Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

48 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bridge-toll-rise-causes-traffic-1198015

This is Peel Holdings. Pay for maintenance my left cheek. I bet they haven't painted it in 20 years!

OK Graham 19 years 11 months and 28 days! You know because you was there.

Congratulations!! Nothing like old news, is there?
I'm surprised you haven't claimed this is illegal too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Barton Swing Bridge swings regularly to allow the Arklow Vale to collect scrap steel from Eccles. I believe the same boat also delivers wheat to the flour mill. As others have said Snowdrop causes the tank to  be swung twice a weekend in the summer months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

Congratulations!! Nothing like old news, is there?
I'm surprised you haven't claimed this is illegal too.

 

Bizarrely they charge 12p one way or 25p for an all day ticket. The toll is only levied between 07:00 and late evening and its not to cross the canal but to cross the old course of the River Mersey which is the ancient boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/10/2017 at 23:13, gigoguy said:

I'm not trying to provoke litigation I'm trying to highlight the fact that litigation isn't possible because they have no legal authority to charge the toll in the first place.

 

Might I respectfully suggest you have now achieved your goal of highlighting "the fact that litigation isn't possible because they have no legal authority to charge the toll in the first place". 

Now you can give it a rest. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

Bizarrely they charge 12p one way or 25p for an all day ticket. The toll is only levied between 07:00 and late evening and its not to cross the canal but to cross the old course of the River Mersey which is the ancient boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire. 

Quite a few of the "private" toll bridges only charge in the daylight hours; I can think of 3:
the one over the Thames near Oxford
the bridge across the Wye at Glasbury
the bridge at Penmaenpool.
I expect there are others.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I doubt it Mike!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

Quite a few of the "private" toll bridges only charge in the daylight hours; I can think of 3:
the one over the Thames near Oxford
the bridge across the Wye at Glasbury
the bridge at Penmaenpool.
I expect there are others.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I doubt it Mike!!

Well Graham and Michael have surely shut down that discussion.

 

So what do you both suggest what is discussed now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

Without re-hashing that dispute yet again, I would argue only that if the Courts were right to make the finding [as e.g. in Stourbridge v Wheeley] that absence of a right in an enabling Act to levy a charge for a particular use amounted to a prohibition, then that “otherwise prohibits” arises from statutory law rather than common law.

That said, cases such as Stourbridge depend upon the conferring of a right for the public to use boats on their canal, subject only to whatever charges were specifically permitted. If no such general rights were conferred [and I have not read any relevant Acts that convince me they were], then the issue does not arise and the court findings in such cases are simply inapplicable. In that case, your suggestion that [effectively] a contractual arrangement licensing passage of boats would be permissible, has merit.

With the caveat that my comments depend only on what has been revealed thus far in the forums, it seems that only riparian owners were at one point permitted free use of the canal with pleasure boats, and that there could well be implied repeal of that use, within the late clause granting rights of removal of boats left more than a month without the company’s consent.

Do you have the exact wording of the ruling in Stourbridge v Wheeley?

The reason that I ask is that if it uses the word Amounts or Amounted, it would be particularly significant.

Such a form of words does NOT say that the Act DOES prohibit, but that the wording of the act, ADDED to an underlying common law precept totals to a prohibition.

In the present case, the fact that riparian owners were once permitted free pleasure boat passage by statute is also of interest. If the statutes gave free use to riparian owners, then the exception proves the rule. By saying that riparian owners have free passage, it is implicit that those who are not riparian owners were NOT exempt from charges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mayalld said:

Do you have the exact wording of the ruling in Stourbridge v Wheeley?

The reason that I ask is that if it uses the word Amounts or Amounted, it would be particularly significant.

Such a form of words does NOT say that the Act DOES prohibit, but that the wording of the act, ADDED to an underlying common law precept totals to a prohibition.

In the present case, the fact that riparian owners were once permitted free pleasure boat passage by statute is also of interest. If the statutes gave free use to riparian owners, then the exception proves the rule. By saying that riparian owners have free passage, it is implicit that those who are not riparian owners were NOT exempt from charges.

 

I'll have to get back you on this. It will be awhile because I will have to look things up and other matters have priority just now.

Stourbridge does not use the words "amounted to", that is my gloss on this and a later more specific judgment on the same theme which escapes me at the moment.

The later Bridgewater Act, which I also cannot recall just now, allowed riparian owners to freely keep and use pleasure boats on the canal - not just allow passage. I agree that the implication is that this tends to suggest that non-riparian owners did not enjoy that privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

I'll have to get back you on this. It will be awhile because I will have to look things up and other matters have priority just now.

Stourbridge does not use the words "amounted to", that is my gloss on this and a later more specific judgment on the same theme which escapes me at the moment.

The later Bridgewater Act, which I also cannot recall just now, allowed riparian owners to freely keep and use pleasure boats on the canal - not just allow passage. I agree that the implication is that this tends to suggest that non-riparian owners did not enjoy that privilege.

As he is busy, I hope Nigel won't mind me answering Dave's request:

stourbridge.JPG.1874e8aac58f9ff54026a57c7dc67a66.JPG

 

 

Edited by erivers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, erivers said:

As he is busy, I hope Nigel won't mind me answering Dave's request:

stourbridge.JPG.1874e8aac58f9ff54026a57c7dc67a66.JPG

 

 

I am obliged!

Legal minds of the 19th century had a wonderful turn of phrase; "company of adventurers"

So, they can "claim nothing which is not clearly given to them" where there is ambiguity.

The key thing to take from this is that the judgement is very clear that this is a rule of construction where there is ambiguity. It is, how the courts will deal with the statute being silent on any matter.

The statute doesn't forbid, it doesn't prohibit, it fails to say, it is ambiguous, and that will be constructed in a particular way. When a later statute grants general powers, with a saving for existing prohibitions, it cannot mean assumed prohibitions due to ambiguity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

it cannot mean assumed prohibitions due to ambiguity.

 

Why not?

I get the distinct impression that that is exactly what it means. It seems to me that everything I've seen is worded in such a way as to not drop the minister in the sh1 if at some point in the future there is a prohibition found or claimed that wasn't obvious or explicit.

Another point that still confuses me is. If the s9 notice applies to everything now, as would seem to be the case from ALL T's&C's BCCL put out. Then how can they charge for stays longer than 7 days. Section 9 clearly allows one month and one week before a notice can be issued and then another month before action can be taken. There is no ambiguity there at all.

So an implied exemption and an Act clarifying length of stay. Not looking good for the charge on either account really is it? 

14 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Might I respectfully suggest you have now achieved your goal of highlighting "the fact that litigation isn't possible because they have no legal authority to charge the toll in the first place". 

Now you can give it a rest. Thanks!

If you're bored or it's too difficult to take in Mike. You don't have to read the thread.........with respect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have no objection to pay if I return to the Bridgewater in the specified time, but I must say I am enjoying reading this thread as it plays out. Its good that people are willing to challenge what they feel is unlawful and if at the end the Bridgewater drops the charge I will not be sending them a £40 voluntary contribution to their fund. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Well I have no objection to pay if I return to the Bridgewater in the specified time, but I must say I am enjoying reading this thread as it plays out. Its good that people are willing to challenge what they feel is unlawful and if at the end the Bridgewater drops the charge I will not be sending them a £40 voluntary contribution to their fund. 

The trouble with that train of thought is that it centres on the particular, rather than on the natural consequences.

The legal avenue that is being pushed here to block the £40 visitor charge is an argument that it is unlawful for BCC to charge ANY pleasure boat (including boats that are based on the Bridgewater Canal).

So, whilst I am convinced that the argument is bunkum, there is always the risk that an argument finds a Judge that is suckered in and gives a perverse ruling.

"Great" you say, "I'll save £40", but in truth, BCC has just lost most of its income, and in a very short time the reason that you aren't paying £40 is that the canal is closed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

Well I have no objection to pay if I return to the Bridgewater in the specified time, but I must say I am enjoying reading this thread as it plays out. Its good that people are willing to challenge what they feel is unlawful and if at the end the Bridgewater drops the charge I will not be sending them a £40 voluntary contribution to their fund. 

 

But the OP has stated several times in this thread he has no intention of mounting a legal challenge. His only intention is to publicise his purported fact that peel have no legal basis for making the charge.

Not willing to mount a challenge because he knows he is wrong, more likely. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

Bizarrely they charge 12p one way or 25p for an all day ticket. The toll is only levied between 07:00 and late evening and its not to cross the canal but to cross the old course of the River Mersey which is the ancient boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire. 

And the bridge over which the toll is levied isn't even a bridge any more! It was filled in and embanked years ago to strengthen it. All the crossings of the Ship Canal itself  are free, by statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

But the OP has stated several times in this thread he has no intention of mounting a legal challenge. His only intention is to publicise his purported fact that peel have no legal basis for making the charge.

Not willing to mount a challenge because he knows he is wrong, more likely. 

But there is no reason for the OP to "mount a legal challenge".  It is for Peel to seek redress through the courts if the OP (or anyone else) refuses to pay. 

In the OP's case, Peel have refused all invitations to do just that and so there is no action to him to defend.

Perhaps your "not willing to mount a challenge because he knows he is wrong" comment is in fact more applicable to Peel.

Edited by erivers
typo
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

And the bridge over which the toll is levied isn't even a bridge any more! It was filled in and embanked years ago to strengthen it. All the crossings of the Ship Canal itself  are free, by statute.

How will that effect the new Mersey Gateway bridge at Runcorn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

How will that effect the new Mersey Gateway bridge at Runcorn

It won't. 1) It crosses the Mersey in addition to the MSC, thus it is possible to charge for crossing the Mersey (for example, Mersey Tunnels, Ferry, etc isn't free). 2) There is no doubt separate specific legislation relating to the new bridge, and the old bridge for that matter, enabling charging to use them, which supercedes any previous legislation on that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AndrewIC said:

And the bridge over which the toll is levied isn't even a bridge any more! It was filled in and embanked years ago to strengthen it. All the crossings of the Ship Canal itself  are free, by statute.

The old Runcorn Transporter Bridge crossed the MSC and charged a toll.

I distinctly remember queueing to get on it and my grandfather paying the toll.

https://www.francisfrith.com/uk/runcorn/runcorn-transporter-bridge-c1955_r67035

Edited by cuthound
Spillung
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul C said:

It won't. 1) It crosses the Mersey in addition to the MSC, thus it is possible to charge for crossing the Mersey (for example, Mersey Tunnels, Ferry, etc isn't free). 2) There is no doubt separate specific legislation relating to the new bridge, and the old bridge for that matter, enabling charging to use them, which supercedes any previous legislation on that matter.

I should have said, new road crossings required as a result of the construction of the MSC :). They had to pay for the railway diversion viaducts as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mayalld said:

The legal avenue that is being pushed here to block the £40 visitor charge is an argument that it is unlawful for BCC to charge ANY pleasure boat (including boats that are based on the Bridgewater Canal).

Apart from the return toll having absolutely no baring what so ever on whether the canal stays open or not. Given that they've only been demanding it since 2014 and probably not had more than a couple of hundred quid anyway. And that the cost to stay for more than 7 days, based on their own citations is not lawful.

I did NOT start my argument with Peel on the grounds that no one had to pay. I said they had no right to charge ME a £20 return within 28 day toll. And if they presented ME with their legal authority to charge I would pay. They didn't and never have. And when challenged THEY refused to take action.

It was pointed out by others with much more knowledge of the subject than I. That Peel demand an annual license fee based on the 1962 Bridgewater By Laws. But NOWHERE in those by laws does it allow Peel to charge a pleasure boat license never mind provide them with the authority to enforce it.

I have always maintained that Bridgewater boaters would still probably pay the fee even if the company was honest with them and told them it was a voluntary contribution and not obligatory. But as usual Peel prefer to lie and threaten than tell the truth and mediate.

IF the matter did go to court and IF Peel did lose their revenue stream they would have no one to blame but themselves. Because all I've ever asked them to do is return to the original reciprocal agreement until or unless a new one is formalised.

So in the unlikely event that the canal did close because CaRT would have it, National Trust would have, the Bridgewater canal trust could take control or even a not for profit organisation or charity would take it over. But if it did it would be Peel Holdings and their greed that closed it and nothing else.

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.