Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

9 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So the first 3 are all conjecture by you. In detail:
1/ No proof only conjecture by you and some residents. 
2/ Those closures are happening nationally so you cannot blame the canal for any of them. My own town has lost 4 banks in the last 2 years, 2 pubs and 2 shops and we are no-where near a canal! Shops changing hands happens all the time. Again conjecture and exaggeration.
3/ That isn't "everyone"! I have not seen every member of this Forum complaining either. More exaggeration!
4/ Then you should have said that! But you didn't. And sorry but I severely doubt they chased you for 10 miles or forced you to discharge yourself. 

 

And sorry, but my opinion of you has not changed. Your "argument" would come across a lot better if you removed the aggressive language used, the aggressive attitude and rudeness against those that disagree with you, all of whom have been totally polite, the total lack of provable facts and continuous use of conjecture, and personally the petty, childish and frankly pathetic insults issued against me by you and others over on Thunderboat.
I have always found that being constructive, polite, accurate and understanding seems to get a far better and more reasonable response when I have had to "argue" with someone or something else.

 

 

I'm not wishing to cross swords with anyone and I agree with your comments up to a point, but the fact remains that Peel haven't taken any legal action. Given that Gigoguy is rubbing their nose in it you would think they would if they had the legal backing.

Without letting your personal feelings get in the way have you any opinion why they haven't.

Edited by Midnight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So the first 3 are all conjecture by you. In detail:
1/ No proof only conjecture by you and some residents. 
2/ Those closures are happening nationally so you cannot blame the canal for any of them. My own town has lost 4 banks in the last 2 years, 2 pubs and 2 shops and we are no-where near a canal! Shops changing hands happens all the time. Again conjecture and exaggeration.
3/ That isn't "everyone"! I have not seen every member of this Forum complaining either. More exaggeration!
4/ Then you should have said that! But you didn't. And sorry but I severely doubt they chased you for 10 miles or forced you to discharge yourself. 

 

And sorry, but my opinion of you has not changed. Your "argument" would come across a lot better if you removed the aggressive language used, the aggressive attitude and rudeness against those that disagree with you, all of whom have been totally polite, the total lack of provable facts and continuous use of conjecture, and personally the petty, childish and frankly pathetic insults issued against me by you and others over on Thunderboat.
I have always found that being constructive, polite, accurate and understanding seems to get a far better and more reasonable response when I have had to "argue" with someone or something else.

To your other points:
1/ You don't know that. Conjecture.
2/ The Police do not get involved in Civil matters, unless there is likely to a Breach of the Peace.
3/ Traffic wardens or Bin Men? Don't know what you are on about. use their proper descriptions.
4/ So you condone an assualt?
5/ Fine

 

Well whatever you say you're the genius round here.

I know that in 2012 there were an average of 30 boats a day moored in Lymm between May-Sep this year the average has been 6 a day. I know because I've had someone counting them for me. That's 24 less boats a day on average with say 2 people to a boat that's 48 people a day not visiting one of the most popular tourist villages in Cheshire. That's why the bank'sand shops have closed. But hey what does it matter to you, you don't live there so let em eat cake huh?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I'm not wishing to cross swords with anyone and I agree with your comments up to a point, but the fact remains that Peel haven't taken any legal action. Given that Gigoguy is rubbing their nose in it you would think they would if they had the legal backing.

Without letting your personal feelings get in the way have you any opinion why they haven't.

Thing is midnight unless you live in the area it's difficult to understand just how essential passage along the Bridgewater is. You literally can't get from one side of the country to the other without it.

The reason Peel won't take me to court is they know if they lose they will lose hundreds of thousands pounds and it will set back their plans to further rape and pillage the surrounding land for years to come.

They closed the canal for 4 months. They wanted to close it for 6. They said for 'repairs to a bridge' They've built an entirely new bridge and put in a service road, that I very much doubt they even applied for planning permission for. I wouldn't trust a single one of them as far as I could throw them. As my mum used to say 'they couldn't lie straight in bed' They can't even tell the truth to each other. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

I thought the reciprocal arrangement was that Bridgewater Canal licenced boats could travel as far as Banbridge Junction (end of the Middlewich Branch of the Shropshire Union) without payment to CRT? 

At least there used to be a sign there that said this was as far aso a BCC licenced boats could travel.

Reciprocal agreement :-

Pleasure craft displaying a Bridgewater Canal licence can travel as far as the under mentioned points for up to 7 days free of charge.

Harecastle tunnel

Barbridge junction

Blackburn bottom lock

Burscough (extended to Liverpool with an extra 7 days)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 18:59, 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. 

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.

scan0004.jpg.dd435eadd34ff9372aa197029422913e.jpgscan0003.jpg.5270822ec68df2d933af3c4484c39681.jpg

scan0002.jpg.2d58a4fa46d58298b96efbebc0145c26.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pie Eater said:

Reciprocal agreement :-

Pleasure craft displaying a Bridgewater Canal licence can travel as far as the under mentioned points for up to 7 days free of charge.

Harecastle tunnel

Barbridge junction

Blackburn bottom lock

Burscough (extended to Liverpool with an extra 7 days)

 

image.png.861572edbd81e3c05bf99b2435a2c0c5.png

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cuthound said:

I thought the reciprocal arrangement was that Bridgewater Canal licenced boats could travel as far as Banbridge Junction (end of the Middlewich Branch of the Shropshire Union) without payment to CRT? 

At least there used to be a sign there that said this was as far aso a BCC licenced boats could travel.

There still is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 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.

scan0004.jpg.dd435eadd34ff9372aa197029422913e.jpgscan0003.jpg.5270822ec68df2d933af3c4484c39681.jpg

scan0002.jpg.2d58a4fa46d58298b96efbebc0145c26.jpg

Now that is interesting. Not relevant to whether they can charge me for a pleasure boat return passage but interesting. Thanks you for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Now that is interesting. Not relevant to whether they can charge me for a pleasure boat return passage but interesting. Thanks you for that

But that's not what you said. You said that for 230 years there had been no charge for pleasure boats. You said nothing specifically about short through passages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Mack said:

But that's not what you said. You said that for 230 years there had been no charge for pleasure boats. You said nothing specifically about short through passages.

That's what the whole thing has been about David. In the new demand they send it says boaters are bound by the 1961 bridgewater by laws to pay a license but they are not bound in any way at all by the 61 by laws. 

This looks to me like some sort of agreement rather than a demand. But as i said interesting for this discussion about is it a legal requirement or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

Well whatever you say you're the genius round here.

I know that in 2012 there were an average of 30 boats a day moored in Lymm between May-Sep this year the average has been 6 a day. I know because I've had someone counting them for me. That's 24 less boats a day on average with say 2 people to a boat that's 48 people a day not visiting one of the most popular tourist villages in Cheshire. That's why the bank'sand shops have closed. But hey what does it matter to you, you don't live there so let em eat cake huh?

 

And there you go again. You'd get a lot further if you dropped the insults.

No that is NOT the reason the Banks and shops closed. As said, this is happening all over the country. Our town had 4 banks 3 years ago, now it has none, but in that time a new caravan site has opened and tourism locally has increased. The most recent to close was Barclay's and when questioned by both the local MP and AM their "excuse" was simply because small branches no longer fitted their economic model. It was even pointed out that since the other banks had closed they had increased business but they still said that they no longer saw a need for small rural branches as they didn't make a big enough profit. We had similar responses from Nat West, Lloyds and Nationwide when they closed, so I do know the problems this has caused to lots of people, from the local shop keepers who now have to travel a round trip of nearly 40 miles to get change or bank cheques to people who can't use internet banking and need to use a "real" bank to deal with financial affairs. 

And by the way "nob" usually has a K at the beginning. No I don't live on a boat as it isn't a requirement of being a member of this forum nor Thunderboat, so Telemachus is correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

And there you go again. You'd get a lot further if you dropped the insults.

No that is NOT the reason the Banks and shops closed. As said, this is happening all over the country. Our town had 4 banks 3 years ago, now it has none, but in that time a new caravan site has opened and tourism locally has increased. The most recent to close was Barclay's and when questioned by both the local MP and AM their "excuse" was simply because small branches no longer fitted their economic model. It was even pointed out that since the other banks had closed they had increased business but they still said that they no longer saw a need for small rural branches as they didn't make a big enough profit. We had similar responses from Nat West, Lloyds and Nationwide when they closed, so I do know the problems this has caused to lots of people, from the local shop keepers who now have to travel a round trip of nearly 40 miles to get change or bank cheques to people who can't use internet banking and need to use a "real" bank to deal with financial affairs. 

And by the way "nob" usually has a K at the beginning. No I don't live on a boat as it isn't a requirement of being a member of this forum nor Thunderboat, so Telemachus is correct. 

He said you haven't got a boat not that you don't need one twerp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Thing is midnight unless you live in the area it's difficult to understand just how essential passage along the Bridgewater is. You literally can't get from one side of the country to the other without it.

The reason Peel won't take me to court is they know if they lose they will lose hundreds of thousands pounds and it will set back their plans to further rape and pillage the surrounding land for years to come.

They closed the canal for 4 months. They wanted to close it for 6. They said for 'repairs to a bridge' They've built an entirely new bridge and put in a service road, that I very much doubt they even applied for planning permission for. I wouldn't trust a single one of them as far as I could throw them. As my mum used to say 'they couldn't lie straight in bed' They can't even tell the truth to each other. 

 

I do have a mooring relatively near to the area and use the BC as a through route, often to return within 28 days which is why I am interested in your challenge and Peel's response (or lack of). Following your example if I got landed with a £40 charge I would ignore it and wait to see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

And I expect you and your cronies will now make some childish and facile comment about me on Thunderboat.

I suspect the if people stated what they really thought about your interventions on here they would be banned.

Hence they do it elsewhere Graham, 

I like you do not have a boat, but I make it a point nowadays to not get involved in issues of boating related politics as I don't know enough about it any longer at a base level. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MJG said:

I suspect the if people stated what they really thought about your interventions on here they would be banned.

Hence they do it elsewhere Graham, 

I like you do not have a boat, but I make it a point nowadays to not get involved in issues of boating related politics as I don't know enough about it any longer at a base level. 

Sound advice. 

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

I do have a mooring relatively near to the area and use the BC as a through route, often to return within 28 days which is why I am interested in your challenge and Peel's response (or lack of). Following your example if I got landed with a £40 charge I would ignore it and wait to see what happens.

Well according to their signs. They can come and find you and impound your boat and sell or scrap it. So waiting to see what happens might be a bit risky. Coz as numpty said 'the police won't get involved in a civil matter' Total crap like but that's what he said and that's what their signs say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

 

And by the way "nob" usually has a K at the beginning.

I am unable to find that reference at this time , but just to elucidate: when it's something round affixed to a door, yes it does; if it's a colloquialism for a posh or stuck-up person (short, I assume, for "nobility"), no it doesn't. If it refers to a membrum virilis, I think either spelling is permissible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athy said:

I am unable to find that reference at this time , but just to elucidate: when it's something round affixed to a door, yes it does; if it's a colloquialism for a posh or stuck-up person (short, I assume, for "nobility"), no it doesn't. If it refers to a membrum virilis, I think either spelling is permissible.

In my case I was referring to the latter, so my use of the 'K' should excuse me from the 100 lines punishment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/10/2017 at 13:30, gigoguy said:

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.

I have read all 4 pages of this thead and am finding it difficult to see the legal argument. Could the OP provide the facts that can then be used to test the legislation - and indeed the relevant legislation?

For instance, your comments in post 28. The canal is a public right of way - it may be a private road. Dont you know? If it is a private road and a public right of way there is a high probability (needs to be tested) that the public are allowed to walk along said right of way but this does not give them the right to drive a vehicle up said right of way. I assume (but stand to be corrected) that a boat would be considered a vehicle. If it is a private road then the only vehicles that have a right to use that road are ones with a legal agreement (written) in place with the owners of the road. The public will then have  no legal right to be on that road. It would therefore seem fair game that the owner of the road (or his agent) would have a right to charge any illegal vehicle (ie set up a short term agreement) or stop them having access. The OP seems to be under the aprehension that his boat is a perfectly lawful vehicle. This likely be questionable if it is a private road.

The OP also seems to be happy that he is right because the owners (agents) have not taken legal action. I think that is a dangerous assumption. There may be lots of reasons why they are not taking action against you. Maybe more people are paying up because of your actions?

What is the legislation that the OP is relying on and what is the legislation the owners are using to collect the cash? I think the OP needs a lawyer as most layman will not be able to understand the legislation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what niggles all of us who have in the past used the Bridgewater regularly is that CRT don't appear to enforce any action against BW boats on CRT waters (at least not that I've ever heard of), wherever they roam or for how long, and that they don't seem to be applying any pressure on Peel over this return trip charge. I'd still be interested to know how many people have actually been charged it and how they paid - I certainly wouldn't hand over 40 quid to someone with no ID or without an invoice.

The fact that no-one's been taken to court for it is a bit irrelevant, it wouldn't be cost-effective unless someone ran up a fair backlog of charges.  All these legal arguments are interesting - same as the ones about CRT's legal authority to charge mooring fees or for short term stays on the towpath. But they still do, and they still get paid, and no-one yet has managed to prove in court that they aren't legitimate.  I suspect the same will be true of the BW stuff.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I think what niggles all of us who have in the past used the Bridgewater regularly is that CRT don't appear to enforce any action against BW boats on CRT waters (at least not that I've ever heard of), wherever they roam or for how long, and that they don't seem to be applying any pressure on Peel over this return trip charge. I'd still be interested to know how many people have actually been charged it and how they paid - I certainly wouldn't hand over 40 quid to someone with no ID or without an invoice.

The fact that no-one's been taken to court for it is a bit irrelevant, it wouldn't be cost-effective unless someone ran up a fair backlog of charges.  All these legal arguments are interesting - same as the ones about CRT's legal authority to charge mooring fees or for short term stays on the towpath. But they still do, and they still get paid, and no-one yet has managed to prove in court that they aren't legitimate.  I suspect the same will be true of the BW stuff.

I think a lot of what you say about Peel and CaRT charging relies on boater's sense of fair play. For instance I don't care whether or not CaRT have a legal right to charge for use of staying on the towpath in places like London where I would not object to paying a fee for a week or two. If on the other hand they started charging in every town or city centre I would support any challenge. Likewise the only issue I have with Peel is charging for a return trip even if I only stayed two or three days on the outward.

Having read the relevant available documents and listened to the arguments from those much more familiar with the legalities like Nigel Moore I'm not convinced Peel have the authority to charge or that we boaters have the right to refuse. It would need a court case to settle that. Which is why I have yet to read a valid argument as to why Peel don't take Gigoguy on other than they are not certain of winning and certainly wouldn't want to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

I think a lot of what you say about Peel and CaRT charging relies on boater's sense of fair play. For instance I don't care whether or not CaRT have a legal right to charge for use of staying on the towpath in places like London where I would not object to paying a fee for a week or two. If on the other hand they started charging in every town or city centre I would support any challenge. Likewise the only issue I have with Peel is charging for a return trip even if I only stayed two or three days on the outward.

Having read the relevant available documents and listened to the arguments from those much more familiar with the legalities like Nigel Moore I'm not convinced Peel have the authority to charge or that we boaters have the right to refuse. It would need a court case to settle that. Which is why I have yet to read a valid argument as to why Peel don't take Gigoguy on other than they are not certain of winning and certainly wouldn't want to lose.

To everyone that keeps asking for proof and to see the legislation. There is far far far too much of both to post on here on TB. For anyone who is genuinely interested I can email them a link to all the relevant legislation if they want to go through it and interpret it for themselves. As I and a few with much more knowledge than I have done. I’m not looking on here for any legal advice, or for a judgement one way or the other from anyone. 

As Nigel has said it looks difficult to prove either way without a courts decision. I believe, as I’ve stated here and on TB, that they won’t take me to court  because they know the possible financial consequences to them of a loss. Not what they’d have to pay to me, they’d not have to pay me anything apart from my 35 quid or whatever it is to dispute their claim. But they would have to pay back their own boaters thousands.

In the license renewal David posted yesterday it looks to me very much like the ‘reciprocal agreement’. Not legally binding but accepted as being in force. The new form they send out DEMANDS payment under 61 Act. It threatens a fine of £150 if you pay late and it further threatens CC action if you continue not to pay. From what I can see, and anyone who has seen the demand, can also see. The authority does not exist under the 61 Act to DEMAND anything from pleasure boats. Only from working and house boats.

I’m fighting this not for the 20 quid. I’m fighting it for the principle. And not the principle that they shouldn’t charge but the principal that they can’t do what the f they like to who they like when they like and no one will do anything about it.

Sorry to the grammar and riting plice but I’m proper mad.

Cheers Midnight I know you know what I mean. I have no objection what so ever to anyone charging what they have a legitimate right to charge. But you tend to find that people with a legitimate right to charge can provide that legitimacy when asked for it. And further DON’T threaten you with libel for asking for it in the first place.

I asked Peel 15 FIFTEEN times for their authority to charge and they have still sent me nothing that in any way remotely resembles authority to charge for a return trip within 28 days.

I know what I’ve got and they know what they’ve got and neither of us are prepared to share it on here. I still say my hand beats theirs. And they know what it’s going to cost to see me 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

To everyone that keeps asking for proof and to see the legislation. There is far far far too much of both to post on here on TB. For anyone who is genuinely interested I can email them a link to all the relevant legislation if they want to go through it and interpret it for themselves. As I and a few with much more knowledge than I have done. I’m not looking on here for any legal advice, or for a judgement one way or the other from anyone. 

As Nigel has said it looks difficult to prove either way without a courts decision. I believe, as I’ve stated here and on TB, that they won’t take me to court  because they know the possible financial consequences to them of a loss. Not what they’d have to pay to me, they’d not have to pay me anything apart from my 35 quid or whatever it is to dispute their claim. But they would have to pay back their own boaters thousands.

In the license renewal David posted yesterday it looks to me very much like the ‘reciprocal agreement’. Not legally binding but accepted as being in force. The new form they send out DEMANDS payment under 61 Act. It threatens a fine of £150 if you pay late and it further threatens CC action if you continue not to pay. From what I can see, and anyone who has seen the demand, can also see. The authority does not exist under the 61 Act to DEMAND anything from pleasure boats. Only from working and house boats.

I’m fighting this not for the 20 quid. I’m fighting it for the principle. And not the principle that they shouldn’t charge but the principal that they can’t do what the f they like to who they like when they like and no one will do anything about it.

Sorry to the grammar and riting plice but I’m proper mad.

Cheers Midnight I know you know what I mean. I have no objection what so ever to anyone charging what they have a legitimate right to charge. But you tend to find that people with a legitimate right to charge can provide that legitimacy when asked for it. And further DON’T threaten you with libel for asking for it in the first place.

I asked Peel 15 FIFTEEN times for their authority to charge and they have still sent me nothing that in any way remotely resembles authority to charge for a return trip within 28 days.

I know what I’ve got and they know what they’ve got and neither of us are prepared to share it on here. I still say my hand beats theirs. And they know what it’s going to cost to see me 

As I said before I think you should be applauded.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

Oh dear, you really can't help yourself, can you?

As I found when I joined, you are the king of insults here. If you weren't apparently 'friends' with Daniel you would have been banned from this forum long ago. 

Other than your input, a very interesting thread and thanks to Gigoguy and others for the constructive input.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, rowland al said:

As I found when I joined, you are the king of insults here. If you weren't apparently 'friends' with Daniel you would have been banned from this forum long ago. 

Other than your input, a very interesting thread and thanks to Gigoguy and others for the constructive input.

Hypocrite.

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.