Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

On 03/10/2017 at 15:03, gigoguy said:
On 03/10/2017 at 15:03, gigoguy said:

(snip)

I can show with 100% certainty that there has NEVER been a charge for non commercial craft. That there has NEVER been a charge for craft carrying stone or goods for public works and the the canal was built for the PUBLIC good.

You show me anywhere at all where it says that the canal is ONLY to be used by the Dukes craft

 

I can show with equal certainty that there HAVE been charges for non commercial craft : ask any Bridgewater Canal Licence holder.

Don't know about stone or goods for public works being free, but the canal was not built  for the public good; it was built so that the Duke of Bridgewater could increase the profit from his coal mines by supplying Manchester more cheaply than competitors.

Most canals were built to provide a profit to the shareholders who contributed to the construction costs. The only one I know of which might be described as "built for the public good" is the Caledonian.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

Don't know about stone or goods for public works being free, but the canal was not built  for the public good; it was built so that the Duke of Bridgewater could increase the profit from his coal mines by supplying Manchester more cheaply than competitors.

Most canals were built to provide a profit to the shareholders who contributed to the construction costs. The only one I know of which might be described as "built for the public good" is the Caledonian.

 

Then it would appear that you may not have actually read the preamble to the Bridgewater Canal Act 1759.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Iain_S said:

I can show with equal certainty that there HAVE been charges for non commercial craft : ask any Bridgewater Canal Licence holder.

Don't know about stone or goods for public works being free, but the canal was not built  for the public good; it was built so that the Duke of Bridgewater could increase the profit from his coal mines by supplying Manchester more cheaply than competitors.

Most canals were built to provide a profit to the shareholders who contributed to the construction costs. The only one I know of which might be described as "built for the public good" is the Caledonian.

 

As you've said Ian we've discussed this at length in other places. And I don't think there is any point in us arguing is again here. The fact is that whatever you say or however you interpret the legislation, that you haven't bothered to read. Is that Peel Holdings will NOT take me to court with the authority they claim to have. Not because it's too small a sum, but because they know they can't or at least suspect they can't win. 

As I and many others keep saying. I've not got a problem with anybody charging for what they have a right to charge for. I do not like to be bullied and extortion is a crime. 

I believe that with new information I've received today but I'm not yet at liberty to share. Serious crimes have been committed and there is possibly going to be a police investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last four years a 48 hour mooring restriction has appeared at Lymm. The number of boats moored has declined significantly since its appearance.

Nevertheless, the Lymm Brewery Tap has opened in the last four years. Sainsbury's have opened a second shop in the village and one of the restaurants closed because a senior member of staff was perpetually drunk and abusive to his clients. This has since reopened under new management. The canal itself now boasts a cafe "Butty and Sweet". Business can't be that bad.

The only pub I can think of that has closed is the Farmer's Arms at Rushgreen but that closed years ago.  

Banks are closing everywhere.

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. And it certainly was not to make  money. It was done specifically with the intention of reducing canal traffic. The effect on local business and tourist hot spots has been devastating. Everyone has complained to Peel. And they couldn't give a tuppenny feck for anyone or anything to do with the canal unless they can sell or build on it.

The problems that you have with this line of argument are essentially twofold;

1) You seem to believe that having not charged for something for many years, the company cannot start charging for it.

2) You seem to believe that because they haven't charged for a specific type of use (visiting boats), then that use is forever to be regarded as different.

BCC has long made charges for Pleasure craft, there are hundreds of them that are based on the canal and pay a licence to BCC. It may seem to you that you as a visiting boater are in some way "different", but why should that be the case?

BCC has also, for many years, had an agreement with BW/CRT that allows the customers of one to use the facilities of the other without additional charges. the terms of that agreement are a matter for BCC and CRT. Either can vary what they offer as part of the reciprocal agreement, and the other can respond if they wish. CRT could say "we don't like your changes, so the agreement is over".

What has changed is that as CRT enforcement has become stricter, boaters have tended to run to BCC waters, and clearly BCC felt that they were providing more than they were getting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

The problems that you have with this line of argument are essentially twofold;

1) You seem to believe that having not charged for something for many years, the company cannot start charging for it.

2) You seem to believe that because they haven't charged for a specific type of use (visiting boats), then that use is forever to be regarded as different.

BCC has long made charges for Pleasure craft, there are hundreds of them that are based on the canal and pay a licence to BCC. It may seem to you that you as a visiting boater are in some way "different", but why should that be the case?

BCC has also, for many years, had an agreement with BW/CRT that allows the customers of one to use the facilities of the other without additional charges. the terms of that agreement are a matter for BCC and CRT. Either can vary what they offer as part of the reciprocal agreement, and the other can respond if they wish. CRT could say "we don't like your changes, so the agreement is over".

What has changed is that as CRT enforcement has become stricter, boaters have tended to run to BCC waters, and clearly BCC felt that they were providing more than they were getting.

Cheshire cat is just plain wrong. Mandy and Dave left the Bridgewater at the start of the season and now have the boat at Llangollen. The reason being since the tearing up of the agreement and BCC extorting money from boaters they can no longer make a living. Cafe Sala is NOT open or it wasn't last weekend and the new sainsbury's is well out of the village. The once thriving post office is now a charity shop. 

As for charging now for what they didn't charge before. If a new resident moves into your street and starts rinsing you for 20 quid to par your car. Is it ok just because the previous tenant didn't do it?

And I'm not saying I'm different I'm saying they are breaking the law. And if they weren't they'd have proved it by now.

An agreement is and agreement so long as the parties agree. When they stop agreeing it's a disagreement. Bridgewaqter boats are ONLY allowed on CaRT water WITH CaRT permission and a valid license. NOT the other way round. I pay my license to CaRT and I did on the conditions, T&C's and reciprocal agreements that were in place. I have not agreed to the change nor as far as I know has any CaRT license holder. So CaRT MUST protect their own T&C's and get it stopped until or unless and new agreement is reached.

If your argument is that because CaRT is that because CaRT are too soft, too scared or i  cahoots with BCCL to stop it in some way makes it acceptable. Then you're wrong.

If you and IanS and others are so confident that BCCL are right. Then put your money where your mouth is and do as I've done and offer to pay their legal and other costs if they lose. Because they're so cofident in their own case that they won't

Edited by Athy
Removal of contentious bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well that bit of racism has lost you any sympathy I might have had for you. Post reported.

Maybe so, but is that all you can come up as a constructive argument? You could just press the report button rather than be all holier than thou and possibly kill off an interesting thread. 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

In the last four years a 48 hour mooring restriction has appeared at Lymm. The number of boats moored has declined significantly since its appearance.

Nevertheless, the Lymm Brewery Tap has opened in the last four years. Sainsbury's have opened a second shop in the village and one of the restaurants closed because a senior member of staff was perpetually drunk and abusive to his clients. This has since reopened under new management. The canal itself now boasts a cafe "Butty and Sweet". Business can't be that bad.

The only pub I can think of that has closed is the Farmer's Arms at Rushgreen but that closed years ago.  

Banks are closing everywhere.

Quite, but it seems that a certain member here can't or won't accept that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well that bit of racism has lost you any sympathy I might have had for you. Post reported.

How on earth do you get that statement to be racist?

OK if a NEW tenant moved in  and started extorting 20 quid out of you to park your car etc etc.

The point is that extortion is extortion whoever carries it out regardless of colour, ethnicity, age, gender or in Peels case make of suit!

On reflection and to avoid pandering to any prejudice I've changed it

Does that make everyone happy?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

How on earth do you get that statement to be racist? OK if a white supremacist moved in  and started extorting 20 quid out of you to park your car etc etc.

The point is that extortion is extortion whoever carries it out regardless of colour, ethnicity, age, gender or in Peels case make of suit!

On reflection and to avoid playing to any prejudice. If a NEW tenant etc etc.....

Does that make everyone happy?

So why say it then if it's not relevant? It's the automatic use of such language that shows your intrinsic racism.

Actually, it may be time for you to stop digging - why is colour so important to you (I detect a pathology here)... and why a tenant? Are homeowners just a better class of people and so unlikely to be nasty to you?  Racist, classist... unable to argue without abuse... no wonder Peel don't bother with you - it's got nothing to do with the legalities, they just don't think you matter much.  And nor do I.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Arthur Marshall said:

So why say it then if it's not relevant? It's the automatic use of such language that shows your intrinsic racism.

Actually, it may be time for you to stop digging - why is colour so important to you (I detect a pathology here)... and why a tenant? Are homeowners just a better class of people and so unlikely to be nasty to you?  Racist, classist... unable to argue without abuse... no wonder Peel don't bother with you - it's got nothing to do with the legalities, they just don't think you matter much.  And nor do I.

Now this is just getting silly.

Attack me all you want it's no relevance to the discussion

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

So why say it then if it's not relevant? It's the automatic use of such language that shows your intrinsic racism.

Actually, it may be time for you to stop digging - why is colour so important to you (I detect a pathology here)... and why a tenant? Are homeowners just a better class of people and so unlikely to be nasty to you?  Racist, classist... unable to argue without abuse... no wonder Peel don't bother with you - it's got nothing to do with the legalities, they just don't think you matter much.  And nor do I.

I think the main argument here is whether organisations like C&RT and Peel (amongst others) act outside the law.

That argument for me is far more important than someone trying to use the discussion as a platform to inflate their ego by attempting to destruct it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/10/2017 at 15:33, 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.

People use to drive through London, park on the streets O I cant be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

Cheshire cat is just plain wrong. Mandy and Dave left the Bridgewater at the start of the season and now have the boat at Llangollen. The reason being since the tearing up of the agreement and BCC extorting money from boaters they can no longer make a living. Cafe Sala is NOT open or it wasn't last weekend and the new sainsbury's is well out of the village. The once thriving post office is now a charity shop. 

As for charging now for what they didn't charge before. If a new black guy moves into your street and starts rinsing you for 20 quid to par your car. Is it ok just because the previous tenant didn't do it?

And I'm not saying I'm different I'm saying they are breaking the law. And if they weren't they'd have proved it by now.

An agreement is and agreement so long as the parties agree. When they stop agreeing it's a disagreement. Bridgewaqter boats are ONLY allowed on CaRT water WITH CaRT permission and a valid license. NOT the other way round. I pay my license to CaRT and I did on the conditions, T&C's and reciprocal agreements that were in place. I have not agreed to the change nor as far as I know has any CaRT license holder. So CaRT MUST protect their own T&C's and get it stopped until or unless and new agreement is reached.

If your argument is that because CaRT is that because CaRT are too soft, too scared or i  cahoots with BCCL to stop it in some way makes it acceptable. Then you're wrong.

If you and IanS and others are so confident that BCCL are right. Then put your money where your mouth is and do as I've done and offer to pay their legal and other costs if they lose. Because they're so cofident in their own case that they won't

OK, let us put to one side whether the BCC stance is problematic for businesses etc, because it undoubtedly IS problematic.

The point is that the agreement between BCC and CRT is just that, an agreement between THEM. You are not a party to that agreement. You may benefit from it, and you may suffer inconvenience from it, but you lack any standing to challenge BCC as to their performance of the agreement.

You could POSSIBLY challenge CRT under contract law, on the basis that you entered into a contract with them on the basis of what they had to offer, which included unlimited 7 day journeys onto BCC waters, and that they aren't now supplying what they said they would. However, your CRT licence is NOT a contract, so that won't fly.

 

However crappy a decision it is, and however unfair it may seem, I don't see that you have any actual case against anybody here. An argument in court that a company that you pay nothing to won't allow you to use its facilities isn't going to go far.

 

CRT do have skin in the game, and THEY could take action, including withdrawing from the agreement completely, which might work, because relatively few CRT boaters are going to be badly hurt by such a move, whilst BCC boaters would see their cruising options reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rowland al said:

Maybe so, but is that all you can come up as a constructive argument? You could just press the report button rather than be all holier than thou and possibly kill off an interesting thread.

No intention of killing off an interesting thread. Did report it. And am holier than him, anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's agree that Gigoguy's interpersonal skills wouldn't get him into the diplomatic services but please give him credit for his challenge to what many of the CRT boaters who use the BC think is unfair.

Nigel Moore who is probably one of the leading experts in these matters indicated that only a court case could settle this, yet some on here seem to believe it's already a fait accompli.

If Peel do take action against Gigoguy and lose he would be regarded as a hero and we would all benefit. If they were to win he would be a loser and we would all have the benefit of knowing for certain a return passage within 28 days would cost £40 - simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Let's agree that Gigoguy's interpersonal skills wouldn't get him into the diplomatic services but please give him credit for his challenge to what many of the CRT boaters who use the BC think is unfair.

Nigel Moore who is probably one of the leading experts in these matters indicated that only a court case could settle this, yet some on here seem to believe it's already a fait accompli.

If Peel do take action against Gigoguy and lose he would be regarded as a hero and we would all benefit. If they were to win he would be a loser and we would all have the benefit of knowing for certain a return passage within 28 days would cost £40 - simple as that.

Nigel is indeed experienced, but given that he doesn't always win, and that he has said that he doesn't have all the facts...

The problem that we have here is that challenging BCC isn't likely to have a positive outcome either way (we won't all win either way)

A court isn't going to rule that they can charge boaters who are there all the time, but are legally obliged to offer unlimited 7-day passages.

All that a court can say is that BCC either does or does not have the power to charge leisure boaters to use the canal.

If the court says they do, then they can carry on charging £40 as they wish. If the court says they don't, they will have to stop charging the boaters who moor there as well, and there is a grave risk that Peel Holdings would place BCC into administration, which would probably mean that the canal transfers to CRT, and the visiting boaters stop paying the £40 but the locals have to start paying CRT licence fees. They will love that!

 

The fact that gigoguy wants to flit on and off the canal without paying, and can't believe that such a vital artery is in addition to his CRT licence doesn't make it so, and there are other cases where there is a long journey round if one wishes to not pay another licence fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

The fact that gigoguy wants to flit on and off the canal without paying, and can't believe that such a vital artery is in addition to his CRT licence doesn't make it so, and there are other cases where there is a long journey round if one wishes to not pay another licence fee.

That is totally untrue and unfair. I have every right to use the canal under the agreements in place when I took my license. As you say CaRT can say no 50% and no license no entry but they won't and they haven't. I even know boaters that have offered to monitor BCC boats for CaRT if they haven't got the staff and they refused the help.

And your argument about it being the end of the canal is ludicrous. There is a bridgewater canal trust, there is as you say CaRT and I'm sure a number of other agencies would consider running it for the PUBLIC good.

That's exactly what Peel said. First they threatened me, then they said i should be fair and then they said without the toll they'd have to close the canal and it would all be my fault.

Why oh Why oh Why! don't they just send their legal authority to charge and bring an end to it? Why? Because they haven't got any.

Nigel is quite right about the court and also honest when he says he hasn't got all the facts. But obviously neither have Peel.

The point I keep making and will keep making is. If they don't know it IS legal then they should stop doing it until either they do know or it is made legal.

Demanding money with threat is a crime unless THEY can prove they have the right to demand it. I DON'T have to prove anything.

And I can flit on and off the bridgewater on my boat as often as i can flit on and off the A6 in my car. And nobody can stop me without legal authority to do so!

 

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

Nigel is indeed experienced, but given that he doesn't always win, and that he has said that he doesn't have all the facts...

I not only do not have all the facts pertaining to this issue, I have not had time to look at what IS available. All I have been in a position to do is point out certain principles which may or may not apply, depending on the relevant legislation. On the face of it, the fact that Peel only cited the 1961 Byelaws and the 1962 Transport Act as empowerment to charge pleasure boats, makes their claim dubious – but it is always the bits you do not know about that can trip you, and for any number of reasons, such organisations can be prone to keeping their cards close to their chest.

I don’t recall saying that only a court case would settle the matter; I think somebody else used that expression having read my lack of certainty over it – if the legislative background and licensing history was fully and openly explored, the situation could be acknowledged on all sides without any such intervention. In part, at least, I think this is what the OP is aiming for.

It is right that I have lost cases as well as won them, and that should sound a warning; some of the lost cases were fair enough judgments, others were outrageously in defiance of both facts and law – and I have tried to temper all advice as to the legal position in any of the scenarios that attract my interest, with the old maxim that all litigation is a two-up game, and just because you are right does not guarantee a win.

A further cautionary note needs to be sounded respecting potential outcomes – win or lose, a court case can cost you far more than you can afford, or even have; it is inadvisable to assume those costs will amount to no more than the fixed level of a small claims case.

I fully support investigation; I am wary of issuing challenges - even out of court - while investigation is proceeding; firmly against provoking legal challenges in court while still uncertain of irrefutable grounds, and even then, recommend challenge in court only for those with nothing to lose, or those independently wealthy.

Some of the other avenues though, that the OP has pursued thus far in the Bridgewater issues, have achieved a measure of success in prising information out of the authority, and in alerting other possibly relevant authorities to the potential need to do some investigating themselves. Opening up threads like this is also valuable for comments from both sides of the fence. One can only trust that some transparency will come about as a result of all this, and a firmer understanding of the position just might help CaRT achieve a return to their old reciprocal agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I not only do not have all the facts pertaining to this issue, I have not had time to look at what IS available. All I have been in a position to do is point out certain principles which may or may not apply, depending on the relevant legislation. On the face of it, the fact that Peel only cited the 1961 Byelaws and the 1962 Transport Act as empowerment to charge pleasure boats, makes their claim dubious – but it is always the bits you do not know about that can trip you, and for any number of reasons, such organisations can be prone to keeping their cards close to their chest.

I don’t recall saying that only a court case would settle the matter; I think somebody else used that expression having read my lack of certainty over it – if the legislative background and licensing history was fully and openly explored, the situation could be acknowledged on all sides without any such intervention. In part, at least, I think this is what the OP is aiming for.

It is right that I have lost cases as well as won them, and that should sound a warning; some of the lost cases were fair enough judgments, others were outrageously in defiance of both facts and law – and I have tried to temper all advice as to the legal position in any of the scenarios that attract my interest, with the old maxim that all litigation is a two-up game, and just because you are right does not guarantee a win.

A further cautionary note needs to be sounded respecting potential outcomes – win or lose, a court case can cost you far more than you can afford, or even have; it is inadvisable to assume those costs will amount to no more than the fixed level of a small claims case.

I fully support investigation; I am wary of issuing challenges - even out of court - while investigation is proceeding; firmly against provoking legal challenges in court while still uncertain of irrefutable grounds, and even then, recommend challenge in court only for those with nothing to lose, or those independently wealthy.

Some of the other avenues though, that the OP has pursued thus far in the Bridgewater issues, have achieved a measure of success in prising information out of the authority, and in alerting other possibly relevant authorities to the potential need to do some investigating themselves. Opening up threads like this is also valuable for comments from both sides of the fence. One can only trust that some transparency will come about as a result of all this, and a firmer understanding of the position just might help CaRT achieve a return to their old reciprocal agreement.

Absolutely.

Nigel has been completely honest about the situation and the advice he has given. And, as have a few others, strongly advised caution. Unfortunately I'm not the cautious type and i like to get things done. Drain the swamp as the saying goes!

I first wrote to CaRT about this in 2016 when I was put in physical danger, harassed, intimidated and hounded off the canal by a bully boy traffic warden and a self employed bin man. I think the notice he posted was forged and I now know he was acting completely illegally. That's all a different matter and will be dealt with separately. But CaRT wouldn't support their own customers then and they're not prepared to support them now.

As you say Nigel it's what we don't know that might trip us up. But that knife has 2 edges. 

There is no one. Not CaRT not Peel not BCCL not even readers of the threads I've posted. can say I haven't been more than fair. All I've asked is they stop breaking the law and return to the original agreement until or unless a new one can be formalised. If they take me to court for anything and try to fleece me for costs. They'd better have a bloody good reason to produce something in court they could have produced long before.

I don't think I've ever said or posted anything that is any way libellous, I've never incited anyone to break the law and I've always said I'd pay them if they show me their authority to charge me. If they take me to court, no matter how high a court. If they suddenly pull the rabbit they've been hiding for months, then it's likely to have shat in their pocket. 

I can't thank Nigel, erivers and Tony enough for their help and advice. But if it does all go Pete Tongue it's not their fault and at least I tried. Which is more than can be said for CaRT and others who should be fighting them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

Let's agree that Gigoguy's interpersonal skills wouldn't get him into the diplomatic services but please give him credit for his challenge to what many of the CRT boaters who use the BC think is unfair.

Nigel Moore who is probably one of the leading experts in these matters indicated that only a court case could settle this, yet some on here seem to believe it's already a fait accompli.

If Peel do take action against Gigoguy and lose he would be regarded as a hero and we would all benefit. If they were to win he would be a loser and we would all have the benefit of knowing for certain a return passage within 28 days would cost £40 - simple as that.

And what do you mean I'm not diplomatic? Most unfair, I just don't suffer fools as Graham has been made aware. 

Thanks for the support. If you're moored in the area and you know people who don't know about the cause. Give em a nudge.

Hey maybe I should have some 'stop the illegal Bridgewater toll' Notices made for folks to put in their windows. What do you think?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

All I've asked is they stop breaking the law

Following this thread with interest but have nothing to offer to support 'either side', however, your claim that they are 'breaking the law', would, I am sure, garner much more support if you were to cite the law they have allegedly broken, and, in what way they have broken it.

Just because something is not how you (we) would want it does not make it 'breaking the law'.

  • Greenie 2
  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Following this thread with interest but have nothing to offer to support 'either side', however, your claim that they are 'breaking the law', would, I am sure, garner much more support if you were to cite the law they have allegedly broken, and, in what way they have broken it.

Just because something is not how you (we) would want it does not make it 'breaking the law'.

If you've been following the thread you'll have seen what I accuse them of.

As Nigel pointed out. It's what they don't know that's likely to bite them in the arse and I'm not giving them my information on here. (Spies you know)

As I said and maintain, demanding money with threat without legal authority to do so is a crime. I'm not a police officer but I'm sure there are some retired ones on here that could explain how that works and what laws are being broken.

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.