|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 5, 2017 9:36:18 GMT
Overall, my view is, some of the shit in the report, is simply shit. I'd be embarrassed making some of the complaints. However, some of the complaints are valid, and in my own personal view, are beyond the ombudsman remit. They should be addressed by an independent authority. It looks as though the ombudsman has become the last resort for some customers, and given he is instructed, and employed by CRT, it has a distinct smell of rot. It's not a "just" system. I agree with regard to the grounds of some of the complaints, but I don't agree that the valid ones are beyond the Ombudsman remit, simply because until C&RT appointed their own pet poodle to fill the post, the Ombudsman was independent. Prior to Walker's appointment the WO was appointed by an independant Waterways Ombudsman Committee on which BW were represented, but the independent committee was disbanded at around the time C&RT came into being, and one of the first things they did was to appoint Walker themselves then pass him off as 'independent' and claim that he had been appointed by the independent committee, . . . . which, of course, no longer existed. I don't have all the dates and details to hand just now, but I believe that "Allan" of this Forum has chapter and verse on it.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 5, 2017 10:21:45 GMT
I notice that Case No: 934 essentially repeats the Ravenscroft argument, albeit with inaccurate variations.
The Ombudsman is correct [though he comes across as very tentative] that the registration requirement covers merely “keeping” as well as "using" boats within the applicable area; the argument about ‘not using for navigation’ is, as he suggests, misplaced semantics. That probably is unfair to the complainant though, because obviously if his boat IS ordinarily kept outside of the main channel of the Trent, he will only enter it by way of navigating, which I suspect was his point.
It is a pity that the description of the mooring in question leaves room for uncertainty as to its precise location. If, as seems possible, the boat was on an inlet 150 metres from where it joined the main river, then there could be no question that it lay outside of the main navigable channel even on CaRT’s interpretation of the term as pleaded in the High Court case. It would not be necessary to await the Court’s determination as to the meaning; CaRT have already accepted such situations fall outside the legislated area of compulsory registration.
Granted that Mr Walker is not renowned for his penetration and may even be misunderstanding his employers, but paragraph 3 is curious – if the statement that s.7 “referred to a boat ‘to be used on a river waterways’, rather than ‘being used’,” is attributable to a CaRT argument, then we are once again back in the impossible world of construing the legislation on the basis of the intent of the boat owner. Any person keeping a trailed boat on their driveway for an annual fortnight’s trip on the river would be liable to full annual registration at all times, simply because that was what the boat was “to be used” for.
On the other hand, Mr Walker claims he has managed to establish that private marinas fell “outside the original river boundaries” where the Appeal Court has recently found the opposite on the Thames. Not disagreeing with him at all on that point, nonetheless I am interested in how he managed to reach that conclusion while he was simultaneously accepting his incapacity to resolve the legal semantics regarding what the definition of such boundaries were.
Why do people bother with laying such complaints before this man? To be fair, he is right in disclaiming any ability to resolve legal interpretations.
Much the same applies to complaints 880 & 914 – but it is interesting that BW had accepted from their beginning in the early sixties, that liabilities arose from damages to boats arising from failure to maintain adequately. It was the key reason they objected to the introduction of compulsory boat licensing when the 1968 Act proposed abolition of PRN’s; for so long as pleasure boat licences were a contractual matter rather than statutory, they could include liability disclaimers in the T&C’s. If statutory licences were to be introduced, then the Act, according to them, would need to incorporate licence conditions releasing them from liability.
Case No: 859 I mostly agree with. A couple of minor points are silly though – CaRT claim that they could not allow solar panels while connected to the grid via their ‘electricity posts’ which “were not designed for that purpose”?! The heat-pump refusal is also suspect; it is a matter of cash in the pocket – they have not only agreed for some years now, to allow Glaxo Smith Cline to use the Grand Union for their heat-pump system at Brentford, but trumpet this as an example of how, by getting a nice pay-off for the permission, they are benefitting the environment.
Case No: 916 is broadly correct; CaRT are right that they have no powers nor obligation to remove boats because land side residents complain about them. It is again curious, however, that yet again the only “legal” option is accepted as “removing” boats rather than simply moving them from the location where they are an obstruction [not accepting that a boat is moored unlawfully because it is burning smelly coal, but just dealing with the general principle].
It also has to be acknowledged that on a few occasions it appears that certain CaRT personnel and departments have reacted to some complaints very fairly indeed, even without ombudsman intervention. That is the sort of approach that we need to see percolate further through the various departments.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 5, 2017 10:22:34 GMT
In my opinion the lack of any oversight, that has teeth. Is one of the biggest issue facing the survival of the waterways. At the moment Crt think they can get away with anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 11:45:43 GMT
Overall, my view is, some of the shit in the report, is simply shit. I'd be embarrassed making some of the complaints. However, some of the complaints are valid, and in my own personal view, are beyond the ombudsman remit. They should be addressed by an independent authority. It looks as though the ombudsman has become the last resort for some customers, and given he is instructed, and employed by CRT, it has a distinct smell of rot. It's not a "just" system. I think you are right Steve independent is what is needed but who pays? or is it a bit of the license fee that is used? It could be funded by a very small amount of licence fees. I'm pretty certain it would also cut the exorbitant legal fees crt pay year on year.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 5, 2017 12:15:03 GMT
It could be funded by a very small amount of licence fees. I'm pretty certain it would also cut the exorbitant legal fees crt pay year on year. I notice that a previous year's payments to Shoosmiths for enforcement activities [November 2014 to November 2015] came to close on a half-million pounds - £434,341.37. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/shoosmiths_payment A request has been placed for the following year's figures, and additionally for those paid to any solicitor firms other than Shoosmiths for the same purposes. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/legal_fees_21?nocache=incoming-973911#incoming-973911It is unclear as to whether, in the previous response, the figures include under 'disbursements' sums paid to barristers such as Mr Stoner. They could, but if not, then the figures for legal costs could be as much as triple that quoted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 12:21:56 GMT
In my opinion the lack of any oversight, that has teeth. Is one of the biggest issue facing the survival of the waterways. At the moment Crt think they can get away with anything. Judging by the turnover of higher management staff, I'd say Richard Parry is becoming a problem for crt. The people he chooses only seem to last a year before jumping ship. Maybe they don't like control freakery.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 5, 2017 12:47:02 GMT
In my opinion the lack of any oversight, that has teeth. Is one of the biggest issue facing the survival of the waterways. At the moment Crt think they can get away with anything. Judging by the turnover of higher management staff, I'd say Richard Parry is becoming a problem for crt. The people he chooses only seem to last a year before jumping ship. Maybe they don't like control freakery. In comparison with the length of time Parry lasted in the two jobs he had prior to being dumped on us, he's well overdue for the boot.
|
|
|
Post by kris on May 5, 2017 12:52:49 GMT
In my opinion the lack of any oversight, that has teeth. Is one of the biggest issue facing the survival of the waterways. At the moment Crt think they can get away with anything. Judging by the turnover of higher management staff, I'd say Richard Parry is becoming a problem for crt. The people he chooses only seem to last a year before jumping ship. Maybe they don't like control freakery. ive missed this, not payinguch attention I suppose. The problem is who they are replaced by.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 5, 2017 14:11:08 GMT
I like to see what people look like, I use my 56 years experience and genetic-code-7th-sense to assess them, based on their features. I'm curious. Other people might also like to see what the 'ombudsman' looks like. I do know that looks can be deceiving. Not having met, or had dealings with Andrew, I remain neutral. I do however wonder why a nuclear physicist is pissing about with canals - seems like a waste of education.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 5, 2017 14:24:44 GMT
Judging by the turnover of higher management staff, I'd say Richard Parry is becoming a problem for crt. The people he chooses only seem to last a year before jumping ship. Maybe they don't like control freakery. In comparison with the length of time Parry lasted in the two jobs he had prior to being dumped on us, he's well overdue for the boot. He does seem to be a serial job-hunter. Just after the money, not interested in what he is actually supposed to represent. Yes, I agree to a decent salary to someone who really earns it, but I think CRT should be headed by someone with a passion for the canals and inland waterways, and a love or respect for the history behind them. Someone who has a boat and does boating, for starters! The Brits do seem often short-sighted. Britain's canals are unique in the world and are worth preserving. They have already been constructed and are an asset, not a burden. Any fool can come into an organisation and close things down as they are not profitable/viable - the clever person is the one who can turn things around and make something of them. Dredging is one simple item. Will tourism from the Americans and Australians drop off when they tell their mates "don't bother as the boat keeps getting grounded"? With this canals business you gotta roll up your shirt sleeves, don the wellies, and get stuck in. Assuming liveaboards are 'gits' is really not the attitude. Yes, go after the piss-takers, but get your own house in order first.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 5, 2017 14:26:27 GMT
It could be funded by a very small amount of licence fees. I'm pretty certain it would also cut the exorbitant legal fees crt pay year on year. I notice that a previous year's payments to Shoosmiths for enforcement activities [November 2014 to November 2015] came to close on a half-million pounds - £434,341.37. Has this been referred to the Monopolies Commission? What if other legal firms want CRT's juicy dirty-work? Why just Shoosmiths? Something smells....
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 5, 2017 15:24:21 GMT
I have an email from Mr Walker stating how he was appointed.
" I was interviewed in September 2012 in a process of open selection by the previous Waterways Ombudsman Committee, which had a majority of independent members. My appointment was the last act of that committee. I started as the ombudsman on 1 November 2012."
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on May 5, 2017 15:52:40 GMT
is this thread no more than another chance for whingers to moan? I love the opinion of the continuous moorer who interpreted the meaning of 'range' as the total distance travelled, not the extent of the waterway he travelled on. People like that should be sentenced to 6 months compulsory evening classes in the 'Use of English'. Seems as I was one of the few posts before yours, I shall respond. Yes some of the complaints were obviously Mickey takers and credit has to be given to crt, for not just refusing a licence, but apparently trying to work with the boater to improve by offering a shorter licence to give them a chance. However for an independent ombudsmen to agree that crt were correct to ignore a customer's valid letter because it was not worded as a question is semantics at his best and I would expect that to understand the complaint better he should of got crt to answer it. However he is not independent, is he. So won't be doing anything that might upset crt.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 5, 2017 18:24:22 GMT
Has this been referred to the Monopolies Commission? What if other legal firms want CRT's juicy dirty-work? Why just Shoosmiths? Something smells.... It is NOT just Shoosmiths; they are the firm used for licence enforcement principally, but plenty of other law firms enjoy CaRT's patronage according to their particular specialties - as in pursuing debts, conveyancing etc.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 7, 2017 14:32:43 GMT
We have to believe that the committee that appointed him was fair and unbiased, but no minutes were taken of this meeting, when all other ombudsman committee meetings took minutes, that I find impossible to square away.
|
|