Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
gigoguy

Bridgewater permits and licenses

Featured Posts

As Many who are members of the other forum will know I, with the help and advice of a few knowledgeable others, have been running a campaign to make Peel Holdings act responsibly, professionally and above all legally in respect of the Bridgewater canal.

I have been asking them to return to the original reciprocal agreement with CaRT until and unless any new agreement is reached after consultation with CaRT and ALL other interested parties.

Initially I was threatened with libel action and everything including being buggered by the lord chief justice himself if i didn't stop asking awkward questions. It ended with an email saying they wouldn't sue me for such a small amount of money it wasn't cost effective.

So if they won they get their costs back off me and they prove once and for all they can charge what they like. If they lose they pay back 30 years of illegally charged license fees, god knows how much in compensation and god knows how many boats they've illegally impounded over the years. A bit more to lose than Neil Hayes' pay for half a day in court wouldn't you agree?

Anyone who has a Bridgewater license is and has only ever been liable to pay service and mooring charges. Under the 1961 by laws by which Peel demand a license fee there is NO provision to charge a permit for a pleasure craft. Therefor anyone receiving their demand next year should pay the mooring costs as set out but dispute the license part. Anyone who does not use their boat as any kind of business or live aboard has no obligation to pay a license fee. They shouldn't pay it again and they should claim it back for all the years they have paid.

Anyone who is completely legal and goes on to the Bridgewater is NOT required to pay a return permit within 28 days nor do they have to pay for a stay longer than 7 days. I offer to pay the legal expenses of anyone who is taken to court by Peel Holdings or BCCL for refusing to pay any of the unlawful tolls, should they lose. So long as they have a current license, bsc, fire extinguisher and horn. They stay with in the posted mooring limits and they don't stay for more than one calendar month at a time.

I'm a bit busy at the moment and I've got the email I wanted, that they won't take any action, so I can't challenge them for a while. However in the not too distant future I am going to challenge them in every way and invite anyone who cares about the canal or just believes in  truth and justice and fairness to come with me.

I post on TB as I find the lack of moderation excludes people with different political leanings to mine from censoring my posts. But if members want me to update here as well then I will. Please let me know.

Edited by gigoguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Richard

TB is Thunderboat. I's another boating forum that shall we say is a little less 1950's than here. But to be honest only a little.

The threads have been 'save the bridgewater canal', 'legal advice' and 'bridgewater canal claim back your tolls'

I'm surprised you haven't heard of me. According to Peel hierarchy you'd think i was public enemy number 1.

 

Steve 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They tell people they have the right to remove boats from the water. 

They have no more right to remove a perfectly legal, licensed, insured and bsc'd boat from the canal than any city council or police force has to remove a perfectly legal car from a road.

If anyone is breaking the law it is them and they should be arrested and charged for the numerous offences they commit.

And if that's libel I'll see them in any court of their choosing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a gang of black kids walked round Moss Side and demanded 20 quid off everyone for parking their car's or they'd torch them. The police would be round like a shot. But a bunch of white men and women in suits do it and it suddenly becomes a civil matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

what is TB so I can have a look?

Tis another forum, where a lot of the people that once posted on here, now post on there (some frequent both).

 

Simple answer re Bridgewater....don't go there.

Edited by rusty69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Tis another forum, where a lot of the people that once posted on here, now post on there (some frequent both).

 

Simple answer re Bridgewater....don't go there.

Difficult if say you want to go from the Trent & Mersey to the Leeds & Liverpool. (Other Northern Canals communicating with the Bridgewater are available)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

As Many who are members of the other forum will know I, with the help and advice of a few knowledgeable others, have been running a campaign to make Peel Holdings act responsibly, professionally and above all legally in respect of the Bridgewater canal.

I have been asking them to return to the original reciprocal agreement with CaRT until and unless any new agreement is reached after consultation with CaRT and ALL other interested parties.

Initially I was threatened with libel action and everything including being buggered by the lord chief justice himself if i didn't stop asking awkward questions. It ended with an email saying they wouldn't sue me for such a small amount of money it wasn't cost effective.

So if they won they get their costs back off me and they prove once and for all they can charge what they like. If they lose they pay back 30 years of illegally charged license fees, god knows how much in compensation and god knows how many boats they've illegally impounded over the years. A bit more to lose than Neil Hayes' pay for half a day in court wouldn't you agree?

Anyone who has a Bridgewater license is and has only ever been liable to pay service and mooring charges. Under the 1961 by laws by which Peel demand a license fee there is NO provision to charge a permit for a pleasure craft. Therefor anyone receiving their demand next year should pay the mooring costs as set out but dispute the license part. Anyone who does not use their boat as any kind of business or live aboard has no obligation to pay a license fee. They shouldn't pay it again and they should claim it back for all the years they have paid.

Anyone who is completely legal and goes on to the Bridgewater is NOT required to pay a return permit within 28 days nor do they have to pay for a stay longer than 7 days. I offer to pay the legal expenses of anyone who is taken to court by Peel Holdings or BCCL for refusing to pay any of the unlawful tolls, should they lose. So long as they have a current license, bsc, fire extinguisher and horn. They stay with in the posted mooring limits and they don't stay for more than one calendar month at a time.

I'm a bit busy at the moment and I've got the email I wanted, that they won't take any action, so I can't challenge them for a while. However in the not too distant future I am going to challenge them in every way and invite anyone who cares about the canal or just believes in  truth and justice and fairness to come with me.

I post on TB as I find the lack of moderation excludes people with different political leanings to mine from censoring my posts. But if members want me to update here as well then I will. Please let me know.

Thank you for this update; it sounds as if your campaign is having some success. I am not familiar with this case, but it sounds as if there has been some high-handed behaviour (and I hope that the threat from the LCJ is figurative). Do keep CWDF abreast of further events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gigoguy said:

They tell people they have the right to remove boats from the water. 

They have no more right to remove a perfectly legal, licensed, insured and bsc'd boat from the canal than any city council or police force has to remove a perfectly legal car from a road.

If anyone is breaking the law it is them and they should be arrested and charged for the numerous offences they commit.

And if that's libel I'll see them in any court of their choosing!

You cannot arrest a company!

And libel no longer exists, it is now termed "defamation".

Edited by Graham Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Graham Davis said:

You cannot arrest a company!

I think, Graham, that GG means "the officers of the company responsible for this behaviour".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then he should say what he means, and be more accurate in his postings.

And why is this thread in this section, when it is not a "News" item, but more a general cruising matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the sneaky old b'stard has been conning people out of hundreds of pounds a year for the last 30 years and now I've exposed the scam. Is news! Well if someone told me out of the blue I could claim a few grand back it's be good news to me anyway.

No wonder he's a billionaire with saps like us around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

You cannot arrest a company!

And libel no longer exists, it is now termed "defamation".

Well you'd better tell Niel Hayes then because that's what he threatened in his first letter. And no I won't post it it's a personal document. But I will produce it in court if he wants to take me there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

 

And why is this thread in this section, when it is not a "News" item, but more a general cruising matter?

This may be your opinion, but it looks like news from where I stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Athy said:

This may be your opinion, but it looks like news from where I stand.

Thank you Athy. I don't seem to be able to 'like' posts or maybe i just can't find it.

Bygones?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Thank you Athy. I don't seem to be able to 'like' posts or maybe i just can't find it.

Bygones?

 

Byg ones or small ones, lad, all t'same to me.:D

You can't give greenoes to moddies but I appreciate the thought, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Well you'd better tell Niel Hayes then because that's what he threatened in his first letter. And no I won't post it it's a personal document. But I will produce it in court if he wants to take me there

And who is Niel (SP?) Hayes?

As said a Company cannot be arrested; a Director might, be if liability can be proved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiot

14 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And who is Niel (SP?) Hayes?

As said a Company cannot be arrested; a Director might, be if liability can be proved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I forgot CW was 3rd year English language O level.

If you had read the initial post you would know that I had a letter from Peel Holdings solicitor. If I refer to said letter later, one would assume that the reader would be able to put the two statements together. Obviously Mr Davis is unable to.

Niel Hayes is peel Holding's legal representative.

And as Athy has already pointed out no a 'company' as an entity cannot be arrested. But it's officers can be. So for the benefit of the terminally stupid.

The officers who instigated the most recent fraud should. Again for those who can't keep up they are. Introducing a toll for return within 28 days and charges for staying longer than 7 days. be arrested and charged.

They are Peter Parkinson General Manager Bridgewater canal company and Louise Morrissey Director of land and properties Peel Holdings.

Is that clear enough?

Perhaps you could ask Athy as we are now letting bye gone's be bye gone's to check the spelling and grammar for you?

Edited by gigoguy
don't want to get sued for libel even though I can't be apparantly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I'm sorry I forgot CW was 3rd year English language O level.

If you had read the initial post you would know that I had a letter from Peel Holdings solicitor. If I refer to said letter later, one would assume that the reader would be able to put the two statements together. Obviously Mr Davis is unable to.

Niel Hayes is peel Holding's legal representative.

And as Athy has already pointed out no a 'company' as an entity cannot be arrested. But it's officers can be. So for the benefit of the terminally stupid.

The officers who instigated this fraud should be arrested and charged.

They are Peter Parkinson General Manager Bridgewater canal company and Louise Morrissey Director of land and properties Peel Holdings.

Is that clear enough?

Perhaps you could ask Athy as we are now letting bye gone's be bye gone's to check the spelling and grammar for you?

I've just reread your initial post and, with respect, you mentioned neither a letter, nor Peel Holdings solicitor, in your initial post. You mentioned an email, or maybe two emails.

As a matter of interest, if someone were to go with you, by refusing to pay their Bridgewater license, and defending any legal action, (solicitor, barrister, and associated staff), can you show that you have the funds to back up your offer to underwrite their legal expenses , and can you show a contract which would bind you to doing so?

I presume you are not going to pay your own license fee next year, and defend any action. Which solicitors and barrister are you going to use to represent you, and what are their fees? Presumably anyone else could use the same legal team, and therefore share costs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

I've just reread your initial post and, with respect, you mentioned neither a letter, nor Peel Holdings solicitor, in your initial post. You mentioned an email, or maybe two emails.

As a matter of interest, if someone were to go with you, by refusing to pay their Bridgewater license, and defending any legal action, (solicitor, barrister, and associated staff), can you show that you have the funds to back up your offer to underwrite their legal expenses , and can you show a contract which would bind you to doing so?

I presume you are not going to pay your own license fee next year, and defend any action. Which solicitors and barrister are you going to use to represent you, and what are their fees? Presumably anyone else could use the same legal team, and therefore share costs.

 

I pay my license fee every year and I do it gladly. All I'm saying is that if you don't HAVE to pay and you don't WANT to pay then don't pay.

There would be no costs for barristers if Peel take me to country court for not paying the toll. As I refused to do numerous times. Then all I've got to do is fill in a form to say why I refuse to pay. It's up to them to prove they have a right to charge, not me to prove they haven't. And as they haven't they'll lose.

And yes if anyone wants me to prove I can stand the costs and 20 quid toll I'll prove it to them.

I'm not funding your fight Richard. If you're daft enough to pay them when you don't have to then go for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I pay my license fee every year and I do it gladly. All I'm saying is that if you don't HAVE to pay and you don't WANT to pay then don't pay.

There would be no costs for barristers if Peel take me to country court for not paying the toll. As I refused to do numerous times. Then all I've got to do is fill in a form to say why I refuse to pay. It's up to them to prove they have a right to charge, not me to prove they haven't. And as they haven't they'll lose.

And yes if anyone wants me to prove I can stand the costs and 20 quid toll I'll prove it to them.

I'm not funding your fight Richard. If you're daft enough to pay them when you don't have to then go for it.

From your initial post: "But if members want me to update here as well then I will. Please let me know."

Good luck with whatever it is that you're trying to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×