Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

1 hour 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 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?

Thank you. Perhaps you could have just replied without being rude. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours 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.

 

My gripe is not with 'The Bridgewater' canal or any of it's license payers and club members. I love the canal and visit 3 times a year. I go to Lymm for the duck race, the transport day and xmas. I never, unavoidably, over stay and as a general rule I moor outside the village. Usually but not always, opposite, the 'bin man'. I'll be making more of a habit of that from now on though.

There is, I don't know if you are aware, a Bridgewater Canal Trust consisting of Cheshire County Council, Halton Borough Council, Warrington Borough Council, Macclesfield Borough Council, Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Manchester City Council, Salford City Council, Wigan Council, and the Manchester Ship Canal Company. 

The canal is a public right of way, it might be a private road, but it's still a public right of way. Even if it is not specified as such in an Act of Parliament. It joines 2 or more public rights of way and without it a diversion of 150 miles in required. It has always been a public right of way and there is no way Peel could argue otherwise. Especially as the only legislation they rely on is transport legislation

All of the Acts confer on to Duke of Bridgewater his Aires and successors the powers and responsibilities as if they were a local authority. There are thousands of private roads in hundreds of local authorities and not one is allowed to charge a toll or in any way obstruct passage by a perfectly lawful vehicle. As in tax insurance etc etc, MUST be lawful. For the pedantic, 'toll roads' M6 various bridges etc. Are governed by their own specific legislation and ALL restriction to charge. Emergency vehicles etc etc would ALWAYS and for ALL time be exempt. And any parking restrictions they impose and any signs they post must comply with consumer legislation.

I'd be more than happy for everyone who uses the canal to pay for it. I don't like being bullied, I don't like being lied to and I don't like be threatened. Especially from a playground bully who hasn't got the big mates he thought he had.

The whole thing is a fraud, extortion and done for greed and profit.

If I were to start a real campaign  it would be to free the bridgewater not to close

Set up a proper official responsible and above all legal Bridgewater Trust and take it out of the hands of a profiteering property company that already has more than it deserves.

Edited by gigoguy
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gigoguy said:

My gripe is not with 'The Bridgewater' canal or any of it's license payers and club members. I love the canal and visit 3 times a year. I go to Lymm for the duck race, the transport day and xmas. I never, unavoidably, over stay and as a general rule I moor outside the village. Usually but not always, opposite, the 'bin man'. I'll be making more of a habit of that from now on though.

ds of a profiteering property company that already has more than it deserves.

Ah, I must have misunderstood when I read elsewhere that you regularly pop back and forwards between the T & M and the Bridgewater, much more frequently than three times a year. I am possibly  thinking about someone else . I seem to remember a pattern of several weeks on the Bridgewater followed by a few days on the T & M then back onto the Bridgewater. 

Haggis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, haggis said:

Ah, I must have misunderstood when I read elsewhere that you regularly pop back and forwards between the T & M and the Bridgewater, much more frequently than three times a year. I am possibly  thinking about someone else . I seem to remember a pattern of several weeks on the Bridgewater followed by a few days on the T & M then back onto the Bridgewater. 

Haggis

Well yeah you probably are thinking of someone else. BUT even if I did I HAVE EVERY F'IN RIGHT TO! as does everyone else.

And how else does anyone get from Northwich to Leigh and back again? Do the 150 mile 200 lock 4 week detour or pay 20 quid? Yeah well they can suck my socks I'm NOT paying it

Edited by gigoguy
addition
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Yeah well they can suck my socks.

While I have no doubt that your foot hygiene is impeccable, this is the most strikingly 'orrible expression I've seen in a while - so much so that I'm giving it a slightly whiffy greeno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

While I have no doubt that your foot hygiene is impeccable, this is the most strikingly 'orrible expression I've seen in a while - so much so that I'm giving it a slightly whiffy greeno.

I have a very strict rule. I throw them at the wall and if they don't stick they're still clean!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are not quite sure how to make a claim through the County Court then here is the link for them.

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money

They do have to pay an application fee of £35 if they make a paper application or £25 if they do it on line. I can see how the cost might be restrictive for Peel holdings but I'm sure if they asked, CaRT would stump up half of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/09/2017 at 11:49, gigoguy said:

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!

you are ranting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2017 at 10:07, gigoguy said:

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.

Although gigoguy and I  (along with others) have had this discussion before, to preserve a bit of balance, I quote section 7 of The Bridgewater Canal (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 2012

Quote

Charges
7.—(1) On and after the transfer date the Company in the exercise of its statutory powers and duties in the Bridgewater Canal, has power to make reasonable charges in respect of vessels which navigate or use the Bridgewater Canal.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) affects the right of the Company to make charges in respect of other services or facilities provided by the Company in relation to a vessel which navigates or uses the Bridgewater Canal.
(3) This article does not authorise the making of any charge in a case where an enactment relating to the Bridgewater Canal expressly or impliedly provides for freedom from charges or otherwise prohibits the making of any charge.

 

I leave it to the reader to decide the meaning of 7(1), and also the applicability or not of 7(3) ...

Edited by Iain_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, gigoguy said:

My gripe is not with 'The Bridgewater' canal or any of it's license payers and club members. I love the canal and visit 3 times a year. I go to Lymm for the duck race, the transport day and xmas. I never, unavoidably, over stay and as a general rule I moor outside the village. Usually but not always, opposite, the 'bin man'. I'll be making more of a habit of that from now on though.

There is, I don't know if you are aware, a Bridgewater Canal Trust consisting of Cheshire County Council, Halton Borough Council, Warrington Borough Council, Macclesfield Borough Council, Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, Manchester City Council, Salford City Council, Wigan Council, and the Manchester Ship Canal Company. 

The canal is a public right of way, it might be a private road, but it's still a public right of way. Even if it is not specified as such in an Act of Parliament. It joines 2 or more public rights of way and without it a diversion of 150 miles in required. It has always been a public right of way and there is no way Peel could argue otherwise. Especially as the only legislation they rely on is transport legislation

All of the Acts confer on to Duke of Bridgewater his Aires and successors the powers and responsibilities as if they were a local authority. There are thousands of private roads in hundreds of local authorities and not one is allowed to charge a toll or in any way obstruct passage by a perfectly lawful vehicle. As in tax insurance etc etc, MUST be lawful. For the pedantic, 'toll roads' M6 various bridges etc. Are governed by their own specific legislation and ALL restriction to charge. Emergency vehicles etc etc would ALWAYS and for ALL time be exempt. And any parking restrictions they impose and any signs they post must comply with consumer legislation.

I'd be more than happy for everyone who uses the canal to pay for it. I don't like being bullied, I don't like being lied to and I don't like be threatened. Especially from a playground bully who hasn't got the big mates he thought he had.

The whole thing is a fraud, extortion and done for greed and profit.

If I were to start a real campaign  it would be to free the bridgewater not to close

Set up a proper official responsible and above all legal Bridgewater Trust and take it out of the hands of a profiteering property company that already has more than it deserves.

OK, let me say at the outset that I have very little time for BCC and its odious enforcement officer, and that I think their new policy on use of the reciprocal agreement is a complete dogs breakfast that wasn't thought through.

However, there we must part company. Your quasi-legal posturing seems to be founded entire upon the "It's not fair Act, 1827"

Life isn't always fair, and we have to deal with it.

It may be essential in your mind that the canal is a Public Right of Way (it isn't BTW), or more to the point a Public Right of Navigation (again, nope), because for it to be otherwise would mean that a private company is in control of whether you can go that way or not. That may not be how you think the world should be, but that doesn't mean that the world isn't like that.

You may then conclude that BCC can't charge for use of the canal, but if that is the case, how would the canal be maintained? Just suppose that you actually manage to prove that they can't charge for use of the canal. Will a magic money tree spring up at the side of Pomona Lock, providing funds for the canal. or do you just imagine that the largesse of the public purse will provide?

Yes, the canal is run to make a profit (or rather more likely to avoid making a loss, and you might like it to be in public ownership, but would that actually mean it was cheaper or to be frank that you could use it free of charge as much as you want on a CRT licence?

Perhaps BCT could take it over, but they would still need to cover the costs of running it. Perhaps it could be taken over by CRT, and all the BCC licence holders would have to change to CRT licences. You would be saved from paying £40, whilst all the locals would see their costs increase.

In an ideal world, CRT would be discussing and sorting the reciprocal agreement with BCC, but if they don't want to play, then what. The only thing that CRT can do is cancel the agreement. You would still have to pay your £40, and BCC licence holders would need to pay to come onto CRT waters. That might hurt BCC eventually, because mooring there wouldn't seem quite so attractive if you can't go anywhere else.

So, in the final analysis, the new BCC take on the reciprocal agreement is really rubbish, but that doesn't mean that it isn't legal.

 

  • Greenie 2
  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

You may then conclude that BCC can't charge for use of the canal, but if that is the case, how would the canal be maintained? Just suppose that you actually manage to prove that they can't charge for use of the canal. Will a magic money tree spring up at the side of Pomona Lock, providing funds for the canal. or do you just imagine that the largesse of the public purse will provide?

I do not believe that the commercial viability of the Bridgewater without the ability to charge pleasure boats has any relevance to the question; if they cannot do so and need to, then appropriate legislation could be sought and obtained – as, for example, the Middle Level Commissioners are seeking to do [with far less justification].

This whole situation is fraught with confusion on all sides. I really don’t think that the Peel lawyers know what they are on about, but then the boaters’ position is none too clear either.

Initially, it seems, Peel claimed a right to demand licences and fees under the Byelaws, but there was nothing relevant in those whatsoever. Currently, they have reverted to the old standby of the 1962 Act, regarding which my own views are well known. But whether they need to rely on specific legislative rights to charge for pleasure boats [there has never been any doubt over the right to charge for freight carriage] depends largely on whether there is a general PRN.

I have not read through the numerous relevant Acts, but the original enabling Act concerned itself solely with commercial boats, and the right of passage [subject to tolls] was, so far as I can see, confined to those – which means that unless some later Act conferred a general PRN, then all pleasure boats not belonging to Bridgewater riparian owners [who were specifically given free rights to have and use pleasure boats] have no right to use the canal without Peel’s permission.

If that is the situation, the Transport Act 1962 on permissible charges – however interpreted - has no relevance to either side. It would be open to Peel to enter into consensual agreements with ‘external’ boaters on mutually agreed terms with as much legitimacy as other canal companies, pre-nationalisation, did concerning pleasure boat licences. Such contractual terms would be – and were – entirely outwith the 1962 legislative restrictions.

So caution over the position is advisable. Just because Peel’s legal positioning might be ill conceived, does not mean that they cannot do as they have been doing – concerning non-Bridgewater boats at least. Gigoguy and others certainly have legitimate complaints over other aspects of Peel’s conduct and procedures, but the position on charging for passage of 'foreign' pleasure boats demands more knowledge of applicable public rights than is currently clear – to me at least.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

I do not believe that the commercial viability of the Bridgewater without the ability to charge pleasure boats has any relevance to the question; if they cannot do so and need to, then appropriate legislation could be sought and obtained – as, for example, the Middle Level Commissioners are seeking to do [with far less justification].

This whole situation is fraught with confusion on all sides. I really don’t think that the Peel lawyers know what they are on about, but then the boaters’ position is none too clear either.

Initially, it seems, Peel claimed a right to demand licences and fees under the Byelaws, but there was nothing relevant in those whatsoever. Currently, they have reverted to the old standby of the 1962 Act, regarding which my own views are well known. But whether they need to rely on specific legislative rights to charge for pleasure boats [there has never been any doubt over the right to charge for freight carriage] depends largely on whether there is a general PRN.

I have not read through the numerous relevant Acts, but the original enabling Act concerned itself solely with commercial boats, and the right of passage [subject to tolls] was, so far as I can see, confined to those – which means that unless some later Act conferred a general PRN, then all pleasure boats not belonging to Bridgewater riparian owners [who were specifically given free rights to have and use pleasure boats] have no right to use the canal without Peel’s permission.

If that is the situation, the Transport Act 1962 on permissible charges – however interpreted - has no relevance to either side. It would be open to Peel to enter into consensual agreements with ‘external’ boaters on mutually agreed terms with as much legitimacy as other canal companies, pre-nationalisation, did concerning pleasure boat licences. Such contractual terms would be – and were – entirely outwith the 1962 legislative restrictions.

So caution over the position is advisable. Just because Peel’s legal positioning might be ill conceived, does not mean that they cannot do as they have been doing – concerning non-Bridgewater boats at least. Gigoguy and others certainly have legitimate complaints over other aspects of Peel’s conduct and procedures, but the position on charging for passage of 'foreign' pleasure boats demands more knowledge of applicable public rights than is currently clear – to me at least.

Thanks for that Nigel the whole thing is still as clear as mud.

As far as I can see there are 2 distinct and different pieces of legislation here. There is parking legislation and there is toll to use legislation. Parking legislation is enforced by a s9 notice. And if the boat is left where it shouldn't be for a period of 2 months and one  week. Then just like a car they can take it to convenient place, or compound. If after a week I haven't collected it and paid for the removal and storage they can break it or sell it. If I turn up with my £150 or whatever they charge me for removal and storage they CAN'T not give it back to me.

Anyone has a right to dispute a toll, it says so in all the legislation. If it is disputed the company CAN pursue the debt through the court. If they win they can enforce the judgement, as you say, through  court officers. But they can only take goods to the value of the toll and the legal and collection costs. If after a court order has been made they impound a 50 grand boat for a £500 debt and they then sell the craft to recover the debt. Anything more than the original debt and costs MUST be returned to me. If there is a shortfall they can again demand it from me. AND they have a duty of care to get the best possible price. Something that hasn't been done with the restaurant boat. That legislation is VERY clear and applies to building societies, banks, finance companies and anyone who has authority to seize and dispose of goods to repay a debt.

This isn't barrack room law this is the same parking and recovery of debt law that exists today. It's just in 18th century language but it's exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 17:18, gigoguy said:

And how else does anyone get from Northwich to Leigh and back again? Do the 150 mile 200 lock 4 week detour or pay 20 quid? Yeah well they can suck my socks I'm NOT paying it

How does anyone get from Stratford on Avon to Tewksbury? Or from Teddington to Oxford? Or from Weybridge to Godalming? Or from Northampton to Stanground?

I think you'll find that most pay the 20 quid (or whatever the actual fee is on those waterways).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David Mack said:

How does anyone get from Stratford on Avon to Tewksbury? Or from Teddington to Oxford? Or from Weybridge to Godalming? Or from Northampton to Stanground?

I think you'll find that most pay the 20 quid (or whatever the actual fee is on those waterways).

 

So tell me. How long have those charges been in effect? Because for 230 years there has been NO charge for pleasure boats to use the Bridgewater canal. The charge was introduced in 2013/4. And it certainly was not to make  money. It was done specifically with the intention of reducing canal traffic. The effect on local business and tourist hot spots has been devastating. Everyone has complained to Peel. And they couldn't give a tuppenny feck for anyone or anything to do with the canal unless they can sell or build on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

So tell me. How long have those charges been in effect? Because for 230 years there has been NO charge for pleasure boats to use the Bridgewater canal. The charge was introduced in 2013/4. And it certainly was not to make  money. It was done specifically with the intention of reducing canal traffic. The effect on local business and tourist hot spots has been devastating. Everyone has complained to Peel. And they couldn't give a tuppenny feck for anyone or anything to do with the canal unless they can sell or build on it.

Can you provide factual and provable evidence of those ALL those points? Or is this more of your incorrect assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

So tell me. How long have those charges been in effect? Because for 230 years there has been NO charge for pleasure boats to use the Bridgewater canal. The charge was introduced in 2013/4. And it certainly was not to make  money. It was done specifically with the intention of reducing canal traffic. The effect on local business and tourist hot spots has been devastating. Everyone has complained to Peel. And they couldn't give a tuppenny feck for anyone or anything to do with the canal unless they can sell or build on it.

I thought that the charges were brought in to deter overstayers at places like Lymm and Castlefield.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Pie Eater said:

I thought that the charges were brought in to deter overstayers at places like Lymm and Castlefield.

You know as well as i do that isn't the case. Mike Webb dealt with over stayers at Lymm and Castlefield and he didn't threaten to take their boats off them and he didn't make them discharge themselves from hospital and have them chased through a frozen canal for 10 miles in the middle of Winter. Under bogus powers he didn't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

You know as well as i do that isn't the case. Mike Webb dealt with over stayers at Lymm and Castlefield and he didn't threaten to take their boats off them and he didn't make them discharge themselves from hospital and have them chased through a frozen canal for 10 miles in the middle of Winter. Under bogus powers he didn't have.

How long ago was the Bridgewater canal frozen over?

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.