Waterways Ombudsman scandal grows

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) has advertised for two ‘independent' members to help form a new Waterways Ombudsman Committee, writes Allan Richards.

The adverts follow the narrowboatworld revelation in late June that CaRT had scrapped the committee (Waterways Ombudsman Committee scrapped).

Lack of honesty?

Following the revelation, and despite being given every opportunity to explain themselves and give a truthful account of when and why the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme was scrapped, both CaRT and the Ombudsman have peddled disinformation or have stonewalled.

Andrew Walker

First up, lets deal with Andrew Walker, the Waterways Ombudsman. Not only has Mr Walker deceived the public by retaining on his website information that suggests that CaRT's scheme is managed by an independent committee, he also appears to fail to inform complainants this is the case. Worse still he is deliberately misleading when challenged on the matter. Here is, in its entirety, a blog from the National Association of Boat Owners (NABO) website:

'We attach, with much pleasure and relief, the positive response we have received from the Waterways Ombudsman to the reported scrapping of the Waterways Ombudsman Committee:

Dear Mike [Rodd, NABO's chairman]

I would like to reassure you that the Waterways Ombudsman Committee has not been abandoned, and also the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme remains entirely independent and will continue.
Just before the Canal & River Trust was created by way of statutory transfer in 2012, the Waterways Ombudsman Committee at that time, recognising my experience and independence as an ombudsman, appointed me to investigate complaints against the newly created Trust, replacing the previous Ombudsman, Hilary Bainbridge, who had investigated complaints against British Waterways. It was recognised that the Committee who made that appointment would have to be reconstituted to reflect the new governance structure of Canal & River Trust. The Trust is currently in the process of doing this and has been in discussions with the Ombudsman Association for the past six months.
Whilst the Trust accepts that the Committee could have been reconstituted sooner, there can be no suggestion that this delay has in any way affected the integrity and independence of the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme. When the newly constituted Waterways Ombudsman Committee meets, the minutes of those meetings will be published, as before, on the Waterways Ombudsman website.
In the meantime, it is very much business as usual for me. As far as complainants and the complaints process (both on my side and the Trust's) are concerned, nothing at all has changed.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Walker'

Minutes?

Here is where this disinformation comes in. Despite having two representatives on the Waterways Ombudsman's Committee (‘legal' director Nigel Johnson and British Waterways vice chairman/CaRT Trustee John Bridgeman), CaRT are currently claiming that it holds no minutes recording that Andrew Walker was appointed by the Waterways Ombudsman's Committee.

.... and Mr Walker appears to be unable to provide these minutes either, despite having been asked for them. Indeed, either party has failed to provide any minutes for the last three years—Three years!

Reconstituted?

If the inability to produce minutes is not bad enough, what about Mr Walker's claim ‘It was recognised that the Committee who made that appointment would have to be reconstituted to reflect the new governance structure of Canal & River Trust'.

Hillary Bainbridge, the previous Ombudsman, said in her final annual report:

‘Eventually, in June 2012, the Canal & River Trust agreed that, rather than setting up a new Ombudsman scheme straight away, they would adopt British Waterways' scheme (with some minor changes) to begin with'.

A completely different account to Mr Walkers!

.... and it was Hilary Bainbridge who was exactly right because of the existence of CRT26. Andrew Walker attempted to deceive.

CRT 26

In the light of the Waterways Ombudsman's failure to countenance recommendations regarding CaRT's reluctance to publish board minutes and associated documents (CaRT failing to publish minutes), it is perhaps poetic justice to be able to state that the Freedom of Information Act had been used to force CaRT to publish CRT26.

But what is CRT26? CRT26 is (‘legal director' and Waterways Ombudsman Committee member) Nigel Johnson's memorandum to the trustees on ‘Transfer and Governance' issues. Much of this document does not concern this article but it does include proposals for the continuance of the Waterways Ombudsman scheme under the trust with minor alterations.