The strange idea of fair treatment

REGULAR readers of narrowboatworld will remember my previous article concerning the major canal breach at Dutton on the Trent & Mersey Canal and the subsequent unfavourable treatment handed out to Bridgewater Canal licence holders by CaRT, writes Frank Hurst.

After a series of long correspondence battles with CaRT and then with the Waterways Ombudsman the saga has ended in disappointment and strong concern.

Stranded between breaches

It all started with Doug Wildman (pictured) and other boaters being stranded between the two breaches, and unable to get to their respective home moorings for the winter. They found the response of CaRT patronising and unhelpful, when they in fact managed to speak to them, which was a not always successful

Now it seems Doug and the other boaters from the Bridgewater posed CaRT a problem because they did not fall into the rescue criteria that it preferred. CaRT had a single minded agenda that all boats would be rescued by being sent down the Anderton Lift to the Weaver and then onto the Manchester Ship Canal towards Ellesmere Port.

This was fine for boaters who wanted to return to the CaRT system but for the Bridgewater resident boaters it involved many miles many locks and about two weeks travel with no guarantee of reaching home waters before stoppages closed the system, when in fact they could go up the ship canal towards Manchester and onto the Bridgewater canal via Pomona Lock (pictured) within one day's travel.

Rejected by CaRT

This route was rejected by CaRT, and Doug and his fellow boaters were told it had no obligation to rescue them, and any help they did offer was a matter of goodwill only, a stark opposite to the treatment of CaRT boaters who were rescued and had all expenses paid. So the Bridgewater boaters were on their own, had to rescue themselves and after completing CaRT's exhaustive complaints procedure Doug was offered £50 for mistreatment and a mere £28 towards the full navigational expenses of £138, not to mention other expenses e.g. transport, fuel etcetera.

Not being happy with this, the complaint was taken to the Waterways Ombudsman who when first approached would not investigate stating that he was not obliged to accept a complaint! But after further correspondence he was persuaded to take on the complaint. Doug's impression was that the Waterway Ombudsman was not a boater and had very little knowledge of the waterways and their administration and history; he seemed to refuse to understand the issue. When a comparison of Doug's treatment was made with the breach on the Aylesbury Arm where all those stranded boaters who wanted to, were lifted out over the breach at CaRT's expense he stated 'the issues are not the same'.

Getting nowhere

The final outcome, after months of further exhaustive emails and phone calls, was that £100 was offered for the mistreatment Dougie suffered and a mere £28 towards the navigational expenses. Reluctantly Doug felt he was getting nowhere and is giving up on the complaint, and in his final reply to the Ombudsman he stated:

"Whilst I remain very disappointed with your decision I feel that any further attempts to get justice and fairness would be futile. I find it incredulous that other boaters escaping breaches have their expenses paid in full while I am only offered a small fraction of mine. However it is with a lot of reluctance that I accept your offer of £100 for the mistreatment that you agree CaRT handed out to me, as well as the meagre £28 towards my navigational expenses of £138!"

Second class citizen

Doug has made a very generous donation to the Runcorn Top Locks Restoration Society, a local initiative to restore locks in Runcorn which will create another fantastic cruising ring in the northern reaches, and hopes for better treatment for all boaters by CaRT in future, but it still appears that if you are a licence holder from a non CaRT waterway you are a second class citizen and you are on your own.

As a postscript the other boater who complained at the same time as Doug is still waiting for a reply to his complaint which has not even been acknowledged. Doug and the other boaters from the Bridgewater Canal had full current CaRT navigation licences, and so should have been treated no differently from the other boaters who had their full expenses paid. Makes you think doesn't it.

[By not allowing the Bridgewater boaters to use the Pomona Lock from the Manchester Ship Canal and thus straight to their home morning on the Bridgewater Canal, it meant that they had to travel the length of the Shropshire Union Canal from Ellesmere Port, (there were stoppages at Heartbreak Hill) the Staffs & Worcs, the Trent & Mersey, the Macclesfield, the Peak Forest, the Ashton, the Rochdale through Manchester then onto the Bridgewater—actually passing Pomona Lock in Manchester!  A very poor example of public relations indeed—Editor.]