|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 13, 2017 23:22:56 GMT
Ahoy me hearties we do av spies aboard!!!
I've had an email today from Peel Holdings. It accuses me of inciting boaters not to pay legitimate charges, of making false allegations to the police and CaRT and of spreading false and libellous information. And that I should stop posting such comments on internet forums
Well I haven't done any of those things in any emails I've sent to them. I have asked them questions, to which I've had no answers. And I did suggest they stop charging until they had heard from their legal team. But I didn't tell them I was reporting them to the police, I didn't tell them that I was suggesting other boaters request the same legal authority before they pay and I didn't tell them I'd posted on a forum.
So, we av spies! Which is good because they can keep them informed of our progress and how close we are getting to a result.
Funny thing is it started by telling me that no action was being taken against the bin man.....aka paul entwistle.
Yeah right. Well he's caused problems for the general manager of bccl, his boss, her boss, their legal dept, cheshire police, trading standards, cart, ipcc and god knows who else.
I bet his bollocks won't stop stinging for a year and I'm sure he'll think very carefully before he opens his weaselly little runt face to anyone again
|
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 14, 2017 8:31:44 GMT
I've had an email today from Peel Holdings. It accuses me of inciting boaters not to pay legitimate charges, of making false allegations to the police and CaRT and of spreading false and libellous information. And that I should stop posting such comments on internet forums potentially that email is libellous in itself. you could reply saying you will back down when they can back up their statements if they can't then well they will prove it was libel. if they are spying. come on and post here show the evidence. how about someone paying the forty quid then taking them to small claims court to get it back. they will have to produce something then or lose the case. |
|
|
|
Post by phil70 on Sept 14, 2017 9:23:52 GMT
I thought Peel Holdings had a presence on CWDF.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 14, 2017 16:12:17 GMT
Ahoy me hearties we do av spies aboard!!! I've had an email today from Peel Holdings. It accuses me of inciting boaters not to pay legitimate charges, of making false allegations to the police and CaRT and of spreading false and libellous information. And that I should stop posting such comments on internet forums Well I haven't done any of those things in any emails I've sent to them. I have asked them questions, to which I've had no answers. And I did suggest they stop charging until they had heard from their legal team. But I didn't tell them I was reporting them to the police, I didn't tell them that I was suggesting other boaters request the same legal authority before they pay and I didn't tell them I'd posted on a forum. So, we av spies! Which is good because they can keep them informed of our progress and how close we are getting to a result. Funny thing is it started by telling me that no action was being taken against the bin man.....aka paul entwistle. Yeah right. Well he's caused problems for the general manager of bccl, his boss, her boss, their legal dept, cheshire police, trading standards, cart, ipcc and god knows who else. I bet his bollocks won't stop stinging for a year and I'm sure he'll think very carefully before he opens his weaselly little runt face to anyone again id just take the email as evidence that your hitting a raw nerve. So I'd carry on If I where you. They obviously want you to shut up. I'd guess the next will be a solicitors letter. |
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 14, 2017 18:54:59 GMT
It is a solicitors letter and was signed by one of Peel's own in house bods.
But yes it does show I've hit a nerve and they want me to shut up. I'm not surprised if they've got a presence in cwdf it's their kind of place that's for sure. It won't be Peel but it will be a weasel reporting back to them. Hopefully the bin man, but it will be someone that knows the turd.
I'm just going to write and tell them i have every right to ask for their legal right to charge me. I've never refused to pay, only refused to pay till they show me they have the right to charge me. And I've encouraged others to do the same. But that certainly isn't libellous or criminal as far as i am aware.
See what that brings
|
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 15, 2017 10:28:21 GMT
The other boaters are leaving it to me, I'm keeping them informed daily. As for the convoy I'm not sure it's necessary now that they have eventually replied. I will be going back on when I need to get to Marple but that's not till mid October.
The canal has been open for over 200 years, there was a perfectly acceptable and working reciprocal agreement, CaRT boats didn't 'hang around' but they did have free access, which now they don't. If CaRT boats do over stay regularly then deal with them through the proper channels. DON'T make everyone else's life difficult because of a few tossers. That's the CaRT way of doing things and we all know it doesn't work.
Also the law is the law and big companies can't just change it because they don't like it.
The legislation they've sent me does not give them authority to charge pleasure boats. In fact just the opposite it protects previous exemptions just like the 2012 Order does.
And if telling people to check they're not being scammed before making any payment is libel then the police are as guilty as i am. If I could post a picture I'd post the police one of the old lady opening the door and the gas man showing her his ID.
Although Peel staff don't carry ID so that's not very helpful is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 15, 2017 10:42:23 GMT
Who's this bin man you keep referring to? Any links to the story? Or the story itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Sept 15, 2017 11:29:24 GMT
(snip) The legislation they've sent me does not give them authority to charge pleasure boats. In fact just the opposite it protects previous exemptions just like the 2012 Order does. (snip) Just out of curiosity, what legislation did they send? (I'm not trying to get into a repeat of previous discussions: just wondering!)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 12:02:34 GMT
One thing that sticks in my mind:-
Is the reciprocal agreement between C&Rt & Peel legally binding?
On the Nene We used to enjoy a 14 day reciprocal agreement with BWB, if I recall correctly this was quietly shelved in the mid - late 90's when it changed from the National Rivers Authority to the EA.
Is there anything stopping C&RT and Peel doing the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Sept 15, 2017 14:37:28 GMT
Nothing really came of the "can they or can't they" with Thunderboats experts dissecting Acts of Parliament and whatnot, did it? I still don't know if the Bridgewater Canal company can make up their own charges and rules & regulations & bylaws or not. Confusion seems to have been thrown up in the air, and come down in a rain of confusing shards here. I'm as baffled as before. Of course they can; the question posed was may they. I have expressed no firm opinion as I am not acquainted with all the relevant legislation - and one needs to be, in order to form an educated opinion. Their reliance on the Transport Act 1962, however, suggests to me that they take the same stance CaRT do, and IF that is all they rely upon, in isolation, then I seriously doubt the validity of the charges. But - the trips are in the legislation one is not aware of, rather than in those one does know. Bridgewater can certainly make up their own byelaws; however these must develop from consultation and then pass inspection and approval of the Secretary of State, as must all byelaws. The process does not allow for arbitrary and unilateral imposition. The only currently valid byelaws were passed in 1961, as I have posted earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 15, 2017 15:35:29 GMT
it kind of needs to be in the middle. I understand what foxy is saying. I guess both peel and crt are worried boaters will avoid crt enforcement by hiding there.
but the no return in 28 days is stupid. they should allow all boats to transit the BW whenever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 15, 2017 15:50:48 GMT
Belt and braces approach to avoid the charge would be to cover up or remove your CRT registration before going on the Bridgewater. It would be useful to have a popular boat name such as 'Grace' as I'm sure Peel/ CRT wouldn't want to involve themselves with the detective work need to work out which 'Grace' you were, out of probably dozens of boats with the same name.
I'd think this would be perfectly legal. A condition of your CRT licence is that you display your number but you're not on CRT water eh? You might be deemed to be trespassing on Peel property or at least, due to pay their dubious charges but this is all irrelevant, as nobody knows who you are, right?. If an angry man comes knocking when you're moored up, just ignore him.
Sorted.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 15, 2017 18:14:34 GMT
Nigel has identified the Act, they are relying on s52 of it. This gives them the same powers at CaRT to charge all boats. But s43 only allows them to charge boats that have not been exempt previous to the Act. So from what I can tell, Nigel is saying they can't charge pleasure boats now because they couldn't charge them before.
As for getting the others on TB unfortunately they're not into forums in fact they're no even into the internet or email. One of the big gripes I have with CaRT is they think because something's on the web site everyone has seen it.
The original 1967 reciprocal agreement probably had no legal standing either. It was an agreement between two bosses probably over g&t's in the RAC club before going on to molly blacks whore house. But it was workable and it was fair and it was acceptable to most people.
The bin man, if you're really interested, was the idiot who accosted me in Lymm village in July and said i was on his list to move off the canal this week. I've posted this on the first page of the legal advice topic I think. He is a contractor for Peel and his job is to sail up and down the cut collecting shit that people throw in it. Thing is he couldn't read a fucking list he's a retard.
I admit there were one or two boaters who used to hang around the bgwtr with no license trying to evade CaRT. But Peel have the right to remove them anyway if they follow procedure. If the boats have a valid CaRT license then it's up to CaRT to threaten to not renew it if they don't get off. Instead of chasing people who do move regularly but they just don't like.
Nigel, erivers and Tony have been extremely helpful and are offering great advice, even though they are all very busy with other projects.
There's no point in forcing their hand any further at this stage i don't think. I've got other more urgent matters to deal with. Hopefully enough people now know that they can pass through with no harassment and with luck we can have BWCCL post on their web site very soon that the charges have ceased.
I'm still waiting for trading standards to let me know they've told them to take down the signs until they either improve them or cease to charge.
I know they're pissed off and I'm glad people are aware that they can challenge the charge until given proof they have authority to charge in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by gigoguy on Sept 15, 2017 23:05:47 GMT
Perhaps the Bridgewater could just sell it to CRT? One of Richard Parry's yearly bonuses could pay for it? Well that was on the cards in 2012 and there were discussions well advanced for CaRT to take over control of the bridgewater. However changes in planning legislation that allowed house building on brown field and green belt land in certain areas saw Peel with a whole load of development land that had previously been waste land. So what did Peel do? Closed the negotiations and started to sell the land. The bridge at Vicars Hall has been sinking for 20 odd years and they couldn't give a toss. Now they've sold a load of land either side of the canal they've put in a multi million pound road bridge, put in a new road and provided a service entrance to another new development. The fact that service road runs through a housing estate and past schools and nurseries makes no difference. What's a few dead kids when there's land and money at stake. They can have more kids can't they? You asked me about the floater. I couldn't find the post when you asked me but it seems to be back up again now. www.thefloater.org/the-floater-february-2017/bridgewater-canal-boss-speaks |
|
