gigoguy

Us is ALL boaters mate. I assume you're the sort of person who is quite happy to pay out large sums of money for no service. I wonder if you'd be so happy to pay increased standing charge for gas while only receiving gas for 3 days a week. There are many on here that openly support the surcharge simply because it only impacts on continuous cruiser's without a home mooring. As you are probably aware there is also a review of customer service facilities taking place. The intended outcome is to close all showers and toilets to boaters but open to staff and volunteers. Now there will be many on here who will say I'm ok I've got my own shower. Or I don't use the facilities anyway. Selfish selfish selfish. That's what I mean by I'm alright jack

What I love about this forum is the overwhelming number of I'm alright jack's that are on it. Well for their information next year CRT intend to force all those with a home mooring that is not a CRT mooring to pay an additional end of garden levy if 50% of the cost of a CRT mooring in their area. Divide and conquer. Well if you don't support us this year and they get away with the cc surcharge then it will be you next year. As for continuous moorers. There are a small percentage of ccers that don't move just as there is a small percentage of boaters who don't pay their license, the majority of whom tend to be those with a home mooring who constantly argue that the water in their marina or slipway is not CRTs . However the vast majority of ccers move regularly. Unlike many home moorers who never move out of the marina. Well you carry on being I'm alright jack and see where it leads.

I've checked the legislation NigeI was talking about. At the time we had 3 disputes with bcc. 1) length of stay 2) return period 3) Charging a toll for a return journey. What nigel found was that they could charge a transit toll. Although he says that. I can't find the wording in the act. And as i said I can't see Peel not charging it if they can. So i don't think they can find it either. This argument though is again about length of stay and how long one must stay off before returning. And on those points all Acts are clear. I've had another email from Jon Horsefall confirming that bcc cannot impound a boat after 10 days. And that any enforcement by either side must be within the law. Most people posting objections to my quest to make bcc adhere to the law. Have obviously never been on the bridgewater canal. And what happens to it doesn't affect them directly. So really they ought to mind their own business. I have no problem with everyone enjoying the waterways as long as everybody pays towards the upkeep. Crt only ever pursue 3 ways of making money. Begging, selling off the family silver and putting up licence fees. And don't say people pay through tax. Because i pay my tax along with every other boater. As for none licence payers. Crt figures show over 97% of boats pay their licence. None movers, of the sort that needs action, are also few in number. I don't think it's the trust as an idea that is wrong. I think it's the people in charge. And if you think the letter of the law isn't important. Just try breaking it. And you'll soon see how important it is. Anyway just to recap. The law for length of stay is one callander month plus 28 days notice. And return is permitted after 24 hours. And any enforcement action must be within the law.

Although to be honest. I rarely use the canal. And if the boaters that live locally and have to use it. Can't be bothered to complain, why should I? I'm really ashamed of crt for not standing up to them. But from what I read on here, and the other place. I'm not surprised. I think the CRT wants to become The Cyclists and Ramblers Trust. Coz they couldn't give a hoot about boaters. So I've made my complaint. CRT have dodged the question again. And BCC/Peel will continue to do what the heck they like. ☠️☠️☠️

I've just checked my email from nigel. He does quote legislation. But also says it's a hotch potch. I will look at it tomorrow. Although i certainly wouldn't expect Nigel to be wrong. But the legislation might have been updated again more recently. Which would be why BCC have never mentioned it. I really can't see Peel not charging for something they have legal right to.

Obviously you don't know the bridgewater canal. In the summer there are hundreds of boats that use it. And they already pay a bank walker. So he could collect it on his rounds. If nigels understanding is correct. Peel would exploit it to the max. You can be sure of that.

Nigel did not show where he got that from. Peels own solicitor did not say that. And nowhere in any of the information i have ever seen or been sent would support that. I have numerous emails from Nigel on the subject. And he didn't send me the legislation. And it hasn't been the response from CRT. I'm not suggesting nigel is incorrect. But i can't ask him for the evidence. But if that were the case. Knowing what a shower of bastards peel an bcc are. Why have they not been charging a toll for the last 30 years? They charge every car that crosses Warburton bridge 25p. So I'm sure they'd be charging every boat 25 quid. If they could. So i don't think that is it.

S1 is again clear. "Left for more than one month" And consent does not mean licence. It goes on to say you can't fish using explosives without the consent of the company. But I'd like to see you get a licence for that. And Peel are not the sort of company to give in to the likes of me. They're a multi billion pound organisation. They'd gladly spend a couple of grand to slap my arse. They didn't because they would lose. And they hate to do that. I was fighting them charging a toll. Not for the length of time I wanted to stay. And I won and they stopped charging it.

It's got nothing to do with computer generated fines. By not fining me means that all 30 odd thousand boats on crt water could stay. They have to enforce their powers. Or anyone and everyone can abuse them. And as for a judge not caring about the act is a bit ridiculous. The legal position in this case is not complex. There is a section within the bridgewater canal act that deals specifically with over staying. And what action the company can take. They are the same powers a local authority has to impound your car. And they can't do it because they don't like the colour. And BCC can't take your boat unless you've been there for over a month. And only then after 28 days notice in writing. I think even the dimmest judge could understand that

Hi again Midnight and thanks for the vote of support. I don't know if you remember but. I moored outside bcc head office at the Trafford Centre. And challenged them to take me to court for refusing to pay for an extra week after the 7 day restriction they illegally imposed. Their solicitor wrote and said it was too small an amount to be bothered to take me to court for. Yet overstay on their car parks and they'll take you to court. So the only reason they didn't was because they knew full well they'd lose.

I've just had this email from Jon Horefall. What he's saying is that when on bcc water we are governed by their rules. And their rules are one month plus 28 days notice. So thank you for the clarification Jon. Thank you for your most recent email (28.03.2021) to Richard and for sharing your views on the agreement between the Bridgewater canal Company (BCC) and Canal & River trust. The issue you raise appears to be one for BCC, as it is the interpretation of the law relating to their waterways that you are questioning. As such, I do not see that this is an issue the Trust can give a view on. Our agreement with BCC simply allows Trust boat licence customers to navigate on the Bridgewater Canal under certain conditions without obtaining a separate licence (and grants reciprocal access for BCC’s boat licence customers on Trust waters). I do not see how the issue you are raising impacts on the validity of this reciprocal agreement. The Trust’s accepts that its boat licence customers will be under the jurisdiction of BCC when benefiting from this access (as their customers will be under the Trust’s jurisdiction on our waters) and it is up to them how they enforce their legislation and terms and conditions on the Bridgewater Canal. Kind regards, Jon

No i wasn't on the water in 2002. And i agree that the licence fee alone is not enough to cover the costs. But as you may not know as you no longer use the canal's. But it's not only boaters using the facilities. I often see groups of ramblers with keys to services. I see cyclists ripping up the towpaths and I see local businesses fly tiping in the skips. I also see crt selling off or allowing to fall into dereliction, many ways they had to make money. It's not down to just boaters to pay for. However that is not the point. The point is there is legislation that governs the bridgewater canal and protects users. I don't know how well you know the bw or the area. But to restrict use to every 28 days. Means a 200 mile 150 lock 14 day detour. Not unlike blocking the suez. It's illegal and all boaters should be interested. Because this is coming your way

Then his comments on issues that don't concern him are irrelevant.

I guess you're a marina dweller who never goes anywhere.

Nigel did not find they could do what they wanted at all. Nigel found that the only legislation was the bridgewater canal act. And section 9 deals with staying and power to remove. Unfortunately nigel isn't able to confirm. The fact is. Peel stopped threatening boaters, stopped demanding a short term license. And took the whole nonsense off the website. CRT have entered into an agreement that does nothing for their own customers. And gives BCC boaters 50% off a licence for nothing in return. And Mr Parry can do a great deal. He can stop the 50% off. And he can enforce CRTs legal rights to refuse BCC boats any access without a crt licence. But he won't. Because it suits crts long term plans to privitise large chunks of crt water. The eventual result will be that we return to a system of tolls. Unfortunately no body cares and nobody does anything about it until it's too late.