Draconian change
Now we have the situation where a draconian change in the licence terms and conditions, time restrictions on visitor moorings and guidelines for boaters without a home mooring, has been brought about, caused by a lack of ability by the Trust to manage its own waterways systems. A huge sledge hammer that is being wielded to crack a peanut sized issue.
Now we can expect a set of guidelines to explain what the changes to the terms and conditions actually mean. Typical of the Trust who have already tried to define and then redefine the word 'place'. We now have the Kafkaesque situation where the phrase 'satisfaction of the Trust' will have to be defined. If ever a phrase was loaded with intent—it's 'satisfaction of the Trust'.
Satisfaction? What's that?
How will satisfaction come about and will it apply equally to all boaters. I ask this question because the Trust has already admitted that its 'guidance for boaters without a mooring' is exempted from those boaters with a mooring. Even when away from their mooring and are cruising the system. So if you purchase a home mooring from the Trust, even if you never intend to use it, you can essentially purchase an exemption from litigation. Its a popular ploy called a ghost mooring.
But now there is a great deal of additional speculation about the record keeping credentials of the Trust. Boaters have asked for sighting records held by the Trust to find glaring holes in the records that present a false view of boat movements. (Guilty until proved innocent) through presenting a distorted view due to the lack of insufficient sighting records. There is discussion on social media of some boaters concern that they may now be travelling further than previously. But that this additional movement is not being captured by the Trust.
Openness and Transparency.
How can a boater correct the missing data and the false impression created by the inaccuracies and omissions. I have tried to get information out of the Trust—as usual it is less than forthcoming, even though in the words of Richard Parry—the Trust will be embracing a policy of openness and transparency. (Openness and Transparency).
I submitted a Freedom of Information act request on the 24th of March 2015.
Dear Canal and River Trust.
This freedom of information request is being submitted as a boat licence holder and mooring holder. I have read the Canal and River Trust Guidance for boaters without a home mooring. However I understand that the guidance is equally applicable to boats with a home mooring.
From my reading of the Canal and River Trust Guidance for boaters without a home mooring. The Canal and River Trust has not not published, what the Trust considers to be a system or methodology by which a boat owner can keep an acceptable record their movements. Such that the records would be unambiguous and in a form that would be perfectly acceptable to the Trust.
Notwithstanding the preamble above. To enable me to satisfy myself and yourself that I am fully compliant with the Canal and River Trust Guidance for boaters without a home mooring.
1) Can you describe a system or methodology whereby a boat owner can record their boat movements that conforms with the requirements that the Canal and River Trust Guidance for boaters without a home mooring. So that the records would be unambiguous and in a form that would be perfectly acceptable to the Trust.
2) Can you describe a system or methodology whereby a boat owner can check their individual boat movements against the records held by the Canal and River Trust. So that the records would continue to be unambiguous and in a form that would be perfectly acceptable to the Trust.
3) Can you describe a system or methodology whereby a boat owner can correct any errors highlighted in the records of their individual boat movements. When checked against the records held by the Canal and River Trust. So that the records would continue to be unambiguous and in a form that would be perfectly acceptable to the Trust.
The Trust replied on the same day the 24th of march.
I know that you intend this as a 'Freedom of Information Act request' but, having read through the detail of your email, you haven't asked us for any information that would be already recorded; instead you request that we describe systems and methodologies relating to your three points.
I do not have any already recorded information which would address the three points in your request. So, to answer your email I would suggest that I direct it to a member of our Enforcement team.
I replied on the 3rd of April 2015.
As the Trust states that boaters should be able to 'satisfy the Trust' that they are bona fide navigating the inland waterways. Therefore without knowing the format of the records it would be hard for a boater to second guess how to record boat movements in a way that would be acceptable to the Trust. I am sure that the Trust would want to share what the Trust consider to be acceptable ways of making such recordings.
On social media there is already much conjecture and confusion as to what is an acceptable form of recording of boat movements. Photographs with times and dates. Global positioning data. The Trust has been somewhat vague in using the term 'satisfy the Trust' without actually revealing what would be a proportionate, reasonable and acceptable form of recording.
People are already talking on social media about what are being described as 'glaring errors' in the Trusts boat sighting records. Errors highlighted where individual boaters have requested copies of the sighting the Trust has on file.
The popular workaround being espoused seems to be to make regular requests to the Trust, for copies of the Trust's sighting records. Then to dispute any errors through the Trust's complaints procedures. This seems to me to be totally a totally inappropriate way of correcting sighting errors.
I wish to request a formal review of my FoI request.
The Trust replied 13 days later on the 15th of April.
Thank you for your email, which we received last Tuesday. I'm sorry not to have replied to you sooner.
My response to your pervious [previous?] email explained why you had not made a request for information to the Trust, despite your correspondence coming to us via the Whatdotheyknow.com website. I offered to forward your correspondence to my colleagues in our Enforcement team for them to give you the explanation you seek. My offer still stands so please do let me know if you would like me to do this for you.
I replied the next day on the 16th of April 2015.
It may be me that's a bit old fashioned, but I had assumed that any request would have been passed on to an appropriate person within the Trust, for actioning, as a matter of course. So yes please do pass on the FoI request to the enforcement team.
The Trust replied on the 20th of April 2015
Thank you for your email and for letting me know that you're happy for me to forward your enquiry to our enforcement team. They'll respond to you directly.
Totally ignored
Here we are as I write almost a month later. My formal request for a FoI review has been totally ignored. The request to pass on the FoI request internally has not generated a response. Neither has it generated any further acknowledgement. The Trust has made new terms and conditions and blankly refuses to tell me how I can be compliant in keeping a record of my boat movements.
Deafening silence
The Trust has pulled up the drawbridge and the deafening silence continues. So now I will have to hand over the Freedom of Information request to the appropriate authority for actioning. You might think that the 'pseudo' boating associations would be up in arms about what is after all a simple problem. But with the one notable exception of NABO—their collective silence continues to be deafening.