|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 18, 2017 13:47:29 GMT
Great stuff, I love it! I'm surprised though, the police don't tend to get involved in commercial matters such as this. Like if one of my tenants deliberately trashes one of my houses, criminal damage, the police won't get involved.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 18:45:54 GMT
Thing is though, from what I've been hearing. Is that Sonny isn't giving official Peel receipts From where have you been hearing this? From people who have been given them. I've got a couple coming already. dates, amounts and guess who's signature? This could be a very expensive class action. Thing is though. Unless Sonny can be seen to be stealing he's in the clear. Like all good Nazi's all he's got to do is say he was following orders. It's his bosses that should know the law. He just get's paid to be a twat.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 18:49:18 GMT
Hey is he Sonny's brother? I've heard there's some family connection with Sonny and Peel but didn't know who with. Certainly looks like him. Right pair of gimps don't ya think?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Aug 18, 2017 20:29:39 GMT
I'd say Louise is a 4 pinter. In a few years, a cup of tea would probably do it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 18, 2017 21:09:52 GMT
Have you actually read through the judgment of Stourbridge v Wheeley Ian? Or that of the related judgments of more recent date, regarding the ability of statutory bodies to levy charges?
It just seems that the essential ratio of those is something you are oblivious to. I have quoted from them often enough elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 18, 2017 22:34:26 GMT
Have you actually read through the judgment of Stourbridge v Wheeley Ian? Or that of the related judgments of more recent date, regarding the ability of statutory bodies to levy charges? It just seems that the essential ratio of those is something you are oblivious to. I have quoted from them often enough elsewhere. Nigel I've put a letter together for CaRT and just sent them the quoted case. I've been asked by the police for a full complaint with what laws they've broken etc. erivers has sent me the legislation and I've got a general shout out for more victims. Can you give me some pointers. Things I really should or shouldn't mention etc. CaRT are taking it seriously. So I'm hoping they'll make the complaint but if not I want to get started on it so they have it sooner rather than later. They're all working on my timescale now. And I don't 'ang about. Thank you for all the help it's been invaluable.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 19, 2017 11:02:12 GMT
Have you actually read through the judgment of Stourbridge v Wheeley Ian? Or that of the related judgments of more recent date, regarding the ability of statutory bodies to levy charges? It just seems that the essential ratio of those is something you are oblivious to. I have quoted from them often enough elsewhere. Yes. But the essential difference is that the power to charge IS contained in statute.
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 19, 2017 11:17:50 GMT
Have you actually read through the judgment of Stourbridge v Wheeley Ian? Or that of the related judgments of more recent date, regarding the ability of statutory bodies to levy charges? It just seems that the essential ratio of those is something you are oblivious to. I have quoted from them often enough elsewhere. Yes. But the essential difference is that the power to charge IS contained in statute. Yes, but the essential difference is that the power to charge IS contained in statute ....... but subject (within that statute - the 2012 Transfer Order) to conditions which have NOT been met.
and it is unlikely, in my view, that the 2012 Order, as a Statutory Instrument made under the limited provisions in relation to inland waterways of the Transport and Works Act 1992 would in any case have been able to authorise any power to charge without inclusion of the specific safeguard contained in Section 7 (3). "(3) This article does not authorise the making of any charge in a case where an enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge."
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 19, 2017 12:28:32 GMT
So where is the enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly providing for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibiting the making of any charge?
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Aug 19, 2017 15:40:12 GMT
So where is the enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly providing for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibiting the making of any charge? The 1894 Charges Order IMPLIEDLY provides for freedom of charges for pleasure vessels, as do several later Acts which amend charges for merchandise carrying. Clearly in drafting the 1894 legislation which refers to "the tolls or charges, if any, which the company are authorised to charge or make in respect of such [pleasure] boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament" the promoters were having the same difficulty as both you and I, over 120 years later, in identifying any such Act. The lack of such an Act does not render charges for pleasure boats lawful. It is for those who seek to charge the tolls to produce the Act of Parliament which provides the lawful authority to do so, not the other way round!
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 19, 2017 19:48:08 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 ? From Bridgewater's own site In 2009, the Bridgewater Canal was transferred out of the Peel Ports Group into the Peel Land & Property group. Under a Transport and Works Order, the statutory powers in connection with the operation of the Bridgewater Canal were transferred from the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the Bridgewater Canal Company Limited. The Bridgewater Canal Company Limited is now the statutory body responsible for the navigation and maintenance of the Bridgewater Canal
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 19, 2017 22:26:54 GMT
So where is the enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly providing for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibiting the making of any charge? The 1894 Charges Order IMPLIEDLY provides for freedom of charges for pleasure vessels, as do several later Acts which amend charges for merchandise carrying. Clearly in drafting the 1894 legislation which refers to "the tolls or charges, if any, which the company are authorised to charge or make in respect of such [pleasure] boats under the provisions of any Act of Parliament" the promoters were having the same difficulty as both you and I, over 120 years later, in identifying any such Act. The lack of such an Act does not render charges for pleasure boats lawful. It is for those who seek to charge the tolls to produce the Act of Parliament which provides the lawful authority to do so, not the other way round! It does not imply that; it merely does not apply to pleasure vessels. It is described as "Containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges Applicable Thereto, for the Bridgewater Canals Undertaking of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, and for Certain Other Canals". Nothing about pleasure boats. The Transfer Order of 2012 gives power to charge any vessel, 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. " As above, the 1894 Order does not do this. An enactment has to have been enacted: if it hasn't, then it is not an enactment, and therefore cannot be one "relating to the Bridgewater Canal .... " There is probably little to be served by continuing to quote the same bits of legislation at each other: it is obvious that neither of us will change their opinion and there can be no resolution until it comes before a Court. I know which side I'd be betting on, though
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Aug 19, 2017 22:34:15 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 ? From Bridgewater's own site In 2009, the Bridgewater Canal was transferred out of the Peel Ports Group into the Peel Land & Property group. Under a Transport and Works Order, the statutory powers in connection with the operation of the Bridgewater Canal were transferred from the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the Bridgewater Canal Company Limited. The Bridgewater Canal Company Limited is now the statutory body responsible for the navigation and maintenance of the Bridgewater Canal From the preamble of the 2012 Transfer Order :
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 20, 2017 21:12:29 GMT
Well it's make or break time chaps and chapettes.
I wrote to Ms Morrissey on Friday and told her I arrived in the Bridgewater at 14.18 on Tuesday 15th August. And I will be off at 14.18 by Tuesday 22nd at the latest, as required under the terms of the 1967 reciprocal agreement.
I will be returning on Wednesday 23rd August, time to be confirmed.
I will not be purchasing a return license unless you provide me with your legal authority to charge me.
That is now the 10th email I have sent her asking for legal authority. But as of tomorrow I'll be off. I left early.
So I'll email her when I'm off and the again when I'm back on. If she does nothing or provides no legal authority to charge. Then everyone claim their ffees back.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Aug 21, 2017 4:45:07 GMT
echoed
|
|