Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

I think one thing needs to be made crystal clear. NO ONE can do what they like

May I draw your attention to this :

 

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional principle of English law—an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen.

The converse principle—"everything which is not allowed is forbidden"—applies to public authorities, whose actions are limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, haggis said:

I think this statement applies to you as much as it applies to Peel 

I may be wrong but I think the reason they are not taking you to court is not because they are "guilty"  but because they see you as an itchy bit which they need to scratch occasionally :-)

Haggis 

I also wonder if they would prefer to neither "win", nor "lose", in that mere aggro and publicity of a court case would be better avoided. The loss of the occasional forty quid from gigoguy, and similar, may be a small price to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Richard10002 said:

I also wonder if they would prefer to neither "win", nor "lose", in that mere aggro and publicity of a court case would be better avoided. The loss of the occasional forty quid from gigoguy, and similar, may be a small price to pay.

Unless of course they are totalling up all the £40s till it is a much bigger sum then they will act 

Haggis 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mayalld said:

I fear that you miss my point!

In your extensive search of legislation you will find that there is nothing that grants Tesco the power to charge for bread. Will you be starting a campaign to stop them charging for bread.

The canal was not built with public money, and it was never bought into public ownership. The quid Pro Quo for the compulsory purchase, and the fact that it was never going to be practicable for there to be anything other than a monopoly here was that tolls were regulated, and the proprietors had to carry goods at the stated price.

However, as pleasure craft were no envisaged at the time (and I believe were not permitted until after WWII), there is no toll charge laid down for pleasure craft, and no obligation to allow passage at all.

Hence, the company is not obliged to allow pleasure craft at all. If it does, then just as Tesco can set a price for bread, it sets a price for passage.

 

The notion that pleasure craft were not envisaged at the time when tolls were first set is not borne out by the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No. 2 {Bridgewater, etc. Canals), Order Confirmation Act, 1894

Section 25 clearly recognises "pleasure vessels" and also excludes them from the statutory schedule of tolls:

S25.JPG.6c24d253ba6017417965d8958b79cf80.JPG

The 2012 Order which transferred the Bridgewater undertaking from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company does grant powers to make byelaws to require registration of vessels, to impose conditions for registration and to make reasonable charges and to impose specific penalties on conviction for breach.  

But no byelaws have ever been made under that Order.

 

Edited by erivers
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

May I draw your attention to this :

 

"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a constitutional principle of English law—an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen.

The converse principle—"everything which is not allowed is forbidden"—applies to public authorities, whose actions are limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. But the charging of a toll for pleasure craft on the Bridgewater canal IS forbidden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, erivers said:

The notion that pleasure craft were not envisaged at the time when tolls were first set is not borne out by the Canal Bates, Tolls, and Charges, No. 2 {Bridgewater, fyc. Canals), Order Confirmation Act, 1894

Section 25 clearly recognises "pleasure vessels" and also excludes them from the statutory schedule of tolls:

S25.JPG.6c24d253ba6017417965d8958b79cf80.JPG

The 2012 Order which transferred the Bridgewater undertaking from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company does grant powers to make byelaws to require registration of vessels, to impose conditions for registration and to make reasonable charges and to impose specific penalties on conviction for breach.  

But no byelaws have ever been made under that Order.

 

I have told the Peel lackey's we don't need to argue the law, we know the law. We or rather I as the opening poster merely wanted to draw Bridgewater license holders attention to the fact that they've been lied to and bullied into paying a license fee they don't have to pay. And if they don't like being lied to and bullied then they should ask BCCL to produce the authority they claim to have to charge them. Even if they still decide to pay when they find out that Peel don't have any.

As you know, because I think it was you that found it. Nowhere in the Bridgewater By Laws 1962 is there ANY obligation for a pleasure boater to pay a license. 

Similarly in tolls and charges No2, (above) which is also cited as the basis for the 62 by laws. There is a specific exemption for pleasure craft. Although as you saw in his letter Mr Hayes (Peel solicitor) Said that neither have a bearing. Which I found quite interesting. I'm not quite sure how the acts he cites as authority to charge a license or a toll, have no bearing

But hey I'm insignificant and worth sueing so that's all right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

No, it's not. See post 40,

Sec 7 allows charges p3 prevents them where an exclusion applies s25 tolls No2 excludes. That's the simple bit. The hard bit is knowing what else they think they have. 

As erivers said and i pointed out in an earlier post. Those transfers allow them to make by laws to charge and had they been made then 7 would apply to pleasure craft. BUT they have never been made.

As before I suggest you call Peel and ask to speak to My Hayes in the legal department. Tell him you've found the evidence he can't and to prove it you'll pay for the case and cover any and ALL of the resulting costs if they lose.

Mayalld was a bit closer but not much. And Nigel was well ahead of him anyway

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, erivers said:

The notion that pleasure craft were not envisaged at the time when tolls were first set is not borne out by the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, No. 2 {Bridgewater, etc. Canals), Order Confirmation Act, 1894

Section 25 clearly recognises "pleasure vessels" and also excludes them from the statutory schedule of tolls:

S25.JPG.6c24d253ba6017417965d8958b79cf80.JPG

The 2012 Order which transferred the Bridgewater undertaking from the MSCC to the Bridgewater Canal Company does grant powers to make byelaws to require registration of vessels, to impose conditions for registration and to make reasonable charges and to impose specific penalties on conviction for breach.  

But no byelaws have ever been made under that Order.

 

That schedule doesn't apply to pleasure boats, as it is a schedule of tolls on commercial traffic. Because Tesco don't have the price of bread on the butchers' counter, it doesn't follow that bread is free. Note that the quoted section says that the schedule does not apply to pleasure boats, or affect the tolls or charges which the company are authorised to charge. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT PLEASURE BOATS ARE FREEOF CHARGE.

 

The 2012 Transfer Order grants the power to make bye laws, but also grants the power to charge any vessel using the canal. The sections are separate and independent. There is previous legislation which also permits the charging of pleasure vessels, but I've limited Internet access at the moment, and do not intend to look it up again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

There is previous legislation which also permits the charging of pleasure vessels, but I've limited Internet access at the moment, and do not intend to look it up again

Well you'd better tell Neil Hayes then. He's got good internet access and he's also got copies of all the legislation. And do you know what's odd about you're statement? He's never sent it to me and you've never posted it anywhere.

I think given how many people have become involved in this that if Peel had the authority they would have produced it by now.

If they have and they do then I'll pay. And I'll stop telling everyone else to question them. And I'll stop going on the canal and sitting outside their office and asking them for it. And everyone will be happy and paying up. Won't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Sec 7 allows charges p3 prevents them where an exclusion applies s25 tolls No2 excludes. That's the simple bit. The hard bit is knowing what else they think they have. 

 

Sub-section 3 prohibits charging where there is a previous enactment which prohibits charging. As I have asked numerous times before, in various places, what is this "previous enactment"?  An enactment has to have been enacted; it is not merely the absence of one to the contrary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mayalld said:

Nigel,

should you suddenly find yourself with time on your hands....

 

Well thanks a bunch Dave - did I mention I had not had time to review even the legislation I already have access to?

Seriously though, thanks for the other sources of info; if I DO get time I will have a look through this.

As to the Company Acts, I have come across this in other contexts, and am still unsure over the impact of that also. I think you have phrased it accurately, insofar as Mem & Arts cannot override existing statutory restrictions; how far it extends liberties to do anything else they choose to grant themselves, when taking over a former statutory body, is where I would want to look more closely. Certainly, Nigel Johnson carefully granted CaRT Ltd powers that were recognised as debatable under statutory authority, but I think that is of dubious effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Sub-section 3 prohibits charging where there is a previous enactment which prohibits charging. As I have asked numerous times before, in various places, what is this "previous enactment"?  An enactment has to have been enacted; it is not merely the absence of one to the contrary. 

It says explicit or implied. 62 act by deliberately not including pleasure craft is an implied exclusion. They made sure they put in everything else.

You said it's explicitly charged for in an enactment. So where?

There is overwhelming evidence going back to the original Acts that pleasure craft are excluded from charge. And right up to the latest 2012 orders that any unknown or undecided exclusions would be protected, unless a by law is passed to remove the protection.

You say No2 doesn't apply because it applies to tolls for cargo. Then why has there never been a toll for pleasure craft. They've been on the water since 1794 for riparian craft and 1952 for others.

Do you think that in nearly 230 years and every owner and operator that has had control of the Bridgewater that this pair of half wits are the first people to think of charging pleasure craft?

MSCCL used to charge a penny to ride a bike down the towpath don't you think they'd have charge a quid for a pleasure boat to use the canal?

They CAN'T do it and they know full well they can't. And the sooner they stop doing it and stop breaking the law the better 

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

The 2012 Transfer Order grants the power to make bye laws, but also grants the power to charge any vessel using the canal. The sections are separate and independent. There is previous legislation which also permits the charging of pleasure vessels, but I've limited Internet access at the moment, and do not intend to look it up again. 

There is no provision in the 2012 Order granting power to make byelaws imposing charges independent of Section 7 which relates specifically to charges. 

Section 4 describes the specific purposes for which new byelaws can be made.  Charges are not included as one of those purposes.

Regardless, no new byelaws have ever been made under the provisions of the 2012 Order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, erivers said:

There is no provision in the 2012 Order granting power to make byelaws imposing charges independent of Section 7 which relates specifically to charges. 

Section 4 describes the specific purposes for which new byelaws can be made.  Charges are not included as one of those purposes.

Regardless, no new byelaws have ever been made under the provisions of the 2012 Order.

I agree. You put it a lot better than I did, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, erivers said:

There is no provision in the 2012 Order granting power to make byelaws imposing charges independent of Section 7 which relates specifically to charges. 

Section 4 describes the specific purposes for which new byelaws can be made.  Charges are not included as one of those purposes.

Regardless, no new byelaws have ever been made under the provisions of the 2012 Order.

I'm sorry I understand what you're saying now. However no permission to charge pleasure craft exists in any previous Acts or by laws as we know. So it makes no difference really does it?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And despite what Ian says and how many bits of stuff he keeps coming up with. The ONLY piece of legislation Peel say gives them authority to charge is s52 of the 1962 Transport Act.

(3)Subject to this Act and to any such enactment as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, the [F5British Waterways Board [F6and Canal & River Trust] F7...] shall [F8each] have power to demand, take and recover [F9or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit.

What would you say that means?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Well you'd better tell Neil Hayes then. He's got good internet access and he's also got copies of all the legislation. And do you know what's odd about you're statement? He's never sent it to me and you've never posted it anywhere.

(snip)

Why should I do that? (I'm assuming Neil Hayes is some sort of Peel functionary)  Why should he send it to you? Has he sent you all the stuff that has been posted on the subject?

I refer you to the "Bridgewater Canal Claim back your toll fees" thread in the other place, and in particular

August 15th 12.40a,m,

August 15th 12.59 p.m.

August 15th  9.37p.m.

August 16th  8.35p.m.

August 16th 12.30 p.m.

I am not the one telling porkies here ...

For the record, I think Peel are out of order with the "no return within 28 days, unless you pay us 40 quid" bit, but believe it's an attempt to deal with a perceived problem, rather than a money grabbing exercise. It might be constructive to suggest "no return within 7 days" as an alternative? However, out of order, unfair, or not, I have reluctantly concluded that they have the right to charge for use of the Bridgewater Canal, unless there is some legal basis to the previous Bridgewater/BW agreement, and CaRT were willing to go to law to uphold it. (Accompanied by a squadron of flying pigs, perhaps)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two pence worth. I know the legal aspects of this issue are important, but so are the moral aspects. 

 

A boat is a big investment and for some, it's their abode. The threat of having one's boat impounded is huge and a couple of organisations probably know that they will get away with making up rules as they go along to get a bit of extra revenue to run their empire. 

 

Sadly, the only way I can see these kind of issues getting resolved is to simply not pay up, do what you believe the law says and take a risk. Bear in mind you may have to convince a judge of the reasoning behind your decision if you want to get your boat back. 

 

Back to the legal aspects. Is the organisation misrepresenting the law? Is the organisation using threatening behaviour? These are things a judge will be interested in. Again, you will need to collect enough evidence to convince a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Do you think that in nearly 230 years and every owner and operator that has had control of the Bridgewater that this pair of half wits are the first people to think of charging pleasure craft?

MSCCL used to charge a penny to ride a bike down the towpath don't you think they'd have charge a quid for a pleasure boat to use the canal?

They CAN'T do it and they know full well they can't. And the sooner they stop doing it and stop breaking the law the better 

Are you now saying that all the pleasure craft on The Bridgewater should not have to pay a charge to be there? If that were proved in a legal way, and publicised, every Tom Dick and Harry with no money and a knackered old boat would be up here, making a mess of the towpath and offside, which is not how I, for one, would want it to be.

If that is the case, where do we/they stand with respect to the restriction on mooring on the towpath for more than 24 hours in any one place, living on board, needing a home mooring, the new Platinum license with its'additional freedoms, and so on?

My annual charge is made up of a license fee and a mooring fee, usually about a 50/50 split. It would seem that your issue is with the license only but, in many instances, you refer to a "charge", so you could be talking about any payment whatsoever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Iain_S said:

Why should I do that? (I'm assuming Neil Hayes is some sort of Peel functionary)  Why should he send it to you? Has he sent you all the stuff that has been posted on the subject?

I refer you to the "Bridgewater Canal Claim back your toll fees" thread in the other place, and in particular

August 15th 12.40a,m,

August 15th 12.59 p.m.

August 15th  9.37p.m.

August 16th  8.35p.m.

August 16th 12.30 p.m.

I am not the one telling porkies here ...

For the record, I think Peel are out of order with the "no return within 28 days, unless you pay us 40 quid" bit, but believe it's an attempt to deal with a perceived problem, rather than a money grabbing exercise. It might be constructive to suggest "no return within 7 days" as an alternative? However, out of order, unfair, or not, I have reluctantly concluded that they have the right to charge for use of the Bridgewater Canal, unless there is some legal basis to the previous Bridgewater/BW agreement, and CaRT were willing to go to law to uphold it. (Accompanied by a squadron of flying pigs, perhaps)

Neil Hayes has sent me nothing apart from s52 Transport Act. I've looked at the posts you've mentioned and can see no reply at all from him. I can see stuff you've posted, so are you he? As for porky pies please be a bit more specific and I'll answer you.

And why should he sent it to me? Because I'm refusing to pay unless or until he does.

It won't lead to a rush onto the canal and if it did there are ways of dealing with it without penalising everyone else.

No it doesn't mean they can't charge for anything it means they can't charge for a license and they can't charge pleasure boats a toll for passage. Or certainly not under the terms they imply they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rowland al said:

Back to the legal aspects. Is the organisation misrepresenting the law? Is the organisation using threatening behaviour? These are things a judge will be interested in. Again, you will need to collect enough evidence to convince a judge.

Yet another caution – just because you have the evidence does not ensure a judge will find in your favour against the establishment. County Court judges simply do not have the luxury of time to investigate properly; the Supreme Court has approved the principle that such judges should assume that authorities are basing their actions on a correct application of their powers; and as a barrister once said to me many years ago: at higher levels, judges will make decisions based upon where they wish interpretation of the law to go.

No clearer example of this could exist than the latest High Court judgment in the Ravenscroft case, where the claim that s.8 cannot be used to justify holding on to a seized boat as a lien on arrears of licence fees was dismissed, with costs, even though CaRT admitted that it could not be; that it had been a 'mistake' to do so, and when the evidence was irrefutable that this had been a published policy since before CaRT even took over from BW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

It won't lead to a rush onto the canal and if it did there are ways of dealing with it without penalising everyone else.

No it doesn't mean they can't charge for anything it means they can't charge for a license and they can't charge pleasure boats a toll for passage. Or certainly not under the terms they imply they can.

1) Why won't it lead to a rush onto the canal? If it's free, compared to the adjacent CaRT canals.....

2) What are these ways of dealing with it?

3) If nobody is paying, how do you differentiate those who shouldn't be penalised?

4) If they aren't able to charge for a license, what is to stop them doubling the mooring fee, resulting in the same annual payment?

5) I don't know enough about the charge for passage to be able to comment except that I wonder how "passage" is defined, as against the alternative?

6) If you aren't paying for your passage, and the BCC aren't pursuing you for payment, despite your making your position quite clear to them, and you have publicised the fact to all who are in a position to hear, haven't you achieved your goal? Surely it is up to other passage making boaters to decide whether to pay or not, given what they now know about your experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/10/2017 at 19:46, David Mack said:

Really?  I paid a charge to licence a pleasure boat on the Bridgewater Canal in 1982/3. And here are the fees and the licence conditions from that time.

 

It is interesting to reflect upon the possible import of the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960, section 9(1)( a ), as cited in the T&C’s of Bridgewater Boat Licences, as posted above.

That grants the right for the MSCC to remove boats that have been left on the Bridgewater for a month or more without written permission of the company [after giving 7 days notice]. If - 9(1)( b ) - the offending boat is removed, claim may be made by the company for the costs of removal, but no mention is made of fees owing.

Two possibilities arise from that at first glance: one is, that if written permission [i.e. ‘licence’] for stays longer than a month are required for any vessel, then there is a presumption that such a licence is required; but second:  a licence can only be demanded/enforced for stays longer than a month. That would suggest that simple through-passage without mooring elsewhere than permitted, could not be charged for or at least could not be enforced.

Something to think about perhaps.

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.