|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 30, 2017 22:10:37 GMT
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. But again all of the updates, charges, by laws etc etc all protect anyone or anything that has been protected in the past. And pleasure craft have always been protected from charges, tolls and I would argue permits. Only cargo vessels have ever been subject to charge
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 30, 2017 22:23:30 GMT
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. But again all of the updates, charges, by laws etc etc all protect anyone or anything that has been protected in the past. And pleasure craft have always been protected from charges, tolls and I would argue permits. Only cargo vessels have ever been subject to charge I suppose the question is "was the canal free to use in the past for visiting pleasure boats because the canal management company choose not to charge, or because they were not allowed to charge visiting pleasure boats??" If they simply choose not to charge, then there is nothing to stop them changing their minds. I guess this can only be resolved by going to court which is going to be very expensive for whoever looses.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Aug 31, 2017 22:20:28 GMT
There are about a zillion acts of parliament and by laws regarding bgwtr. In only one place are pleasure boats mentioned. And that mention is a specific exclusion.
There has never ever ever been a charge for pleasure boats on the bridgewater canal. Why? Because they're not allowed to charge. Don't you think they would have done for ever if they could?
This started in 2014 when new managers came in after the retirement of the guy that had been there since Peel bought it, virtually. He knew only too well he couldn't charge. Otherwise he would have done.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 3, 2017 10:41:03 GMT
So, did u pop into the office of Whittaker's Evil Empire whilst you woz parked up beside it, to ask what the "see enfarcement gorilla" was all about? What have Trading Standards Dullards had to say about all this? No I didn't pop into their office. Partly as there is no reason to as they won't give me any information because they don't have any. And partly because to get the their office one needs ring a buzzer from 2 floors below and they let you in, or not. There's no way they'd let me in at the present time. Also they'd do anything they could to rile me. So they could call security and have me removed. They are the ones claiming they have a right that they don't have, not me. If anyone is going to see anyone. Then they should be coming to me with legal authority to charge and a boat to remove me from the waterway. I've had an email from trading standards saying they think CaRT should deal with it, and they have written to them. I've written back and explained that CaRT have no jurisdiction over private waterways and that the whole thing is illegal and a scam. I'll wait to hear from them. But I only replied on Friday so don't expect anything till later in the week. I've now got a small convoy of 5 boats who will be joining me on my mission to force Peel to provide legal authority or stop. We're going back in 2 weeks and won't be leaving for 2 months. Unless they can prove they have the authority to move us before that. I'm having an new stove fitted and some work to my engine done next week so can't move before. If anyone is in the area or fancies making the trip please let me know and we'll arrange a meeting place.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 3, 2017 11:10:41 GMT
But there was a notice slapped on your boat asking to see enforcement henchman. And then with the head office being right next to you... but then once you go in there, will they let you out ever again alive? I think that's the issue. How did you find another 5 boats? Will you all be stopping together in one place as in Wild West days with wagons in circles and shotguns pointing outwards in case of indian attacks, stopping individually in different places, or all going continuously up and down the Bridgewater either all together or seperately? 2 months? Don't Peel Holdings have a right to ask for a licence if you are on it for more than 7 continuous days? I thought the argument was about their right to charge 40 quid if you came back on it after less than 28 days away. Perhaps an encampment at Dunham Massey or Grippenhall.... pubs not far away. Peel Holdings can't ask for a license. You can only have a bridgewater license if you have a bridgewater mooring. The 7 days was a reciprocal agreement with BW and MSCC and if a boat over stayed it was up to BW not BCCL to enforce it. I telephoned as requested by the notice and I emailed as told to do if i could get through on the phone. I'm not going into their offices until it is to collect a cheque for compensation. We will be travelling together to begin with and then split up into 2 groups as we move. We will comply with all mooring restrictions ie 3 days here 24 hours there etc. But we will not leave the canal until they prove they have a legal right to move us. The police and TS seem to think it's civil law. CaRT think it's nowt to do with them. So they can't remove 5 boats they've only got one rusty old tub to tow with. So let's see how the law supports them. I'm relying on Nigel and erivers' interpretation of the Acts and by laws. And they seem pretty clued up to me.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 3, 2017 15:53:54 GMT
So: 1. The Police will not be turning up as they think it's a civil law matter. 2. CRT won't be doing anything about it. 3. What right do Peel Holdings have to even come and touch your boat with their rusty old tub? I would have paperwork printed showing the interpretation of the Acts to wave under anyone's nose in case someone turns up and tells you to clear off you're trespassing. Perhaps Mr Whittaker will wage a war of attrition and just sit and see how long it takes for 6 boats/crew to get fed up on his canal. This could turn out to be interesting, and you may go down in history as per those who committed the Kinder Scout Mass Trespass, bringing the freedom of the countryside to all. Have newspapers been alerted? National and local. Well what would be good would be for more and more boaters to join in. If we all come and go as freely and as often as we like what are they going to do? This waterway was originally owned by Manchester Ship Canal Company. They were even more avaricious and profit motivated than Peel. Don't you think that if they could have charged for pleasure boats they'd have been doing it for over 100 years? This pair of half wits think they've found a new way to make money for Whitacker. Without checking they had the legal authority to do it. All ownership of the Bridgewater canal brings is responsibility. Not a real asset they can do with as they please. As Peel owns media city and Salford quays, where all the papers and local TV are based. It's unlikely they'd get involved until there is 'news' to report.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 26, 2017 12:41:18 GMT
I wrote to Peel's solicitors this morning being absolutely clear what I was asking for, thanks to Nigel and erivers. I've had an email back telling me to play fair and that everyone else pays so I should. They haven't sent me their legal authority to charge pleasure craft. Only another reference to s52 of the 62 transport Act. Which as they accept does not give them specific authority to charge pleasure craft. But that they are relying on it's general conditions for charging.
So I've written back telling them that for them to appeal to my sense of fair play after the way they've treated me and others is quite simply insulting.
They know they have no legal authority to charge and they know they could not rely on s52 in any court to impose the toll. So until they start to behave in a proper and respectful manner I suggest you still refuse to pay until they prove they can charge.
I also suggested that if they can't afford to run the canal without breaking the law then they should do the decent thing and pass it over to CaRT where it rightfully belongs.
I think the money and land involved makes it highly unlikely they will do that.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 27, 2017 18:32:50 GMT
Well it would seem that Mr Hayes and I have agreed to disagree. I have said that I do not accept Peel’s authority to charge under s52. Even if CaRT do ‘rely’ on s43 to charge pleasure craft they enforce the charge under later legislation 72 pleasure craft certificate and 95 pleasure craft license (I think are the dates) No such legislation has been passed for the Bridgewater and as CaRT have never been challenged because s43 doesn’t matter to them, he can’t be sure they would win. I said that given all the evidence points to exemption and 2012 orders describes exemption as explicit or implied. I would argue on the grounds of historic and implied exemption for not having to pay. And to take me to court if he thought he could win. I said that a loss to him was far worse than a loss for me. He agreed we were not going to resolve the matter out of court but did not take me up of the offer to meet in one. He said he couldn’t comment on any of the personal complaints I had as he didn’t have any details and that he would pass my concerns on to the relevant staff.
So we’re back where we started with Louise Morrissey, the bin man, the traffic warden and the gnome.
I’ve written to Morrissey with a list of things I think the company could do to bring some professionalism to the organisation but I doubt I’ll get any sense out of her.
The thing is I don’t want to stop Peel charging a license for their own boaters. And most of them would pay anyway. Even if the company was honest and told them they were paying with consent and not obligation. And I’m happy with the 7 days at a time so charge for longer if they want. But no return in 28 is unfair and unworkable and they only enforce it on vulnerable people. Anyone in a position to stand up for themselves either gets run off the canal altogether, has their boat impounded or gets banned. And anyone who complains gets threatened. And the police, CaRT, IWA or anyone and everyone else is so shit scared of them they won’t do anything to stop them.
Well they’ve met Thunderboat now. So just let em beware.
I’d still say don’t pay for a return trip. I know I certainly won’t ever. I think they would be very foolish to take it to County Court. To risk millions in back pay and compensation for 20 quid! Yeah well I’d love to see that happen.
I’ll let you all know what Louise Morrissey spits at me tomorrow.
Special thanks to Nigel and erivers. They've been excellent and we couldn't have got anywhere near this far without them.
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 29, 2017 15:46:53 GMT
Well folks here it is the official line of Peel Holdings and Bridgewater canal company limited.
So if you pay you are paying because you want to and not because you have to. This is not only true for the return journey but for any length of stay. I would urge anyone on here who is a Bridgewater license payer. When you receive your demand notice in March. Offer to pay the mooring and service charges only. And dispute the license/permit element.
Anyone who is taken to court for not paying the return toll or the over stay charge. So long as their boat is licensed, insured, bsc'd and has a horn and fire extinguisher, I will pay the costs if they lose.
I offered to negotiate I even offered to go in and speak to them. All I asked was they take down the signs, stop charging for the return journey and reinstate the original reciprocal agreement. That's all nothing more. I haven't asked for compensation or anything. I gave Morrissey a list of things she should do to get legal but not Hayes all I asked of him was to be reasonable.
Neil Hayes <nhayes@peel.co.uk> To 'Steve Message body Dear Mr G We reserve all rights to take action as we see fit. It is unlikely we would seek to pursue very small debts by way of Court action though as it is not cost effective. We have advised you of the basis of the right to charge users of the Canal. I see no point in entering into any further correspondence with you given you have chosen to ignore the points put to you. Yours sincerely, Neil Hayes
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 18, 2017 8:30:30 GMT
There has never ever ever been a charge for pleasure boats on the bridgewater canal. Just to recap following my very swift review of such legislation as I have [most of it]. In my current understanding: - From 1794, pleasure boats could be charged whenever they went through a lock. From 1885 pleasure boats could be charged for using the ‘communications’ at Barton [presumably the swing bridge?]. From 1894 pleasure boats could be charged for mooring on the towpath or at company facilities for longer than overnight. From 1960 pleasure boats could be charged for entering or leaving the canal; could be charged for remaining in Runcorn Dock and for use and occupation of any berth in that dock. Strictly speaking therefore, every transit of the canal could be charged for even if you returned the next day. None of this has anything to do with the 1961 Byelaws or the 1962 Transport Act of course [although the latter allowed the charge levels to be pegged at whatever the company wanted without restriction – amended in 2012 to the extent that such charges must now be reasonable]. I have still found nothing that authorises licensing or registration of pleasure boats.
|
|