Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

Another interesting facet of charging history, which I had overlooked – the 2012 Order will have overturned the liberty granted under s.52 of the 1962 Transport Act to charge whatever they liked! From 2012 the charges must be reasonable. That turns the clock back to the same situation as obtained with the British Transport Commission back in the fifties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2017 at 12:21, Richard10002 said:

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

Just to put things in perspective: ever since pleasure boats were specifically allowed onto the canal in 1766, they could not, as a practical matter, enter or exit the canal without the Company’s consent. No charges were allowed for, it was simply a matter of whether [I suppose] letting them through locks would have interfered with the commercial traffic or not.

 In 1794 the pleasure boats could be let through the locks either by consent of the company, or by paying a fixed toll. So they were only really free to navigate in lock-free sections, unless they were prepared to pay tolls.

 In 1885 it was confirmed that riparian owners could build their mooring facilities, which were exempt from charges. The 1894 Act confirmed free mooring at private facilities, and allowed free overnight mooring only, on towpath or company facilities.

 Obviously, any pleasure boat could be chargeable if staying beyond the single night, so charges were payable for any pleasure boat off their private mooring if navigating the canal with more than overnight stays.

 The charges for entering and exiting the canal were confirmed at a fixed level for any class of vessel by the 1960 Act, which the Transport Act 1962 affected by lifting the ceiling restriction [which was yet later, in the 2012 Order, constrained by the need to be reasonable]. If they entered Runcorn Docks, they would be liable to charges to remain there, and for any berthing charges.

 So it never was, let alone now is, the free-for-all that has been feared, should freedom from resident pleasure boat licences be acknowledged. Nobody can enter from another waterway and traverse the canal without payment, nobody – resident boater or ‘foreigner’ - can moor for longer than overnight without liability for payment &/or consent [unless on private moorings]. In the event of any breach of these restrictions, the boater is liable to drastic measures the company can employ should they wish.

 No doubt, if, as my present state of knowledge suggests is the case and ‘resident’ pleasure boats need no licence from the company, people might get excited by the idea of the Bridgewater as a free haven, but they would be egregiously incorrect. Even the ‘resident’ boats would face legitimate charges if and whenever they wanted to move off from their moorings, and there are a finite number of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Nigel for adding some clarity to the BC situation. None more so than Peel who probably have been following this and similar discussions and now know more than their own legal eagles could decipher.

Perhaps not the outcome we wanted but at least we all now know the situation. I will continue to use the BC as a through route but will plan return trips to avoid charges.

I also applaud Gigoguy for his challenge and others who have contributed useful information to this thread.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Nigel for adding some clarity to the BC situation. None more so than Peel who probably have been following this and similar discussions and now know more than their own legal eagles could decipher.

Perhaps not the outcome we wanted but at least we all now know the situation. I will continue to use the BC as a through route but will plan return trips to avoid charges.

I also applaud Gigoguy for his challenge and others who have contributed useful information to this thread.

Hear hear, excellent thread. Have to say I found gigoguy's tone intensely irritating at first, but then thought that if Aickman were alive today  and posting on here, he'd probably have the same effect and we owe the continued existence of most of the network to him.

Sometimes stroppy sods are just what's needed :angry:.

Edited by BruceinSanity
Fat finger
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

The last I heard was 23rd of January this year, when he was trying to drum up support against more obvious abuses –

Peel Holdings have recently snatched a boat from a young man with a severe brain injury. He moored in Lymm village on 7th December for 2 days to attend a family funeral and when he returned his boat was gone. He phoned Peel who told him they didn't have his boat. So he reported it to the police as stolen and to his insurance. On Tuesday of this week, over a month after they said they didn't have it. They told his insurance company that they did. And now they want £840 off him for it's return. They posted no notices, sent nothing to his postal address and didn't even wait a week before removing it. The boat was licensed, insured and has an in date BSC.

 He isn't capable of fighting the case himself and he won't get legal aid because they'll say it's a civil matter. He's homeless now and his cousin who was putting him up. Was only doing so until his boat was found or the insurance paid out. Now that isn't going to happen and he hasn't got £840 to get it back so she's told him he must find somewhere to live. They are already over crowded and he's another body. He will be living in a tent or on the streets before the end of the month.”

 Have heard nothing since then – but as you can see from the above, it would be idle to think from the silence on the forums that he has not continued active in trying to help those less able, against corporate abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 22/03/2018 at 20:02, NigelMoore said:

The last I heard was 23rd of January this year, when he was trying to drum up support against more obvious abuses –

Peel Holdings have recently snatched a boat from a young man with a severe brain injury. He moored in Lymm village on 7th December for 2 days to attend a family funeral and when he returned his boat was gone. He phoned Peel who told him they didn't have his boat. So he reported it to the police as stolen and to his insurance. On Tuesday of this week, over a month after they said they didn't have it. They told his insurance company that they did. And now they want £840 off him for it's return. They posted no notices, sent nothing to his postal address and didn't even wait a week before removing it. The boat was licensed, insured and has an in date BSC.

 He isn't capable of fighting the case himself and he won't get legal aid because they'll say it's a civil matter. He's homeless now and his cousin who was putting him up. Was only doing so until his boat was found or the insurance paid out. Now that isn't going to happen and he hasn't got £840 to get it back so she's told him he must find somewhere to live. They are already over crowded and he's another body. He will be living in a tent or on the streets before the end of the month.”

 Have heard nothing since then – but as you can see from the above, it would be idle to think from the silence on the forums that he has not continued active in trying to help those less able, against corporate abuse.

Thanks for that Nigel. And you're right I haven't been idle, just not so vocal.

It appears that peel have now lost the boat. Or at least that is what they are claiming. I think they've broken it up or sold it and now can't return it. Phil's solicitor has asked them for legal authority to have moved it in the first place and he's had nothing back on that. he asked why a fraudulent bill had been issued and had nothing back on that, apart from some nonsense about it being an estimate. He's asked them for legal authority to charge for use of the canal and guess what.....nothing again. 

He's advised Phil to take them to county court. Which he is now doing

They issued a bill for £842 including £400 to tow it less that 2 miles and £200 to take it out of the water. Well if it's been stole, as they claim, then it obviously wasn't out of the water. The 2012 Transfer order states that all charges must be reasonable, is £400 for less than 2 miles reasonable. It doesn't actually say that the charges must be bona fide charges though. So maybe they can charge for something they haven't done. They can do anything else they like so maybe they can?

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.