The Waterways Ombudsman scandal
FOLLOWING concerns expressed by the National Association of Boat Owners (NABO), Waterways Ombudsman, Andrew Walker, has claimed that he is independent despite reporting direct to Canal & River Trust and not operating under rules of an independent scheme, writes Allan Richards.
It is understood that NABO's chairman asked for his comments following the narrowboatworld article, Waterways Ombudsman Committee scrapped.
Walker's contradiction
Andrew Walker (pictured) told NABO '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'.
He follows this with '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'.
It seems that on the one hand he is saying that the committee that administers the Ombudsman scheme to ensure its independence from BW and CaRT was not abandoned and then suggests that it was scrapped almost two years ago when he was appointed and has never been reconstituted!
Gross misrepresentation
As for his claim that that the Committee 'would have to be reconstituted to reflect the new governance structure of Canal & River Trust' this is a gross misrepresentation of information recorded in the Committee's last Annual Report.
From the 2011/12 Annual Reports of The Waterways Ombudsman Committee:
'The Scheme itself has been running smoothly and a significant part of the effort for the Committee during this period has been dealing with the implications of the plans for changes in management of the waterways. The Committee remains committed to ensuring that the scheme continues to provide a good service, following the transition to management of the waterways in England and Wales by the Canal & River Trust'.
Quite obviously from the above, the committee saw itself continuing under CaRT perhaps with amended rules which were being worked on.
Hilary Bainbridge
This is reinforced by the Waterways Ombudman's section of the Annual Report where Andrew Walkers predecessor, Hilary Bainbridge, (pictured) gives details of what was meant to take place. After speaking about Ombudman's arrangements for Scotland she continues:
'The organisation of new Ombudsman arrangements for England and Wales did not progress so quickly. I had initially been encouraged to hope that a new (possibly slightly different) scheme would be set up by the Canal & River Trust and a new Ombudsman would be in place by the time of the transfer in July 2012'.
However that did not happen and meant that at the end of 2011-12 (and for a couple of months afterwards) I was unable to tell complainants what would happen to any complaints I was unable to complete when my extended term of office ended at the end of June 2012. I appreciate what an enormous amount British Waterways and the Canal & River Trust achieved in a short time to make the transfer possible, but nevertheless the delay in clarifying complaint arrangements was rather disappointing.
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. I also agreed to continue as Ombudsman until the end of September 2012, to give more time for a new Ombudsman to be appointed'.
What went wrong?
It it fairly obvious that both the previous Ombudsman and the Committee understood that CaRT would adopt the BW scheme and amend it as needed. However, the committee was simply scrapped without CaRT or Andrew Walker making any announcement.
Indeed, both remained silent for almost two years.
Indeed, CaRT continues to remain silent!
Missing information
Despite it being known that the Ombudsman Committee met subsequent to 5th May 2011 and BW/CaRT having two appointees on that Committee, CaRT maintains that it has no minutes of meetings.
CaRT have also been asked for:
1. All information relating to the committee meeting held on Tuesday 27 September 2011 at BW Paddington office.
2. Dates and all information relating to any further committee meetings held.
3. All information held relating to the appointment of Mr Andrew Walker (please include the documents that provide the source for the quotes from Mr Walker and Professor Jowell in this).
3. All information held relating to appointments or termination of committee members since May 2011.
4. All information held regarding changes to the 'rules' since May2011.
5. All information held regarding termination or suspension of the committee (please include any board resolution).
6. All information relating to the reconstitution of the committee (please include any proposed or draft rules).
7. All information relating any decision to publish or withhold information relating to the scheme since May 2011.
8. Any communication between the Trust and Mr Walker regarding the scheme.
Refused point blank
Despite the Trusts repeated claims concerning 'openness' and 'making information available' (most recently made by chief executive Richard Parry at its latest Annual Meeting), it has refused point blank to provide any of the information.
As for Mr Walker, the self styled 'independent' Ombudsman, a boater has come forward with emails showing that he passed a draft decision (in favour of the Trust) to CaRT without giving it to the complainant to comment on.
Worse still, he asked the Trust to check it for accuracy!
.... and even worse, that 'checked for accuracy' decision is now being used in a court case against the boater!