Allan(nb Albert)

Of equal interest is the way that BW have got BWAF to consider widebeam and cc surcharging as matters arising from the licence fee consultation From BW licence fee consultation Report Feb 2008 section 3 - Response to the consultation:- (8) In addition to these general themes, there were two recurrent suggestions for specific changes to the licensing system to re-distribute the burden between different types of boater: (1) The increasing number of boaters without a home mooring, who consequently contribute significantly less to operating costs than those who do pay for a mooring. Many respondents felt that a 'continuous cruiser' licence should be charged at a higher rate, or that some other way should be found to collect fees from boaters who 'continuously moor'. (The responses to the consultation included a petition on this point organised by Wyvern Shipping and signed by 9 members of the boating trade and 142 individual boaters.) (2) That wide boats should be subject to a higher licence and/or mooring fee. However, the petition mentioned in (1) above was not submitted as a response to the consultation and was not on the "point" as claimed (it was a ........petition asking BW to be more effective in targeting the considerable number of unlicensed boats and those subverting the continuous cruising rules). Furthermore, on (2) above it seems that DBA complained near the consultation date:- We are most concerned to learn that BW has stated that it is open to proposals for changes to the Licence Fee regime, and that any such proposals will be considered within the current the current Consultation process. We feel that this policy changes the scope of the Consultation to such an extent as to invalidate it totally. We are especially concerned to hear that a proposal has been put forward that Licence Fees should be calculated on a Length x Beam basis rather than on length alone as has been the case previously............ It would seem to me that BW has either introduced or sponsored these "two recurrent suggestions" simply as a means of making future licence fee increases more palatable to the majority of boaters and to avoid public consultation. Certainly BW's own analysis of the 109 respondents replies does not mention these two recurrent themes. We fall for it every time! Regards Allan

I fear the "boys" will remain in jobs. BW staff are still busy installing bollards despite BW accepting that they represent a safety hazard. Last Friday I was taking a community boat to Banbury when I chanced upon three BW men installing bollards at Napton bottom lock. "I suppose you will be back next month to take those out" I quipped. "Oh no!", came the reply "It will be much easier and more cost effective to take them out today before the concrete has set". I still can't figure out if they were joking! Regards Allan

Not sure what you can see but they now accept a declaration with regard to insurance but you agree that they can contact your insurer to check http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-...ining-a-licence says When applying for your licence, you are asked to declare the following details of your boat's insurance: Name of insurance provider Policy number Expiry date of the policy The policy holder's name must be the same as the licence applicant. Your renewal reminder shows the policy name, number and expiry date that we currently hold for you in our records. You must update this by correcting these details on the form. We accept your declaration of insurance cover in good faith. We do however carry out random sample checks to validate the policy information supplied. A couple of days back, I pointed out to BW that they had stated that the new T's & C's would come into force "non-retrospectively" from mid-September and although they were available on the BritishWaterways website they had not provided a link to them and the old ones were still available on waterscape.com. So, two days ago we had two current sets of terms & conditions! Yesterday BW announced that the new T's & C's would now come into force on 1/10/2008 but removed the old ones on waterscape and replaced them links to the new ones. So, yesterday we had no current T's & C's. In short, the answer to the question is either they already have or they will soon or BW don't know or you choose!

Perhaps he needs a new job title - Director of Consultations :-)

Let me tell you a story! In May 2006, BW announced the outcome of its licence conditions consultation (it has since renamed this its shared ownership consultation). It decided that as far as owners who used the services of management companies (OwnerShips, Challenger etc) went the status of the licence applicant would determine the licence type. If the boat was licenced by the management company then it would require a business licence, if it was licenced by the owners it would require a private licence. Up to May 2006 BW was hapily accepting private applications from management companies on behalf of owners. Owners expressed intentions to licence boats themselves to avoid having to pay the £1000 difference between "business" and "private". BW's response was to examine managed shared ownership boats to work out what conditions they could impose that would force these owners to licence at the business rate. One thing they figured out was that the management companies insured the boats on behalf of the owners and thus the name of the management company was on the boats insurance certificate . That is why you see a new licence condition requiring the applicants name on the insurance certificates (have a look at the new T'S & C's for the other conditions they have imposed). BW's director Simon Salem justified this on the basis that BW needed to applicants name on the certificate so that they could assure themselves that the insurance was valid. Again up to this point BW had been quite happy to accept shared ownership insurance certificates with a company name on them. Clear so far? When Challenger went belly up in January, ABC Leisure Group (was Alvechurch) purchased some of the assets from the receiver and offered management services to ex-Challenger syndicates. As part of those services, it offered to insure shared ownership boats under its group boat insurance policy (the one it has for Alvechurch, Viking Afloat hire boats etc) and entered into negotiations with BW to allow them to do this. The managing director of ABCLG confirmed within the last few days that some ex-Challenger boats were being insured under the group policy (which presumably bears the company name on the certificate) and I know that these boats have private licences. It would seem that in order to favour one company British Waterways now no longer requires sight of certificates but still insists that licence applicants names are on those certificates to make things awkward for shared owners who employ the services of other companies In commenting on a draft of the new conditions to Sally Ash (BW's Head of Boating Development), I stated that this smacked of "favouritism and cronyism". She did not attempt to correct my viewpoint. Needless to say, BW have spent about £100K of our money attempting to overturn an Ombudsman's recommendation that boats used privately should be licenced as private boats. Allan

My understanding is that Cruising clubs can either pay a reduced fee based on total footage they "rent" or they can pay based on the footage of number of boats moored. Historically, my club has always paid based on the footage of the number of boats. Our moorings are full and for the last four years we have had a waiting list. We accept that we are paying more in total than if we paid based on the reduced fee but the clubs officers find this acceptable as historically we have not always been able to fill our space and this situation were to be repeated then individuals would be paying more per foot. As we declare the total footage of boats moored as equal to the total footage available to us, I see little logic or reason why BW should two days after sending me a licence wish to question the declaration I made as to where the boat is moored. If I was no longer moored at the club do they think I would admit to it after I had made a declaration? I think the big picture is that BW is incompetent in many areas.

I moor at a cruising club who manage online linear moorings on behalf of BW. The cruising club also vets licence applications and renewals. As luck would have it, my annual licence fee and club fees which include a sum for the annual mooring permit fall due in the same month, January. Two days after receiving my new licence this year I had a call from BW to ask if the boat was still moored "at the same place". I told them that it had been 20 minutes before as I had just been aboard in order to ensure that my new licence and mooring permit was displayed. When I asked BW why they could not read my application form where I had declared where I was moored I was told they were carrying out a "spot check". When I pointed out that my club secretary would hardly have submitted my licence application unless I was a member of that club and had paid for my mooring, I started to get "waffle". I later found out that the same "spot check" had been carried out on about 10 club members all of whom had boats that were properly licenced and with mooring permits. What a waste of time!

It would seem that BW is very reluctant to let boat owners know that it has instigated a new licence type. The PRIVATE PLEASURE BOAT licence has been replaced by a STANDARD LICENCE but BW seems to be hiding the new licence terms and conditions from owners. I suspect most boat owners will ask themselves why. Probably, this is the thin edge of the wedge, whereby BW can now surcharge any subset of private boaters. We already see this happening with widebeam boats but must ask who is next - cc's, jointly owned craft? Below is an email just sent to Jonathan Bryant (BW's Customer Service Manager):- Hi Jonathan Last Christmas, I emailed Simon Salem asking him to confirm the basis on which I was re-licencing my boat. What I wanted to know was if the additional terms and conditions (i.e. the "addendum") that Mr Salem assured me British Waterways had implemented on 1/1/2007 were still in force. Both you and Mr Salem avoided answering this question. However, you did tell me that all the information needed to licence my boat was on waterscape.com. On August 27th 2008 British Waterways announced that new terms and conditions would come into force as from mid-september. These are available for the very few boater aware at:- http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-it However, the "old" licencing conditions are still available and much more easily accessed via "popular links/boat licencing" at www.waterscape.com I suspect that if I emailed Mr Salem regarding this matter he would, again, simply pass it to you to reply. As such, I will avoid the delay! Can you confirm that the new licence terms and conditions are now in force? To avoid a complaint, can you tell me when they will be properly published such that licence applicants know that they exist and have easy access to them via www.waterscape.com Can you explain why British Waterways currently have two sets of terms and conditions available? Kindest Regards Allan Richards

Chris/Tim Many thanks for the links regarding FoI. I have decided to go down that route. Allan

Many thanks for that link Chris. I really did not know that it was that easy to make a request! However, having put the question to Simon Salem, I will give him a week to respond and then decide how to progress the matter. My guess, based on much previous experience, is that if BW are "clean" regarding bonuses he will email me very quickly. If they are not "clean" either my request will be ignored or Johnathan Bryant will be delegated to provide a response that does not answer the question. As far as good results are concerned, I am not sure that I would like to find that the director responsible for consultations has a financial stake in the outcome of those consultations. It would suggest that BW is rotten to the core. In recent years we have had three consultations:- A consultation on licence conditions (now renamed by BW as a consultation on shared ownership). Simon Salem headed up this consultation. A consultation on licence fees. Simon Salem headed up this consultation assisted by his boss! A ongoing consultation on mooring fees. Again this is headed up by Simon Salem. As part of BW's "Openness & Accountability" policy they should conform to government guidelines regarding consultation. It seems to me that if Simon Salem (or any other director) has been "targeted" to deliver a certain level of licence and/or moorings revenue by way of bonus payments then that should have declared it during the consultation. If it is found that such bonus agreements were in place then it makes a mockery of the whole concept of consultation and "openness & accountability". What does bear some scrutiny is that Simon Salems bonus payments are less than other directors and that both licence consultations failed to achieve projected revenue. The big question is - are they linked? Allan

Hi Chris Two reasons:- 1. I have no experience of FoI. 2. The complaint I will be making is related to maladministration and unfairness during BW's implementation of its policy regarding jointly owned craft. Bonus payments is something that I will suggest the Ombudsman investigates so that she can determine the reason why British Waterways simply reversed a decission of her predecessor.

I do not intend to go down the FOI route. I just thought I would give BW and particularly Simon Salem an opportunity to clarify if bonus payments have been made in relation to licence revenue. If I an unhappy with the reply (or non reply!), I will ask the Waterways Ombudsman to investigate as part of a complaint I will make. I simply thought any reply would be of general interest................ Regards Allan

In view of some of the more recent threads on this board, fellow boaters may be interested in part of an email I have just sent to Simon Salem (BW's Marketing and Customer Service Director) with copies to two other directors. Well you can only ask! .........Finally, I intend to ask the Waterways Ombudsman to investigate if you (or any other director) has in the last five years had bonus agreements part linked to licencing revenue. It would seem to me to be very wrong to do this in cases where British Waterways have a monopoly. In particular, I would see it as unfair for a director to be in charge of a consultation when he has an undeclared financial stake in its outcome. As an aside, I also believe, in principal, that directors bonuses should not be linked to mooring revenue. Whilst not a monopoly, British Waterways can and does influence this marketplace and one is left wondering if initiatives such as the mooring tenders trial have more to do with directors personal financial gain than a need to find a market price. There is general disquiet amongst stakeholders at the moment regarding directors being awarded large bonuses based on unknown criteria. I would welcome your personal assurance that you have not in the last five years had a bonus agreement linked to licencing or mooring revenue. If that is not the case then please explain why this has not at least been declared in the three consultations on mooring/licencing to date and why the BWAF have not been informed in respect of the current round of proposed licencing increases and changes. It is my intention to publish the last three paragraphs of this email and your response as I believe it is of general interest to boaters. Regards Allan

I can now give a definitive answer to the "where are the new terms & conditions?" question. The new terms & conditions (if you can understand them!) are published on the britishwaterways.co.uk website here:- http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/license-it what has changed from the existing is published on the waterscape.com website here:- http://www.waterscape.com/media/documents/21407.doc BW have yet to remove existing terms and conditions which are still published on waterscape.com:- http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/boating/licensing At the moment it seems you have a choice as to which terms and conditions you are agreeing to when you make an application! Allan

.... and whilst we have 221 replies to a post about BWAF debating licencing terms and conditions, BW have simply gone and made changes without consulting BWAF. However, with BW's usual muddle they have left the old conditions in place. The new conditions are at:- New Licencing Conditions I might perhaps add that these new conditions include a change in response to a Waterways Ombudsmans report. Unless anyone knows different this is only the second time that BW has been forced to change its licencing terms and conditions due to a complaint. Regards Allan

Good article! As I earlier posted - BW are showing large profits and reserves. I could not understand why this money was not being used to maintain the waterways. Indeed, based on BW's profit last year it is difficult to see why we have to pay any licence fee! Well now we know - BW's directors bonus is based on profit and slanted surveys rather than the state of the track. I note that no bonus can be paid unless basis safety standards are met. So British Waterways invent a safety issue - lack of bollards at locks - set a target to remedy the issue, spend over £1m to bring locks up to basic safety standards and pay themselves bonuses next year as they have met the safety target. Or am I a cynic? Allan

I would say "half coblers". My experience is exactly the opposite to Carlt and in line with the other posters. If you stick your head above the parapet you will be invited to join a committee or serve the membership in some other way. However, the other half of what he says is not coblers. Boater representation is fragmented due to various small groups and, in my rather limited experience, communication between committees, membership (and other groups) leaves something to be desired. BW plays on this fragmentation and lack of communication getting one user group (or a member) to suggest that another groups members should be paying more. For example, would BWAF be considering charging by width if DBA was part NABO? Would BWAF be considering extra cc charges if APCO was aligned with NABO rather than BMF? The only way to stop this is to have an umbrella organisation representing boaters. NABO falls nearest to this ideal. However, I suspect politics and petty rivalries would prevent boaters from presenting a united front under an umbrella organisation.

Fair point Sue. However, I am a member of both NABO and AWCC and ........ The AWCC's latest news on our website is dated 12th October. Either we have a crystal ball or we are 11 months out of date! The latest NABO news on its website is that Challenger has gone bust (January 2008). Having said that, my latest NABO news (Isuue 4 June 2008 page 8) gives details of a BWAF meeting of 12th May. So even if Chris had been a member of either of these organisations his information would be at least 3 months out of date. Allan

I'm afraid I will have to say it again - it is no use making a complaint about a proposal or someones views or discussions. If you read BW's Licence Fee conclusions document you will see that BW concluded that two "suggestions" made during the licence fee consultation should be considered by BWAF. Where any maladministration or unfairness lies is that that these suggestions seem to have come from BW's Sally Ash ringing round user groups asking for any changes they would like to see to licencing terms and conditions. This was outside the stated terms of reference of the consultation and contrary to government guidelines on consultation that BW must comply with. I have a couple of letters (thanks to BW's customer service manager Jonathan "Bollard" Bryant):- Letter 1 is from APCO to Sally Ash explaining that BMF have already responded to the consultation and APCO's views are contained within the response. It also documents that some members are concerned about continuous moorers. This somehow became £150 per cc! Letter 2 is from DBA - it complains that BW is radically altering the consultation by canvassing views other than those related to price increases. This because someone (NABO?) has suggested length x width or a supplement for broad beams. Where maladminstration has occured is that BW has attemped to pass off these "suggestions" as something that happened ancilary to its consultation. If anyone would like a copy of these documents them PM me. If a general interest exists I will publish them (I have made one available on the OwnerShips forum as it is of interest to shared owners). Regards Allan

Hi Chris A couple of points - First point! Profit is profit. The fact that they have sold some of the family silver may make it "dirty money" in your eyes but it is our "dirty money" and the best thing to do with it is spend it on maintaining what heritage we have left - our canals. Second point. I hate to be a wet blanket but several years ago I made a complaint about a "proposal" (which is what it is) only to be told it was inappropriate until it became policy. Also, you will find that the outcome of the consultation that BW did have included that they would consult with BWAF about future licence fee increases which is what they are doing. If you want to complain, I suggest you do it on the basis misleading government, not documenting government policy and misleading boatowners by claiming that the old method of indexed increases was time expired - all to do with the consultation that has taken place. You should also consider that as licencing is shown as a commercial enterprise in BW's accounts if they should be regulated. Good luck! Allan

http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/media/do...nts_2007-08.pdf Look at the headline figures under "growing commercial income" or further on for more detailed info. Now I am no accountant but it seems to me that reserves have almost doubled over the last 5 years. Why are some of these reserves not used to plug the "grant gap" and the projected decline in commercial income? Allan ps Perhaps that fuss I little while back about BW's accounting was well founded - they have changed the figures for 2006/7 to show a different method of accounting.

As British Waterways made a profit of getting on for £40m last financial year and increased its reserves to almost £500m it seems rather peculiar that they should want more money from boaters. Perhaps BWAF should recommend that they do not increase licence fees next year and review the need for increases based on BW's financial performance. It seems to me that government will not increase grant-in-aid when BW is showing a healthy profit and is sitting on massive reserves. Perhaps someone with an accountancy background will care to read BW's report and tell us if they need to increase licence fees. With regard to mounting a challenge via the Ombudsman (as suggested elsewhere in this thread), from personal experience I can say that it will be very difficult to do so until licence fees increase. Any challenge would have to be based on the last increase and one would have to demonstrate maladministration and/or unfairness in the consultation that preceded the increase or in its implementation. I can not see the Ombudsman saying that the last increase was too high or not needed! Having said that some maladministration did take place during the consultation and certainly British Waterways can be shown to not have taken stakeholders views into account sufficiently. My guess is that the WO would say that, despite some maladministration having taken, place BW would probably have reached a similar conclusion if it had not happened. Furthermore, the fact that BW reduced increases as a result of the consultation clearly demonstrated that they were taking stakeholders views into account (despite the fact that BW's say the reduction was due to economic downturn). Allan

I am getting slightly confused here! I have followed the link published and only found a document which gives the areas in which changes have been made - this is the same document as is on the back of the clubhouse door at the Black Buoy Cruising Club. However,I can't find the T&C's following the link(s) in this thread. I have emailed BW press office asking for an electronic copy of the full guide but have had no response. Question - does anyone have a link to the guide or an electronic copy of it? Regards Allan

The press release states that full copies of T's & C's are available from the press office.

It seems that the BBCC is not going to get an influx of new members as Howard has provided the "missing link". However, the document simply provides details of the proposed changes rather than new terms and conditions. Can Howard give a link to the new terms and conditions. Without it, I would suggest the information is worse than useless. Regards Allan ps one must ask why BW did not provide a link from the licencing section of waterscape.com - they have removed all references to licencing from britishwaterways.com