rog Maybe or maybe they are just using the information, because that's all it was. I don't like bully's and I don't like thieves. And Peel Holdings are both. Not only with the Bridgewater but in everything they do and everything they stand for. They care about 2 things. Money and land, nothing else. And they'd sell each other down the river for a pat on the head from Whitaker so they couldn't give a tuppenny feck for anyone else. The boaters that have been preyed on intimidated, harassed and put in real physical danger. Are the most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. Most of who couldn't open a laptop or turn a computer on, never mind find a newsgroup. Sounds to me like you'd be better off in the other place?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2017 22:17:22 GMT
The other place?
I'm sorry, it's obviously my lack of understanding, but are you having a pop at me for some reason?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 22:33:19 GMT
Anyone who has visited The Bridgewater Canal and been charged a return toll or over stay charge can now claim a full refund. email The Bridgewater Canal Company (Bridgewatercanal@peel.co.uk) and tell them that under 'Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894' (snip) And therefor you demand a full refund. You can also ask for interest but I don't know how you'll get on. That doesn't really follow: The fact that the schedule of charges in the 1894 Act doesn't apply to pleasure boats doesn't mean that pleasure boats can't be charged under other legislation. (of which there is LOTS!)
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 14, 2017 22:45:20 GMT
Anyone who has visited The Bridgewater Canal and been charged a return toll or over stay charge can now claim a full refund. email The Bridgewater Canal Company (Bridgewatercanal@peel.co.uk) and tell them that under 'Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894' (snip) And therefor you demand a full refund. You can also ask for interest but I don't know how you'll get on. That doesn't really follow: The fact that the schedule of charges in the 1894 Act doesn't apply to pleasure boats doesn't mean that pleasure boats can't be charged under other legislation. (of which there is LOTS!) Well show me, because Peel can't Show
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 14, 2017 22:49:35 GMT
The other place? I'm sorry, it's obviously my lack of understanding, but are you having a pop at me for some reason? Rog Heaven forbid Rog
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Aug 14, 2017 22:54:22 GMT
Perhaps if you explained exactly what the issues are, instead of your incessant rantings, people would pay more attention to your plight!
if these vulnerable boaters are being harassed and driven to the point of breakdown over a £40 charge (which is all I can glean from your ramblings) then wow, its hardly going to bring the world to an end
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 14, 2017 23:21:55 GMT
I take it from the lack of responses, nobody on here has been charged or paid for any Bridgewater licence? Rog from reading many a thread about sonny. I asked the hire people last time what would happen if the boat had already been on the bw in the previous month. They said they automatically get charged for a licence if the boat is spotted twice in a month.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 14, 2017 23:40:52 GMT
Well show me, because Peel can't Show OK, I'll give it a go ... Sub section 3 is similar to 43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 in that it refers to "an enactment". This, in my opinion, has to be a specific enactment, and not merely the absence of one. The fact that there exists an enactment which does not apply to pleasure boats is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 15, 2017 5:05:54 GMT
Sub section 3 is similar to 43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 in that it refers to "an enactment". This, in my opinion, has to be a specific enactment, and not merely the absence of one. The fact that there exists an enactment which does not apply to pleasure boats is irrelevant. I wonder whether you may not be slightly missing the point? Of course there must be something in a specific enactment; it is the absence within any such enactment of any provision for charges that matters. The wording is indeed similar to s.43 of the 1962 Transport Act, and the same principle applies – unless one of the many specific prior enactments expressly empowers the making of a charge relating to pleasure boats, then any such charge is prohibited. Stourbridge v Wheeley et al applies.: " ‘The canal having been made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the rights of the plaintiffs are derived entirely from that Act. This, like many other cases, is a bargain between a company of adventurers and the public, the terms of which are expressed in the statute; and the rule of construction in all such cases is now fully established to be this, – that ambiguity in the terms of the contract must operate against the adventurers, and in favour of the public; and the plaintiffs can claim nothing which is not clearly given to them by the Act.’ Perhaps one of the Acts does provide for pleasure boat charges, but unless it does, the effect of the 2012 Order is the continued prohibition of such charges. Not having read through all of them, I am in no position to say what the case is, but erivers has listed all such applicable enactments elsewhere, and claims to have found no such provision. The only references to pleasure boat charges on the Bridgewater that I have read, expressly provide for freedom from charges, which rather emphasises the impact of section 7(3). The serious caveat here of course, is that if it came before the judiciary in their present frame of mind, they would doubtless be eager to demonstrate the extent of their growing freedom of discretion, and apply that in the cause of promoting private enterprise. To my knowledge, the last time Stourbridge v Wheeley was applied to any effect in modern times, was 1997. Since then, the principle has been given the nod only, while applying an over-riding discretionary finding, and latterly being ignored altogether.
|
|
|
Post by broccobanks on Aug 15, 2017 6:05:33 GMT
It seems simple... S7 (1) of the 2012 order provides for charges to be raised; s7(3) prohibits charges being raised that are otherwise provided by for in prior enactment, or law.
So, charges can be applied to pleasure craft, as those charges are eexcluded from the remit of the 1894 schedule of tolls, which is solely aimed at commercial traffic.
If only all these fine minds dedicated to avoiding paying CaRT were to apply their skill to improving the fabric of the canals and the lot of all boaters!
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 15, 2017 7:14:12 GMT
It seems simple... S7 (1) of the 2012 order provides for charges to be raised; s7(3) prohibits charges being raised that are otherwise provided by for in prior enactment, or law. So, charges can be applied to pleasure craft, as those charges are eexcluded from the remit of the 1894 schedule of tolls, which is solely aimed at commercial traffic. If only all these fine minds dedicated to avoiding paying CaRT were to apply their skill to improving the fabric of the canals and the lot of all boaters! But, with all due respect, are you not choosing to selectively disregard the very first clause of Section 7 (1) which says "On and after the transfer date the Company in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal ....." I feel that most of the "fine minds" to which you refer are more concerned that our navigation authorities (all of them) operate only in accordance with the law and that the present mess is sorted. With the complete lack of will and interest by government in ensuring that, boaters are compelled to fend for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 15, 2017 7:18:34 GMT
And I don't think anyone gives too much of a toss as there are so very few boats up in that part of the world. "And I don't think anyone gives too much of a toss as there are so very few boats up in that part of the world."The people who fought so hard to save the canal system for your enjoyment, when your statement applied to most of it, would be disgusted with your words.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 15, 2017 7:30:44 GMT
Thank you for the explanation and I apologise for snapping at your remark.
|
|