DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118178--------------------------------------------------
Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: oscar21
Date: May 9, 2026, 9:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This bridge is just down the road from me, it doesn't affect me
directly because I haven't been caught by it yet but plenty of
others have (including my mate 3 times) and there is now a
Facebook action group page as lots have been caught out by dodgy
websites and late late fines apparently.
HTML https://www.facebook.com/groups/1854203578242943/
Back story is the bridge used to be 12p to cross and had a
manned toll booth, it was recently renovated and the toll was
put up to £1 each way but more importantly the toll booth was
removed and replaced by ANPR, relying on the motorist to
remember to pay on-line, just like the Mersey gateway bridge. No
I know from experience, if you don't use it regularly then its
almost impossible to remember to pay it once you get home, life
just takes over and I've been had more than once on the Mersey
bridge.
A the end of the day that's just user error though but the
people on the Action group seem to be getting scammed left right
and centre by Peel (the bridge owners). Could anyone possible
take the time to look at the Facebook page and have a gander at
the by-laws controlling it and see if they have any hope of
anything, I don't know enough and I don't think the people on
the Facebook page do either
As an aside the original toll was to cross a little stone
bridge that the river Mersey went under way before the ship
canal was ever built. Once the ship canal was built the Mersey
was diverted into the canal and the bit under the bridge dried
up so it wasn't even needed but the toll remained. The toll
didn't cover the iron bridge, that had to be provided free of
charge by the ship canal company just like several other bridges
they had to provide along the route. however peel somehow have
managed to now incorporate the big iron bridge into the toll
charges.
The stone bridge is just after the toll booth.
HTML https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4032411,-2.4555592,3a,79.1y,343.75h,79.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s4k_d5wsCYg6DXDWY_yX6hg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D10.289588076743144%26panoid%3D4k_d5wsCYg6DXDWY_yX6hg%26yaw%3D343.75295910466235!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
#Post#: 118186--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 9, 2026, 1:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've not had much chance to look into it (and although I live
relatively nearby I've not had cause to drive over there since
they brought the ANPR system in), but it's notable that they're
using Excel to manage it. When it comes to private parking
charges at least, they're one of the more aggressive firms we
see*.
* Although it doesn't always end well for them: Parking firm
told to pay £10k in five-minute rule row
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/parking-firm-told-to-pay-10k-in-five-minute-rule-row/
#Post#: 118206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: oscar21
Date: May 10, 2026, 3:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you any idea if the tickets issued are just the equivalent
of private parking tickets or are they similar to the ones you
might get in a railway car park, I think they are called ECN's
and issued under by-laws? I believe they are a bit dodgy and can
be enforced in Magistrates court can't they? The bridge tickets
seem to be called UTN's and mention the bylaws on them.
#Post#: 118208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 10, 2026, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: oscar21 link ---
>
>
> . . .
>
> As an aside the original toll was to cross a little stone
bridge that the river Mersey went under way before the ship
canal was ever built. Once the ship canal was built the Mersey
was diverted into the canal and the bit under the bridge dried
up so it wasn't even needed but the toll remained. The toll
didn't cover the iron bridge, that had to be provided free of
charge by the ship canal company just like several other bridges
they had to provide along the route. however peel somehow have
managed to now incorporate the big iron bridge into the toll
charges.
>
>
> . . .
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Owners appear to be Rixton and Warburton Bridge Company Limited
which shares directors with the Manchester Ship Canal Company
Limited
see pages 11 of
HTML https://www.warburtontollbridge.co.uk/app/uploads/2026/04/Rixton-and-Warburton-Bridge-Byelaws-2024.pdf
and page 10 for a map of highway the R&WBC control.
#Post#: 118219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: oscar21
Date: May 10, 2026, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I read the bylaws the other day, the section on tolls is pretty
vague to be honest. Doesn't mention anything about what happens
if the "unpaid toll charges" aren't paid, surely it should say
how this is then enforced, I'll have a look at the Merser bridge
bylaws and see what they say later. All it does say is a driver
is liable to pay a toll as mentioned on the signs, doesn't
mention the registered keeper is liable for the original toll at
all.
#Post#: 120314--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: wed13may
Date: June 1, 2026, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a look at the bylaws, and they are similar [but
crucially not identical] to those in operation at Tyne Tunnels.
As to liability the bylaws state ...The person driving the
vehicle across...so it's the driver.
Assuming they can get it into civil court [as opposed to
magistrates, and we will come to that] then it would fall to the
company to prove who was driving - and as we all know that's
virtually impossible [as private parking companies found out for
many years until POFA 2012].
The 'penalty' for not paying a toll is a breach of the bylaws
and a possoble level 3 fine at Mags Court [which company will
not do be cause of 1. cost and 2. even if sccessful the 'fine'
imposed goes to the court and the company gets nowt. Not paying
the 'charge' is NOT a criminal offence.
Crucially nowhere in the bylaws does it give the company the
right to take action in the civil courts for the recovery of
tolls and charges - ie they have no legal standing to seek the
toll and charge via the civil courts.
#Post#: 120329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 1, 2026, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone reading the byelaws would probably be wise to also read
The Rixton and Warburton Bridge Order 2024
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/630/part/4/made.
Part 4 appears to contain provisions relating to liability for
tolls. 8(2) and 8(4) seem interesting:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bMq0ZxjR/Screenshot-2026-06-01-180553.png
HTML https://ibb.co/ZptjP3R1
#Post#: 120363--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: June 2, 2026, 2:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Anyone reading the byelaws would probably be wise to also read
The Rixton and Warburton Bridge Order 2024
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/630/part/4/made.
>
> Part 4 appears to contain provisions relating to liability for
tolls. 8(2) and 8(4) seem interesting:
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bMq0ZxjR/Screenshot-2026-06-01-180553.png
HTML https://ibb.co/ZptjP3R1
>
--- End Quote ---
The wording in Part 4 has the feel of a wording which is drafted
by a parking operator.
They appear to attempt to change a byelaw breach into a
contractual breach.
I cannot see this working in the County Court for a number of
reasons.
In my opinion the wording still isn't tight (for example, they
use the words 'penalty charges').
#Post#: 121229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: oscar21
Date: June 9, 2026, 1:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What's the consensus then, ignore? my mates got 3 or 4 of these
UTC's now, he is a bit thick though. From what I can make out,
not paying the toll is a breach of the by-laws not the order and
the order states that the punishment is a level 3 fine. So where
do the charges mentioned in the order fit in, it doesn't say how
they are to be collected.
#Post#: 121235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Warburton toll bridge
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 9, 2026, 3:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: oscar21 link ---
>
> he is a bit thick though
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd leave that one out of any character reference ;)
Others might be better placed than me to advise, as it's not
really my area. What I will say about Excel who appear to be
handling the enforcement, is that I wouldn't be surprised to see
them trying to take cases to the County Court, regardless of
merit.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page