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.

 

Board resolution

Johnson's recommendations were adopted as recorded in the Board of Trustees minutes dated 1st June 2012.

‘.... it was resolved that as statutory successor to the functions of the British Waterways Board it shall, pending any replacement provision, continue to make available to complainants the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme as adopted and funded by its predecessor and:

(a) that the Waterways Ombudsman Committee as currently constituted shall continue to oversee the scheme in accordance with the Scheme's Rules pending other provisions being made by the Trust;

(b) that Hilary Bainbridge may remain in office till appointment of a successor or until (if earlier) she chooses to resign from that office;

(c) that the current Rules of the Scheme as adopted by British Waterways continue to apply save that:

(i) references to British Waterways or the Board be references to the Trust and the Board of the Trust respectively

(ii) in Rule 27 ‘employment' shall extend to any appointment of, or termination of the appointment of any volunteer (whether within any
governance structure or otherwise), and

(iii) there shall be added to the end of that Rule "nor shall the Ombudsman consider any complaint concerning any donation, legacy or other gift to
the Trust."'

The Hilary Bainbridge version of events confirms CaRT's minutes 100%. Sadly the Ombudsman's claim appears to be entirely false.

Embarrassment

To add to his embarrassment, despite Mr Walkers claim to NABO that ‘It was recognised that the committee that made that appointment would have to be reconstituted to reflect the new governance structure of Canal & River Trust', the resolution of the board 'that the Waterways Ombudsman Committee as currently constituted shall continue to oversee the scheme in accordance with the Scheme's Rules ....' is now posted on the Ombudsman's website.

No doubt, this for applicants for the new committee who might otherwise wonder why the rules of the Waterways Ombudsman Scheme refer to British Waterways rather than Canal & River Trust.

Simon Salem

CaRT's Director of Marketing and Fundraising, Simon Salem, has responsibility for its complaints procedure, of which the Waterways Ombudsman's scheme forms the third tier. Unfortunately, Mr Salem is in the same position as the Waterways Ombudsman but is keeping very quiet on the matter. Between the two of them they have been running a sham Ombudsman's service contrary to a resolution of the board that it should be overseen by the committee according to the rules. They have been doing it for over two years.

When asked to provide copies of minutes of meetings of the Waterways Ombudsmans Committee subsequent to May 2011 (the last time minutes were published) one of Mr Salem's team has stated minutes do not exist. However, another of Mr Salem's team has suggested that meetings were held but Andrew Walker was not properly appointed by the committee because a quorum did not exist.

.... but Mr Salem still has not provided minutes. Indeed, he has refused to supply any information regarding the matter at all, preferring to hide behind his long suffering staff.

Who to blame?

So who is to blame for CaRT ignoring its board resolution and instead appointing its own Ombudsman operating under its own control. Well quite obviously, ‘legal' director, Nigel Johnson, who was one of CaRT's nominees on the Waterways Ombudsman’s Committee. However Nigel Johnson has already gone, resigning within hours of a narrowboatworld article being published (£105m or £130m). The other CaRT nominee is trustee John Bridgeman and it probably comes as no surprise to readers to learn that he is also leaving this month (he might have already gone!).

That leaves Simon Salem, who has misled both the board and the public for two years and when caught out thinks its okay simply to publish the boards resolution on the Ombudsman's website and form a new committee to replace the one CaRT abolished!

Will he accept responsibility? Will he go?