Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 7:44:49 GMT
It would appear that what has been proposed as fact (reclaim fees from Peel) is opinion, or interpretation at best and actually the law is unclear and contentious, and will probably require a judicial review to clarify.
In the meantime, the reciprocal arrangement permits 7 days on the Bridgewater as before.
Is that the situation please?
Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 10:02:44 GMT
Please, not another 'on-line petition' about the Bridgewater/Peel Holdings - I am so tired of having to change my Facebook avatar as a protest!! I think you can be a bit 'down' on on-line petitions. Occasionally they work and they at least give people a voice. The first on-line petition I signed was about donkeys on a Devon seafront - the council put the concessions out to tender each year and the winner was someone who had a couple of carousels similar to what you see in many shopping centers (upsurping the family business that had operated there for 'donkeys years') - traditions put at risk just because the council thought it had to accept the highest bid. The petition went global and now the donkeys are back! By popular demand...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 10:55:11 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 11:51:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 15, 2017 11:59:42 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. I know that we differ slightly on the interpretation of Sec.43(2) of the Transport Act 1962 (!), and therefore on 7(3) of the 2012 order. However, I would say that neither requires that the enactment referred to be "prior" (although in the case of the Transport Act it is unlikely to be anything else! ) If is the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894, quoted at the start of the thread, then the fact that it does not apply to pleasure boats does not mean that pleasure boats cannot be charged for, and does not, therefore, expressly provide for freedom from charges. Indeed, the wording of section 25 that it does not affect the charges that the company is authorised to charge "such boats" precludes express freedom from charges. I would suggest that both 7(1) of the 2012 order and The Manchester Ship Canal Harbour Revision Order 2009 provide for charging pleasure boats for using the Bridgewater canal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 12:54:11 GMT
When are you going to the Bridgewater, Rog? Having been down to London this year, Manchester and the north are under discussion for next year. But all the talk on here about the K&A has put that into the mix too. So many choices! Mind you, engine sorted first in January. Rog
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 18:31:22 GMT
Last time we were at Gargrave we had to pop home (good train connections via Leeds) and had the car for a few days.
We walked Pen y ghent and Wernside. Beautiful up there.
A few years ago we did the three peaks, so it was a trip down memory lane.
You see the Leeds and Liverpool is in the pot for next year too now.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 19:08:16 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.See thread legal advice. The explicit exclusion from charge mentioned here are pleasure boats. So not even an implied exemption but a specific one
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 19:19:58 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 I don't see how I can explain it any better. The Bridgewater canal joins The Trent and Mersey to The Rochdale/Ashton through Manchester city centre. And it also connect the Leeds and Liverpool to Manchester and the Trent and Mersey. It's like the M6 of the canal world. Lots of people live and work at either end on the bridgewater and need to be able to cross along it freely. There is an agreement that CaRT boats can use the bridgewater for 7 consecutive days. Then they must leave and can return after a day. So they can get back to where they came from. Peel holdings, who now the bridgewater, have decided that there will be no return within 28 days unless you pay £40. Now that's alright for you holiday boaters but imagine you have to do that 6 or 7 times a year. Or worse still you have a hire company and you have to pay it every week. It's unlawful. Plain and simple unlawful and must be stopped. I couldn't care less if it's privately owned or not. The act of charging pleasure boats is unlawful. Full stop end of. Is that any clearer? It isn't a rant it's a valid point of canal order. Stop stealing money off innocent boaters. Stop it don't fuckin argue just stop it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 19:27:11 GMT
Why not cut all the C&RT reciprocal bollox out and apply for a Bridgewater canal licence if that's where you want to be?
I must be missing something glaringly obvious?
As for using C&RT waters visitors licences are available, we have had to do it in the past, the EA had a reciprocal agreement that quietly got shelved, wasn't much money or effort to bung them a few quid for the short time we wanted to be on C&RT waters.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 15, 2017 19:40:28 GMT
this no return in 28 days is not a new thing and has been running for a year.
I don't quite understand this. are we saying no pleasure boat can be charged, at all?
does this mean every pleasure boat on the bw should be there without paying for a licence/permit.
I see it's only twenty quid if you go straight through in 3 days and if your attending a bona fide festival the fee for the permit is waived if you tell them via crt
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 19:45:52 GMT
That was just an offhand remark - I'm probably 'on your side' but I also see the world in its reality - we saw very few boats on the Bridgewater, it is nothing like the frenzy of the masses passing through Banbury or shovelling themselves up the Llangollen. I do agree with Tony Dunkley's stance and I am a stickler for seeing things done 'properly and legally', so let boaters be disgusted if they don't like me pointing out their failings. Half the people on Thunderboat don't even know where the Bridgewater is, and most narrowboaters are too afraid to venture into the northern canals. You have perhaps missed my many critiscisms of Peel Holdings over the past two years, both here and on Canalworld. I don't know when you went on the bridgewater. But when I bought my first boat in 2012 I bought it on the bridgewater. In Lymm village this time of year there would have been 30-40 boats. Today when I passed through there were 7. Of those 7 only 2 were CaRT. The people who have bridgeater boats are here all the time. They tend not to shop in the village they tend to drive to tesco or one of the towns not far away. A lack of boats is killing the canal, it's closing down businesses and it's putting people out of work. It's having an adverse effect on commercial property prices. And it's having a knock on effect all along the Cheshire Ring. Because people are staying away as a result of the horror stories they are hearing about Sonny Smith and having to pay £40 if you over stay or want t come back. OK fuck em who cares it's not my canal? Well if you let it continue it very soon will be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 20:01:39 GMT
It is clear that you are passionate about the issue.
I assume you are a C&RT licence holder who needs to navigate the Bridgewater regularly. You have my sympathy that this enforcement of the Bridgewater licensing system is now creating difficulties for you.
I suspect the difficulties of retail outlets in Lymm is connected to the general malaise throughout retail around the country, rather than exclusively the work of Peel Holdings.
It is apparent from the legislation being quoted and discussed, that the legality of Peel's charging policy may be contentious, and could be challenged, but the courts are prone to support the establishment.
I suspect many boaters will be happy to transit the Bridgewater, and pay an additional charge should they wish to stay longer. That appears to be the case on many other waterways not covered by C&RT.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 15, 2017 20:37:10 GMT
See thread legal advice. The explicit exclusion from charge mentioned here are pleasure boats. So not even an implied exemption but a specific one I can only repeat what I said earlier : "The fact that the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894, quoted at the start of the thread, does not apply to pleasure boats does not mean that pleasure boats cannot be charged for, and does not, therefore, expressly provide for freedom from charges. The wording of section 25 that it does not affect the charges that the company is authorised to charge "such boats" precludes explicit freedom from charges. I would suggest that both 7(1) of the 2012 order and The Manchester Ship Canal Harbour Revision Order 2009 provide for charging pleasure boats for using the Bridgewater canal."
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 15, 2017 21:07:32 GMT
See thread legal advice. The explicit exclusion from charge mentioned here are pleasure boats. So not even an implied exemption but a specific one I can only repeat what I said earlier : "The fact that the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894, quoted at the start of the thread, does not apply to pleasure boats does not mean that pleasure boats cannot be charged for, and does not, therefore, expressly provide for freedom from charges. The wording of section 25 that it does not affect the charges that the company is authorised to charge "such boats" precludes explicit freedom from charges. I would suggest that both 7(1) of the 2012 order and The Manchester Ship Canal Harbour Revision Order 2009 provide for charging pleasure boats for using the Bridgewater canal." Well I've read Nigel's response and to be honest I agree with him. There is no mention in any act I can see that makes any mention of charging pleasure boats. Also, in the tolls and charges I've seen, apart from the fact that there are no signs on the bridgewater and according to the act there should be. Apart from that, all tolls and charges are for laden weight. I can't find anything for return journeys or empty vessels. Of which there are many on here and the other place. I've had several emails with a higher up in Peel and she keeps telling me I've got to pay and I keep asking for her legal authority. She says she's put my points to her legal team. But only because she finds them interesting and not because they have any baring on whether I pay the toll or not. Which I think is a bit of an odd thing to say. But still no legal authority. So where would you lay your money?
|
|