Head of boating has a part time job it seems

[Mac of Cygnet]

Drifters has always been a consortium owned jointly by BW (as was) and hireboat companies, set up to market hireboat holidays - not an unreasonable thing for BW to be doing. My vague recollection is that it succeeded UK Waterways Holidays in the mid-1990s. Tim et al will know more than me, but I wonder whether UKWH might have been established after BW closed its own hire operation (the last base being Nantwich in the early '90s).

 

If you look in old BW Annual Reports you'll see details of BW's stake (not huge, 5% or so). I'm surprised that people appear to be assuming that Sally Ash herself holds a stake in the company. As Allan has pointed out, I expect that, as BW's long-term "lead" for the hire-boat industry, she is simply the BW-nominated director.

 

This puts things in perspective. People seem to be getting hysterical about BW/CaRT links to (some of) the hire boat industry via share ownership and via a member of their Board, when it has been thus for ages, with no discernable effect on non-linked firms (or at least no complaints that I've heard of). Ditto BWML - has that had an adverse effect on independent mooring providers?

[mayalld]

I think it matters for a number of reasons.

 

Fair trading - is it right that BW/CART should be associated with a company that represents less than half the hire industry?

 

Is it compatible with BW's duties as a navigation authority? (for example BW has powers to regulate the hire industry by, for example, adopting the MCA code)

 

Are BW staff (including Sally Ash)receiving perks such as free holidays or day hire due to BW's shareholding.

 

 

SIGH

 

and yet again, your absolute determination to see a smoking gun blinds you to the fact that there is nothing remotely fishy about such an arrangement.

 

You paint this as Sally Ash (and I say this despite the fact that I have very little time for the woman) toddling off taking a second job, to the detriment of her C&RT "day job", getting additional income and able to work the system to the advantage of her other company. Rather, Sally Ash is a Director of this company, as a nominee of a substantial shareholder, and acts on behalf of C&RT on the board.

 

Is it right that C&RT owns shares in booking agency that covers less than half the hire industry? I rather think that if they owned shares in an agency that controlled most bookings, you would be squealing like a stuck pig about abuse of a monopoly position.

 

Is Ms Ash getting perks such as free holidays? I don't know, but if she is, then at least that is one senior C&RT bod who will actually spend some time on the canals as a user, so I don't mind.

 

How is this substantially different to C&RT owning BWML, and putting up directors?

[Cosmic]

I think she is just Company Secretary

She's listed here as "Director, Marketing Manager"

This puts things in perspective. People seem to be getting hysterical about BW/CaRT links to (some of) the hire boat industry via share ownership and via a member of their Board, when it has been thus for ages, with no discernable effect on non-linked firms (or at least no complaints that I've heard of). Ditto BWML - has that had an adverse effect on independent mooring providers?

Nobody is getting hysterical. The FOI request was asking about directors' perks and specifically mentioned Sally Ash. BW failed to respond to this as required by law. They also failed to respond after it was reported to the Information Commissioner and now they are facing action for contempt of court.

 

One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned so far is the fact that BW's mooring policy is drawn up by a person with an interest in marketing the hire industry. This probably goes a long way to explaining BW's antipathy towards continuous cruisers, something their management is doing its best to pass on to the CaRT Transition Trustees.

[Morat]

I think she is just Company Secretary

 

IME there is no "Just" about a Company Secretary....

[Timleech]

Drifters has always been a consortium owned jointly by BW (as was) and hireboat companies, set up to market hireboat holidays - not an unreasonable thing for BW to be doing. My vague recollection is that it succeeded UK Waterways Holidays in the mid-1990s. Tim et al will know more than me, but I wonder whether UKWH might have been established after BW closed its own hire operation (the last base being Nantwich in the early '90s).

 

If you look in old BW Annual Reports you'll see details of BW's stake (not huge, 5% or so). I'm surprised that people appear to be assuming that Sally Ash herself holds a stake in the company. As Allan has pointed out, I expect that, as BW's long-term "lead" for the hire-boat industry, she is simply the BW-nominated director.

 

UKWH Ltd seems to have started in 1982 or 83.

 

Can't remember how long it lasted.

 

Tim

[Mac of Cygnet]

Nobody is getting hysterical.

 

Oh?

 

From Chris Pink:

That's a very naive post. Of course there is a conflict of interest when an executive of CRT is a director of a company that benefits or otherwise from decisions she makes and policies that she helps to formulate. . How could there not be?

 

From Gibbo:

Even the suggestion that someone involved in the running of the waterways could have shares in a company operating on the waterways is unbelievable. How anyone cannot see a serious conflict of interest in that is beyond me.

 

And from yourself:

 

One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned so far is the fact that BW's mooring policy is drawn up by a person with an interest in marketing the hire industry. This probably goes a long way to explaining BW's antipathy towards continuous cruisers, something their management is doing its best to pass on to the CaRT Transition Trustees.

 

This is all rather inflated, if not hysteria, and like hysteria, seems to be infectious.

[jenlyn]

This is all rather inflated, if not hysteria, and like hysteria, seems to be infectious.

 

 

hysteria

an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.

Bit extreme?

Edited August 15, 2012 by jenlyn

[WJM]

"Drifters Leisure Limited have total assets of £7,719 plus total liabilities of £6,668. They owe £6,668 to creditors and are due £7,480 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £239 in cash reserves. Their net worth is £1,051, and the value of their shareholders' interest is £1,051."

 

With figures like that it doesn't look as if it is much to worry about anyway! It is only barely trading!

 

And the Company Secretary is totally different from a company secretary!

[Gibbo]

With figures like that it doesn't look as if it is much to worry about anyway! It is only barely trading!

 

Not really. It could just as easily mean they have a good accountant. If a company doesn't intend to sell its shares or borrow dollops of money, it is in its interest to look like it is worth as little on paper as possible.

[Tuscan]

This is all rather inflated, if not hysteria, and like hysteria, seems to be infectious.

 

 

hysteria

an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc.

Bit extreme?

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly It's a bit like Chinese whispers at a kids party.

[cotswoldsman]

"Drifters Leisure Limited have total assets of £7,719 plus total liabilities of £6,668. They owe £6,668 to creditors and are due £7,480 from trade debtors. As of their last financial statement, they had £239 in cash reserves. Their net worth is £1,051, and the value of their shareholders' interest is £1,051."

 

With figures like that it doesn't look as if it is much to worry about anyway! It is only barely trading!

 

And the Company Secretary is totally different from a company secretary!

 

When I said "just Company Secretary" I did not mean to demean the job I was trying to point out that I did not think she was a director or a shareholder.

[WJM]

Not really. It could just as easily mean they have a good accountant. If a company doesn't intend to sell its shares or borrow dollops of money, it is in its interest to look like it is worth as little on paper as possible.

 

 

Even the most skilful accountant couldn't hide a trading company as you suggest. Those are trading figures, not Balance Sheet values.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Drifters' main purpose, as I understand it, is to provide an 'end point' for an active and well-run PR operation that results in articles like this and this. In other words, Drifters' PR person sweet-talks the national papers; they print a nice article; the phone number at the end goes to an agency employed by Drifters, who send out some brochures.

 

Should anyone want a headline for a reveals-all tells-it-as-it-is article on the subject, may I suggest "Canal authority has stake in small company that promotes canal boating shock horror"?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Richard Fairhurst

[MtB]

Last time I was a Company Secretary I had all the powers and responsibilities of a director plus a raft of additional legal responsibilities specific to Company Secretaries.

 

Things may have changed in the last 20 years but I rather doubt it.

 

Mike

[Cosmic]

This is all rather inflated, if not hysteria, and like hysteria, seems to be infectious.

So, we agree - it is not hysteria.

 

And as for its being inflated, where is the evidence? My evidence that they are trying to pass on their antipathy towards CCers is in the document "TT06 - Major Issues for the Trustees to Address at Future Meetings". This was written by BW management (probably SA, at least in relation to the parts I'm quoting) and posted on the CaRT website when it first appeared but no longer exists so I can't post a link to it. In this document, amongst other things, they say

We have also recently turned our attention to CMs on the River Lee and Regent’s

Canal and consulted on proposals to introduce strictly enforced zonal mooring and

overstaying charges. This consultation and our enforcement of our CC interpretation

has been vigorously opposed by CMs although the boating movement generally is

supportive (but not vocally).

Which directly contradicts their own independent analysis of the consultation responses (link):

1.4 There was overwhelming opposition to the proposals amongst Continuous Cruisers (93%), Cyclists (96%), Canoeists (100%), Local Residents (89%), Residential Boaters (86%) and Visitors to Lee Valley Park (97%). There were no respondents in the Cyclist, Canoeist or Visitor to Lee Valley Park categories that expressed support for the proposals.

 

I don't think it's appropriate for a body in charge of managing the waterways for the benefit of all of us to refer to some of us using such derogatory terms as "continuous moorers". I think that part of the reason for their antipathy is the closeness of their relationship to significant hire companies.

[MtB]

Even the most skilful accountant couldn't hide a trading company as you suggest. Those are trading figures, not Balance Sheet values.

 

Surely its the reverse. They look to me like a balance sheet! The Trading Account and the Profit and Loss account will reveal the turnover and profit but AIUI many smaller companies do not have to publish them. I suspect its only PLCs as the turnover and profit of a privately owned company is no-one else's business but their own.

 

(Edited to correct a spellin error.)

Edited August 15, 2012 by Mike the Boilerman

[WJM]

Surely its the reverse. They look to me like a balance sheet! The Trading Account and the Profit and Loss account will reveal the turnover and profit but AIUI many smaller companies do not have to publish them. I suspect its only PLCs as the turnover and profit of a privately owned company is no-one else's business but their own.

 

 

 

I find it incredible how many smaller limited companies publish full accounts at Companies House. There was an obligation to do that many many years ago, but the accountancy profession seems to be living in the past! I agree, the information is private - but most companies file far more information than they have to.

 

This company seems to be owed £7.5k BY TRADE DEBTORS - thats tells me the figure is a trading figure and not a balance sheet liability - in plain english, it tells me that this company is very small.

[Gibbo]

Even the most skilful accountant couldn't hide a trading company as you suggest. Those are trading figures, not Balance Sheet values.

 

It would be quite possible to have turned over £10,000,000, paid £1,000,000 in dividends and still produce the same paper figures. Quite legally. That report means nothing.

 

Surely its the reverse. They look to me like a balance sheet! The Trading Account and the Profit and Loss account will reveal the turnover and profit but AIUI many smaller companies do not have to publish them. I suspect its only PLCs as the turnover and profit of a privately owned company is no-one else's business but their own.

 

Absolutely.

[adam1uk]

I think that part of the reason for their antipathy is the closeness of their relationship to significant hire companies.

 

I didn't realise the Lee and Stort was such a popular hire boat route.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

And as for its being inflated, where is the evidence? My evidence that they are trying to pass on their antipathy towards CCers is in the document "TT06 - Major Issues for the Trustees to Address at Future Meetings". This was written by BW management (probably SA, at least in relation to the parts I'm quoting) and posted on the CaRT website when it first appeared but no longer exists so I can't post a link to it. In this document, amongst other things, they say

 

Which directly contradicts their own independent analysis of the consultation responses (link):

 

 

I don't think it's appropriate for a body in charge of managing the waterways for the benefit of all of us to refer to some of us using such derogatory terms as "continuous moorers". I think that part of the reason for their antipathy is the closeness of their relationship to significant hire companies.

 

TT06 was one of many documents published following decision notices issued by the information commissioner earlier this year.

 

A copy can be found here.

[Cosmic]

I didn't realise the Lee and Stort was such a popular hire boat route.

It isn't.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cosmic

[adam1uk]

It isn't.

 

But your previous post suggested that the targeting of "CMs" on the Lee was down to BW's closeness to hire companies. A link would seem unlikely, given that hire boats don't go there, don't you think?

[Cosmic]

But your previous post suggested that the targeting of "CMs" on the Lee was down to BW's closeness to hire companies. A link would seem unlikely, given that hire boats don't go there, don't you think?

I didn't suggest anything about the Lee and Stort specifically. What I said was

One aspect of this that hasn't been mentioned so far is the fact that BW's mooring policy is drawn up by a person with an interest in marketing the hire industry. This probably goes a long way to explaining BW's antipathy towards continuous cruisers, something their management is doing its best to pass on to the CaRT Transition Trustees.

My reference to the L&S was simply one example of what I was talking about.

 

TT06 was one of many documents published following decision notices issued by the information commissioner earlier this year.

 

A copy can be found here.

Thanks, Allan

Edited August 15, 2012 by Cosmic

[jenlyn]

But your previous post suggested that the targeting of "CMs" on the Lee was down to BW's closeness to hire companies. A link would seem unlikely, given that hire boats don't go there, don't you think?

Did he?

[adam1uk]

Did he?

 

Well he quoted this:

 

We have also recently turned our attention to CMs on the River Lee and Regent’s

Canal and consulted on proposals to introduce strictly enforced zonal mooring and

overstaying charges. This consultation and our enforcement of our CC interpretation

has been vigorously opposed by CMs although the boating movement generally is

supportive (but not vocally).

 

and then said this:

 

 

I don't think it's appropriate for a body in charge of managing the waterways for the benefit of all of us to refer to some of us using such derogatory terms as "continuous moorers". I think that part of the reason for their antipathy is the closeness of their relationship to significant hire companies.

 

But he's clarified now anyway.