Niko

A general principle of making a financial claim is to go for the people with the biggest pockets (often those who have insurance). Two potential defendants spring to mind having read this thread. Firstly, the bank whose article about the marina might well have encouraged, or even been fully responsible for some people making the decision to purchase a mooring, and secondly any media source which presented the marina as up and running with all facilities in place. Distinguish here between simple adverts and articles which read as if the reporter has been and seen and is not just lifting from advertising material. The question would be whether it was clearly an advertising spiel or whether there was any notice that this was an advertising feature, if so, was it clear and easily noticeable. Those who think their decision was in full or in part based on such articles should write to the bank and/or the media sources stating what has happened, what percentage of the decision was driven by their article (which appeared in a trusted journal) and why it was not immediately obvious that the author was simply repeating advertising material. Ask what they intend to do to compensate you, give some figures of what you think reasonable in the circumstances, and reserve the right to refer the matter to either the Banking Ombudsman or the Press Complaints Commission. All sorts of factors will alter the claims for each person, for instance, did the company see, or were they likely to have seen the adjudication by the Advertising standards agency? Would a reasonable organisation taking adverts in the current economic climate refer to the ASA page? Especially since there have been complaints in the public arena for some time? How long after that date did you make the decision to purchase a mooring? It would be wise to save the pages on the net that such articles and comments appear on. Also, register the websites with archive.org - if they have not already appeared there. If the marina has been declared insolvent then anyone with a claim should notify the administrator that they have a claim - could be years before you get a penny in the pound or whatever might just be left after the people with charges on any property have been paid off. I note that issuing a cheque without funds to pay is a criminal offense. As are other activities described here. This is not a comment on how likely a prosecution would be, that depends on the circumstances. Changes to terms and conditions might be another irregularity, depending on whether the original agreement reserved the right to change them without further notice - again, there are such things as unfair terms in contracts and even if a particular clause is deemed not to be unfair, this can change depending on the individual circumstances that apply.

Dear me, Scribbler, you do seem to have a personal problem with the author of the petition to create a charities ombudsman and it seems to be colouring your ability to deal with the issues raised in the petition as opposed to shooting the messenger! As I explained to you on the other forum, the person who originated the calls for a charities ombudsman was, in fact, Dame Suzi Leather, Chair of the Charities Commission itself. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubadm/c904-i/c90402.htm Dame Suzi Leather: That is right. Certainly, quite often people write to us, or 'phone us up, or e-mail us, or whatever, and want us to take action which is beyond our remit but might fall within the remit of a charities ombudsman. A charity decides to change a service, decides to end a service, an almshouse, whatever, and somebody does not like that, well, that is not our business as a regulator, but nevertheless there is a sense in which there is an unmet need. Q97 David Heyes: You have sketched out the territory and the arguments for us, but, for our records, can we say, from that, that the Charity Commission is in favour of the idea of a charities ombudsman: yes or no? Dame Suzi Leather: Yes, there are clearly strong arguments in favour of having a charities ombudsman. If you feel that Dame Suzi and the Charity Commission are wrong, and that you will need no help should BW make decisions which you think would be damaging for boating or the waterways, or if you have any individual problems with BW then of course you will not sign the petition. For those who know that they will be unable to afford to take legal action and who are aware of the government's cuts to legal aid, then please consider signing the petition and talking to your MP about it before the review of the Charities Act takes place.

I wonder if the banks would have paid anyone out if there had been no banking ombudsman to take the cases on? Exceptional cost grounds and Public Interest does not remove costs, it merely limits them. How much do you think the average complainant about a charity's actions (or any legal action) could raise? Why are the courts complaining about the increasing number of LIPs as legal aid is cut to the bone? Independent mediation (an ombudsman) could alleviate the high costs and pressure involved in legal actions while leaving the final sanction (legal action) still in place. Ombudsmen do not replace the legal process, they simply put an extra tier of public protection in place. If turned down by an ombudsman, the complainant can still seek redress in the courts, if they can afford it. But many charities will expend a large amount of their donors money on defending the most minor legal minutiae.

I am afraid that the Charity Commission itself would disagree with you. They are simply unable to investigate anything other than the most serious cases. See http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/1055836/Analysis-Charity-Commissions-plan-save-8m/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH According to Dame Suzi Leather "The plan The commission will concentrate on cases where there is a "serious and systemic risk" to public trust and confidence in charities. Leather says: "The expectation that the commission can respond to absolutely everything that a member of the public might draw our attention to is just living on another planet. There are 180,000 charities. You have to adopt a proportionate response. That will sometimes mean that people are disappointed that you haven't taken up what they regard as an incredibly important and pressing issue. We will have to be more focused than we have ever been."" I'm afraid not. The Trustees are supposed to oversee the paid staff of any charity. Unfortunately this often does not happen effectively, if at all. From http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/archive/1078897/Trustees-laissez-faire-says-Dame-Suzi-Leather/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH "Trustees are too laissez-faire in their management of charities, Dame Suzi Leather, chair of the Charity Commission, told an audience of charity leaders yesterday. Speaking at the Leading Your Charity Through a Time of Change conference in London, Leather said commission research on consortia that will be published shortly revealed many charities were forming them without trustees being involved in the decisions at all. "It's hard to imagine how trustees can properly fulfil their duties if they aren't party to those decisions," she said. Leather said recent research that showed almost 90 per cent of trustees were not reporting their public benefit properly suggested trustees were "taking a laissez-faire attitude" to their responsibilities. She said trustees needed to take ownership of their responsibilities and do more to hold their executives to account." Worse, if you trawl the Third sector website there are many horror stories of charities refusing to properly investigate complaints, of trustees simply not bothering to consult the end users, or of volunteers leaving because no-one listens to their concerns. Charity Trustees can vote to amend the constitution. At any time they get the majority required by the constitution. What then? What if a BW charity fails to adhere to its constitution and the Charity Commission refuses to investigate? In the most part the Charity Commission is only interested in financial irregularities. Without an ombudsman do you think the average boater will have the financial clout to take BW to the Administrative court for a judicial review? Anyway, it is up to those of you reading this. Do you want an independent external arbitrator to provide a buffer between individuals and what will be an extremely wealthy organisation with huge legal clout?

The government e-petition that could provide proper controls over British Waterways British Waterways is to become a charity. But there are no proper controls over the activities of charities. There is no independent arbitrator or ombudsman to deal with complaints by the public. People who have a complaint that is not properly addressed by the charity must take court action. There is to be a review of the Charities Act 2006 http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/News/GovernanceBulletin/1082591/Analysis-Review-Charities-Act-2006---second-thoughts-legal-eagles/E2DABE437CC7A6DEFCFAB2AD5BAFFEC8/?DCMP=EMC-CONGovernanceBulletin With this in mind an e-petition has been posted on the government site asking the government to Create a charities ombudsman. Please consider asking your MP to support this move. Please also consider signing and circulating the petition - if we get 100,000 signatures the issue should be debated in parliament. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/645 Create a Charities Ombudsman Responsible department: Cabinet Office This petition calls on the government to create a Charities Ombudsman with the power to deal with complaints about charities and the authority to order a charity to provide adequate redress if a complaint is upheld.. The Charity Commission is unable to get involved in a wide range of complaints because they are not within its remit. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of a Charity's own internal complaints procedure their only remaining option is the legal system. With legal aid being cut drastically this is beyond the reach of the majority of people. Many charities are now running services or even acting as law enforcement agencies, so it is important that they are seen to be properly regulated and to have an effective and objective independent external complaints procedure. We want Parliament to debate this issue.