New Bridgewater agreement

[gigoguy]

Good evening all and i hope you are well. I haven't been on for a while. The fight i was having with the Bridgewater Canal Company and Peel Holdings, came to a stalemate. They knew that they were breaking the law. They knew their thieving staff were in the wrong and they knew there was no action they could take against me or any other boater. So they moved the bully off the water to a marina. They reprimanded the bin man and Parkinson. And they took all the nonsense about no return within 28 days off the website. So even though I had no written apology from them. I had at least made them adhere to the law. 

 

Although now Richard Parry has given in to their bullying. Or has he another agenda?You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

The "New" agreement does nothing at all for CRT boaters. And allows Peel to break the law again. His new deal allows 10 days unfettered access, from 7 in the original 1960's agreement. But it restricts return within 28 days. There was no such restriction in the original agreement. And that is the cause of the argument in the first place. The Bridgewater Canal is an access canal. You need to use it to get from east to west and north to south through Manchester. So if you go to Liverpool from Northwich a 2-3 day cruise. You have to stay away for a month before you can go home. If you want to go to Marple from Leigh. Again 2-3 days. You have to stay a month. Not only is it ridiculous it's illegal. 

 

The law allows BCC to remove a vessel that has been moored for more than one callander month. But only after they have given 28 days notice. You don't have to book. They can't charge a toll and they can't impound your boat, without giving you 28 days written notice. They have absolutely no legal authority to restrict anyone's use of the waterway. Hence the original agreement. It was a voluntary concession on the part of British Waterways. That agreement in itself was just an agreement. It was not enforceable by either side. What is enforceable is. Bridgewater boats do not use crt water without a licence. And removing the 50% reduction. Did you know that Bridgewater licence holders get a 50% reduction on a CRT licence. So we give them 50% off. And they tell us when we can and when we can't use their waterway!? I'm not a great supporter of Donald Trump. But I can guess what he'd say to that deal! 

P

I have had conversations with Cheshire police. And if you have any trouble with anyone from BCC or Peel Holdings. Phone the police and they will assist you. 

 

Do not fall for their lies and fraud. The law is on your side. So just don't book. And if you want to, you can stay up to a month. And you can go back as often as you like after 24 hours. 

Stay safe, and let's all get back to enjoying the waterways after the past annus horribilis. 

Hope to see some of you soon. 

[Tracy D'arth]

Sound.  As I said, too much unenforceable "law" that isn't.

[Midnight]

Thank you gigoguy but correct me if I'm wrong didn't the late Nigel Moore find that your assertions were incorrect in your previous clash with Peel? Whilst I would love you to be right on these counts I wonder why the , IWA, NABO etc haven't reacted to this so called agreement. Those at the top of CaRT i.e. Mr Richard Parry I would not expect to fight for the boaters cause and seems to me to be doing everything in his power to ensure the demise of boating. However if you are correct, here is an ideal opportunity for such as NABO to do something positive and gain a lot more support.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Midnight

[ditchcrawler]

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Thank you gigoguy but correct me if I'm wrong didn't the late Nigel Moore find that your assertions were incorrect in your previous clash with Peel? Whilst I would love you to be right on these counts I wonder why the , IWA, NABO etc haven't reacted to this so called agreement. Those at the top of CaRT i.e. Mr Richard Parry I would not expect to fight for the boaters cause and seems to me to be doing everything in his power to ensure the demise of boating. However if you are correct, here is an ideal opportunity for such as NABO to do something positive and gain a lot more support.

How can Parry oppose it because its outside the legal requirements when C&RT are doing the same, ie. treating boaters with a home mooring the same as CCrs with respect of being on a journey 

[David Mack]

Can the OP tell me of any other non-CRT waterway which I, as a CRT licence holder, can transit without charge?

Edited March 29, 2021 by David Mack

[Arthur Marshall]

Maybe if a raft of unlicensed boats hadn't moved off CRT's water when they started getting snotty and squatted on the BW we wouldn't be where we are now.

And things on the wet are a bit different now than they were all those years ago, and to accommodate these, things have to change. As parliament has slightly more important stuff to contend with than a few whinging boaters, it's unlikely to amend or pass new acts (though admittedly they are currently doing so without bothering much with procedure).  Peel is a private company  so can really do what it likes with its property. I'm surprised so many supporters of privatisation seem to object - obviously the BW is going to be better run, better managed and better maintained than one either publicly or charity owned?

[gigoguy]

Hiw many times do people need to be told. You can't do what you want with something just because you own it. And no nigel found that peel and bcc were acting unlawfully. It was only the fact that they wouldn't fight their claim that nothing was done. However the bridgewater canal act is the law. And stands until it is changed. And the law is 1 month then 28 days. And that is how it remains 

[Alan de Enfield]

58 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Can the OP tell me of any other non-CRT waterway which I, as a CRT licence holder, can transit without charge?

 

There are plenty of other waterways which you can transit freely, but I'm guessing you mean free-transit on a waterway which requires a licence from another navigation authority.

[David Mack]

I meant non-CRT UK inland waterway. The only example I can think of is the tidal Thames (PLA), although the Middle Level would have counted until recently.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I meant non-CRT UK inland waterway. The only example I can think of is the tidal Thames (PLA), although the Middle Level would have counted until recently.

 

Bottom end of the Trent, Humber, other Rivers, etc

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

How can Parry oppose it because its outside the legal requirements when C&RT are doing the same, ie. treating boaters with a home mooring the same as CCrs with respect of being on a journey 

 My point being even if Peel are doing something which isn't legal as the OP suggests I doubt CaRT would put up much of a case. I remember the initial arguments, which subsided after Nigel Moore found some act or document to show Peel had the rights to do whatever they were doing at the time. (No need to go over that again).

 

I think you can stay longer on the BW if you pay - seems fair enough to me. Similar to  the Thames really (although you don't get a free 10 days).

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Midnight

[gigoguy]

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. 

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

The eventual result will be that we return to a system of tolls. 

 

That sounds a good idea, 'the user pays' (much like tax on fuel) the one who uses the most of C&RTs facilities pays the most.

 

Should have been introduced when the canals were opened.

[gigoguy]

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

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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

 

How we laughed, what little you know ...........................

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

How we laughed, what little you know ...........................

 

Have you cruised far recently Alan?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Have you cruised far recently Alan?

 

 

No, unfortunately not (as per many boaters), hopefully starting again after 29th April (depending on Welsh C19 restrictions).

Did manage a few 100 miles last year when we were 'out' for 14 weeks between lockdowns (July to October)

[Tony Brooks]

18 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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

My guess is that when its allowed he cruises far further than most on here. How many thousand miles is it between the North Wales and the Adriatic?

 

I know that is not what you meant so be careful when making such sweeping statements.

 

Alan, like myself, feel boating on CaRT and BW waters nowadays involves too much aggravation  by CaRT so have moved off.

[gigoguy]

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

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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

 

 

I have been on the Canals and Rivers for almost 40 years

 

The issues did concern me , greatly, and the way C&RT and the canals are going was the reason I have decided to leave the canals.

If people were paying a reasonable amount, instead of the current ridiculously low figures, then maybe the infrastructure would be in better condition.

 

£600-£800 per annum to keep your house on C&RT waters .................................

 

They should have implemented the figures suggested in the review a few years ago. I don't know if you were boating in 2002, and I would make no assumption that you were or were not, but some of us were involved in a review of how the canals should be funded and the licence 'priced'.

 

The primary 'thinking' of the consultation was that 'the user pays', and the main proposal was that boats without a home mooring should pay 2.5 times the rate for the licence, whilst hire boats should also pay 2.5 times and boats on unconnected waters should only pay 0.5 times the licence fee.

 

Edit to add table from the consulation :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

58 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That sounds a good idea, 'the user pays' (much like tax on fuel) the one who uses the most of C&RTs facilities pays the most.

 

Should have been introduced when the canals were opened.

and CMs pay very little

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

and CMs pay very little

 

Agreed

Then enforcement is needed to ensure they comply with the law.

You don't see many caravans stopping in lay-bys for weeks at a time.

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Agreed

Then enforcement is needed to ensure they comply with the law.

You don't see many caravans stopping in lay-bys for weeks at a time.

Funny you should say that, there is a motorhome in the next village parked behind the cemetery and has been there for much more than 14 days

Edited March 29, 2021 by ditchcrawler

[gigoguy]

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 

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Funny you should say that, there is a motorhome in the next village parked behind the cemetery and has been there for much more than 14 days

 

Maybe the occupant has taken up residence  on the other side of the wall and no one knows ?

 

Or 

 

Is it MrSmelly, or NaughtyCal by any chance ?