|
Post by Andyberg on Aug 17, 2017 18:06:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andyberg on Aug 17, 2017 18:14:17 GMT
These are the pics gigoguy wanted posting here? Yup...
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 18:17:51 GMT
Cheers for the pics I think this is the sort of signage that should be in place. Note where it tells us to find the legal authority, how much the charges are, what will happen if you don't pay and by whose authority they are posted. Not some shitty 'Welcome to the bridgewater get your wallet out' detritus
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 17, 2017 20:23:23 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. No, we don't. (agree, that is). As the Bridgewater was part of the property of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, they had the right to charge for its use under the 2009 Order (and probably other bits of legislation which I didn't find)
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". And also specifically provides for charging vessels using the canalThere are no statutory powers which authorise charges for pleasure vessels in any of the 30-odd Manchester Ship Canal Acts between 1885 and 2012. See above (The 2009 Order) I haven't been able to find all the Ship Canal Acts, have you?
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. So where and what is this enactment prohibiting the 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. It does not exclude charges for pleasure boats, it merely does not apply to them.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. i.e. do not apply to pleasure vessels
There is therefore no specific enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal which expressly provides for freedom from charges. At least we are agreed on something!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. So what are they? As I keep saying, an enactment which does not apply to pleasure craft does not implicitly or expressly provide for freedom from charges. My bold.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 20:31:17 GMT
But as no mention of any charge for pleasure boats appears in any act. And only explicit exemptions and exclusions have ever been protected. Then no charge would be implied.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 20:54:22 GMT
4.To improve, manage, construct, repair, develop, exchange, let on lease or otherwise, mortgage, charge, sell, dispose of, turn to account, grant licences, options, rights and privileges in respect of, or otherwise deal with all or any part of the property and rights of the Company.
I think 'charge' in this context means to use as collateral. Not charge for use of. Perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 17, 2017 21:27:36 GMT
We agree then that the 2009 Order does not authorise charges for pleasure vessels as you seemed to imply earlier. No, we don't. (agree, that is). As the Bridgewater was part of the property of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, they had the right to charge for its use under the 2009 Order (and probably other bits of legislation which I didn't find)
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". And also specifically provides for charging vessels using the canalThere are no statutory powers which authorise charges for pleasure vessels in any of the 30-odd Manchester Ship Canal Acts between 1885 and 2012. See above (The 2009 Order) I haven't been able to find all the Ship Canal Acts, have you?
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. So where and what is this enactment prohibiting the 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. It does not exclude charges for pleasure boats, it merely does not apply to them.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. i.e. do not apply to pleasure vessels
There is therefore no specific enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal which expressly provides for freedom from charges. At least we are agreed on something!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. So what are they? As I keep saying, an enactment which does not apply to pleasure craft does not implicitly or expressly provide for freedom from charges. My bold. May I just politely suggest that you refer to your dictionary for the difference between the words "impliedly" and "implicitly"? The second word, which has suddenly entered your argument on this matter, does not appear in any reference to the statutory authority to make charges for pleasure vessels. The 2012 Order provides the only lawful possibility of authorising such charges but that is nullified by the previous enactments impliedly providing for freedom from charges. That is all it takes to satisfy the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the 2012 Order and thus make charges for pleasure vessels unlawful. And yes, I do have all the Manchester Ship Canal and Bridgewater legislation to hand (except, of course, the elusive 1961 Byelaws which I doubt even the most extensive effort will ever produce!).
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 17, 2017 22:23:58 GMT
those photos.
that is a council car park, they are bound by many laws to put that signage in place and it is written to the letter. there is no ambiguity in it.
compare that signage to a private parking sign. there is a big difference.
I would say that as the bwcc is not a council they are not bound by the same rules.
I don't disagree with you but there is a big difference when the council is involved and perhaps a car park is the wrong example as like I said, they have to follow the law. the law around council parking is very complex.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 17, 2017 23:09:04 GMT
those photos. that is a council car park, they are bound by many laws to put that signage in place and it is written to the letter. there is no ambiguity in it. compare that signage to a private parking sign. there is a big difference. I would say that as the bwcc is not a council they are not bound by the same rules. I don't disagree with you but there is a big difference when the council is involved and perhaps a car park is the wrong example as like I said, they have to follow the law. the law around council parking is very complex. The original tolls and charges legislation, going back nearly 200 years. Insists on signs even more clear than the ones for the car park. Even if they have authority, which they don't. A sign saying your here and you've got to pay isn't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 8:35:03 GMT
Has anybody asked for their money back yet? Has anyone sent this thread to Sonny Smiff? It isn't Sonny the request needs to be sent to, it's BCCL. Firstly to Peter Parkinson and then if you have no joy to his boss Louise Morrissey. I don't know if anyone has sent a request for refund yet they haven't said. That not withstanding though. Peel will soon be returning everybody's money with compensation/interest. If you have a receipt or can prove payment through the illegal on line form. I'm not a big computer user normally and I won't have fartbook anywhere near any device I own. However I was told yesterday of 'narrowboat users group' which I understand is an fb forum. If anyone uses the group and would like to post the thread or ask anyone who has paid the fee to log in and let me know. I'd be grateful. From what I understand Peel are now considering what compensation to offer me for my trauma and the unlawful notice and attempted possession of my boat. If anyone else wants their money back they will need to request it. That is until the police visit Peel and Cart offices and they are forced to make initial contact. Thing is though, from what I've been hearing. Is that Sonny isn't giving official Peel receipts he's using a receipt book from WHSmiths. Which I think is not only illegal, but means he could keep the money himself. I'm not suggesting that he is, merely that he possibly could.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 18, 2017 9:18:22 GMT
Thing is though, from what I've been hearing. Is that Sonny isn't giving official Peel receipts he's using a receipt book from WHSmiths. Which I think is not only illegal, but means he could keep the money himself. I'm not suggesting that he is, merely that he possibly could. that could have implications for vat. as I bet theirs no number on there.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 18, 2017 9:43:47 GMT
May I just politely suggest that you refer to your dictionary for the difference between the words "impliedly" and "implicitly"? The second word, which has suddenly entered your argument on this matter, does not appear in any reference to the statutory authority to make charges for pleasure vessels. The 2012 Order provides the only lawful possibility of authorising such charges but that is nullified by the previous enactments impliedly providing for freedom from charges. That is all it takes to satisfy the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the 2012 Order and thus make charges for pleasure vessels unlawful. And yes, I do have all the Manchester Ship Canal and Bridgewater legislation to hand (except, of course, the elusive 1961 Byelaws which I doubt even the most extensive effort will ever produce!). OK, " an enactment which does not apply to pleasure craft does not impliedly, implicitly or expressly provide for freedom from charges." Then you should have no difficulty quoting at least one enactment which impliedly, implicitly or expressly provides for freedom from charges for pleasure vessels. One which does not apply to pleasure vessels does not do this.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 11:31:41 GMT
May I just politely suggest that you refer to your dictionary for the difference between the words "impliedly" and "implicitly"? The second word, which has suddenly entered your argument on this matter, does not appear in any reference to the statutory authority to make charges for pleasure vessels. The 2012 Order provides the only lawful possibility of authorising such charges but that is nullified by the previous enactments impliedly providing for freedom from charges. That is all it takes to satisfy the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the 2012 Order and thus make charges for pleasure vessels unlawful. And yes, I do have all the Manchester Ship Canal and Bridgewater legislation to hand (except, of course, the elusive 1961 Byelaws which I doubt even the most extensive effort will ever produce!). OK, " an enactment which does not apply to pleasure craft does not impliedly, implicitly or expressly provide for freedom from charges." Then you should have no difficulty quoting at least one enactment which impliedly, implicitly or expressly provides for freedom from charges for pleasure vessels. One which does not apply to pleasure vessels does not do this. Again I ask you, as I do Peel holdings. To provide me with any legal authority you have that gives the right TO charge pleasure boats?
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 18, 2017 11:42:50 GMT
Already done umpteen times.
Again, I ask you to quote an enactment which impliedly, implicitly or expressly provides for freedom from charges for pleasure vessels. (One which does not apply to pleasure vessels does not do this.)
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 11:58:26 GMT
Another step in the right direction.
Cheshire police have agreed to investigate the criminal offence of fraud. Under 2006 Fraud act. They will soon be interviewing, under caution, real members of staff from Peel and possibly CaRT.
If anyone knows anyone at all that has paid the charge, either in person or on line. Or anyone who has had an overstay notice or section 9. Please get in touch but more importantly get your claim in!!!!!
|
|