Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

28 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'.

'garner', very clever Alan.

The law depends on respect from the majority. That's where it will break and has done many times in the past.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some information to keep GG up to date with current laws. Libel no longer exists.
From Wiki:

The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Some information to keep GG up to date with current laws. Libel no longer exists.
From Wiki:

The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

The law depends on the  respect of the majority. When people (at any level) start to take the mick. It all goes wrong. 

Isn't this what it's all about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gigoguy said:

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.

 

Presumably your license is a yearly one? If so, either the last time you paid for it, or the next time you pay for it, you agree, by your own assertions above, to the change to the reciprocity that the Bridgewater Canal Company has made.

Edited by Richard10002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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...

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.

Would it be such a bad thing for CaRT to take over the BC? Current CaRT license holders would get 'free' access to the BC. The current users would have full access to the rest of the system (legally) but would have to pay for a CaRT license like the rest of us.

Having said that, if it was found Peel have no right to charge, what would be the position for CaRT in the event of a takeover? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Richard10002 said:

Presumably your license is a yearly one? If so, either the last time you paid for it, or the next time you pay for it, you agree, by your own assertions above, to the change to the reciprocity that the Bridgewater Canal Company has made.

Well as has already been pointed out my CaRT license is not a contract. Although I haven't looked but I'd be pretty sure that somewhere it would say something about changes etc.

And what on earth is this person going on about now? As I said I had a letter from Peel Holding's solicitor. It was him that threatened me with a libel suit. So if he doesn't know the law regarding libel and defamation then what chance does he have of knowing the law on the bridgewater.

Edited by NB Lola
Unacceptable language
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

Presumably your license is a yearly one? If so, either the last time you paid for it, or the next time you pay for it, you agree, by your own assertions above, to the change to the reciprocity that the Bridgewater Canal Company has made.

We ageee to all sorts of stuff to get what we want. Honestly, do you read all T&C's when you sign up to something? How many times have we been done over by banks changing their rules on interest rates after a year for example. 

In the end, natural law says, are they taking the mick? It doesn't matter how many rules are made or changed, that's still the bottom line. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Would it be such a bad thing for CaRT to take over the BC? Current CaRT license holders would get 'free' access to the BC. The current users would have full access to the rest of the system (legally) but would have to pay for a CaRT license like the rest of us.

Having said that, if it was found Peel have no right to charge, what would be the position for CaRT in the event of a takeover? 

Well I've already broached that with Peel's solicitor when he said that if I didn't pay the canal would have to close. And it would all be my fault

CaRT as did BW do have a legal right to charge pleasure boats. Again Nigel will know more than me but in 72 and again 95 I think. BW were given the legal authority to charge a pleasure boat license. It did away with the voluntary status of the pleasure certificate, which is what I think MSCC and now Peel actually have.

So yeah BC boats would be free to roam and CaRT boats would still have the freedom  they've always had. Why should BC boats get 50% off a CaRT license anyway. It was 33 1/3% on a short term license. How when and why did it change?

That is part of the issue here. If CaRT did impose the original agreement or rip it up altogether. The boaters losing the most would be BC boats. But Peel care no more about them than they do about anyone else. And they'd gladly let them lose their rights and privileges. 

All that matters to Peel Holdings Land and Property (the owners of BCCL) is just that Land and Property they couldn't care less about the canal or anyone or anything on or to do with it.

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

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

I called by the Nat West Bank in Urmston today, only to find that they are now closed on Thursdays. My immediate thought was that it would be something to do with the canal!! :)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Well as has already been pointed out my CaRT license is not a contract. Although I haven't looked but I'd be pretty sure that somewhere it would say something about changes etc.

That's not really an answer to the question is it?

Each time you renew your license, you agree to the Ts & Cs at the time of renewal so, either the last time you renewed, or the next time you renew, you will have agreed, or will be agreeing, to the changes to the reciprocal agreement. There may even be something in their T&Cs that says that they cannot guarantee the reciprocal agreement will remain as is at the time of renewal.

The concomitant of this is that CaRTs T&Cs are not relevant to your issue, and is a red herring. Your issue seems solely to do with the fact that you believe the BCC have no legal right to charge CaRT license holders for returning to the canal within a 28 day period, (or at all?), or is it?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

That's not really an answer to the question is it?

Each time you renew your license, you agree to the Ts & Cs at the time of renewal so, either the last time you renewed, or the next time you renew, you will have agreed, or will be agreeing, to the changes to the reciprocal agreement. There may even be something in their T&Cs that says that they cannot guarantee the reciprocal agreement will remain as is at the time of renewal.

The concomitant of this is that CaRTs T&Cs are not relevant to your issue, and is a red herring. Your issue seems solely to do with the fact that you believe the BCC have no legal right to charge CaRT license holders for returning to the canal within a 28 day period, (or at all?), or is it?.

I don't understand what you're asking Richard. I didn't bring up the CaRT license someone else did. 
I have appealed to CaRT over and over and over again. But my not paying them is of no relevance  and only gets me into bother with them.

And as has already been said many times even the original reciprocal agreement had no standing in law. But it was never challenged and never needed to be. If it had been, by Peel for instance, and was not upheld, then Peel could do anything they wanted.  But they didn't they just tore it up knowing that CaRT can't enforce it and hoping that no one will challenge what they've replaced it with.

Well I have, and they can no more enforce what they have now than CaRT could enforce the reciprocal agreement. Only what has been allowed by legislation is what can be relied upon.

Peel's solicitor told me that CaRT rely on the same legislation in their T's&C's. As I pointed out it certainly isn't what they rely on in court, what they rely on in court are Acts. And there aren't any that allow Peel to do what they're doing.

The stupid thing is they've had ample opportunity to screw us all over legally but were either too mean or too arrogant to do it right when they had the chance. So now they can stop doing it altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I don't understand what you're asking Richard. I didn't bring up the CaRT license someone else did. 

You said:

"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."

It seems fairly obvious what I was asking........ although my conclusion seems to be similar to what you are now suggesting, i.e. that CaRTs T&Cs are irrelevant to your cause.

19 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Subtlety is for those who are to scared to say what they think. 

I said exactly what I thought.... not scared of anything in relation to this???

I guess the less subtle answer would have been "No! thus QED!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Too subtle, Richard!!

Well you know what they say about irony.......it's lost on the stupid

 

4 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

Well it made me laugh. I think any economic downturn in Lymm is far more likely to be caused by the recent introduction of a Pay and Display machine in the car park. 

I'll give you that. You're not wrong there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

You said:

"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."

It seems fairly obvious what I was asking........ although my conclusion seems to be similar to what you are now suggesting, i.e. that CaRTs T&Cs are irrelevant to your cause.

Yeah you're right and right. No CaRT tnc's aren't relevant. And yes I said i pay my license based on them. But I was replying to the post about CaRT should protect us and they don't. I think they probably should but they don't.

You see pre CaRT and Peel it was a very different world and the canal was a busy place in 1968. If a BW boat over stayed it was BW that enforced the agreement not MSCCL. They only towed you away for parking/mooring offences and blocking the cut. If MSCC wanted you off they told BW who suspended your trading license and you couldn't work. It wasn't full of Charles and Daphney's like it is today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Midnight said:

Would it be such a bad thing for CaRT to take over the BC? Current CaRT license holders would get 'free' access to the BC. The current users would have full access to the rest of the system (legally) but would have to pay for a CaRT license like the rest of us.

Having said that, if it was found Peel have no right to charge, what would be the position for CaRT in the event of a takeover? 

If it became CRT waters, then CRT would have a right to charge.

Would it be a bad thing?

Well, as a CRT boater who is reasonably close, and may wish to make a return trip at some point (I have done so once in the past 10 years), then it would probably be good for me. I stand to save an average of £4 a year.

For those who make extensive use of the canal without paying over and above their CRT licence who now find themselves expected to do so, it would clearly be great.

For those who currently pay for a BCC licence, it would be rubbish.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours 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.

Nigel,

 

should you suddenly find yourself with time on your hands....

 

The Manchester Ship Canal Company has a rich legislative history, and much of that legislative history is available from a slightly unusual source!

The present MSCC and BCC are relatively recent incorporations of perfectly ordinary companies, but the original MSCC (which was created by a private act of parliament) was not, and part of the filing history of the original MSCC is a whole raft of private acts.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/ZC000197/filing-history?page=4

Should keep you busy for a while!

The highlights that I can see from this is that the 1885 act authorised a toll for passengers on the ship canal. Various subsequent acts have increased the charges, and the 1920 Act seems to have finally abolished the distinction in law between what the company could do with regard to the two canals, and brought the provisions together.

That at least would appear to provide for a passenger toll to be applied by the BCC. I feel sure that many hours would be required to determine the current value of that toll.

As an interesting aside, I was chatting to a solicitor about a thorny issue of company law last week (how do you sort out a company that has 600 shareholders, 95% of whom are long dead, such that it is nigh on impossible to call a general meeting to appoint a director!), and discussion turned to the maxim that a company only has the powers that it was incorporated with.

His view was that the Companies Act 2006 has massively reduced the limits on the power of a company, and that the precedents may well be nullified by that act.

He also mentioned that as the canal is now operated by BCCL, its articles of association define its powers, and that it is almost certainly the case that it derives its powers to charge by virtue of those articles, rather than the Act, save to the extent that the acts explicitly restrict the company's powers.

So, the legal position may actually be that there is no PRN on the canal, and none of the acts require that the company permits pleasure boating at all, so allowing pleasure boats on the canal is at the discretion of the company, not a statutory function, and as such it can do as it pleases.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mayalld said:

Nigel,

 

should you suddenly find yourself with time on your hands....

 

The Manchester Ship Canal Company has a rich legislative history, and much of that legislative history is available from a slightly unusual source!

The present MSCC and BCC are relatively recent incorporations of perfectly ordinary companies, but the original MSCC (which was created by a private act of parliament) was not, and part of the filing history of the original MSCC is a whole raft of private acts.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/ZC000197/filing-history?page=4

Should keep you busy for a while!

The highlights that I can see from this is that the 1885 act authorised a toll for passengers on the ship canal. Various subsequent acts have increased the charges, and the 1920 Act seems to have finally abolished the distinction in law between what the company could do with regard to the two canals, and brought the provisions together.

That at least would appear to provide for a passenger toll to be applied by the BCC. I feel sure that many hours would be required to determine the current value of that toll.

As an interesting aside, I was chatting to a solicitor about a thorny issue of company law last week (how do you sort out a company that has 600 shareholders, 95% of whom are long dead, such that it is nigh on impossible to call a general meeting to appoint a director!), and discussion turned to the maxim that a company only has the powers that it was incorporated with.

His view was that the Companies Act 2006 has massively reduced the limits on the power of a company, and that the precedents may well be nullified by that act.

He also mentioned that as the canal is now operated by BCCL, its articles of association define its powers, and that it is almost certainly the case that it derives its powers to charge by virtue of those articles, rather than the Act, save to the extent that the acts explicitly restrict the company's powers.

So, the legal position may actually be that there is no PRN on the canal, and none of the acts require that the company permits pleasure boating at all, so allowing pleasure boats on the canal is at the discretion of the company, not a statutory function, and as such it can do as it pleases.

 

I'm sure Nigel will reply more fully for himself. But as for me I've seen all this and much more.

I think one thing needs to be made crystal clear. NO ONE can do what they like. Unfortunately Peel Holdings seem to be having great difficulty in grasping that concept. And that doesn't only go for the mess they're making of the Bridgewater canal.

As you say there is a lot of information in some quite unusual places, you wouldn't believe what I've found and where I've found it. However if Peel Holdings had anything at all that gave them permission to charge 'pleasure boats' not passenger boats. Then they'd have shown it to someone on here by now. Because either one of them is reading the thread or someone on here is telling them what is being said. I'm glad of that, it saves me having to email them. But it does make sharing sensitive information difficult.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I'm sure Nigel will reply more fully for himself. But as for me I've seen all this and much more.

I think one thing needs to be made crystal clear. NO ONE can do what they like. Unfortunately Peel Holdings seem to be having great difficulty in grasping that concept. And that doesn't only go for the mess they're making of the Bridgewater canal.

As you say there is a lot of information in some quite unusual places, you wouldn't believe what I've found and where I've found it. However if Peel Holdings had anything at all that gave them permission to charge 'pleasure boats' not passenger boats. Then they'd have shown it to someone on here by now. Because either one of them is reading the thread or someone on here is telling them what is being said. I'm glad of that, it saves me having to email them. But it does make sharing sensitive information difficult.

 

 

I fear that you miss my point!

In your extensive search of legislation you will find that there is nothing that grants Tesco the power to charge for bread. Will you be starting a campaign to stop them charging for bread.

The canal was not built with public money, and it was never bought into public ownership. The quid Pro Quo for the compulsory purchase, and the fact that it was never going to be practicable for there to be anything other than a monopoly here was that tolls were regulated, and the proprietors had to carry goods at the stated price.

However, as pleasure craft were no envisaged at the time (and I believe were not permitted until after WWII), there is no toll charge laid down for pleasure craft, and no obligation to allow passage at all.

Hence, the company is not obliged to allow pleasure craft at all. If it does, then just as Tesco can set a price for bread, it sets a price for passage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

 

I think one thing needs to be made crystal clear. NO ONE can do what they like. 

 

I think this statement applies to you as much as it applies to Peel 

I may be wrong but I think the reason they are not taking you to court is not because they are "guilty"  but because they see you as an itchy bit which they need to scratch occasionally :-)

Haggis 

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1
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.