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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

38 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1468 profile views
  1. gigoguy

    Kubota z482

    Can anyone help? I'm trying to get hold of a Kubota z482 2 cylinder engine. If anyone has one or knows where I might try to get hold of one please can they let me know. Thanks
  2. 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?
  3. But under this power they can only demand what they are owed, is that right. So if the toll is £20 they can only demand £20. So impounding a boat for £20 is extremely unreasonable and I would expect highly unlikely? You also say they can prevent a boat leaving the canal, how can they do that. Do they actually have the authority to intercept and seize a boat in motion. You did say that charging for transit in the special section might be limited to cargo boats. Does that mean they might still not be able to or do other Acts clarify the charge? I have to say a special thank you to Nigel, erivers and Tony for their hard work and anyone else that has contributed to this. As Nigel and a couple of others have said it is not the result I expected or hoped for. Having said that. I asked Peel Holdings 15 times for them to send me their legal authority to charge and all I got were threats. And some nonsense about Transport Act 1962. I don’t believe they had any idea what gave them permission. I think arrogance and ignorance is what they think gives them permission to do anything they like. If they hope to get anything that even vaguely resembles and apology, then they know where to look for it. As Nigel has quoted much more aptly than I ever could. NO I shouldn’t have had to start god knows how many threads and scream nearly so loudly to get an answer to a simple question. And I STILL HAVEN’T had it from them. So until they send it to me officially at least I still don’t know. Nigel has raised an interesting point regarding peel’s authority to charge a license for pleasure craft to moor along the canal on private moorings. That will be of particular interest to boaters that do moor and have paid a license for many years. I did say I would expect them to pay regardless of it being an obligation. And I think they probably will. I am away for a few days now but I will catch up on Thursday. Thank you to everyone on all sides for your interest and input. And thank you for the words of support. I'm only sorry I couldn't save you all 40 quid a trip!
  4. Sorry you've lost me. The book I posted was the original reciprocal agreement. 1968. What you posted is the crap Peel claim is the new reciprocal agreement. Well I always thought an agreement is where 2 or more people agree on something. The only people that agree with the new arrangement are Peel. 'It suits us' Is all they say. You would have thought Alan. That if they had any concern at all for the canal, their own boaters and anything other than making Mr Whitacker more money than he knows what to do with. They would behave responsibly, professionally and above all LEGALLY. At all times. Wouldn't you?
  5. Would that apply to everything that CaRT inherited then? I've heard of clutching at straws but really not BW so doesn't count? Ha ha ha
  6. That isn't the reciprocal agreement. This is the reciprocal agreement, that is what Peel changed it to in 2013. It's not an agreement and CaRT, in public at least, don't agree with it.
  7. I did write to CaRT about the discount and I was on one of the consultation days ( Northwich) It was mentioned in passing there but we got no response. So I wrote to CaRT and asked why they weren't removing the discount until Peel stopped charging a return fee. I was told it was part of the reciprocal agreement and wasn't up for discussion during the consultation. I have written to CaRT numerous times about the fact that they are doing nothing about this charge. I have explained that Peel can't just change the agreement. It's either an agreement or it's not. So what are CaRT agreeing to.........................anything Peel tell them to obviously.
  8. Thank you erivers for that. I know you've put loads of time into this and it really is appreciated. As is all the help from everyone. From what others are saying, privately at the moment. It's looking like Peel Holdings have been breaking the law big time for a long time. I hope it costs them an absolute fortune in the end. And I hope they do lose the canal. There will be third way or charitable trusts extremely interested. And as for myalld's question where will the money come from. I know he's not that naive. For a project like that the money would come don't you worry. And \i expect they'll erect a statue of the bin man in Lymm when everyone get's their license money back for the last 30 years......well everyone except him. He'll have to pay because he lives aboard. Poetic justice
  9. https://canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/83402-bridgewater-canal-charges/ https://canalworld.net/forums/index.php?/topic/83402-bridgewater-canal-charges/ Does anyone remember either of these threads or taking part, and can they get more info on the people who said they paid or had contact? Please If only to get confirmation of a few facts that some on here have questioned.
  10. yeah as edited by you and mr davis no doubt
  11. This has been my argument as we both know. That only tolls that apply need be paid and there have never been tolls applied to pleasure boats. As I said I'm waiting for some very sensitive information. I can't say exactly what or where from on here....spies you know. But when I have it I hope it will make an even stronger case for implied if not prove explicit exemption. From what little i have heard though it should be the latter.
  12. I think Tony Robinson found a ditch that dinosaurs used to piss in and drag prey along .........does that count?
  13. well there you go then when are you going to update wikistupidea? I'm sure they're gagging for your imput
  14. But they are not likely to do that to every boat that enters the canal and they're not really in a position to do it to me for just refusing to pay one toll unless they prove they can charge it, are they? What are they going to apply to the court to ban me for.....being annoying? For wikistupidea addicts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgewater_Canal 'Often considered to be the first "true" canal in England,' Pity it doesn't apply to some posters in serious debates hey?
  15. with equal respect to the mighty fred.....god rest him Yeah he owes Peel Holdings 10 trillion quid in over stay fees!
  • 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.