The failures of the RBOA

IN THE light of the resignation earlier this year of the Residential Boat Owners' Association (RBOA) Chairman, after an internal disagreement with the governing committee, regarding the performance and objectives of the Association, I thought it may be of interest to others if I shared a recent couple of experiences with the present RBOA administration, writes Matt Edwards.

The first is in regard to the previously published in narrowboatworld, the Eric Weiss article (No Lancaster discount) regarding a request for its support in pursuing the rejected 25% discount request for the Lancaster boaters and also an appeal against council tax on a mooring.

Confused

I was informed by the secretary that in her opinion there wasn't a case. Yet only in the last couple of days a communication from the membership secretary appeared stating that he thought there was. At best RBOA is confused, certainly strapped for cash and really not capable of delivering the goods. Having met the former chairman at a CaRT Catforth Boaters Forum, I know it was something that had irritated him.

The second instance was a request for direction and support in pursuing an appeal against council tax on a mooring by a couple of Lancaster boaters. After an initial positive response and a commitment to provide representation and re-hearing meeting, the RBOA pulled out as late as the day before a Valuation Appeal Tribunal.

Let down and demoralised

Apparently on receipt of a Valuation Officer's submission and before even considering the solid evidence based appeal documents it decided it not worthwhile of its time and expense to travel to fulfil its promise. The boaters making the appeal were left feeling rather let down and demoralised, even before the hearing commenced.

At the last minute a co-opted local representative, was sent the letter of support giving the opinion of the RBOA for the case to be upheld and read to the appeal panel, which to her credit she duly did with ability and presence; but lacking in any experience of a Valuation Tribunal Appeal or background preparation of the case. I informed the RBOA of my dissatisfaction and declined to renew my membership.

Lack of ability

Consequently the membership secretary requested more information as to why I and the appellants were taking that course and I explained that there seemed to be a lack of ability for delivery of expectations from RBOA membership. The gist of the appeal is contained in an extract here:

'The advice/comments you offered, in our opinion is sadly lacking in demonstrating your understanding of the nuanced conditions of VO section 7 Guidance for Councils and subsequent disambiguation. In the case of the custom and practice at the Marina involved, the application of a composite hereditary listing and not on a specific single mooring with alleged exclusive rights, is wholly justified'.

Appeal against unfair hearing

I advised him that an appeal against an ‘unfair hearing' had already been lodged.

If the council and valuer were sure in the legitimacy of their position they would have listed all of the moorings on the marina occupied by live-aboards. They don't bill half a dozen houses in one street to wait only for the bills to be paid before sending out another batch.

I suggested to the RBOA membership secretary that the valuer's convoluted case submission as sent (at short notice) to the senior RBOA officer, Ms J. Jacs, as the official appellant's representative, had achieved its covert purpose: just as the RAF scattered aluminium foil to confuse the German radar in WW2, it did the job well and apparently had the same effect on the valuation panel too, who clearly knew absolutely Jack about boats and moorings and played safe by not creating a precedent and dismissed the appeal: but this is of no matter; another boater is in line and has had an appeal postponed until this lead case is settled.

Should be able to give advice

Being a 'Residential' Boaters group, to me infers that it is the core raison d'etre and should be able to give advice on such a fundamental issue as council tax or direction based on at least, paralegal and case experience.

It was pointed out that as the now ex-members said in a separate message, the RBOA could have raised its national profile if it had been geared up in championing this appeal. Boaters are now committed to continuing their fight independently. The membership secretary indicated in mitigation that no one at the RBOA has any legal experience, neither do they have the finances to apply for professional advice or access to library records of case histories.

However, it is seemingly that they had sufficient knowledge to infer that by admitting that they live aboard, that was sufficient for them to have self-circumvented this appeal. This is totally untrue and a dangerous assumption to make given their prior statements.

Resources fully stretched

He went on to say that their resources are fully stretched (a point confirmed on their website), attending to ‘many enquiries' for amongst other things, consultative advice to the likes of the producers of the BBC series Casualty amongst other topics. How glamorous, exciting and important is that—not!

If resources are as reduced as they say, the RBOA would better serve their members by coming clean on their limitations for live-aboards requiring direction or representation. Anything less than this reduces the RBOA to nothing more than a jolly-club and there are plenty of those to choose from.

Amalgamating

Amalgamating with NABO and others associations of national recognition could avoid petty infighting and ineffective boater representation manifested through nothing more than hubris. It would make more sense for creating a single democratic Boaters Union with specialist departments that actually serve for the long term of member interests in the face of a burgeoning CaRT autocracy and bully-boy councils. There is strength in Unity.

I'm sure RBOA is a well-meaning group of volunteers and are doing their best as they see it, but that is not enough when put to the test.