Upton on Severn moorings

[Chris Pink]

The Avonbelle marketing team have swung into action to drum up business: .

 

Choose from the following options:[/left][/color]

 

£4 for one adult and one child (43% off)

 

£4.50 for two adults (44% off)

 

£6 for a family of four (50% off)

initial .[/color]

Pretty good deal then.

[PaulG]

I recieved their response by email - obviously 5.30 on the Friday evening before a Bank Holiday weekend was considered to be a "good time to bury bad news".

 

Despite the fact that their previous statement, C&RT said that discussion with Upton Town Council would be "helpful", the Council is not due to discuss the issue until June 4th, so it seems that discussion was deemed not to be not that "helpful" after all.

 

It seems to me that a "mooring" is a facility for a boat, and therefore a "visitors mooring" is a facility for a "visiting boat". A trip boat with an existing, permanent and serviceable mooring in the immediate vicinity is not a "visiting boat". It would be similar situation to a berthholder in Upton Marina deciding to cross the river and moor on the visitors pontoon to save having to walk so far to the pub. Perfectly permissable, but just not the "done thing" in an area where moorings for genuine visitors are in such short supply.

 

But at least we can see the real reason for the "arrangement."

 

C&RT state that "it will be more able to attract coach parties to the town that would elect to go elsewhere if they weren’t able to get easily from the coach park to the boat."

 

These coach parties are their "pre-booked charter trips", and they have conceded that the object of the exercise is to get passengers off the coach and onto the boat and back on the coach again as quickly as possible. These visitors will not actually enter the town of Upton at all.

[PaulG]

Hi Again,

 

"We must underline that the operators have no wish at all to inconvenience private boaters" So if this is true why don't they stick to their own moorings and leave the public ones free 24/7?

 

"It should also be recorded that we’ve received a significant amount of support" Strangely lacking on this forum Mmmm.........

 

"The road access and coach parking arrangements in the town have changed recently" Absolute hogwash, this is the reply from Mr. David Jew who is Senior Traffic Engineer, Network Control Unit, Business, Environment and Community Directorate, Worcestershire County Council to Upton Town Councils Clerk when she enquired if there had been a change in the coach policy that she had missed. The email is dated 22nd May 2013 "The restriction on coaches is an old TRO that was implemented by the former HPU Office, probably 10 years ago. It is still operational" So there has been no change whatsoever to the coach restrictions in Upton for ten years!

 

I cannot believe that this decision has not been reversed and again urge all boaters to stand their ground from any bully boy tactics?

 

Good Luck

Ad Rem

A good point AdRem. I've sent the email below to C&RT. I'm not holding my breath for a response.

 

Dear Sharon/Susan,

 

Thank you for forwarding your document ”STATEMENT ABOUT THE USE OF THE VISITOR MOORING AT UPTON UPON SEVERN BY THE TRIP BOAT AVON BELLE – 24 MAY 2013” .

 

This document contains the statement that “The road access and coach parking arrangements in the town have changed recently.”

 

I understand that the Senior Traffic Engineer of Worcestershire County Council, (Mr. David Jew), in response to an enquiry made by the Clerk to Upton Town Council, has advised the Clerk that traffic restrictions in Upton town centre have not been changed for a period of at approximately ten years.

 

In the interests of accuracy, I would invite you to either:

 

1. Inform me which traffic restrictions, specifically, have changed recently that the Senior Traffic Engineer of Worcestershire County Council is evidently unaware of.
2. Withdraw the statement and issue a correction.

[Loggo]

"The 46-foot long Avonbelle steamboat"

Steamboat ??? Not what I call a Steamboat by any stretch

[frangar]

Just seen this on the ever reliable nbw.....

 

http://narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/5854-carts-upton-moorings-vetoed

 

Which seems to imply that the moorings have been made fully for visitors again

 

Wondered if anyone else had any further info...

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[Hawkmoth]

Just seen this on the ever reliable nbw.....

 

http://narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/5854-carts-upton-moorings-vetoed

 

Which seems to imply that the moorings have been made fully for visitors again

 

Wondered if anyone else had any further info...

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

Surely with C&RT's present form they'll ignore this and carry on regardless. (Any allusion to a well known film is strictly intended)

[vicafloat]

Just read that Upton town council have vetoed the proposal by Susie Mercer; quite made my day!

[PaulG]

Just read that Upton town council have vetoed the proposal by Susie Mercer; quite made my day!

It is indeed excellent news. Full kudos to Upton Town Council for introducing some commonsense into the argument.

Visitor moorings are are such short supply on all the rivers in this area - not just the Severn - every one is worth fighting for.

In my view it is a great pity that C&RT's natural reaction to opposition to their proposal seems to have been firstly to try to justify their action, and then secondly to try to impose a slightly watered down version of their original plan as a compromise.

I think it would be pretty clear to any impartial observer that C&RT were just plain wrong on this issue. Why did they not just admit a mistake (we all make them) and move on?

At a time when they are trying to project a new, more caring, public image, recruit "friends" and volunteers, etc it's all a bit unfortunate really.

[TUGBOAT]

Latest development on these Moorings are that Upton on Severn Town Council have rejected these plans according to reports on Narrowboatworld forum.

 

 

JOHN

[keble]

Good news!

PS Susie never did reply to my email

[Jigsawged]

I read this morning (on another canal related site) that the town council are jointly responsible for these moorIngs and that they have vetoed the arrangement. It also states that the council were not consulted. If true, then that should be a satisfactory conclusion. Anyone shed light on this?

[JJay]

Just received from Waterscape:

 

Visitor Mooring at Upton Upon Severn, River Severn

Tuesday 14 May 2013 - Monday 17 June 2013
UPDATE (17 June 2013): Updated 17th June 2013


Please be advised that this
restriction is no longer in place.

 

 

The Trip boat is no longer using the visitor moorings

 

 

Result!

[Tony Brooks]

But I think at the very least the person who started this apparent "illegal" move should make a very fulsome apology to her boating customers. I also think we are entitled to be told what action CaRT intend to now take. I would expect that in most other organisations inveigling one's employer into taking an action that would open them to litigation would be a disciplinary matter.

 

I specifically requested that Ms Mercer (was then her name) forward my email to Ms Ash because in my view this was a national matter. Now her reply to that email (Mercer) told me that it was a local decision and why did I want her to forward it. I confirmed that I wanted it sent on. I have no idea if she did or not but Ms Ash has not bothered to even acknowledge it, let a,lone reply.

 

This whole affair stinks of ineptitude followed by cover up.

[dor]

Quite right Tony.

 

I think C&RT should give a frank and open explanation of what has gone on here, what action is being taken and what controls are going to be put in place to prevent such abuse of position happening again.

 

If Ms Mercer had worked for me she would be very close now to losing her job.

[keble]

Just received from Waterscape:

 

Visitor Mooring at Upton Upon Severn, River Severn

 

Tuesday 14 May 2013 - Monday 17 June 2013

UPDATE (17 June 2013): Updated 17th June 2013

 

 

Please be advised that this

restriction is no longer in place.

 

 

The Trip boat is no longer using the visitor moorings

 

 

Result!

Good to see that, and let's hope things are done properly now.

It was a shambles!

Agree with dor, we should get at least an explanation and assurance.

[sueb]

But I think at the very least the person who started this apparent "illegal" move should make a very fulsome apology to her boating customers. I also think we are entitled to be told what action CaRT intend to now take. I would expect that in most other organisations inveigling one's employer into taking an action that would open them to litigation would be a disciplinary matter.

 

I specifically requested that Ms Mercer (was then her name) forward my email to Ms Ash because in my view this was a national matter. Now her reply to that email (Mercer) told me that it was a local decision and why did I want her to forward it. I confirmed that I wanted it sent on. I have no idea if she did or not but Ms Ash has not bothered to even acknowledge it, let a,lone reply.

 

This whole affair stinks of ineptitude followed by cover up.

Why not copy your email to Sally Ash, if you want her to see it?

[junior]

.......

 

W

Edited June 18, 2013 by junior

[Tony Brooks]

Why not copy your email to Sally Ash, if you want her to see it?

 

Far easier said than done. Maybe you have managed to acquire a list of CaRT staff email addresses, but I have not. ON matters like this I simply do not trust the "customer services" email staff to pass such an email on. As far as I am concerned they have form on mis-handing emails and questions in what looked like attempts to avoid awkward questions.

 

Maybe there is a list on their appalling website, maybe there is not but I have not found it and it seems to just send you round in circles. To be honest will the all too regular changes I do not know where specific staff members work so snail mail is out of the question as well.. Ms Ash's profile suggests it might be London but the last firm info I go was head office was at Watford (I think).

 

In any case I want assurances that the Upton proposals were approved nationally rather than at local level. I do not believe they were. I suspect Ms Mercer's manager was probably not informed before the notice was published. I further believe that this needed much wider discussion in CaRT and a proper consultation with boaters. It is clear Ms Mercer acted way beyond her capacity it, as it seems, CaRT had no authority to impose the restriction in the first place. Did she ever check the exact legal position re those moorings or did she just do what she wanted?

[Chris Pink]

 

Far easier said than done.

 

Try the obvious ones until you get no bounce. it will either be sally.ash@ or s.ash@canalrivertrust.org.uk (or whatever they call themselves)

Also I think you'll find if you email enquiries.hq@ they are obliged to forward it and you can simply keep rattling their cage until they do.

 

There are published standards to responses to contact from customers.

[Richard Fairhurst]

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/contact-us/making-a-complaint

[GUMPY]

CRT and BW before them have always used firstname.surname@ for their email, as do most large companies, very useful when you want to email a CEO.

[PaulG]

Did she ever check the exact legal position re those moorings or did she just do what she wanted?

It is clear that she did not.

 

Otherwise she would not have said in her statement no 2 that "The road access and coach parking arrangements in the town have changed recently. The Town Council has specified that coaches visiting the boat use the coach park only."

 

It seems very unlikely that she simply made this up. Whatever one may think of the lady in question, I do not believe that she is a liar.

 

It seems more likely that she received this (dis) information from someone with a vested interest in this arrangement going ahead. Some of the people involved in this faux pas may have a track record of being economical with the truth in the past.

 

Had she contacted the Town Council to verify the alleged change in coach parking arrangements, she would have discovered that this statement was entirely false. No doubt she would also have also been advised of the Council's joint ownership of the pontoon, thus saving herself and C&RT any further embarassment.

 

Unfortunately, finding herself hoodwinked and in a hole, she seems to have failed to heed the age old advice to "stop digging".

Edited June 18, 2013 by PaulG

[matty40s]

Perhaps she will get the money for the yellow pontoon paint taken out of next months wages.

[magpie patrick]

I agree with Paul G's analysis, and to be honest I think we should get off Sarah Mercer's back.

 

I have seen a number of times people take information they are given at face value, and generally it doesn't matter too much. Sarah Mercer was advised that "someone" had a problem, and why it had occurred. The person who gave her that advice may not have been the trip boat operator but a more senior manager. Sarah Mercer is certainly not at the top of the food chain in the Severn Area and I suspect she's a few links down it.

 

Someone should have checked their facts, that someone is whoever was approached by an external party. If Sarah's boss came to Sarah and told her that the moorings belonged to CRT and Avon Belle had a problem then she has a valid defence, although admittedly a brighter spark may have thought to verify everything, but I'm sure non-operational staff at CRT may not even realise that CRT don't own the river banks, enough boaters are ignorant of this basic facts.

 

When I was 21, and working at GMPTE, I had to deal with a complaint about a guard on a train overcharging a passenger. The kindly chief of rail operations talked me through how to handle this. As I floundered for words he reached for the fare book, and looked up the fare in question. The Guard was right, the passenger was wrong. If it hadn't have been for this guidance I would have made the same mistake as Sarah Mercer, it's a lesson I've never forgotten, and one she may never have been taught until now.

[Grace and Favour]

I agree with Paul G's analysis, and to be honest I think we should get off Sarah Mercer's back.

 

<<>>

Have Mercer on my soul?