|
Post by erivers on Aug 30, 2017 18:30:10 GMT
BRIDGEWATER CANALS BYE LAWS Made by the Manchester Ship Canal Company under and in pursuance of the powers contained in the Manchester Ship Canal Acts 1885--1956 and all other powers thereunto enabling them. These Bye-laws shall apply to the Bridgewater Canals as herein after defined and to the undertaking of the Company connected herewith or appurtenant thereto Well done, Nigel. I cannot see anything in these byelaws authorising them to make charges for pleasure vessels (and there is no such authorisation within the Primary Legislation). The byelaws are made under powers contained in the Manchester Shop Canal Acts 1885-1956 (in addition to the powers of making byelaws contained in any other enactment ..... which seems to be saying "We can't actually find one but we'll put that in just in case.) The 1885 Act, in its 274 pages authorises the making of byelaws for certain purposes. The only possibly relevant ones would appear to be "For regulating the terms and conditions of licences for tug boats or other towing power" and "For regulating the terms and conditions and the payments to be made for the granting of any licences made under the provisions of this Act". The penalties for each offence under the byelaws is set at £5 plus 40 shillings for each day the offence continues. In the subsequent Manchester Ship Canal Acts 1886 - 1956 (over 400 pages) referred to in the 1961 byelaws there are no changes to the provisions for making byelaws except: 1894 - in relation to vessels carrying foreign animals! 1896 - vessel owner to remove any sunken vessel at his own expense. 1956 - New byelaws to be confirmed by the minister but previous byelaws to have full effect. The 1961 Byelaws appear to have been confirmed by the Minister (but there is no Gazette record of this). The MSC Act 1966 increased the 1885 penalties from £5 to £20 for each offence. And now my eyes ache! Over to Nigel.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 18:56:49 GMT
So now will boaters be queueing up to take Peel Holdings (who apparently have the Police on their wage rolls) to Court in order to get the money Peel has swizzed off them? Apart from gigoguy, is anyone actually doing anything apart from the theoretical stuff? If an Bridgewater 'enforcement officer' (Whittaker Henchman) comes up and wants money off you, or to tow your boat away, what can you do if the Police aren't interested? I hear sirens approaching, blue lights a-flashing - oh, here come Trading Standards with Their Big Stick. We're not going to bring Peel down. Anymore than the residents of the vicars hall road estate brought them down over 'back hander' planning permission. But we can keep showing them up for their arrogant vicious greed. And slowing them down. The police won't do anything, CaRt won't do anything and the minister won't do anything. We're just a few trouble making gypo boaters who want to stop progress. We haven't got or deserve any rights
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 30, 2017 19:28:32 GMT
It is not really relevant at this stage, what areas they have the ability to promote byelaws over – previous byelaws were abolished and these 1961 ones took their place. Nothing in them provides for pleasure boat licences that I can see, regardless of what they might be permitted to promote in future.
Byelaw (27) provides, however: “No person shall use or permit the use of any vessel on the Canal as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat without the written consent of the Company.”
Those specific categories of use then – outwith the normal recreational use of pleasure boats – are, and those alone, only permissible by written consent of the company. So pleasure boats may be used for their normal recreational purposes, but the listed out-of-the-ordinary uses, require written consent, i.e. licence.
Hence it would appear that chargeable licences could be legitimately demanded for those specific purposes, but those specific purposes alone, within the terms of the byelaws.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Aug 30, 2017 20:50:34 GMT
It doesn't apply to pleasure boats. it was my idle curiosity which begged the question.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 20:50:38 GMT
It is not really relevant at this stage, what areas they have the ability to promote byelaws over – previous byelaws were abolished and these 1961 ones took their place. Nothing in them provides for pleasure boat licences that I can see, regardless of what they might be permitted to promote in future. Byelaw (27) provides, however: “ No person shall use or permit the use of any vessel on the Canal as a club, shop, store, workshop, dwelling or houseboat without the written consent of the Company.” Those specific categories of use then – outwith the normal recreational use of pleasure boats – are, and those alone, only permissible by written consent of the company. So pleasure boats may be used for their normal recreational purposes, but the listed out-of-the-ordinary uses, require written consent, i.e. licence. Hence it would appear that chargeable licences could be legitimately demanded for those specific purposes, but those specific purposes alone, within the terms of the byelaws. Now that is interesting. Because the terms of the Bridgewater license are that you must not live aboard your boat. Without the written consent of the company 'not to use the craft for dwelling purposes or for hire or to carry fare-paying passengers without the appropriate licence or written permission from the company' And it says this about late payment. Not £5 plus 40 shillings 'a late payment charge of £150 will be applied to the account in the event that the full fee is not received within one month of the licence start date.' So is it all bollox then?
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 30, 2017 21:02:41 GMT
You also have (35) No person unless authorised by the Company or otherwise legally entitled so to do shall operate or interfere with any lock, lockgate, sluice, by pass, dam, weir, bridge or any other work connected with affecting or forming part of the Canal or with any vehicle, vessel, crane, jigger, hoist, capstan or other machinery or working appliance upon the Canal except in case of emergency.
(37) No person shall deface or alter any permit issued by the Company. Any person who is on the Company's property or is performing any act under or by virtue of a permit issued by the Company shall produce such permit to any duly authorised officer or servant of the Company whenever requested so to do.
So possibly (35) could be taken to mean that only a permit (licence) holder may operate locks etc, and the requirement to have and show when requested such a permit (licence) is in (37).
Additionally the notice at the entry of the canal does specify that the "Bye-laws" apply and the bye-laws include - (34) (i) Where a Notice is exhibited drawing attention to the provisions of this Bye-law, no person shall trespass on any part of the Company's property provided that this part of this Bye-law shall not apply to the towpath along the Bridgwater Canal s defIned by Bye-law 2 (i).
So without permission to use the canal could be taken to mean that you are trespassing. However I am not convinced that a simple statement that bye-laws apply without quoting them is not really drawing one's attention as to the provisions of the bye-laws, however that can easily be rectified and could possibly be treated by the court as a minor failing on the part of the canal managers rather than voiding the applicability of the bye-laws.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Aug 30, 2017 21:14:30 GMT
Quite beside the thrust of this topic of course, but it was amusing to read how pixillated the Company were over things that should not be done without the consent of the company. The government spokespeople had to protest one of the byelaws banning fishing, which included a prohibition on using explosives to fish unless with consent of the company.
It was firmly pointed out that this element was redundant, seeing that the Company could not give consent to the use of explosives for that purpose, under a relevant Fisheries Act.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 21:24:41 GMT
You also have (35) No person unless authorised by the Company or otherwise legally entitled so to do shall operate or interfere with any lock, lockgate, sluice, by pass, dam, weir, bridge or any other work connected with affecting or forming part of the Canal or with any vehicle, vessel, crane, jigger, hoist, capstan or other machinery or working appliance upon the Canal except in case of emergency. (37) No person shall deface or alter any permit issued by the Company. Any person who is on the Company's property or is performing any act under or by virtue of a permit issued by the Company shall produce such permit to any duly authorised officer or servant of the Company whenever requested so to do. So possibly (35) could be taken to mean that only a permit (licence) holder may operate locks etc, and the requirement to have and show when requested such a permit (licence) is in (37). Additionally the notice at the entry of the canal does specify that the "Bye-laws" apply and the bye-laws include - (34) (i) Where a Notice is exhibited drawing attention to the provisions of this Bye-law, no person shall trespass on any part of the Company's property provided that this part of this Bye-law shall not apply to the towpath along the Bridgwater Canal s defIned by Bye-law 2 (i). So without permission to use the canal could be taken to mean that you are trespassing. However I am not convinced that a simple statement that bye-laws apply without quoting them is not really drawing one's attention as to the provisions of the bye-laws, however that can easily be rectified and could possibly be treated by the court as a minor failing on the part of the canal managers rather than voiding the applicability of the bye-laws. There are no locks on the bridgewater. And all the locks on the ship canal are staffed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 21:26:30 GMT
You also have (35) No person unless authorised by the Company or otherwise legally entitled so to do shall operate or interfere with any lock, lockgate, sluice, by pass, dam, weir, bridge or any other work connected with affecting or forming part of the Canal or with any vehicle, vessel, crane, jigger, hoist, capstan or other machinery or working appliance upon the Canal except in case of emergency. (37) No person shall deface or alter any permit issued by the Company. Any person who is on the Company's property or is performing any act under or by virtue of a permit issued by the Company shall produce such permit to any duly authorised officer or servant of the Company whenever requested so to do. So possibly (35) could be taken to mean that only a permit (licence) holder may operate locks etc, and the requirement to have and show when requested such a permit (licence) is in (37). Additionally the notice at the entry of the canal does specify that the "Bye-laws" apply and the bye-laws include - (34) (i) Where a Notice is exhibited drawing attention to the provisions of this Bye-law, no person shall trespass on any part of the Company's property provided that this part of this Bye-law shall not apply to the towpath along the Bridgwater Canal s defIned by Bye-law 2 (i). So without permission to use the canal could be taken to mean that you are trespassing. However I am not convinced that a simple statement that bye-laws apply without quoting them is not really drawing one's attention as to the provisions of the bye-laws, however that can easily be rectified and could possibly be treated by the court as a minor failing on the part of the canal managers rather than voiding the applicability of the bye-laws. There are no locks on the bridgewater. And all the locks on the ship canal are staffed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 21:29:17 GMT
There are no locks on the bridgewater. And all the locks on the ship canal are staffed 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 what are they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 21:29:53 GMT
Smiles. You gave the perfect reply.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 21:35:31 GMT
Smiles. You gave the perfect reply. Cheers I think though that however this legalese wrangle goes. We've proved pretty much beyond doubt that. 1) They can't charge for a return passage withing 28 days 2) They can't take peoples boats off them under section 9 3) They are a shower of bastards If you know anyone that has paid them. Tell them to ask for it back. The best thing we can do now is bombard the fuckers with demands for money back plus interest. Come on we must all know someone. Or someone who knows someone. Let's stick it up em!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 21:38:29 GMT
Smiles. You gave the perfect reply. Cheers I think though that however this legalese wrangle goes. We've proved pretty much beyond doubt that. 1) They can't charge for a return passage withing 28 days 2) They can't take peoples boats off them under section 9 3) They are a shower of bastards If you know anyone that has paid them. Tell them to ask for it back. The best thing we can do now is bombard the fuckers with demands for money back plus interest. Come on we must all know someone. Or someone who knows someone. Let's stick it up em!! You should get hold of Peter Underwood and the floater. He had an eye on this in one of his publication's.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 21:42:18 GMT
Cheers I think though that however this legalese wrangle goes. We've proved pretty much beyond doubt that. 1) They can't charge for a return passage withing 28 days 2) They can't take peoples boats off them under section 9 3) They are a shower of bastards If you know anyone that has paid them. Tell them to ask for it back. The best thing we can do now is bombard the fuckers with demands for money back plus interest. Come on we must all know someone. Or someone who knows someone. Let's stick it up em!! You should get hold of Peter Underwood and the floater. He had an eye on this in one of his publication's. Funny you should say that. I actually wrote a long comment on the post regarding the bridgewater. I explained what had happened to me and that I felt the charging etc was illegal. Next night the original post from him had been taken down and so had my comment. Not impressed but not entirely surprised as that seems to be the reaction of everyone. Nobody wants to get involved for fear of Peel I assume.
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 30, 2017 21:50:59 GMT
You also have (35) No person unless authorised by the Company or otherwise legally entitled so to do shall operate or interfere with any lock, lockgate, sluice, by pass, dam, weir, bridge or any other work connected with affecting or forming part of the Canal or with any vehicle, vessel, crane, jigger, hoist, capstan or other machinery or working appliance upon the Canal except in case of emergency. (37) No person shall deface or alter any permit issued by the Company. Any person who is on the Company's property or is performing any act under or by virtue of a permit issued by the Company shall produce such permit to any duly authorised officer or servant of the Company whenever requested so to do. So possibly (35) could be taken to mean that only a permit (licence) holder may operate locks etc, and the requirement to have and show when requested such a permit (licence) is in (37). Additionally the notice at the entry of the canal does specify that the "Bye-laws" apply and the bye-laws include - (34) (i) Where a Notice is exhibited drawing attention to the provisions of this Bye-law, no person shall trespass on any part of the Company's property provided that this part of this Bye-law shall not apply to the towpath along the Bridgwater Canal s defIned by Bye-law 2 (i). So without permission to use the canal could be taken to mean that you are trespassing. However I am not convinced that a simple statement that bye-laws apply without quoting them is not really drawing one's attention as to the provisions of the bye-laws, however that can easily be rectified and could possibly be treated by the court as a minor failing on the part of the canal managers rather than voiding the applicability of the bye-laws. There are no locks on the bridgewater. And all the locks on the ship canal are staffed I thought there was a stop lock at the start, but possibly not. However it includes "other machinery or working appliance upon the Canal " which could be argued to include water points, sanitary stations etc. Though they would have to catch you using them to be able to apply this clause. I am not trying to justify their actions but simply drawing peoples attention to the possible clauses that could be used against a boater, which could if it ended up in court and the court found in favour of the canal management company become very expensive for the boater.
|
|