Canal and River Trust no longer trustworthy?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Further to the O/P -

An examination of CRTs 'approved' Annual Report (as filed at Companies House) and its altered report (filed at the Charity Commission and posted on CRT's website to replace the 'approved' one) has shown that a further alteration has been made.

The 'approved' report shows a drop in visitor satisfaction from 92% to 81%. (81% was also used on a slide at the Annual Public Meeting by Richard Parry)
The altered report shows a drop from 92% to 87%.

On a related matter, Defra's third party investigation of CRT will not be going ahead. Defra cite the poor quality of responses to its invitation to tender.

[Alan de Enfield]

41 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

On a related matter, Defra's third party investigation of CRT will not be going ahead. Defra cite the poor quality of responses to its invitation to tender.

 

I think we could put a CWDF team together, happy to do it just for 'expenses', but I doubt C&RT would be happy with the findings.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

52 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I think we could put a CWDF team together, happy to do it just for 'expenses', but I doubt C&RT would be happy with the findings.

I know some that would pay to do it!

It's worth noting the Grant Agreement does not compel the use of third party consultants. A review will go ahead anyway and a public report produced.

The difficulty that Defra faces is that any information provided by CRT for the public report can not be relied upon.

On a lighter note, I could have done with a team to compare the four copies of Annual Reports that have been published (i.e. Companies House, Charity Commission and the two published on CRT's website).

[Orwellian]

Wasn't your mole in CRT able to help?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

16 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

Wasn't your mole in CRT able to help?

I did not ask. 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

On a related matter, Defra's third party investigation of CRT will not be going ahead. Defra cite the poor quality of responses to its invitation to tender.

Which I think is civil service speak for the fee available being insufficient for the work required.

Having in a former life been a consultant that worked on projects for national and local government, we regularly turned down invitations where the fee budget was insufficient to do the job properly. It wasn't worth the effort of putting a bid together when we knew that someone would undercut us to buy the job, and we weren't prepared to put our reputation on the line by delivering a poor job cut down to the available fee. Sometimes when the resulting reports were published I was amazed at the shoddy rubbish some of our competitors were prepared to put out with their name on.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sent 11/5/2021 to Allan Leighton (chair), Richard Parry (chief exec) and "Customer Feedback" (Complaints email address)

Dear Canal & River Trust

I refer to my complaint sent to your chair, chief executive and "customer feedback" 30/4/2021 (see attached email).

As I have no reply or acknowledgement, I have now passed the complaint on to the Charity Commission as a reportable incident because it may cause -

- loss of the CRT's money or assets (due to breach of the Grant Agreement).
- harm to CRT's reputation.

I have also informed the Charity Commission that you have further falsified your approved annual report by changing the 'visitor satisfaction' score on pages 34 and 48. This can only be interpreted as an attempt to hide from Defra and the public a significant fall in the public benefit you are providing.

Regards

Allan Richards

[Allan(nb Albert)]

From "Making a complaint" - September 2020 -

... Once we have received your complaint, we will acknowledge it in writing within five working days.  You can normally expect a full written response, from the manager with overall responsibility for the area of your complaint, within 15 working days of this acknowledgement. Our aim is to resolve the complaint to your complete satisfaction at this point.

The manager in the case of the complaint below, is Allan Leighton, CRT's chairman of the Board of Trustees who was copied together with Richard Parry, chief executive.

Here are the pair of them attempting to hide behind a junior member of staff -

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30/4/2021
Dear Canal & River Trust
I am writing to complain that the latest Trustee Annual Report (TAR) filed with The Charity Commission on 22 December 2020 and currently posted on your website differs from that approved by your board on 24 September 2020. The approved TAR was previously posted on your website and filed at Companies House on 12 October 2020.

Publication Data relating to heritage (as required under the Defra Grant Agreement) has been altered to hide a substantial drop in condition from previous years.

Bearing in mind ...

   - the communication between your Chair and the Secretary of State relating to this matter.

    -the notes of the Grant Review meeting on 9 December 2020 attended by your Chief Executive and three other executives (including the executive tasked by the board for filing the TAR with Companies House and the Charity Commission).

   - the replacement on your website of of the board approved TAR with an unapproved TAR.

   - the absence of board notification or approval.

... your actions can only be seen as a wilful and intentional act to provide the public and Defra with misleading and inaccurate information.

Due to the current Defra Review into your performance, your actions put not only current but also future funding of the waterways into jeopardy due to a section 11.1.5 breach of the Grant Agreement.

Equally, if not more important, is the reputational damage that you do to yourselves and charities in general by this action. By altering your TAR, you wish to convince that you are maintaining public benefit against your charitable object 2.2.

However, according to the National Association of Boat Owners, you have refused to provide details of listed buildings you have sold over the last eight years.

As you are aware, your current attempt to sell the Grade II listed Braunston Stop House has not gone unnoticed! What possible public benefit is derived from selling off buildings you should be protecting and conserving?

Retrospectively changing information about how you are providing public benefit leads to public loss of confidence. If a charity does that, how can the public have confidence that any information contained in a TAR ot otherwise provided is accurate?

Within the next five working days please provide the following -

   - Details of any other changes made to your board approved TAR.
   - Details of how you intent to investigate this complaint bearing in mind the seniority of those involved in altering the TAR.
Regards
Allan Richards

From CRT’s charitable objects as recorded on the Information Commissioners Website -
2.2 TO PROTECT AND CONSERVE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT SITES, OBJECTS AND BUILDINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING OR HISTORIC INTEREST ON, IN THE VICINITY OF, OR OTHERWISE ASSOCIATED WITH INLAND WATERWAYSDear Canal & River Trust

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/05/2021
Dear Mr Richards,
Thank you for your further email regarding the below complaint and subsequent FOI request made on the What Do They Know Website. I am writing to confirm that we are dealing with both your Freedom of Information Request and below complaint as one and you will hear back from us shortly.
Kind Regards,
Hannah Mobberley
Information Governance Advisor
Legal & Governance Services 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13/05/2021
Dear Canal & River Trust
I am concerned about what appears to be a crude attempt by CRT to concatenate this complaint with another matter such that it is answered by a junior member of staff.
By copy of this email I am requesting that the Waterways Ombudsman either -
Directs you such that the complaint can be properly investigated at a suitable level within the Trust
or
Considers this complaint herself
Regards
Allan Richards

[Tracy D'arth]

Moan again, I think with justification.

 

Latest notice from C&RT.

 

Notice Alert

Leicester Line (Grand Union Canal)
Location: Watord Locks, Lock 1 to Lock 7 - Grand Union Leicester Line
Starts At: Lock 1
Ends At: Lock 7

Wednesday 2 June 2021 11:00 until Wednesday 2 June 2021 16:00

Type: Navigation Restriction
Reason: Maintenance

---

 

Original message:

 

The white paddle of Lock 6 is leaking, causing water loss from the pound above.  Our local team will be carrying out a repair to the paddle on the 2^nd June.  Work will commence at 11am and aiming to complete by 4pm. 

 

In order to facilitate use of the flight during the period, there will be restricted operating times of the lock–

 

Open 08:00 – 11:00

Closed 11:00 – 16:00

Open 16:00 – 19:00 (Last Boat in 18:15)

 

Please proceed with care and follow any advice on site.

You can view this notice and its map online here:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/19787/watord-locks-lock-1-to-lock-7-grand-union-leicester-line

You can find all notices at the url below:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices

 

 

 

Work will commence on 2nd of June, in the meantime we are restricted in use.

 

Why? Because they don't give  a damn about boaters? Seems so.

[Orwellian]

Way off topic surely.

[George and Dragon]

8 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Moan again, I think with justification.

 

Latest notice from C&RT.

 

Notice Alert

Leicester Line (Grand Union Canal)
Location: Watord Locks, Lock 1 to Lock 7 - Grand Union Leicester Line
Starts At: Lock 1
Ends At: Lock 7

Wednesday 2 June 2021 11:00 until Wednesday 2 June 2021 16:00

Type: Navigation Restriction
Reason: Maintenance

---

 

Original message:

 

The white paddle of Lock 6 is leaking, causing water loss from the pound above.  Our local team will be carrying out a repair to the paddle on the 2^nd June.  Work will commence at 11am and aiming to complete by 4pm. 

 

In order to facilitate use of the flight during the period, there will be restricted operating times of the lock–

 

Open 08:00 – 11:00

Closed 11:00 – 16:00

Open 16:00 – 19:00 (Last Boat in 18:15)

 

Please proceed with care and follow any advice on site.

You can view this notice and its map online here:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/19787/watord-locks-lock-1-to-lock-7-grand-union-leicester-line

You can find all notices at the url below:
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices

 

 

 

Work will commence on 2nd of June, in the meantime we are restricted in use.

 

Why? Because they don't give  a damn about boaters? Seems so.

I read that as a restriction on 2 June only.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, George and Dragon said:

I read that as a restriction on 2 June only.

 

It could be read that way, but if the repairs are going to be completed and the problem resolved, why would the close the lock again at 7pm ?

Are there other water management concerns on the flight ?

 

 

Open 08:00 – 11:00

Closed 11:00 – 16:00

Open 16:00 – 19:00 (Last Boat in 18:15)

[matty40s]

This paddle has been leaking since before last years first lockdown so it's good to see CRT make a speedy fix.

Edited May 17, 2021 by matty40s

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Meanwhile, back on topic -

The Waterways Ombudsman appears to have asked Tom Deards - Head of Legal & Governance Services and CRT's Company Secretary to respond to my complaint. Here is what I have said to him today -

Quote

 

Dear Mr Deards

 

I have just been reminded that the Board of Trustees is meeting tomorrow.

 

I suggest that you grasp the nettle!

 

Kindest Regards

 

Allan Richards

 

On 18/05/2021 15:56, Allan Richards wrote:

 

Dear Mr Deards

Thank you for confirming that you will be responding to my complaint.

 

It would appear to me that I have should have explained what CRT should do to rectify this complaint.

 

I set this out below and give my reasons -

 

On Thursday 24 September, the board authorised its Chair to sign the Annual Report and Accounts. It also authorised you (or rather your team) to file with Companies House and the Charity Commission. It did not give you (or the Chair) permission to alter what it had approved. You filed the approved report at Companies House but filed an altered copy at a later date with the Charity Commission.

I can find no record of the Board of Trustees authorising any changes at the Board Meeting on the 19 November. This is hardly surprising as the previous day the Council had resolved to "Receive the Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2020".

 

At the Board meeting on 27 January, you notified the Trustees that you had filed an Annual Return with the Charity Commission but omitted to tell them that you had also filed an altered Annual Report.

 

I would suggest the best way for you to rectify my complaint is -

 

- to tell the Board of Trustees that you have filed an altered Annual Report with the Charity Commission

- inform them of the two significant alterations made ('heritage' and 'visitor satisfaction')

- ask the board to document in the minutes what action the board will be taking

 

Kindest Regards

 

Allan Richards

 

 

[Orwellian]

Shouldn't Mr Deards have responded by now Allan?

[Jim Riley]

The latest news is on another channel 

 

 

https://thunderboat.boards.net/thread/7550/chair-chief-alter-annual-report?page=3

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I will correct that - the latest news is now on this channel -

 

Quote

Now had an email from Tom Deards -
"I should be in a position to provide you with a full substantive response by the end of next week."

 

4 hours ago, Orwellian said:

Shouldn't Mr Deards have responded by now Allan?

See the two posts above.
 

[Orwellian]

4 hours ago, Jim Riley said:

The latest news is on another channel 

 

 

https://thunderboat.boards.net/thread/7550/chair-chief-alter-annual-report?page=3

I thought that channel was now just a continuous loop about Dunkley's boat.

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I will correct that - the latest news is now on this channel -

 

 

See the two posts above.
 

Thanks Allan.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Have just learnt that CRT is under investigation by the Charity Commission for altering its Annual Report.

 

Tom Deards, Head of Tom Deards, head of legal & governance services and company secretary, says changes were discussed with chief executive, Richard Parry on 24 November 2020. Both chair, Allan Leighton and Deputy Chair, Dame Jenny Abramsky, were notified orally.

 

CRT have told the Charity Commission that it will remove the altered Annual Report from its website and replace it with the approved Annual Report.

 

It has also asked the Charity Commission if the altered report showing on the Charity Commission website can be replaced with the approved version showing as filed on 22 December.

[Machpoint005]

I'm not for a moment condoning the act of editing an approved Annual Report, but were there in fact any substantive changes? 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

I'm not for a moment condoning the act of editing an approved Annual Report, but were there in fact any substantive changes? 

 

 

It appears that figures were 'massaged' (changed) to present a more favourable image for the upcoming DEFRA Grant review.

 

Allan has previously posted the changes.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 Dear Mr Deards

 

You were entrusted by the Board of Trustees to file its approved Annual Report with Companies House and the Charity Commission. As you admit, you broke that trust by conspiring with your chair, deputy chair and chief executive to file an altered report on your website and with the Charities Commission.

 

You have now compounded the matter by failing to disclose to the Charity Commission and myself -

 

- the full nature of your chairs involvement in this matter

- that you altered 'visitor satisfaction' figures as well as 'heritage' figures

- the names of those that were complicit in altering 'visitor satisfaction' figures

 

I note also, that you have also failed to address the possible outcomes that this maladministration will have on Defra funding and public perception.

Please respond within five working days. Based on your response I will decide if I need to take the matter further or leave it to the Charity Commission who are carry out its own investigation.

 

Kindest Regards

 

Allan Richards

[Sir Nibble]

Big arse kicking boots on there Alan. 

Would this not constitute an attempt to mislead parliament?

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Big arse kicking boots on there Alan. 

Would this not constitute an attempt to mislead parliament?

I don't think misleading parliament is a crime any more,  it's more official government policy.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Sir Nibble said:

Big arse kicking boots on there Alan. 

Would this not constitute an attempt to mislead parliament?

More an attempt to mislead Defra and George Eustice MP.

 

**** edited to add - just found out that Useless Eustice might not be Secretary of State much longer.

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Allan(nb Albert)