Waterways Ombudsman Committee scrapped

THERE is now less chance of boaters obtaining redress for complaints from Canal & River Trust (CaRT) as it has now admitted that the Waterways Ombudsman Committee is no longer in operation but has failed to state why it was disbanded or when.

If someone makes a complaint to CaRT and they are unsatisfied by the response under the Trust's two tier complaints procedure, then they can ask that the complaint is considered by the Waterways Ombudsman, writes Allan Richards.

No longer independent

Whilst the Waterways Ombudsman scheme was ‘independent' under British Waterways, sadly this is no longer the case under CaRT. Worse still, the Trust has failed to inform the public that the scheme is no longer operating in a manner that ensures its independence.

The last major change to the Waterways Ombudsman's scheme was in November 2005 when its rules changed such that that they met with what was considered best practice of the day. This major overhaul of the scheme was the result of a consultation in 2003 regarding openness and accountability.

Full membership

The change in rules meant that British Waterways' scheme was accepted for full membership of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association, now renamed simply the Ombudsman Association.

According the the Ombudsman Association, a model Ombudsman scheme is designed to provide protection for the individual where there is a substantial imbalance of power.

Success of such schemes depends to a large extent in ensuring that they are administered by committees that are demonstrably independent. In the case of British Waterways this was ensured by having the eight committee members split into three groups.

Independents

The first group were appointed by British Waterways (two members) who fund the scheme. The second group represented users and were appointed by the now defunct British Waterways Advisory Forum (two members). The third group were ‘independents' who have no connection with the waterways (four members).

Further independence of the Waterway Ombudsman Committee was maintained by ensuring that the chairperson came from the ‘independent' group.

Duties

Duties of the Waterways Ombudsman Committee included the exclusive power to appoint, remove from office and set the terms and conditions of employment of the Waterways Ombudsman and ensure that remuneration was appropriate.

Other Duties included ensuring that an annual report was published detailing its own activities and, perhaps more importantly, those of the Ombudsman.

CaRT not a member

Concerns first arose regarding operation of the Waterways Ombudsman scheme when it was noted that the rules of the scheme had not been updated to reflect the move to Canal & River Trust. Further investigation showed that CaRT is not a member of the Ombudsman Association (although British Waterways was) perhaps indicating that the scheme no longer complied with the requirements of membership.

Digging deeper, it was found that a new Waterways Ombudsman, Andrew Walker, (pictured) was appointed in November 2012 with a press release stating that the appointment was made by the Waterways Ombudsman Committee. However, the committee has failed to published annual reports two years running (2012/13 and 2013/2014) detailing its work and that of Mr Walker.

Furthermore, the Committee has failed to publish minutes of its meetings for over three years!

Minutes and Annual Reports

. . . . and it is not simply just a failure to publish. Despite the Trust having two appointees to the Waterways Ombudsman Committee, it maintains that it does not hold copies of any minutes since May 2011 or the two missing Annual Reports.

It would appear that, on the one hand we are told that Andrew Walker was appointed by the Waterways Ombudsman's Committee, and on the other hand there are no minutes that record his appointment!

The Trust have now admitted that the Waterways Ombudsman Committee is no longer in operation but have failed to say why it was disbanded or when.

Not independent

On his appointment, Andrew Walker stated:

"I am delighted to be appointed as the new Waterways Ombudsman and hope to carry on with the great work and demonstrate the thoroughness which Hillary has shown whilst carrying out the role. The ombudsman scheme is an independent and transparent process and I aim to investigate in an efficient, effective and fair manner any complaints that I receive."

Perhaps, when Mr Walker found out the reality, he should have gone public and then resigned. However, it seems that he has been content to keep his mouth shut and take the money in the knowledge that he does not have to produce reports that may be scrutinised by the public.

To be reconstituted

Like a kid caught with its hand in the cookie jar, CaRT is now saying that the Ombudsman Committee is to be reconstituted.

. . . . but is the Trust to be believed?

[The costs of the ombudsman scheme for the last three years are 2011/12: £35,157. 2012/13: £50,650. - 2013/14: £30,859.]