Waterways Ombudsman scandal grows - Board resolution

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?