Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 10:02:43 GMT
Alan richards did an foi to the commission which got this response; 1. In April 2013 the Commission received a concern about the terms of the Network Access Agreement (NAA); which is granted to CRT to authorise connection to it’s waterway network and to charge for service facilities. After considering this the Commission provided its response on 27 June 2013 (copy attached). 2. In May 2013 we received a concern primarily about the charity’s independence. We considered this matter and provided a full response on 19 November 2013 . Similar concerns were received and a further response was also provided on 5 February 2014. (Copies of both letters are attached). 3. In June 2013 we received a complaint about elements of the charity’s service provision. After considering the complaint the Commission responded on 17 June 2013 (copy attached). 4. In July 2013 we received a complaint relating to the charity’s management of the waterways. After considering the matter the Commission provided a response on 19 July 2014 (copy attached). I have therefore attached copies of the Commission’s response in each of the four complaint cases that were opened in 2013-14. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/217476/response/541418/attach/html/3/Response%20to%20complaints%20Canal%20River%20Trust%20redacted%20multipage.pdf.htmlLooks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time... I have never had much faith in the charity commission, not after Aberfan.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 25, 2016 10:04:11 GMT
[quote author="@bassplayer" source="/post/23306/thread" Looks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time...
It's only a waste of time if you expect it to achieve anything. Maybe we should all start emailing the "waterways minister"or the chair of the cross party commission. Ill try to do some research later signal and battery permitting
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 10:23:54 GMT
[quote author="@bassplayer" source="/post/23306/thread" Looks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time... It's only a waste of time if you expect it to achieve anything. Maybe we should all start emailing the "waterways minister"or the chair of the cross party commission. Ill try to do some research later signal and battery permitting Funnily enough that's what I tend to do now. If you are really having greif it's far better to bypass all these layers which are designed to drag you down to the point where you give up. This also ties up with something a 'passing boater' said to me a few weeks ago. It's pointless slagging off the organisation as there are good and bad people in any organisation. I was pretty anti mason for many years after a bad experience, but having met some nice ones, I'm more level headed now. It's far better to find out who are pulling the naughty strings and approach them instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:35:50 GMT
Dan's pissing about on the "boater sues crt section 8" thread. He posted something, then removed it.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 25, 2016 19:46:51 GMT
Dan's pissing about on the "boater sues crt section 8" thread. He posted something, then removed it. I expect 'Wrigglefingers' took the post down, . . . and then banned him immediately afterwards !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:48:19 GMT
Dan's pissing about on the "boater sues crt section 8" thread. He posted something, then removed it. I expect 'Wrigglefingers' took the post down, . . . and then banned him immediately afterwards ! 😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 19:48:41 GMT
Dan's pissing about on the "boater sues crt section 8" thread. He posted something, then removed it. Not the post that I have put into the Ravenscroft topic you started? Probably should be shifted to this section, should it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 19:51:53 GMT
Dan's pissing about on the "boater sues crt section 8" thread. He posted something, then removed it. Not the post that I have put into the Ravenscroft topic you started? Probably should be shifted to this section, should it not? No. Cwdf thread and site.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 25, 2016 20:13:56 GMT
Not the post that I have put into the Ravenscroft topic you started? Probably should be shifted to this section, should it not? No. Cwdf thread and site. I was obviously too clipped. I meant: did you refer Dan's post on the CWDF thread of that title, which I copied into the Ravenscroft topic on this forum, that you started. - and which by now you have seen, and responded to, of course, so I suppose this is redundant!
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 25, 2016 20:37:24 GMT
Alan richards did an foi to the commission which got this response; 1. In April 2013 the Commission received a concern about the terms of the Network Access Agreement (NAA); which is granted to CRT to authorise connection to it’s waterway network and to charge for service facilities. After considering this the Commission provided its response on 27 June 2013 (copy attached). 2. In May 2013 we received a concern primarily about the charity’s independence. We considered this matter and provided a full response on 19 November 2013 . Similar concerns were received and a further response was also provided on 5 February 2014. (Copies of both letters are attached). 3. In June 2013 we received a complaint about elements of the charity’s service provision. After considering the complaint the Commission responded on 17 June 2013 (copy attached). 4. In July 2013 we received a complaint relating to the charity’s management of the waterways. After considering the matter the Commission provided a response on 19 July 2014 (copy attached). I have therefore attached copies of the Commission’s response in each of the four complaint cases that were opened in 2013-14. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/217476/response/541418/attach/html/3/Response%20to%20complaints%20Canal%20River%20Trust%20redacted%20multipage.pdf.htmlLooks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time... It may depend on the number of complaints ? A few can be ignored, a hundred is not so easy.
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Oct 25, 2016 20:44:12 GMT
[quote author="@bassplayer" source="/post/23306/thread" Looks like complaining through the Commission is a waste of time then. Having said that, at least it goes on public record so if one day a rats nest unfolds they would have to account for any decisions they made. So maybe, not a waste of time... It's only a waste of time if you expect it to achieve anything. Maybe we should all start emailing the "waterways minister"or the chair of the cross party commission. Ill try to do some research later signal and battery permitting The waterways minister will not get involved in CRT business , I have already contacted him. Smash your head against a brick wall, it will achieve a better response. I think the government have washed their hands of the waterways since CRT was created. I told my MP that CRT was breaking the law and breaching its statutory functions, the amount of fucks given was zero.
|
|