|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 7, 2017 16:07:29 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. But first you have to believe that the Independent Waterways Ombudsman Committee really did appoint him ! If you look carefully at the statement he made about his appointment, he goes no further than to claim that he was 'interviewed' by the IWO Committee in September 2012 prior to getting the job up to a possible full 2 months later (if he was interviewed at the beginning of September), starting on 1 November. Not only are there no committee meeting minutes for the September meeting, but there were no minutes published at all for the best part of the following two years, until the fact that the Committee had not been overseeing his activities for the whole of that time because it had been disbanded was made public. The Committee was, I believe, then hurriedly re-constituted by Parry & co. at sometime during 2014.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 16:32:47 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. But first you have to believe that the Independent Waterways Ombudsman Committee really did appoint him ! If you look carefully at the statement he made about his appointment, he goes no further than to claim that he was 'interviewed' by the IWO Committee in September 2012 prior to getting the job up to a possible full 2 months later (if he was interviewed at the beginning of September), starting on 1 November. Not only are there no committee meeting minutes for the September meeting, but there were no minutes published at all for the best part of the following two years, until the fact that the Committee had not been overseeing his activities for the whole of that time because it had been disbanded was made public. The Committee was, I believe, then hurriedly re-constituted by Parry & co. at sometime during 2014. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 7, 2017 17:35:50 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. But first you have to believe that the Independent Waterways Ombudsman Committee really did appoint him ! If you look carefully at the statement he made about his appointment, he goes no further than to claim that he was 'interviewed' by the IWO Committee in September 2012 prior to getting the job up to a possible full 2 months later (if he was interviewed at the beginning of September), starting on 1 November. Not only are there no committee meeting minutes for the September meeting, but there were no minutes published at all for the best part of the following two years, until the fact that the Committee had not been overseeing his activities for the whole of that time because it had been disbanded was made public. The Committee was, I believe, then hurriedly re-constituted by Parry & co. at sometime during 2014. The Waterways Ombudsman Committee held its last meeting on 5 May 2011. A reconstituted committee met on 16 February 2015. When, I first had suspicions about Walkers appointment, I challenged him to to produce the minutes of the WO committee where the resolution was passed that appointed him. He was unable to do so. I asked C&RT to produce minutes of meetings (and missing committee annual reports) subsequent to 5 May 2011 pointing out that these were not available on the WO website. I was told there were no minutes because the committee had not met subsequent to that date. When I asked how Walker had been appointed if the committee had not met, I was told that there had been a meeting regarding his appointment but no minutes were available ... I took the matter up with Richard Parry who assured me that the committee would be reconstituted which is eventually what happened. What seems to have taken place is that BW told the WO Committee that it was necessary to introduce a new scheme to reflect the needs of the charity but Nigel Johnson (BW/C&RT 'legal director' and WO Committee member) appointed Walker and no new scheme was set up.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 7, 2017 21:18:18 GMT
But first you have to believe that the Independent Waterways Ombudsman Committee really did appoint him ! If you look carefully at the statement he made about his appointment, he goes no further than to claim that he was 'interviewed' by the IWO Committee in September 2012 prior to getting the job up to a possible full 2 months later (if he was interviewed at the beginning of September), starting on 1 November. Not only are there no committee meeting minutes for the September meeting, but there were no minutes published at all for the best part of the following two years, until the fact that the Committee had not been overseeing his activities for the whole of that time because it had been disbanded was made public. The Committee was, I believe, then hurriedly re-constituted by Parry & co. at sometime during 2014. The Waterways Ombudsman Committee held its last meeting on 5 May 2011. A reconstituted committee met on 16 February 2015. When, I first had suspicions about Walkers appointment, I challenged him to to produce the minutes of the WO committee where the resolution was passed that appointed him. He was unable to do so. I asked C&RT to produce minutes of meetings (and missing committee annual reports) subsequent to 5 May 2011 pointing out that these were not available on the WO website. I was told there were no minutes because the committee had not met subsequent to that date. When I asked how Walker had been appointed if the committee had not met, I was told that there had been a meeting regarding his appointment but no minutes were available ... I took the matter up with Richard Parry who assured me that the committee would be reconstituted which is eventually what happened. What seems to have taken place is that BW told the WO Committee that it was necessary to introduce a new scheme to reflect the needs of the charity but Nigel Johnson (BW/C&RT 'legal director' and WO Committee member) appointed Walker and no new scheme was set up. Thanks Allan, I wasn't 100% sure about the date when the WO Committee was reconstituted. I think it's perhaps time that I dust off and put to good use those internal E-mails from 2014 when he was submitting drafts of his 'Final Report' on my formal complaint to C&RT for their approval.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 8, 2017 6:17:24 GMT
When the WO Committee was reconstituted it did not have a quorum under the rules of the scheme.In particular,it did not have any membership representing users of the scheme as required by the rules. This allowed Jackie Lewis, to suggest that such membership was not needed as there was nobody to object.
Sadly, the reconstituted Committee did not take the opportunity to replace Walker when his three year term of office expired but reappointed him.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 8, 2017 7:15:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on May 8, 2017 8:11:28 GMT
I note that the list of links on the Waterways Ombudsman website ends with :- How complaints to the Ombudsman are handled (189 kB PDF).
As I'm sure everyone must have noticed, I am not too well up on how computers function, and/or how all the technical stuff works, but even I am surprised to see that a PDF which need only contain the words "badly" and "dishonestly" can take up as much as 189 Kb's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2017 8:20:08 GMT
I note that the list of links on the Waterways Ombudsman website ends with :- How complaints to the Ombudsman are handled (189 kB PDF). As I'm sure everyone must have noticed, I am not too well up on how computers function, and/or how all the technical stuff works, but even I am surprised to see that a PDF which need only contain the words "badly" and "dishonestly" can take up as much as 189 Kb's. 😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 28, 2017 21:37:49 GMT
I have corresponded with Mr Walker and he refuses to give any more information as to how he was appointed, claiming that he has a letter from Nigel Johnson which he is not showing anyone but confirms his appointment. This is the only evidence, and strongly suggests that Johnson appointed him without any due process. Only an idiot would take on the post without any evidence of the due process to appoint him, anyone in that situation would go back to the committee and ensure everything was corrected. As far as I can see Mr Walker is not the duly appointed ombudsman, and he is aware of that, multiple people have asked him to prove he is, especially Allan who originally found out all this, so there is no ombudsman in current service, and all his reports are void, Who he is and where CRT found him is a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on May 28, 2017 22:07:33 GMT
It was rather adding insult to injury when Mr Stoner asked Leigh in cross-examination last Monday whether he had thought of going to the Ombudsman over his complaints, instead of applying to the Courts.
Nigel Johnson had suggested the same to me back in 2007, as if - as I pointed out to him in reply - getting even a favourable result could have compensated for the loss of home and everything in it months after the event of their carrying out the threatened seizures.
Besides, as both officers have noted from time to time: the Ombudsman cannot resolve legal wrangles.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 29, 2017 4:18:28 GMT
Could a person at a call centre in India do the Ombudsman's job? 5 minutes on a Friday afternoon?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 29, 2017 14:09:02 GMT
Despite what he claims he has in fact tried to pronounce on legal issues in my complaint, and come up with ridiculous findings that no licence is a valid contract until all the details on the application have been checked,even after its been issued, and until they have CaRT is not bound by any licence legislation so can do whatever they want.
Only CaRT could come up with that drivel.
|
|
|
Post by Allan on May 30, 2017 16:43:39 GMT
Despite what he claims he has in fact tried to pronounce on legal issues in my complaint, and come up with ridiculous findings that no licence is a valid contract until all the details on the application have been checked,even after its been issued, and until they have CaRT is not bound by any licence legislation so can do whatever they want. Only CaRT could come up with that drivel. Here are the rules of the amended scheme -
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on May 30, 2017 17:10:23 GMT
"29. Where a complaint is within jurisdiction, the Waterways Ombudsman may only refuse to
deal with (or cease to deal with) it on one or more of the following grounds:..."
That phrase "may only refuse" rather gives the game away in terms of the preferred outcome of case consideration.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on May 30, 2017 23:06:12 GMT
He is refusing to finish my complaint on the grounds that I can't find any evidence that he is the actual ombudsman.
|
|