|
Post by erivers on Aug 15, 2017 21:21:33 GMT
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." Would you care to enlighten us as to exactly which part of "The Manchester Ship Canal Harbour Revision Order 2009" provides for charging pleasure boats for using the Bridgewater Canal? I have it in front of me (along with all the other Bridgewater and MSC legislation) but perhaps my eyesight or imagination is not quite as good as yours.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 11:30:21 GMT
(My bold)
Are you suggesting that the Bridgewater Canal is NOT part of the property of the company and that the company has no rights over it ?
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 11:55:27 GMT
(My bold) Are you suggesting that the Bridgewater Canal is NOT part of the property of the company and that the company has no rights over it ? 7. Upon the registration of the Company under the Companies Act 1985 becoming effective and despite anything contained in any enactment or other instrument constituting or regulating the Company, the Company may adopt articles of association, provided that nothing in the articles is repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of the Manchester Ship Canal Acts and Orders 1885 to 1992 or any other enactment or legislation applying to the Company by virtue of it being a harbour authority.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 13:55:46 GMT
I fail to see the relevance of that section, which merely states that the company can adopt new articles of association, unless the new articles contradict the legislation mentioned. Nothing to do with charging. It certainly doesn't answer the question.
("Yes" or "No" would suffice)
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 16, 2017 17:01:09 GMT
(My bold) Are you suggesting that the Bridgewater Canal is NOT part of the property of the company and that the company has no rights over it ? Perhaps it would be simpler to answer your question by stating my understanding of the current position: - The 2012 Order assigned all the "undertaking" (the property and the statutory rights and duties) from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company.
But it also expressly limited those statutory powers to those which were already in existence at the time of the transfer.
- There is no evidence of any existing statutory power to make charges for pleasure vessels on the Bridgewater at the time of the transfer. (The BCC quote Bridgewater Canal 1961 Byelaws in its information sheet but is unable to furnish a copy of those 1961 Byelaws and there is no evidence elsewhere (such as in Gazette entries) of them ever being lawfully made or of what primary legislation they were made under).
- The 2012 Order does grant the Bridgewater Canal Company power to make Byelaws for control of the navigation and to issue licences for vessels and to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate the canal but only in the exercise of its statutory powers. It is not permitted under the 2012 Order to make charges where any previous enactment expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.
- The Bridgewater Canal Company has not, since the 2012 Order, made public any proposal to create new Byelaws which, in any case, would require consultation before final approval by the Secretary of State. The company appears to be relying on agreement to Terms and Conditions to form a Contract but these cannot impose statutory penalties and can only be applicable to its own licence-holders who are parties to that Contract.
I would be most interested to hear of any evidence which contradicts my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 16, 2017 18:01:51 GMT
(My bold) Are you suggesting that the Bridgewater Canal is NOT part of the property of the company and that the company has no rights over it ? Perhaps it would be simpler to answer your question by stating my understanding of the current position: - The 2012 Order assigned all the "undertaking" (the property and the statutory rights and duties) from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company.
But it also expressly limited those statutory powers to those which were already in existence at the time of the transfer.
- There is no evidence of any existing statutory power to make charges for pleasure vessels on the Bridgewater at the time of the transfer. (The BCC quote Bridgewater Canal 1961 Byelaws in its information sheet but is unable to furnish a copy of those 1961 Byelaws and there is no evidence elsewhere (such as in Gazette entries) of them ever being lawfully made or of what primary legislation they were made under).
- The 2012 Order does grant the Bridgewater Canal Company power to make Byelaws for control of the navigation and to issue licences for vessels and to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate the canal but only in the exercise of its statutory powers. It is not permitted under the 2012 Order to make charges where any previous enactment expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.
- The Bridgewater Canal Company has not, since the 2012 Order, made public any proposal to create new Byelaws which, in any case, would require consultation before final approval by the Secretary of State. The company appears to be relying on agreement to Terms and Conditions to form a Contract but these cannot impose statutory penalties and can only be applicable to its own licence-holders who are parties to that Contract.
I would be most interested to hear of any evidence which contradicts my understanding. I think we have a partial result. I'll post this in the other 2 threads as well. I've just looked at the CaRT web site. They've removed all reference to Bridgewater charges and the only part of the altered reciprocal agreement is the bit about extending Bridgewater boats access to CaRT water. Sounds like steps in the right direction might be being made?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 19:35:03 GMT
Perhaps it would be simpler to answer your question by stating my understanding of the current position: - The 2012 Order assigned all the "undertaking" (the property and the statutory rights and duties) from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company.
But it also expressly limited those statutory powers to those which were already in existence at the time of the transfer.
- OK. But the 2009 Revision Order provides for charging for the grant of a licence to use the Bridgewater, which, at that time, was part of the property of the Company.
- There is no evidence of any existing statutory power to make charges for pleasure vessels on the Bridgewater at the time of the transfer. (The BCC quote Bridgewater Canal 1961 Byelaws in its information sheet but is unable to furnish a copy of those 1961 Byelaws and there is no evidence elsewhere (such as in Gazette entries) of them ever being lawfully made or of what primary legislation they were made under).
- See above (I haven't found the Byelaws either )
- The 2012 Order does grant the Bridgewater Canal Company power to make Byelaws for control of the navigation and to issue licences for vessels and to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate the canal but only in the exercise of its statutory powers. It is not permitted under the 2012 Order to make charges where any previous enactment expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.
- What previous enactment provides for freedom from charges? As I have already said, the fact that there exists a charging schedule which does not apply to pleasure boats does not mean that pleasure boats are exempt from charges.
- The Bridgewater Canal Company has not, since the 2012 Order, made public any proposal to create new Byelaws which, in any case, would require consultation before final approval by the Secretary of State. The company appears to be relying on agreement to Terms and Conditions to form a Contract but these cannot impose statutory penalties and can only be applicable to its own licence-holders who are parties to that Contract.
- However, the Transfer Order of 20012 specifically states : No mention there of exemption for pleasure craft, although 7(3) goes on to say So where is the enactment that prohibits the making of any charge? As above, the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No.2 (Bridgewater &c. Canals), Order Confirmation Act 1894
Sec 25 does not cut the mustard, as it merely states that the schedule does not apply to pleasure boats, and does not state that they cannot be charged a fee.
- I would be most interested to hear of any evidence which contradicts my understanding.
Reply interspersed. My bold. (edited to add: should I be posting this in other threads as well?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 16, 2017 19:37:32 GMT
How can we make such a pig's ear out of something so simple? Gawd. Glad someone agrees it's simple !
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 16, 2017 21:42:32 GMT
IainS said" OK. But the 2009 Revision Order provides for charging for the grant of a licence to use the Bridgewater, which, at that time, was part of the property of the Company."
Iain, I'm sorry but I can find no such reference (or indeed any reference whatsoever to the Bridgewater Canal) in the 2009 Order which you quote.
Perhaps you are confusing it with some other piece of legislation. Can you clarify, please?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 17, 2017 11:14:40 GMT
The Bridgewater Canal Company was purchased by the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1885, and became part of "any part of the property and rights of the Company."
In any case, the Transfer Order of 2012 specifically states that the company "has power to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate or use the Bridgewater Canal.", unless there is an enactment to the contrary. So far, I have not seen any such enactment. The enactment quoted at the start of this thread does not prohibit charging for pleasure vessels: it merely does not apply to them.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 12:59:16 GMT
The Bridgewater Canal Company was purchased by the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1885, and became part of "any part of the property and rights of the Company." In any case, the Transfer Order of 2012 specifically states that the company "has power to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate or use the Bridgewater Canal.", unless there is an enactment to the contrary. So far, I have not seen any such enactment. The enactment quoted at the start of this thread does not prohibit charging for pleasure vessels: it merely does not apply to them. Then those charges, if they exist, must be properly displayed and notices erected and they must have legal authority by way of legislation or by law. Non of which exists and no signs are posted. Even if in the bowels of some long lost piece or local by law, there does exist the explicit right to charge pleasure boats. They still can't enforce it because the charges aren't advertised and signs aren't in place. They are breaking the law on so many levels it's untrue. And someone has to stop them, because CaRT certainly won't. If you can find anywhere that specifically allows them to charge pleasure boats, what those charges are and where they should be displayed. Then I really would like to see it. Because knowing what they CAN come back with rather than might be able to come back with. Would be of immense help. I've asked them countless times, and on Tony's advice I've asked them again today. What legal authority do they have to charge pleasure boats. The reply I had was again. Your a naughty boy pay up like everyone else. And we've passed your questions to our legal team but they're all on holiday so you'll have to wait for an answer. Well they've not all been on holiday since 2nd July and that was the first time I asked them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 13:30:29 GMT
Then those charges, if they exist, must be properly displayed and notices erected and they must have legal authority by way of legislation or by law. Non of which exists and no signs are posted. What's this then? and this?
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 17, 2017 13:59:22 GMT
The Bridgewater Canal Company was purchased by the Manchester Ship Canal Company in 1885, and became part of "any part of the property and rights of the Company." In any case, the Transfer Order of 2012 specifically states that the company "has power to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate or use the Bridgewater Canal.", unless there is an enactment to the contrary. So far, I have not seen any such enactment. The enactment quoted at the start of this thread does not prohibit charging for pleasure vessels: it merely does not apply to them. We agree then that the 2009 Order does not authorise charges for pleasure vessels as you seemed to imply earlier. The 2012 Order, in transferring the undertaking only transfers the "statutory and other powers and duties, property, rights, liabilities and obligations of MSCC as they exist immediately before the transfer date". There are no statutory powers which authorise charges for pleasure vessels in any of the 30-odd Manchester Ship Canal Acts between 1885 and 2012. The 2012 Order authorises such charges except where an enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge. The 1894 Canal, Rates Tolls and Charges No2 Bridgewater Order authorises only (and specifically) charges for merchandise carrying vessels and for use of berths and lay-bys except at night. It goes further by specifically exluding charging Tolls for Pleasure Boats unless they are authorised by an Act Of Parliament. Later Acts amend the rates of tolls quoted for merchandise carrying vessels in the 1894 Act but again confirm that any changes to tolls do not apply to pleasure vessels. There is therefore no specific enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal which expressly provides for freedom from charges. But there are most certainly enactments which impliedly provide for freedom from charges for pleasure vessels and that is all that is required by the 2012 Order.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 16:24:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 17, 2017 16:43:21 GMT
upload picture to an external hosting site. such as imgur or tinypic or Google drive, lots of others are available.
then you get a link that you put in the post.
It has to be uploaded somewhere else as attaching photos directly to here has been disabled.
you also can't do it on the mobile site and need to be on the full desktop version.
on a phone that is on the bottom of the page.
Or what's app it to someone else who can do it for you.
I still struggle at times. maybe someone will be able to explain it clearer.
|
|