Jump to content

Bridgewater permits and licenses


gigoguy

Featured Posts

1 hour ago, Richard10002 said:

1) Why won't it lead to a rush onto the canal? If it's free, compared to the adjacent CaRT canals.....

2) What are these ways of dealing with it?

3) If nobody is paying, how do you differentiate those who shouldn't be penalised?

4) If they aren't able to charge for a license, what is to stop them doubling the mooring fee, resulting in the same annual payment?

5) I don't know enough about the charge for passage to be able to comment except that I wonder how "passage" is defined, as against the alternative?

6) If you aren't paying for your passage, and the BCC aren't pursuing you for payment, despite your making your position quite clear to them, and you have publicised the fact to all who are in a position to hear, haven't you achieved your goal? Surely it is up to other passage making boaters to decide whether to pay or not, given what they now know about your experiences.

1) Well how do they get there? The only way is via CaRT water so CaRT can stop them moving anywhere without a CaRT license

2) S9 can be enforced for mooring longer than allowed

3) I don't understand the question

4) Nothing probably

5) Me neither

6) As I pointed out previosly the reason for the post was to inform boaters of the unlawful charges and the illegal manner in which they are being demanded. A few who obviously support Peel's case or don't support mine, have posted spurious legal challenges.

If any of them , the challenges I mean, had any standing in law Peel would have cited and quoted them themselves. 

Ian asked why they should tell me. Well if anyone demands money from me they MUST tell me what right they have to demand it. And I, or anyone who is being asked for money has the right to challenge them. 

And as i said before the threats are completely unenforceable. For one thing there are no posted charges for the toll. So IF they were stupid enough to take me to court how much are they claiming \i owe them. And even in the unlikely event that they did win. They could only remove goods to the value of the amount owed. So they couldn't impound a 50 grand boat for a £20 toll or whatever they claim it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Yet another caution – just because you have the evidence does not ensure a judge will find in your favour against the establishment. County Court judges simply do not have the luxury of time to investigate properly; the Supreme Court has approved the principle that such judges should assume that authorities are basing their actions on a correct application of their powers; and as a barrister once said to me many years ago: at higher levels, judges will make decisions based upon where they wish interpretation of the law to go.

No clearer example of this could exist than the latest High Court judgment in the Ravenscroft case, where the claim that s.8 cannot be used to justify holding on to a seized boat as a lien on arrears of licence fees was dismissed, with costs, even though CaRT admitted that it could not be; that it had been a 'mistake' to do so, and when the evidence was irrefutable that this had been a published policy since before CaRT even took over from BW.

But would you not agree Nigel that it is interesting that they haven't written to me threatening court action if i don't pay. Any company with the authority to charge would have done at least that surely. Then if at a later date they do decide to take me to court they've got more than their 'member' in their hand to show the judge.

I know you've not given the case as much attention as you would need to fight it in court. But would you say that s52 alone gives them the right to charge a me for a return journey withing 28 days? And is it enough for them to enforce the demand through a court?

I understand what you're saying about spiralling costs and judges being on the side of the authority etc. But at the moment this is a small claim for 20 quid for refusing to pay a non existent toll. If it existed and was enforceable they'd just do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, mayalld said:

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

I do not believe that is correct Dave – not without more being provided for in any transfer.

If CaRT were handed the Bridgewater Canal, the existing legislative framework would remain in place, and would be binding on CaRT. If charges have been permitted, those would transfer, but equally if they were not, then the prohibition still would apply – unless the Transfer Order specifically provided otherwise

Transfers to BW [now CaRT] of other waterways were provided for within the 1983 Act, section 10, where, if the existing authority did not object, “the Secretary of State may on application to him by the Board make an Order transferring to the Board all or part of the undertaking of any navigation authority and any functions or property of such authority.”

Sub-section (3) provides that the effect of such an Order may contain various provisions, specifically [as pertinent to this issue] “( b ) the amendment, adaptation or repeal of local enactments”, and ( c ) the classification of the waterways as per the 1968 Act, and “( e ) the inclusion of any such inland navigation in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971:

Of course, in practical terms CaRT would be highly unlikely to pass up the opportunity to have any such Order amend/repeal existing Bridgewater legislation, to enable them to bring the canal within their existing licensing scheme - so far as rivers are concerned at least, the several Orders that have been made to date under the 1983 Act have certainly specifically included those within the Schedule 1 river waterways, and thus made boats liable to chargeable Pleasure Boat Certificates as per the 1971 Act, even where they had enjoyed express freedom from any charges prior to the Order.

So my point may be pedantic, because the answer would be as you say, but just not automatically, by way of a simple transfer of undertakings; express provision would need to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

 

6) As I pointed out previosly the reason for the post was to inform boaters of the unlawful charges and the illegal manner in which they are being demanded. A few who obviously support Peel's case or don't support mine, have posted spurious legal challenges.

 

Correction.
It is your OPINION that their actions are illegal, as it other's OPINION that it is not. 

Until the matter is tested in a Court you are in no place to make the comments you have. The fact that at present Peel have not pursued a Court action proves nothing. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

But would you not agree Nigel that it is interesting that they haven't written to me threatening court action if i don't pay. Any company with the authority to charge would have done at least that surely. Then if at a later date they do decide to take me to court they've got more than their 'member' in their hand to show the judge.

I know you've not given the case as much attention as you would need to fight it in court. But would you say that s52 alone gives them the right to charge a me for a return journey withing 28 days? And is it enough for them to enforce the demand through a court?

I understand what you're saying about spiralling costs and judges being on the side of the authority etc. But at the moment this is a small claim for 20 quid for refusing to pay a non existent toll. If it existed and was enforceable they'd just do it. 

 

Well they have written that they could; they just don’t see it, at present, as cost effective. Should your published position result in a significant number of non-payers, they might just then see it as cost effective, along the lines of the recent EA prosecution of two dozen boaters within a couple of Thames marinas, in a lumped together case.

My opinion is that s.52 in isolation does not give the right to charge as claimed – but bear in mind that that section, as with s.43, removes any limit as to charges being reasonable, if the charges have not been expressly or impliedly prohibited. So, for example, the £40 charge, however unreasonable, would be legally supportable in the event that the levying of a charge was permissible in the first place.

To date I have seen no enforceable power to demand a toll for mere passage, but for reasons I have given already, I suspect that a County Court would find in their favour regardless. Then too, Mayalld’s comment regarding necessary consent if passage CAN be refused, is valid; I am not yet convinced that a general PRN for non-commercial vessels was conferred under the originating legislation [unlike most other subsequent canal enabling Acts] – I remain curious as to the basis on which non-riparian pleasure boats were first, apparently, permitted; the facts surrounding that are crucial to your investigations.

 Also, you should not be comfortable with the idea that they would content themselves with a mere small claims procedure; if following CaRT’s example with their live aboard s.8 cases, they could choose to claim for declaratory relief instead, in which case the ceiling on costs for small claims cases would not apply.

Even in small claims cases, a finding in favour of the Claimant would involve costs of at least £120 or so additional to the fixed court costs, last time I looked [a good while ago], in addition to payment of the supported charge. Of course, given that – to the extent of my limited knowledge – no statutory provision making a crime out of not paying for a passage licence exists, there would be no prosecution with attendant fines etc, but the total costs of failure would still be considerably more than you perhaps envisage.

Please note that I am not seeking to discourage anyone with all this, I am simply trying to make clear the potential consequences of a failed court battle. It is just that it behoves anyone challenging a powerful body like Peel to be thoroughly prepared for both the fight and the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Well you'd better tell Neil Hayes then. He's got good internet access and he's also got copies of all the legislation. And do you know what's odd about you're statement? He's never sent it to me and you've never posted it anywhere.

 

6 hours ago, gigoguy said:

Neil Hayes has sent me nothing apart from s52 Transport Act. I've looked at the posts you've mentioned and can see no reply at all from him. I can see stuff you've posted, so are you he? As for porky pies please be a bit more specific and I'll answer you.(snip)

The porky was the bIt I've put in bold in the first quote. I have listed above where and when it was posted.(#168)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as someone who was a regular and frequent user of the Bridgewater canal in the course of earning a living more years ago than I would really care to remember, I have to say that the attitude and behaviour of the present navigation authority does not seem to me so very different from the one I used to work for over half a century ago - which was the Bridgewater Department of the MSCCo. Navigation authorities have always had a tendency to act like tinpot dictators in both thinking and actions, and nothing I have read about Peel's stewardship of the Duke's cut leads me to think that they are doing nothing other than preserving the long established tradition of bloody-minded and nigh on impossible to reason with waterway proprietors.

It seems to me that gigoguy is not so much wanting to avoid having to pay anything at all for using the canal, but is quite rightly objecting in the strongest terms to the newly introduced rule imposing an unreasonably high charge on any boat coming back onto the canal less than 4 weeks after any earlier passage along it, and to Peel taking a leaf out of C&RT's ''how to intimidate and frighten away boaters '' book by illegally depriving people of their boats. Good luck to him, I say, and well done for standing up to them, but I do think that success is more likely to come not from arguing the toss on an internet forum about the extent of Peel's powers in respect of operating the canal, or from attempting to provoke Peel into a courtroom showdown, but from convincing those boaters who want to use the canal in defiance of Peel's unreasonable charges and restrictions that they, Peel/BCCo., in common with any and every other company, organization or individual, simply have no lawful authority whatsoever to seize and impound others property without first obtaining the authority and the active participation of a Court of law and authorized officers of the Court - in other words, those people who used to be called Bailiffs, but are now, officially, named either Enforcement Agents or High Court Enforcement Officers. 

One way of achieving this end would be to force Peel into returning any boats they have seized and are still holding impounded, and/or to compensate the owners of any unlawfully seized vessels that have been broken up or otherwise disposed of in the past.

 

Edited by TheDuker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

One way of achieving this end would be to force Peel into returning any boats they have seized and are still holding impounded, and/or to compensate the owners of any unlawfully seized vessels that have been broken up or otherwise disposed of in the past.

Peel can take control of a vessel by removing it to a suitable location if, after having given 7 days’ notice following a stay of a month or more without licence, the boat has remained on their waters. Having done so, they can keep it unless and until the costs of doing so are reimbursed within the relevant time period [on expiry of which time they may sell the boat and give the proceeds less the costs to the owner]. They cannot seize the boat for any other reason, nor can they use their control as lien on any alleged licence arrears.

If they HAVE taken and kept the boat contrary to statute, then so far as I can see the recourse of the boat owner would be to petition the court for an order under the Torts Act for return of the boat: -

3 Form of judgment where goods are detained.

(1) In proceedings for wrongful interference against a person who is in possession or in control of the goods relief may be given in accordance with this section, so far as appropriate.

(2) The relief is—

( a ) an order for delivery of the goods, and for payment of any consequential damages, or

( b ) an order for delivery of the goods, but giving the defendant the alternative of paying damages by reference to the value of the goods, together in either alternative with payment of any consequential damages, or

( c ) damages.

 

edit to add: arguing the toss on an internet forum is of considerable value in sorting out the realities of the situation; contributions from all sides of the issue helps attain a more informed view, with relevant legislation and its application being uncovered and sorted out - to some extent at least.

Edited by NigelMoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Peel can take control of a vessel by removing it to a suitable location if, after having given 7 days’ notice following a stay of a month or more without licence, the boat has remained on their waters. Having done so, they can keep it unless and until the costs of doing so are reimbursed within the relevant time period [on expiry of which time they may sell the boat and give the proceeds less the costs to the owner]. They cannot seize the boat for any other reason, nor can they use their control as lien on any alleged licence arrears.

From BCCo.'s T&C's :

Attention is drawn to Section 9 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960:-

1(a) If any vessel is left in any river canal waterway navigable channel lock or dock forming part of the Bridgewater undertaking without consent in writing of the Company for a period of one month or upwards the Company may after giving seven day's notice to the owner of the vessel at the time when such notice is given remove the vessel to a convenient place and such owner shall pay to the Company the cost of removal and a sum not exceeding twenty five pence (25p) for each day during which any part of the river, canal, waterway, navigable channel, lock, or dock is occupied by the vessel after the giving of such notice and until such removal and any such cost and sum may be recovered by the Company either summarily as a civil debt where the amount does not exceed twenty pounds or as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

1(b) If any sum payable to the Company under the provisions of the sub-section is not paid within one month after it becomes due the Company may break up sell or otherwise dispose of the vessel any expense incurred by them in so doing after deducting the proceeds of sale (if any) shall be repaid to them by such owner and any expenses incurred by the Company as aforesaid which are not defrayed out of the proceeds of sale shall be paid to the Company by such owner and may be recovered as aforesaid.

2 Any notice given by the Company pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section shall be given by delivering the same to the owner or by posting a prepaid letter addressed to the owner at the place in the United Kingdom where he carried on business or at his last known place of abode in the United kingdom or if the owner or his place of business or abode is not known by the Company or is not in the United Kingdom then by exhibiting such notice at the principal office of the Company for seven days.

3 The Powers conferred on the Company by this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers exercisable by them or with respect to the removal of obstructions in any waterway or work to which this section applies.

                                                                           ______________________________________

Quite so, but para's 1(a) and 1(b) are clearly directed at vessels left, or abandoned, in the waterway and not at vessels in use on or on passage through the waterway, and this is further indicated and reinforced through the wording of para. 2 with regard to the means of giving notice to the owner. The threat of removal to 'a convenient place' simply cannot be applied to any vessel on passage and/or remaining in the waterway for less than a minimum of 35 days, and in consideration of the fact that (lawful) removal to a convenient place can only amount to a tow to another location on Peel's waters where they are limited to charging five bob a day for mooring it, the cost to the transgressing owner of retrieving the boat will not be that great. It seems to me that if Peel were held to acting lawfully and within this stated course of action, then the exercise would in fact be far more trouble to them than it was really worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

edit to add: arguing the toss on an internet forum is of considerable value in sorting out the realities of the situation; contributions from all sides of the issue helps attain a more informed view, with relevant legislation and its application being uncovered and sorted out - to some extent at least.

I agree, and I was not looking to devalue the worth of full and open discussion in any way. I do, however, believe that gigoguy's cause, or at least what I believe his cause to be, is not best served by attempting to provoke litigation with all it's attendant risks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Iain_S said:

There is previous legislation which also permits the charging of pleasure vessels

When I said you had not posted I was referring to not having posted the above. If you have I'm sorry I can't find it so maybe you could cut and paste it from TB to here here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

From BCCo.'s T&C's :

Attention is drawn to Section 9 of the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1960:-

1(a) If any vessel is left in any river canal waterway navigable channel lock or dock forming part of the Bridgewater undertaking without consent in writing of the Company for a period of one month or upwards the Company may after giving seven day's notice to the owner of the vessel at the time when such notice is given remove the vessel to a convenient place and such owner shall pay to the Company the cost of removal and a sum not exceeding twenty five pence (25p) for each day during which any part of the river, canal, waterway, navigable channel, lock, or dock is occupied by the vessel after the giving of such notice and until such removal and any such cost and sum may be recovered by the Company either summarily as a civil debt where the amount does not exceed twenty pounds or as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

1(b) If any sum payable to the Company under the provisions of the sub-section is not paid within one month after it becomes due the Company may break up sell or otherwise dispose of the vessel any expense incurred by them in so doing after deducting the proceeds of sale (if any) shall be repaid to them by such owner and any expenses incurred by the Company as aforesaid which are not defrayed out of the proceeds of sale shall be paid to the Company by such owner and may be recovered as aforesaid.

2 Any notice given by the Company pursuant to sub-section (1) of this section shall be given by delivering the same to the owner or by posting a prepaid letter addressed to the owner at the place in the United Kingdom where he carried on business or at his last known place of abode in the United kingdom or if the owner or his place of business or abode is not known by the Company or is not in the United Kingdom then by exhibiting such notice at the principal office of the Company for seven days.

3 The Powers conferred on the Company by this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers exercisable by them or with respect to the removal of obstructions in any waterway or work to which this section applies.

                                                                           ______________________________________

Quite so, but para's 1(a) and 1(b) are clearly directed at vessels left, or abandoned, in the waterway and not at vessels in use on or on passage through the waterway, and this is further indicated and reinforced through the wording of para. 2 with regard to the means of giving notice to the owner. The threat of removal to 'a convenient place' simply cannot be applied to any vessel on passage and/or remaining in the waterway for less than a minimum of 35 days, and in consideration of the fact that (lawful) removal to a convenient place can only amount to a tow to another location on Peel's waters where they are limited to charging five bob a day for mooring it, the cost to the transgressing owner of retrieving the boat will not be that great. It seems to me that if Peel were held to acting lawfully and within this stated course of action, then the exercise would in fact be far more trouble to them than it was really worth.

Thank you for your input. The above bit is very much what I've been telling trading standards. They can only take the boat after a period of 2 months and one week and even then they can only hold it till you pay for it and pick it up. In the case of not paying the toll they can't take it at all until they've been to court, won the enforcement and been granted a judgement. And only then can court officers collect goods to the value owed and only then if you still refuse to pay. They CANNOT impound a 50 grand boat for a £500 debt.

Threatening to take people's boats without legal authority is a criminal offence. That's what I've told the police and that's what they'll be investigating.

Nigel is right about getting the boats back if they're still being held unlawfully. But you can't go to court with brass buttons in your hand. Even if you're right you've got to pay for the privilege. I know that the boat they still hold they are demanding £2800 back license fee. Well they can't demand that under any legislation but they are getting away with it still after 18 months.

Maybe you can help further by shedding some light on the position before the 68 agreement. I don't know how long ago it is since you worked on the canal but was there a charge for pleasure boat transit then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

Quite so, but para's 1(a) and 1(b) are clearly directed at vessels left, or abandoned, in the waterway and not at vessels in use on or on passage through the waterway, and this is further indicated and reinforced through the wording of para. 2 with regard to the means of giving notice to the owner. The threat of removal to 'a convenient place' simply cannot be applied to any vessel on passage and/or remaining in the waterway for less than a minimum of 35 days, and in consideration of the fact that (lawful) removal to a convenient place can only amount to a tow to another location on Peel's waters where they are limited to charging five bob a day for mooring it, the cost to the transgressing owner of retrieving the boat will not be that great. It seems to me that if Peel were held to acting lawfully and within this stated course of action, then the exercise would in fact be far more trouble to them than it was really worth.

I doubt that anybody could realistically brand me as an apologist for waterways authorities, but I have to tell it as I see it, regardless of whether that favours the boater or the authority. In this case, I cannot agree that the quoted section can apply only to abandoned boats not in use [if that was to be suggested]; It appears to me that regardless of whether a boat is ambling along at a relaxed pace taking longer than a month to transit the canal, the authority would be entitled to claim it was left on the canal for longer than the month [if that was the case], and to then serve the statutory 7 day notice. I do agree that the threat cannot be applied to any vessel remaining on the canal for less than a month, and of course if the boat subsequently took a week or less to move off, post notice, then Peel could do nothing more respecting removal.

It is debatable whether towing to another mooring location is the limit of possibilities embraced within a 'convenient place'; arguably they could crane it onto hard-standing alongside the canal if that were feasible. The only caveat being that the costs should be rationally proportionate to the objective [though the courts could give a damn about the proportionality issue, as the Ravenscroft case illustrates]. It is a nice point whether holding in a dry-dock or on hard-standing would also be subject to the 25p maximum, but anyway, you are right that proportionately applied, the costs ought not to be extravagant - but as we have seen, the courts are currently happy with costs being incurred, in such cases, far in in excess of either the boat's value or the fees owed [where the latter are applicable].

As to whether, in the case of minimal incurrable costs, it would be worthwhile pursuing this action, that could be decided upon, as CaRT do, as worthwhile for the frighteners value alone, to dissuade other recalcitrants. After all, most of the considerable costs of CaRT pursuing s.8's are usually irrecoverable, and far in excess of the sums owed for licences, so they lose huge sums just for the benefit of flexing their muscles, rather than following the proportionate and more profitable avenue of pursuing the actual offence at minimal costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gigoguy said:

 I know that the boat they still hold they are demanding £2800 back license fee. Well they can't demand that under any legislation but they are getting away with it still after 18 months.

Despite the fact that the High Court perversely refused to uphold the Ravenscroft claim in this respect, there was the public acknowledgement by CaRT [with which the judge agreed] that such action is unlawful. This could possibly be used to advantage in the situation you refer to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NigelMoore said:

Despite the fact that the High Court perversely refused to uphold the Ravenscroft claim in this respect, there was the public acknowledgement by CaRT [with which the judge agreed] that such action is unlawful. This could possibly be used to advantage in the situation you refer to.

 

Unfortunately Nigel the chap who owns the boat is a numpty and I can't get him to help me get it back for him.

But before the person starts screaming 'well that's because he doesn't agree with you'

It's actually because he has his own serious issue to deal with and the thought of even writing the first letter fills him with dread. 

Numpty being a colloquialism for having mental health issues 

 

Edited by NB Lola
See before, peace keeping mission
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you cannot help those who will not be helped. I do understand his probable feelings though; without at least some knowledge in yourself, it is impossible to know who to turn to for advice you can count on, and engaging with such authorities can be horribly daunting to most. It is something much relied upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Well you cannot help those who will not be helped. I do understand his probable feelings though; without at least some knowledge in yourself, it is impossible to know who to turn to for advice you can count on, and engaging with such authorities can be horribly daunting to most. It is something much relied upon.

They also had a similar amount off The Royal British Legion to return a boat they had unlawfully impounded and held. They even stung a charity for goodness sake. What sort of people are they? I did tell the Legion but I doubt they followed it up. The boater concerned is dead now so he can't fight retrospectively. I blame his death on the hounding he had and the chasing off the canal he was subject to. But there's never going to be any proving the link unfortunately.

I do agree with you on the 'left' understanding of the s9. And I don't have an issue with a s9 being used to move on boats that have been there for more than a month. For goodness sake the canal's only 40 miles long and there are no locks or swing/lift bridges. You can be through one end to the other in day if you push it. So yeah I agree s9 could and should be used to move over stayers. But only after a month not as was in my case, after 14 days WITH permission.

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

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

Maybe you can help further by shedding some light on the position before the 68 agreement. I don't know how long ago it is since you worked on the canal but was there a charge for pleasure boat transit then?

I'm afraid I can't be of much help with regards to the BWB/BCCo. agreement over boat Licences and what charges were applied to pleasure craft on the Bridgewater, but I can tell you that an increasing number of pleasure boats were being used and kept on the canal back in the 60's, and the the Ship Canal Company's Bridgewater Department's primary concern over their presence, particularly being left moored anywhere other than on recognized/supervised moorings,  was the possibility of them breaking adrift, being struck by one of the many commercials that were underway both day and night, then sinking and becoming an obstruction to navigation. Section 9 of the 1960 MSC Act would undoubtedly have been brought about by a recognized need to minimize this particular risk. The passing of time and the ending of commercial traffic has in reality removed the need for and the purpose of Section 9, other than as a legitimate means of controlling and removing vessels which have been, or appear to have been abandoned. It would seem, however, that the BCCo. have elected to follow BW/C&RT's lead in resorting to misusing largely outdated and virtually redundant legislation as a means of terrorizing, intimidating and extorting  money from pleasure craft owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gigoguy said:

 

I suggest you read the Guidelines about using this forum.

58 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

They also had a similar amount off The Royal British Legion to return a boat they had unlawfully impounded and held. They even stung a charity for goodness sake. What sort of people are they? I did tell the Legion but I doubt they followed it up. The boater concerned is dead now so he can't fight retrospectively. I blame his death on the hounding he had and the chasing off the canal he was subject to. But there's never going to be any proving the link unfortunately.

I do agree with you on the 'left' understanding of the s9. And I don't have an issue with a s9 being used to move on boats that have been there for more than a month. For goodness sake the canal's only 40 miles long and there are no locks or swing/lift bridges. You can be through one end to the other in day if you push it. So yeah I agree s9 could and should be used to move over stayers. But only after a month not as was in my case, after 14 days WITH permission.

Yes there are. 
Try Barton Tank for a start.
And Pomona Lock.

Edited by Graham Davis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Davis said:

I suggest you read the Guidelines about using this forum.

Yes there are. 
Try Barton Tank for a start.
And Pomona Lock.

what? Barton is no longer in operation and was used to let large ships pass under the bridgewater on the ship canal and pomona lock is in the mersey estuary.

 

and what about the guidelines?

Edited by gigoguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NigelMoore said:

I doubt that anybody could realistically brand me as an apologist for waterways authorities, but I have to tell it as I see it, regardless of whether that favours the boater or the authority. In this case, I cannot agree that the quoted section can apply only to abandoned boats not in use [if that was to be suggested]; It appears to me that regardless of whether a boat is ambling along at a relaxed pace taking longer than a month to transit the canal, the authority would be entitled to claim it was left on the canal for longer than the month [if that was the case], and to then serve the statutory 7 day notice. I do agree that the threat cannot be applied to any vessel remaining on the canal for less than a month, and of course if the boat subsequently took a week or less to move off, post notice, then Peel could do nothing more respecting removal.

It is debatable whether towing to another mooring location is the limit of possibilities embraced within a 'convenient place'; arguably they could crane it onto hard-standing alongside the canal if that were feasible. The only caveat being that the costs should be rationally proportionate to the objective [though the courts could give a damn about the proportionality issue, as the Ravenscroft case illustrates]. It is a nice point whether holding in a dry-dock or on hard-standing would also be subject to the 25p maximum, but anyway, you are right that proportionately applied, the costs ought not to be extravagant - but as we have seen, the courts are currently happy with costs being incurred, in such cases, far in in excess of either the boat's value or the fees owed [where the latter are applicable].

I feel that to allow that the word 'left' - being the past participle of 'leave' - can be employed in referring to a boat which is in use (ie.- underway or moored with someone onboard) is to condone a slackness in the use of language advantageous to those wishing to distort the true and intended meaning in the context in which the word is/was used. Surely, were it intended that boats in 'use', whether moored or underway, were to be the subject of 1(a) of S.9 of the 1960 MSC Act, then the word 'remains' [in any canal, river, waterway etc.] would replace 'left' ?

With regard to towing to another location being the limit of what removal to 'a convenient place' entails, 1(a) in S.9 is very clear and specific about precisely where the 25p/day charge is applicable - "the Company may after giving seven day's notice to the owner of the vessel at the time when such notice is given remove the vessel to a convenient place and such owner shall pay to the Company the cost of removal and a sum not exceeding twenty five pence (25p) for each day during which any part of the river, canal, waterway, navigable channel, lock, or dock is occupied by the vessel after the giving of such notice and until such removal." - The inference I take away from that is that if the 'Company' chose to crane the boat out of their waterway then they would be left  (* there's that word again !) with nothing to relying upon apart from the goodwill of the boater whose boat they had just nicked to pay their craneage and hard standing costs. It is also worthy of note that the wording appears to imply that the 'removal' aspect of the process is complete once the 'Company' has removed the vessel to a convenient place of it own choosing and other than where it was 'left' by the owner. Were they to argue against this then that would amount to an acknowledgement that in any event the owner's liability is limited to the sum of 25p per day wherever the boat ends up, and for however long it remains there.

Edited by TheDuker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheDuker said:

I'm afraid I can't be of much help with regards to the BWB/BCCo. agreement over boat Licences and what charges were applied to pleasure craft on the Bridgewater, but I can tell you that an increasing number of pleasure boats were being used and kept on the canal back in the 60's, and the the Ship Canal Company's Bridgewater Department's primary concern over their presence, particularly being left moored anywhere other than on recognized/supervised moorings,  was the possibility of them breaking adrift, being struck by one of the many commercials that were underway both day and night, then sinking and becoming an obstruction to navigation. Section 9 of the 1960 MSC Act would undoubtedly have been brought about by a recognized need to minimize this particular risk. The passing of time and the ending of commercial traffic has in reality removed the need for and the purpose of Section 9, other than as a legitimate means of controlling and removing vessels which have been, or appear to have been abandoned. It would seem, however, that the BCCo. have elec more liley to do withted to follow BW/C&RT's lead in resorting to misusing largely outdated and virtually redundant legislation as a means of terrorizing, intimidating and extorting  money from pleasure craft owners.

Yes I know and you're right in and of itself s9 is redundant but they have as you say resurrected it try to control unwanted boats. But again that's the point 'unwanted' Well a car park company can't ban a car or illegally remove it just because they don't like the colour or the owner. 

Personally I don't think it's got anything to do with removing individual boats. I think they want a general reduction in use for an ulterior motive, more likely to do with land development. 

Did you see the new vicars hall bridge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/10/2017 at 20:21, mayalld said:

In your extensive search of legislation you will find that there is nothing that grants Tesco the power to charge for bread.

 

The cheating bastards! Presumably this means they have to give it away??

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheDuker said:

I feel that to allow that the word 'left' - being the past participle of 'leave' - can be employed in referring to a boat which is in use (ie.- underway or moored with someone onboard) is to condone a slackness in the use of language advantageous to those wishing to distort the true and intended meaning in the context in which the word is/was used.

 

 

If your position was to stand - and I would emotionally favour your interpretation - then the same would necessarily apply to s.8 of the 1983 BW Act, wherein the power to remove boats extends only [other than to boats "sunk, stranded or abandoned"] to boats "left or moored" within the jurisdictional area "without lawful authority".

16 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

The cheating bastards! Presumably this means they have to give it away??

One needs to look at these things in the historical context; they only have to give away cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, gigoguy said:

what? Barton is no longer in operation and was used to let large ships pass under the bridgewater on the ship canal and pomona lock is in the mersey estuary.

 

and what about the guidelines?

Doesn't matter if Barton Tank is swung or not, it is still a swing bridge, and I understand that it is swung each year for maintenance.
And I suggest you check where Pomona Lock is. 
Look under Dock 3 in this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_docks

 

Try reading the Forum Guidelines!

Edited by Graham Davis
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.