Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
gigoguy

Bridgewater permits and licenses

Featured Posts

3 hours ago, 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.

Still waiting for your evidence of all those points. 

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

You know as well as i do that isn't the case. Mike Webb dealt with over stayers at Lymm and Castlefield and he didn't threaten to take their boats off them and he didn't make them discharge themselves from hospital and have them chased through a frozen canal for 10 miles in the middle of Winter. Under bogus powers he didn't have.

Really?

As above, evidence please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Gigoguy should be applauded. Despite the "oh no it is, oh no it isn't" exchanges at least he is challenging Peel. It seems to me that they are probably really p**sed with him and you would think they would at least attempt to make an example by taking him to court over his recent actions. Yet they don't. It looks likely that even they have no clue what the exact legal position is so I can't see how anyone on here can have any certainty.

Do BCC boaters in general object to paying for a Bridgewater license - probably not. Do CaRT license holders object to only having 7 days - probably not. It's the £40 for a return trip and an ex-gestapo enforcement officer that are the only real issues here - IMO.

Gigoguy has stirred the pot but I believe is in danger of pushing too hard and too far which will probably result in some nasty medicine from Peel. Challenging the £40 return fee is IMO fair game, but the challenge should really have come from CaRT who seem to be incapable of doing anything useful to boaters.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

Gigoguy has stirred the pot but I believe is in danger of pushing too hard and too far which will probably result in some nasty medicine from Peel. Challenging the £40 return fee is IMO fair game, but the challenge should really have come from CaRT who seem to be incapable of doing anything useful to boaters.P

I have no idea of the legality here, not sure that anyone has, it would seem to be easy for the case to be tested in the Courts, I don't know why this has not happened, the CRT probably don't want to spend a lot of money fighting cases in Court, its a charity after all [not that that deterred the RSPCA], more likely the potential benefits to the minority are outweighed by the potential costs

Why does Gigoguy not take them to court, [small claims] for the return of payments he has made to Peel? 

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I have no idea of the legality here, not sure that anyone has, it would seem to be easy for the case to be tested in the Courts, I don't know why this has not happened, the CRT probably don't want to spend a lot of money fighting cases in Court, its a charity after all [not that that deterred the RSPCA], more likely the potential benefits to the minority are outweighed by the potential costs

Why does Gigoguy not take them to court, [small claims] for the return of payments he has made to Peel? 

That looks to be the case to me.

CaRT don't need to go to court they have the ammunition well within their grasp (reciprocal arrangements)

Gigoguy will probably answer for himself that but I don't think he has paid anything - that's the focus of his challenge. I believe he 'parked' outside the Peel office and invited them to charge him.

Edited by Midnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I think Gigoguy should be applauded. Despite the "oh no it is, oh no it isn't" exchanges at least he is challenging Peel. It seems to me that they are probably really p**sed with him and you would think they would at least attempt to make an example by taking him to court over his recent actions. Yet they don't. It looks likely that even they have no clue what the exact legal position is so I can't see how anyone on here can have any certainty.

Do BCC boaters in general object to paying for a Bridgewater license - probably not. Do CaRT license holders object to only having 7 days - probably not. It's the £40 for a return trip and an ex-gestapo enforcement officer that are the only real issues here - IMO.

Gigoguy has stirred the pot but I believe is in danger of pushing too hard and too far which will probably result in some nasty medicine from Peel. Challenging the £40 return fee is IMO fair game, but the challenge should really have come from CaRT who seem to be incapable of doing anything useful to boaters.

But why should CRT spend our money challenging this further, it is of no benefit to them what so ever if we have to pay or not and it probably effects less than 1% of their customer base. It doesn't make business sense. 

 

30 minutes ago, Midnight said:

That looks to be the case to me.

CaRT don't need to go to court they have the ammunition well within their grasp (reciprocal arrangements)

That would not hurt Peel at all, they don't care if boats with their licence can go on CRT waters,it would only hurt fellow boaters

  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right I haven't paid them anything so i can't take them to court to get it back. It was suggested on TB that I pay them and then claim it back through small claims. But again if i pay them, before small claims will deal with it Peel have to refuse to pay me back if i demand it. All they've got to do is send it back and say I misread the sign and paid by mistake. Noting would happen.

I asked them exactly the same question. I moored right outside their office, right under a security camera and emailed them to say I was there within 28 days and to come to me with legal authority to charge and i would pay them. They waited till I went shopping and sent the traffic warden round with a 'contact notice' Why I don't know. They wouldn't answer the phone when i called them and they didn't reply to my email.

CaRT won't take them to court because they agree with them. They would be happy for Peel to win so they can start charging all over the place. CaRT spend enough money on court cases involving their own boaters. But they won't spend a penny to protect them. Doesn't that seem odd?

I'm not even going to address Graham Davis. I'll just refer him to an answer I gave him regarding a previous stupid question.

And I also agree that Bridgewater boaters would probably pay a license to stay on the canal. What I'd take exception to is being threatened every year with by laws that don't exist and County Court action for not paying that most certainly would not succeed.

The traffic warden who we are supposed to pay, according to the signs if we can't pay by card. Wears no Corporate clothing or personal protective equipment (high vis etc) and as a rule carries no ID. So how are you supposed to find him to pay him. Yet again according to the signs, they can take your boat off you if you don't pay. And he's a sneaky enough little teewat to stand next to you and take your number without you even kn owing who he is. Then off you go to the pub and when you come back your boats on hard standing!

 

F**K the law of 1827 it's not fair. IT'S ILLEGAL!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Midnight said:

That looks to be the case to me.

CaRT don't need to go to court they have the ammunition well within their grasp (reciprocal arrangements)

Gigoguy will probably answer for himself that but I don't think he has paid anything - that's the focus of his challenge. I believe he 'parked' outside the Peel office and invited them to charge him.

 

45 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

Your right I haven't paid them anything so i can't take them to court to get it back. It was suggested on TB that I pay them and then claim it back through small claims. But again if i pay them, before small claims will deal with it Peel have to refuse to pay me back if i demand it. All they've got to do is send it back and say I misread the sign and paid by mistake. Noting would happen.

I asked them exactly the same question. I moored right outside their office, right under a security camera and emailed them to say I was there within 28 days and to come to me with legal authority to charge and i would pay them. They waited till I went shopping and sent the traffic warden round with a 'contact notice' Why I don't know. They wouldn't answer the phone when i called them and they didn't reply to my email.

CaRT won't take them to court because they agree with them. They would be happy for Peel to win so they can start charging all over the place. CaRT spend enough money on court cases involving their own boaters. But they won't spend a penny to protect them. Doesn't that seem odd?

I'm not even going to address Graham Davis. I'll just refer him to an answer I gave him regarding a previous stupid question.

And I also agree that Bridgewater boaters would probably pay a license to stay on the canal. What I'd take exception to is being threatened every year with by laws that don't exist and County Court action for not paying that most certainly would not succeed.

The traffic warden who we are supposed to pay, according to the signs if we can't pay by card. Wears no Corporate clothing or personal protective equipment (high vis etc) and as a rule carries no ID. So how are you supposed to find him to pay him. Yet again according to the signs, they can take your boat off you if you don't pay. And he's a sneaky enough little teewat to stand next to you and take your number without you even kn owing who he is. Then off you go to the pub and when you come back your boats on hard standing!

 

F**K the law of 1827 it's not fair. IT'S ILLEGAL!

 

Swearing does your case no good whatsoever, if no action has been taken against you or your boat, why are you ranting ?

Edited by LadyG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LadyG said:

 

Swearing does your case no good whatsoever, if no action has been taken against you or your boat, why are you ranting ?

May I refer the honourable lady to a previous reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

But why should CRT spend our money challenging this further, it is of no benefit to them what so ever if we have to pay or not and it probably effects less than 1% of their customer base. It doesn't make business sense. 

 

That would not hurt Peel at all, they don't care if boats with their licence can go on CRT waters,it would only hurt fellow boaters

It If CaRT reciprocated by allowing the BC boats only the same 7 days £40 return I suspect many would leave the Bridgewater for CaRT waters - that would hurt Peel at very little cost to CaRt or us Boaters. I suspect more than 1% use the Bridgewater especially as Liverpool is a popular destination now. Many of those probably want to return the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/10/2017 at 08:14, mayalld said:

It may be essential in your mind that the canal is a Public Right of Way (it isn't BTW), or more to the point a Public Right of Navigation (again, nope), because for it to be otherwise would mean that a private company is in control of whether you can go that way or not. That may not be how you think the world should be, but that doesn't mean that the world isn't like that.

I don't understand your logic here. 'a private company is in control of whether you can go that way or not' What does that mean?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I don't understand your logic here. 'a private company is in control of whether you can go that way or not' What does that mean?

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

More to the point, why haven't Peel taken legal action against you? Could it be they don't think they will win?

Edited by Midnight
Grammar - Athy likes it to be gotten right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Midnight said:

It If CaRT reciprocated by allowing the BC boats only the same 7 days £40 return I suspect many would leave the Bridgewater for CaRT waters - that would hurt Peel at very little cost to CaRt or us Boaters. I suspect more than 1% use the Bridgewater especially as Liverpool is a popular destination now. Many of those probably want to return the same way.

I'm sorry I really don't want to be rude but if you're going to contribute to the discussion at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

There are I think about 1000 boats on Bridgewater, maybe more maybe less I'm not exactly sure. They ALL get a 50% reduction on a CaRT license. They can come and go as they please and many do anyway and DON'T pay the CaRT 50% they should.

There are restrictions in place but CaRT NEVER enforce them. When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. The agreement was so that bridgewater boats could use bw water NOT the other way round as Peel would have you think

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I'm sorry I really don't want to be rude but if you're going to contribute to the discussion at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

There are I think about 1000 boats on Bridgewater, maybe more maybe less I'm not exactly sure. They ALL get a 50% reduction on a CaRT license. They can come and go as they please and many do anyway and DON'T pay the CaRT 50% they should.

There are restrictions in place but CaRT NEVER enforce them. When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. The agreement was so that bridgewater boats could use bw water NOT the other way round as Peel would have you think

 

Well I raised that point about using CRT water which the reply was aimed at, and I thought your complaint was not Peel want to charge you for staying on their waters but for returning to it in less than 48 hrs. If that is the case you are one of the, what I estimated to be 1% who Peel want to pay £40. Or have I miss read the situation and you dont have a CRT licence but are based on the Bridgewater Canal?

Edited by ditchcrawler
Spilling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I'm sorry I really don't want to be rude but if you're going to contribute to the discussion at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

There are I think about 1000 boats on Bridgewater, maybe more maybe less I'm not exactly sure. They ALL get a 50% reduction on a CaRT license. They can come and go as they please and many do anyway and DON'T pay the CaRT 50% they should.

There are restrictions in place but CaRT NEVER enforce them. When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. The agreement was so that bridgewater boats could use bw water NOT the other way round as Peel would have you think

 

You are rude but I admire your courage in challenging Peel otherwise I would probably think you are a total knob. I'm obviously a clot who doesn't understand these matters but if CaRT took action either as you or I suggested BC boaters would probably move to CaRT waters in numbers. Sorry for having no idea what I'm talking about. Endorsed by the fact I'm probably the only one here who thinks you should be applauded.

Edited by Midnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

I'm sorry I really don't want to be rude but if you're going to contribute to the discussion at least have some idea of what you're talking about.

There are I think about 1000 boats on Bridgewater, maybe more maybe less I'm not exactly sure. They ALL get a 50% reduction on a CaRT license. They can come and go as they please and many do anyway and DON'T pay the CaRT 50% they should.

There are restrictions in place but CaRT NEVER enforce them. When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. The agreement was so that bridgewater boats could use bw water NOT the other way round as Peel would have you think

 

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.

Edited by cuthound
Grandma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 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 of to CRT? 

At least there used to be a sign there that said this was as far aso a BCC licenced boats could travel.

You see that's just it there are so many fairy stories about who can do what where and when that nobody know's what the feck is going on.

For midnight's benefit and to clarify the situation re Bridgewater boats. They don 't and won't leave the bridgewater in droves. If they wanted to leave they can do any time they like. They stay because it's a nice canal and obviously easy for them to get to, or for whatever reason they stay.

The effect of the charges and threats to boaters has had a major impact on the canal and the general boating activity in the area.

The original agreement says BW boats can go on bridgewater for 7 consecutive days. That's all nothing about no return nothing about paying ofr over 7 days nothing about paying for pleasure boats. Nothing other than 7 consecutive days. Bridgewater boats could go as far as Barbridge and End of L&L spur. And if they wanted they could get a BW short term license with 33% off.

Somehow we can't go on if we don't pay to come back, they can take our boats off us if we don't pay, they get 50% off a full year and CaRT don't enforce if they haven't even got the half price license. And ALL with absolutely NO legal authority to do so.

 

Now anyone at all tell me that's the sort of thing the majority of boaters would agree with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

 

For midnight's benefit and to clarify the situation re Bridgewater boats. They don 't and won't leave the bridgewater in droves. If they wanted to leave they can do any time they like. They stay because it's a nice canal and obviously easy for them to get to, or for whatever reason they stay.

 

You said "When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. " If that had happened what do you think would have been the likely outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Midnight said:

You said "When Peel tore up the agreement in 2014 CaRT should have said ok no 50% discount and you DON'T come on our water without a valid license. Because that's how it used to be before the agreement. " If that had happened what do you think would have been the likely outcome?

Well I would have hoped that Bridgewater boaters would have then got on to Peel and said what's going on here?

The Bridgewater joins the Trent and Mersey to the Leeds and Liverpool. It also runs into the centre of Manchester and joins the Rochdale canal.  That's the Cheshire ring. Without going along the Bridgewater there is no way north-south or back without a 150 mile 200 lock 4 week detour.

You can get from Leigh at one end to Preston Brook at the other in 1 day.

Apart from the odd tootle along the Bridgewater there is nothing to do and nowhere to go if they don't leave the Bridgewater and come on to CaRT water. Yet we pay them and they don't as a general rule pay us. A few do and fair play to them but the majority don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gigoguy said:

 

I'm not even going to address Graham Davis. I'll just refer him to an answer I gave him regarding a previous stupid question.

 

The traffic warden who we are supposed to pay, according to the signs if we can't pay by card. Wears no Corporate clothing or personal protective equipment (high vis etc) and as a rule carries no ID. So how are you supposed to find him to pay him. Yet again according to the signs, they can take your boat off you if you don't pay. And he's a sneaky enough little teewat to stand next to you and take your number without you even kn owing who he is. Then off you go to the pub and when you come back your boats on hard standing!

 

F**K the law of 1827 it's not fair. IT'S ILLEGAL!

 

No, you won't answer me because you know that the points I asked you to provide evidence of, you can't, as you have made them up. I note that you also have failed to  provide answers to others when they have asked for clarification of accusations you have made against Peel and it's employees. Is this because you also made those up too?

Your continual aggressive use of language, your complete lack of facts to back up your allegations, and your ignoring those that ask you difficult questions strengthens my opinion of what you are.

And I expect you and your cronies will now make some childish and facile comment about me on Thunderboat.

Edited by Graham Davis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gigoguy said:

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

All totally irrelevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

No, you won't answer me because you know that the points I asked you to provide evidence of, you can't, as you have made them up. I note that you also have failed to  provide answers to others when they have asked for clarification of accusations you have made against Peel and it's employees. Is this because you also made those up too?

Your continual aggressive use of language, your complete lack of facts to back up your allegations, and your ignoring those that ask you difficult questions strengthens my opinion of what you are.

Right what did you want to know

Can I prove there has never been a charge before. Well if there had ever been a charge before do you think we would be arguing about it now? Wouldn't Peel have just sent me the evidence I asked for?

When did the canal last freeze?

It freezes every year or shall we say as I've only had a boat for 4 years that it's frozen for the last 4 years because I've been stuck in it 3 times and chased through it once.

 

What else did you ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Graham Davis said:

All totally irrelevant!

you really hard of thinking aren't you graham.

ok so you tell me then what gives them authority to charge a pleasure boat? They can't tell me so you tell me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, 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.

 

20 hours ago, gigoguy said:

You know as well as i do that isn't the case. Mike Webb dealt with over stayers at Lymm and Castlefield and he didn't threaten to take their boats off them and he didn't make them discharge themselves from hospital and have them chased through a frozen canal for 10 miles in the middle of Winter

3 in the first quote.

2 in the second quote.

Factual and provable evidence please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

 

3 in the first quote.

2 in the second quote.

Factual and provable evidence please?

OK

1) I have asked them for visitor numbers from 2012-2017. But if you want to visit Lymm village and ask the locals or anyone else who uses the canal they will confirm that visitor numbers have plummeted

2) Since the action again in Lymm village alone 3 banks, a pub, 2 restaurants and the post office have all closed within the past 3 years. And at least 4 other shops have changed hands.

3) IWA have a campaign, CaRT are talking to them, NABO are talking to them the chamber of commerce wrote and appealed to them and there have been numerous articles in the local press.

4) IT WAS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they did it to

And the rest?

 

What I think has been achieved so far is this

1) They won't charge anyone, that has seen either this forum or TB, again for a return passage

2) The police won't attend when they are illegally impounding a boat or if they do it will be to defend the boater. As they should have been doing in the past

3) If the traffic warden or the bin man come near me or my boat again then I'll call the police and this time they most certainly will respond.

4) The bully has had a bloody nose and not before time.

5) I hope at least one Bridgewater boater has got the balls to ask them to prove they can charge them for a pleasure boat license. Even if they still pay it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the first 3 are all conjecture by you. In detail:
1/ No proof only conjecture by you and some residents. 
2/ Those closures are happening nationally so you cannot blame the canal for any of them. My own town has lost 4 banks in the last 2 years, 2 pubs and 2 shops and we are no-where near a canal! Shops changing hands happens all the time. Again conjecture and exaggeration.
3/ That isn't "everyone"! I have not seen every member of this Forum complaining either. More exaggeration!
4/ Then you should have said that! But you didn't. And sorry but I severely doubt they chased you for 10 miles or forced you to discharge yourself. 

 

And sorry, but my opinion of you has not changed. Your "argument" would come across a lot better if you removed the aggressive language used, the aggressive attitude and rudeness against those that disagree with you, all of whom have been totally polite, the total lack of provable facts and continuous use of conjecture, and personally the petty, childish and frankly pathetic insults issued against me by you and others over on Thunderboat.
I have always found that being constructive, polite, accurate and understanding seems to get a far better and more reasonable response when I have had to "argue" with someone or something else.

To your other points:
1/ You don't know that. Conjecture.
2/ The Police do not get involved in Civil matters, unless there is likely to a Breach of the Peace.
3/ Traffic wardens or Bin Men? Don't know what you are on about. use their proper descriptions.
4/ So you condone an assualt?
5/ Fine

 

Edited by Graham Davis
  • Happy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 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.