Strange outcomes

ERIC WEISS has found out the hard way that using the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Waterways Ombudsman Scheme can produce strange outcomes (No Lancaster discount), writes Allan Richards.

However, is this surprising? The independent and arms length committee that oversees the scheme has not been in operation for years as evidenced by a lack of minutes since May 2011 and three missing annual reports.

CaRT is also unable to show that the current Ombudsman was properly appointed according to the rules of the scheme as adopted by resolution of their Trustees. As such the Ombudsman cannot be seen to be demonstrably impartial.

Unfairness

Eric's complaint is basically one of unfairness. Licence holders on, say, the Mon & Brec enjoy a 25% discount, without much trouble and expense, because they do not have access to the full 2,000 miles of CaRT's waterways. Is it fair that he, who is in a similar position, has to pay more?

Perhaps Mr Walker, the Waterways Ombudsman, should have looked at a decision of one of his predecessors with regard to the question of fairness related to differential licence charges. Some years ago a 'shared owner' complained that British Waterways was charging their privately owned boat at the business rate (2.47 times a private licence).

No lame excuses

There were no lame excuses from the Ombudsman about possible future loss of revenue (about £120,000 per year in this case) exceeding the maximum he could award. He simply decided that it was unfair to the complainant and those in a similar position. He made a recommendation with immediate effect that all privately owned craft should be licenced as such. British Waterways offered pro rata licence refunds to the complainant and about 150 other craft based on unexpired portions of licences, and to this day ‘shared ownership' craft that are privately owned may be licenced as private pleasure craft at the standard rate.

Deliberately misleading

If Eric cares to look at the rules of the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme he will find that the Ombudsman has misled him. The Ombudsman can make ‘awards' and ‘recommendations' both of which are binding on the Trust. Recommendations are actions that the Trust should take and any associated monetary value does not have a maximum limit.

However, 'Awards', are monetary compensation made in the following circumstances:

a) to compensate the complainant for loss or damage suffered by the complainant by reason of the acts or omissions of the body against which the Award is made;

b) to reimburse the complainant for incidental expenses reasonably incurred by the complainant in making and pursuing the complaint; and/or

c) to appropriately compensate the complainant for distress and inconvenience suffered by the complainant by reason of the acts or omissions of the body against which the Award is made, save always that the Waterways Ombudsman shall not make an Award for distress or inconvenience where the cause of complaint relates to commercial or business activities of the complainant.

Wrong again

Treating a ‘recommendation' as an ‘award' is just plain wrong. Incorporating possible ‘awards' to others into a complainants ‘award' in order to disallow it as being above the maximum value of £100,000 is wrong again.

... and also against the rules of the scheme.

[Allan tells us that Defra have provided him with an email dated 30 March 2012 which suggests that the Trust were contemplating changing the Ombudsman Scheme such that ‘awards' made by the Ombudsman are not binding. He emailed CaRT Chief Executive, Richard Parry, on 5th May asking for his personal assurance this very fundamental change will not be implemented. He has received no reply.]