Bridgewater Gestapo Tactics

[NilesMI]

Complaints to the company might be appropriate, but if a person refuses to provide any credentials or goes way beyond simply having a poor manner and becomes abusive, insulting or threatening, it is certainly a matter for the police to deal with.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Interesting advice, but when you are 5' 4" and the wrong side of 65 one has to do a lot of things discretely.

 

Plus, I ain't no martial arts instructor. I once went to a Bob Ross arts class.

Well I am a practising martial arts instructor (on the wrong side of 65) with black belts in Taekwondo and MMA (Mixed Martial Arts). I would suggest that most of my peers would find no physical threat or intimidation in the situation described.

 

[pearley]

Phone 101 to report, don't phone 999 and waste their time as it isn't an emergency "in progress" case.

You also need to report this issue to Peter Parkinson at the Bridgewater Canal Company as well as Louise Morrisey, the director of Peel Land and Planning.

Hope this helps

Liam

We're still waiting for a response from Peter Parkinson after 6 weeks.

[Jim Riley]

Just been to Liverpool and Tarleton from the Rochdale Canal, didn't see anyone, either out or back, so it is possible to get by without notice. Are Bridgewater enforcement more active on the Lymm stretch than the Leigh Branch? Don't give up on visiting, don't let them intimidate us. They are only small minded little men after all.

[Gordon Munk]

What exactly is the penalty for being on the Bridgewater in breach of this 'regulation'?

 

I.e. what's the penalty for telling this little man to 'do one' and carrying on anyway.

 

It seems that if Peel Holdings are so slack responding to their customers communication then there is no particular imperative to respond to them.

[Mike Todd]

According to the BBC this morning (it was not news but a report) Nottingham Police are now treating misogyny as a hate crime and that this includes taking photos of women (in particular) without their permission and in a way that could be considered threatening. You may wish to draw this to Manchester Police's attention should you wish to report what seems to be close to a criminal act (prima facie on your evidence).

 

As you describe it, I doubt whether this action would pass a number of tests in any law-abiding organisation. Whilst it would seem that Peel are slow in responding to almost anything, save making a charge!, repeated reports may be necessary.

[Arthur Marshall]

Does anyone know how they actually make the charge? If asked for money by a bloke with no ID I'd certainly refuse.

[Ace 01]

I assume Peel ask CRT for your name and address, are they legally obliged to give it to anyone or can you let CRT know that your name and address are not to be given out unless to the Police etc.?

 

David.

[Alan de Enfield]

I assume Peel ask CRT for your name and address, are they legally obliged to give it to anyone or can you let CRT know that your name and address are not to be given out unless to the Police etc.?

 

David.

 

Under the latest C&RT T&Cs (which presumably you signed to get your licence) C&RT can give your personal details to anyone they want to.

[Nightwatch]

Yeah, I'd had the same thought but didn't think it was for me to suggest as there's no prospect of me taking part (no boat... sniff...)

we are slowing making our way south and intend to cruise the Bridgewater. It could be a protest cruise if anyone else is interested. And times/dates coincide.

 

Edit to add. Now I've thought about it, am I really all that interested. If this guy approaches Nightwatch then I will do what I do. It will probably annoy him if we shut all our curtains. Our two Jack Russell's may put him off also.

If I was given 24 hours to get of the canal, depending where I was, I'd ask him how can I achieve that?

Edited September 19, 2016 by Nightwatch

[NilesMI]

 

Under the latest C&RT T&Cs (which presumably you signed to get your licence) C&RT can give your personal details to anyone they want to.

 

Is that actually the case, or are the circumstances more tightly defined?

 

There is a clause which allows CRT to pass personal details to a third party where they (CRT) believe the boat has been involved in an incident. So, if a boat was involved in an incident which damaged my boat or property, I (or my insurers) could ask CRT for the licensee's name and address.

 

Potentially that could also cover an "incident" where a boat with a CRT licence was found on another waterway without a licence or other authority.

[Señor Chris]

 

Under the latest C&RT T&Cs (which presumably you signed to get your licence) C&RT can give your personal details to anyone they want to.

 

But would they? I understand CRT are not happy about the current enforcement on the Bridgewater.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Is that actually the case, or are the circumstances more tightly defined?

 

There is a clause which allows CRT to pass personal details to a third party where they (CRT) believe the boat has been involved in an incident. So, if a boat was involved in an incident which damaged my boat or property, I (or my insurers) could ask CRT for the licensee's name and address.

 

Potentially that could also cover an "incident" where a boat with a CRT licence was found on another waterway without a licence or other authority.

 

You forgot to quote the following :

 

You agree that where we believe you have failed to comply with the Conditions, we may exchange information relating to you and/ or the Boat with third parties who are assisting us in managing the situation such as contractors, mooring providers, individuals or organisations with a legitimate interest or duty in exchanging information about you.

 

And, of course, it is C&RT who decide who has a 'legitimate interest'

 

NABO's request to C&RT :

 

"NABO would like to see confirmation from the Information Commissioner’s Office that these clauses comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. CRT should specifically be liable for customers’ loss in the event of misuse of this term"

 

C&RTs reply :

 

" By obtaining a licence subject to the terms and conditions, the licence holder is giving their consent for CRT to deal with their personal data in this way"

 

NABO's response to C&RTs answer :

 

"NABO notes that CRT have convinced themselves that all is well, but offers no evidence as to why this is the case, or why it is proportional. Nothing is offered from the ICO re assurance on consequences of misuse. NABO finds this response is unhelpful and unreasonable. NABO cannot accept these assurances or the intended term. We suggest that CRT should at least have a box that a boater could tick opting in to giving CRT permission to share their data as per 7.9 and 7.10".

[Alway Swilby]

Never mind CRT taking over the EA rivers, it's about time they took over the Bridgewater. I don't understand why it wasn't nationalised in 1948 along with most of the others. If it had been it would now be a CRT waterway.

[NilesMI]

 

You forgot to quote the following :

 

But the question asked related to details of a CRT licensed boat being passed to the Bridgewater/Peel. The clause you quote applies to situations where CRT believe that a licensee has failed to comply with conditions of the (CRT) licence. That would not be the case if the CRT licensed boat was found on another waterway.

 

As for your wider point and the the to and fro with NABO, it is important to realise that the clause does not allow CRT to decide what is a legitimate interest and what isn't, only that where there is a legitimate interest, CRT may use information relating to the boat and the licensee to a relevant third party.

 

If there was no legitimate interest, and CRT passed on information to others, the licensee would be able to sue in exactly the same way as anyone can sue (for breach of confidence) when someone misuses their private or personal information. In other words, by agreeing to the license T&Cs you are not giving permission for CRT to disclose your personal details to anyone they like. The circumstances under which they may pass on personal or other information are somewhat more tightly defined than that.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

But the question asked related to details of a CRT licensed boat being passed to the Bridgewater/Peel. The clause you quote applies to situations where CRT believe that a licensee has failed to comply with conditions of the (CRT) licence. That would not be the case if the CRT licensed boat was found on another waterway.

 

As for your wider point and the the to and fro with NABO, it is important to realise that the clause does not allow CRT to decide what is a legitimate interest and what isn't, only that where there is a legitimate interest, CRT may use information relating to the boat and the licensee to a relevant third party.

 

If there was no legitimate interest, and CRT passed on information to others, the licensee would be able to sue in exactly the same way as anyone can sue (for breach of confidence) when someone misuses their private or personal information. In other words, by agreeing to the license T&Cs you are not giving permission for CRT to disclose your personal details to anyone they like. The circumstances under which they may pass on personal or other information are somewhat more tightly defined than that.

 

I was answering the question 'as asked' which followed on from the Peel question ie

 

".....are they legally obliged to give it to anyone or can you let CRT know that your name and address are not to be given out unless to the Police etc.?"

 

With regard to your last paragraph I believe you are giving C&RT a level of integrity which they have failed to earn.

 

[NilesMI]

 

I was answering the question 'as asked' which followed on from the Peel question ie

 

".....are they legally obliged to give it to anyone or can you let CRT know that your name and address are not to be given out unless to the Police etc.?"

 

Nicely snipped. The question was whether if Peel ask for your name and address, CRT are legally obliged to provide it.

 

I suggested that while not obliged to do so, they may well consider a request for information under clause 7.8, as the boat being involved in an incident in which the Bridgewater/Peel have an interest, if the boat is found on their waterway.

 

Your jibe at me was that I "forgot" to quote a completely different clause. I didn't forget. I didn't quote a clause which wouldn't apply to the situation because the licensee wouldn't have failed to comply with CRT licence conditions.

 

 

With regard to your last paragraph I believe you are giving C&RT a level of integrity which they have failed to earn.

 

 

No. I was just pointing out what acceptance of clause 7.9 actually allows CRT to do with any information they hold on you or your boat. It does not allow CRT to give it to anyone they want to, does it?

 

If CRT's level of integrity is such that they ignore their own licence terms, they could give out your personal details to anyone they want. The onus would then be on you to sue them in exactly the same way you would have to sue anyone else who misused your personal or private information. Clause 7.9 does not give them the free pass that you imply.

 

Have there been instances of CRT passing personal details to others when the circumstances of 7.9 didn't apply?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Nicely snipped. The question was whether if Peel ask for your name and address, CRT are legally obliged to provide it.

 

 

The question in full (un-snipped)

 

"I assume Peel ask CRT for your name and address, are they legally obliged to give it to anyone or can you let CRT know that your name and address are not to be given out unless to the Police etc.?"

 

I read that as :

1) I assume Peel ask C&RT for your name and address (is a statement)

2) Are they obliged ..... to give it to anyone ..... (is a question)

 

[mayalld]

 

But the question asked related to details of a CRT licensed boat being passed to the Bridgewater/Peel. The clause you quote applies to situations where CRT believe that a licensee has failed to comply with conditions of the (CRT) licence. That would not be the case if the CRT licensed boat was found on another waterway.

 

 

I would suggest that as CRT and Peel have a reciprocal agreement (notwithstanding an apparent breakdown in reciprocity of late), they could successfully argue that;

 

If a boat is on the Bridgewater Canal, displaying no licence from that navigation authority, but displaying a licence from CRT, it is being represented that the boat is present legitimately by virtue of the reciprocal agreement, and that if the boater fails to abide by the terms of the reciprocal agreement, they have broken the terms and conditions of their CRT licence.

 

The problem that we have here is that people can try to argue the legality or otherwise, but if somebody makes it impossible to police the reciprocal agreement, then it will be taken away.

 

So many people looking for so many loopholes, and one day they will push too far.

 

Having said that, all the evidence points to enforcement on the Bridgewater being of a very poor quality, and they should be fixing that. But again, perhaps if the freeloaders hadn't caused problems we wouldn't have got here

[tosher]

We were moored at Dunham Massey on the Bridgewater last week when we were approached by the said Sonny Smith who said he was the "enforcement officer of the Bridgewater canal". He knocked on the side of our boat and informed us he was taking our details and went on to give us a long speel about the time we could spend on the Bridgewater and payments after our allotted time was up. No photo's were involved as far as I am aware. He was reasonably polite but quite forceful and very definately anti CART boats. He had a chip on his shoulder the size of a football which seemed to match his ego. Prior to arriving on the Bridgewater we moored on Billinge Green flash next to a Bridgewater boat who told me about this chap and he said he was the manager of Preston Brook Marina where he kept his boat. His opion was that he was doing a really good job!!!!!

[Dharl]

We were moored at Dunham Massey on the Bridgewater last week when we were approached by the said Sonny Smith who said he was the "enforcement officer of the Bridgewater canal". He knocked on the side of our boat and informed us he was taking our details and went on to give us a long speel about the time we could spend on the Bridgewater and payments after our allotted time was up. No photo's were involved as far as I am aware. He was reasonably polite but quite forceful and very definately anti CART boats. He had a chip on his shoulder the size of a football which seemed to match his ego. Prior to arriving on the Bridgewater we moored on Billinge Green flash next to a Bridgewater boat who told me about this chap and he said he was the manager of Preston Brook Marina where he kept his boat. His opion was that he was doing a really good job!!!!!

Did this guy have any ID or a uniform to confirm that he was infact "the enforcement officer of the Bridgewater Canal"?.

 

To the original OP I hope that you did report this to the police, anyone taking photos of the INSIDE of my boat, at night and upsetting my wife would certainly be hearing about it! TBH if they had up[set Mrs Dharl I would feel for their life (;-) ) Mrs Dharl can be VERY protective!

[Arthur Marshall]

I assume he was actually taking a photo of the licence to give a datestamped record of the boats presence. Presumably it would also have a GPS tag. That's assuming he was genuine, of course,of which there seems some doubt.

[costalot]

• Peel Holdings are a commercial entity and have a primary objective of making money from their assets.

They own the Bridgewater Canal.

Boaters with a Bridgewater Canal License are paying customers.

Visiting boaters with a CRT License are not.

Bridgewater License boaters have probably complained about the number of CRT "freeloaders" on the canal.

The number of customer complaints has risen to a level where Peel has decided to take action

Peel have employed an enforcement officer who has the desired personality/characteristics to resolve the customer complaints

Generally Bridgewater License boaters (Peel customers) are happy with the performance of the enforcement officer.

Some non paying canal users (eg CRT license holders) are not happy.

Peel is keeping their paying customers happy and doesn't give a fig about the non paying customers

CRT license holders just have to accept the current situation and hope the access requirements don't get more restrictive.

Alternatively CRT boaters could demand Pell introduce an visiting boaters access charge (Like the Avon Trust) and then they would be paying customers. Perhaps then Peel Holdings might listen to their complaints.

[pearley]

 

• Peel Holdings are a commercial entity and have a primary objective of making money from their assets.
• They own the Bridgewater Canal.
• Boaters with a Bridgewater Canal License are paying customers.
• Visiting boaters with a CRT License are not.
• Bridgewater License boaters have probably complained about the number of CRT "freeloaders" on the canal.
• The number of customer complaints has risen to a level where Peel has decided to take action
• Peel have employed an enforcement officer who has the desired personality/characteristics to resolve the customer complaints
• Generally Bridgewater License boaters (Peel customers) are happy with the performance of the enforcement officer.
• Some non paying canal users (eg CRT license holders) are not happy.
• Peel is keeping their paying customers happy and doesn't give a fig about the non paying customers
• CRT license holders just have to accept the current situation and hope the access requirements don't get more restrictive.
• Alternatively CRT boaters could demand Pell introduce an visiting boaters access charge (Like the Avon Trust) and then they would be paying customers. Perhaps then Peel Holdings might listen to their complaints.

Except I paid Peel for an extra week, and so was then a paying customer, but still got an overstaying notice stuck to my boat.

Edited September 19, 2016 by pearley

[Arthur Marshall]

I wonder if the Bridgewater boaters would be happy if CRT reciprocated in a similar fashion, which I assume they will sooner or later? It's all been pretty laissez-faire up to now.