New Bridgewater agreement

[Unicorn Stampede]

1 hour 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.

 

As a continuous cruiser whose tried to directly avoid marinas I'd actually welcome a toll system. Gives more responsibility for the specific businesses to look after their patch. Might actually see some love for the canals up north as well with actual investment.

[ditchcrawler]

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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 ?

Not met NaughtyCal but I doubt the owner looks like her. It does  move from time to time but returns within the day.

[gigoguy]

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

   

   

[Midnight]

7 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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...................................

 

Nice body swerve there to side-step the issue.
I think I agree with most of what you say. I would love you to be right on the legal aspects and would like to see some organisation representing 'moving' boaters fight the case if you are. The issue as I see it is there's no boating organisation challenging the BCC and if there were I suspect none are uncertain what the legal position is. 

I applaud your efforts though.

[gigoguy]

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. 

[Arthur Marshall]

4 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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. 

They do the court thing on car parks because the system is computerised and doesn't actually involve much personnel time. To pursue a single boater would cost a packet and if they won they probably wouldn't get their costs back.

Whether they actually take boaters who overstay to court is unlikely for the same reason, but the point is that the threat is there and most will try to avoid it and so follow the rules. No-one , including judges  lawyers and policemen, care much for what an Act actually says. Rules, like crts t&cs, are a nudge as much as anything. And this affects so few people  there is no chance of it changing.

How a boater with no internet access is supposed to book their passage though is another interesting point.

[gigoguy]

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 

[ditchcrawler]

Lots of drivers pay fines that are not fines at all but invoiced charges without redress to the court 

[Midnight]

16 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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 

I think many including myself just can't be arsed with the agro so will either comply, pay or avoid.
 

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

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. 

 Yes I followed all of your posts then but I thought Nigel Moore's findings of the latest act, partially at least, scuppered your argument. Didn't he say [paraphrase] BCC could take action but probably wouldn't as it would not be cost effective but if many followed your example they probably would..............[/paraphrase]
 

I don't fully understand these legal arguments and I'm happy that you came through unscathed. Perhaps if there were more like you these things may be more likely to be decided in a court.

 

 

[cuthound]

Seems to me you can spend as much time as you like on the Bridgewater, providing you paint your boat in the livery of a legitimate hire boat company. ??

[gigoguy]

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. 

[Arthur Marshall]

Nigel Moore's final summing up was as follows:

 

"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."

 

And that, I'm afraid, seems to be that.

[gigoguy]

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. 

[Arthur Marshall]

15 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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. 

Nigel's reasons are enmeshed in twenty pages of stuff I'm not going to dredge, as well as in the rest of that particular post..  But it would cost Peel more than £25 to charge every boat that came through that amount.  There are a lot of cars, and not a lot of boats.  What Nigel said, repeatedly, was that the legislation is a mess and wading though it was like walking through fog.  In that case, the odds are that any court would attempt to clarify stuff in the simplest and most logical way, which, I'm afraid, for the courts, is always with the property owner, because that is what the law is for.  It is not to protect the claimed "rights" of an individual`, it is and always has been, for the protection of property, and the more propeerty you have, the more protection you get.  God, as someone said, is on the side of the big battalions.

[gigoguy]

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. 

[gigoguy]

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. 

[gigoguy]

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. ☠️☠️☠️

[Arthur Marshall]

Whether we like it ir not, CRT is, in fact, the boaters', walkers', fishermen's and cyclist's trust. That's what it was set up for, and there are more of them than there are of us, and we're a lot more expensive. The towpath is more important to 3 out of the 4 user groups. Best just relax and enjoy what's left of it while it lasts. The end was signalled when BW went.

[Alan de Enfield]

22 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Whether we like it ir not, CRT is, in fact, the boaters', walkers', fishermen's and cyclist's trust. That's what it was set up for, and there are more of them than there are of us, and we're a lot more expensive. The towpath is more important to 3 out of the 4 user groups. Best just relax and enjoy what's left of it while it lasts. The end was signalled when BW went.

 

Personally I think the canals were at their (modern) best in the 90's, &, whilst not the 'end of the beiginning', the millenium certainly seemed to be the 'beginning of the end' and decline followed, like a snow-ball rolling down the hill, slowly to start with & vastly increasing its speed as we got to 2012 and beyond.

 

KPMG were commisioned to make a report on the 'state' of the canals and infrastructure in 2012.

 

The condition has worsened every year on year.

 

They summarised that C&RTs income would result in the necessary spend to keep a steady state not being achieved. 

They summarised that since 2004 the annual spend on maintenance, dredging and customer service has been below that required to maintain the steady state.

 

Extract from the 45 page report :

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Mad Harold]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Whether we like it ir not, CRT is, in fact, the boaters', walkers', fishermen's and cyclist's trust. That's what it was set up for, and there are more of them than there are of us, and we're a lot more expensive. The towpath is more important to 3 out of the 4 user groups. Best just relax and enjoy what's left of it while it lasts. The end was signalled when BW went.

CRT do seem bent on turning the canals into a public amenity.Nothing wrong with that but it seems to me to be a distraction from the canal maintainance they should be doing.

I assume this is because a public amenity is more likely to attract funding than catering more for boaters.

It seems to me that CRT are saying if boaters don't like what they are doing,they can go whistle.!

[Arthur Marshall]

1 minute ago, Mad Harold said:

CRT do seem bent on turning the canals into a public amenity.Nothing wrong with that but it seems to me to be a distraction from the canal maintainance they should be doing.

I assume this is because a public amenity is more likely to attract funding than catering more for boaters.

It seems to me that CRT are saying if boaters don't like what they are doing,they can go whistle.!

But that's what they were set up for. BW was a navigation authority, CRT isn't. The navigation is a very small part of its remit, but the bit that costs the most in maintenance and policing.

It's the most aggravating part to them as they have to keep chasing non licence payers, non movers, and those who waste thousands of pounds chasing outdated interpretations of old Acts, like Tony, or answering hundreds of pointless FOI queries that, to be honest, no-one gives a toss about. Of course, opinions as to the last sentence differ.

Barrack room lawyers think the letter of the law matters. It very rarely does. Always, without exception, they forget who writes it and who it's written for.

[gigoguy]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[Richard10002]

On 30/03/2021 at 00:45, gigoguy said:

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? 

 

because it seems to be your raison d'etre, for some strange reason? You call it a quest in one of your other recent posts.

 

Given what you have done, and what you have discovered, why don't you just get on with transiting the Bridgewater without paying, and stop wasting your time on a fairly irrelevant "quest".

 

 

[David Mack]

9 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

 

because it seems to be your raison d'etre, for some strange reason? You call it a quest in one of your other recent posts.

 

Given what you have done, and what you have discovered, why don't you just get on with transiting the Bridgewater without paying, and stop wasting your time on a fairly irrelevant "quest".

 

 

 

I am inclined to agree. But a thought has occurred to me:

 

If you have a boat on the Bridgewater Canal as a customer of the Bridgewater Canal Company i.e. you are paying them directly for a licence, then both you and the company are bound by the rules deriving from the Acts which regulate the canal and the company.

 

But if your boat is on the canal only by virtue of the reciprocal agreement with CRT, do the same rules apply? Can BCC legally impose terms on CRT, requiring them in turn to impose terms on their (CRT's) licence holders which are more onerous than those which apply to BCC licence holders? And does CRT have the legal right to impose such terms on their licence holders anyway?

 

In a way this is a bit like the question of CRT imposing terms on a marina under a Network Access Agreement, requring boats berthed in the marina to hold a CRT licence which wouldn't otherwise be required while those boats remain in the marina.