Waterways Ombudsman

[GillianOlcay]

I have never been convinced that the Ombudsman process came up with anything really worthwhile, but with the new incumbent I thought it might be worth a try.

 

I missed out on a planned family holiday in the beginning of September 2012, because CART refused to renew my licence on the grounds that there were legal issues involved, and it was all in the hands of their solicitors [no mention of what those issues might have been - I don’t believe the licensing department knew].

 

My licence was due to expire at the end of August 2012, and when I had not received my renewal form by 16 August I emailed Customer services to find out what the delay was. That was when they wrote back on the 21st to say they couldn’t help me, because the matter was with their solicitors.

 

I wrote back on the 23rd to say I was planning a holiday in the first week of September, so needed them to sort things out fast.

 

Next thing was an email on 3 September [by which time I had of course had to cancel the trip], telling me I would have to fill out a completely new application form. As I no longer had any need for the licence that was a fat lot of use, and eventually I asked for an internal complaints review, complaining about the mismanagement and consequent loss of my family holiday.

 

After reaching the second level, they admitted things hadn’t been handled as they should, and apologised. What they would not do was acknowledge the consequent loss of my holiday, insisting that if I had only told them about it, they would have said “go ahead and we’ll make sure there’s no problem” [or words to that effect].

 

Bearing in mind that I only learnt the nature of “the problem” after my arranged holiday would have been half over, and that even if I had had these assurances beforehand, I would not have wanted to trust them, I felt the case should be referred to the new Ombudsman.

 

In compiling his report the incompetent man has not even read the material properly, and his chronology of events mixes up and inserts emails to and from BW from a few years previous! As a result he gained the impression that I was fully made aware that CART ‘just’ wanted confirmation of my home mooring, in the week before my holiday.

 

Seemingly he keeps forgetting that I HAD told them about the planned holiday, the week before it was due [and of course, they had made no response to that whatever]. He concluded therefore that it was my fault I hadn’t been told it would be OK to go cruising without having received a licence; IF I had told them then they “could at least have provided some reassurance that she could go on holiday without the risk of enforcement action being taken”.

 

In summary, according to him - on the basis of his misreading of the correspondence - it was my fault for cancelling the holiday without good reason! I should have carried out my plans regardless.

 

Are the appointees to these positions not screened for some level of competence? Even if he was fudging it to make CART look as good as possible, he ought to have been able to assemble his facts correctly without making a fool of himself with such obvious mistakes. I am frankly disgusted.

 

Retaining the office of Waterways Ombudsman following the Transition Order setting up CART, was something I know many people had to successfully campaign for. I’m sure he will do some intermittent good from time to time, but from my perspective and experience, it was a total waste of effort.

 

But for those less paranoid about always acting within the letter & spirit of the law, and who, moored off-system yet want to go on occasional short holidays – don’t bother with short-term licences! According to the Ombudsman “I asked the Trust to explain what might have happened if Ms Olcay had gone on holiday without having a valid licence. It said that it would not have impounded or impeded the boat movement, explaining that it cannot remove a boat without issuing the statutory 28 days notice.”

 

So there you have it: keep your trips onto the BW canals within 4 week time frames, and you’ll never need to buy short term licences even if still available; there will be [according to the Ombudsman], no comeback nor subsequent adverse consequences. Simpleton!

[DHutch]

I have to admit, I would have, knowing that past reputation of BW's licensing office, and the chance of getting stopped, carried on regardless as a plan a), and probably, rang them.

 

That said, I do also admit the fact they have said reputation, and that you are unlikely to get stopped on most (but not all) trips, if far from ideal.

 

Not a lot more to add to that.

 

 

 

Daniel

[GillianOlcay]

I’m slightly confused Daniel – you would have gone for the week regardless or not? Your next sentence seems to say “nonetheless, you are unlikely to get stopped” which suggests you wouldn’t have?

 

At the time, my boat was subject to s.8 proceedings even though it had been licensed for the past 5 years, so the chance of “getting away” with being on the system without a current licence, seemed unlikely.

 

I really didn’t want to run the risk of prompting further action down the line, or being perceived as taking the micky while legal argument over my position was still ongoing.

 

I still think I did the right thing by not travelling without the licence when told it was in the hands of solicitors, but the Ombudsman claims otherwise.

[Paul C]

You didn't mention the previous 5 years' troubles in your original post!

[Graham Davis]

You didn't mention the previous 5 years' troubles in your original post!

 

So are we only getting half the story here?

Have some very pertinent facts been left out or conveniently ignored by the OP?

Edited September 2, 2013 by Graham Davis

[Ricco1]

CART, a charity derived from a publicly owned organisation. Basically, like local authorities, given legal powers to collect money and then behave pretty well as they like.

[cheshire~rose]

I don't understand this. The boat was subject to a section 8 notice - so was it already on the waterways when you applied for the licence or had it been removed to a marina or hardstanding?

 

I think we are missing some pertinant facts from the argument here

[GillianOlcay]

You didn't mention the previous 5 years' troubles in your original post!

 

I think my original post was too long winded as it was. The Ombudsman knew all the details though. He seemed to think – no, he did think – that that was all the more reason for me to feel able to travel without worrying about the licence.

 

He based that on the fact that I had a written assurance that they would not seize the boat on the original s.8 until given a court go-ahead (the s.8 wasn’t quashed by the court until more than 5 months later). What I can’t see is how that would have helped if I had given any cause for another one!

 

There were other factors for my concern which are also omitted from my original post for the sake of brevity. The crux of his decision, though, was that IF I had mentioned the holiday, they WOULD have agreed to let me take it, and that I would have had no reason not to trust to that. I DID let them know and they DIDN’T make that suggestion (and I certainly wouldn’t have trusted to it either, under those other circumstances!)

 

So are we only getting half the story here?

Have some very pertinent facts been left out or conveniently ignored by the OP?

 

I don’t see anything that can be called conveniently ignored. The story is: I had a licensed boat that was under a s.8, which BW undertook to not act on unless and until a court decided they could [the court eventually decided they couldn’t].

 

Every year I would re-license the boat, because I enjoyed taking friends and family up the cut to show them what the canals are like, and to show them the corners of their environment which they had never seen from this perspective.

 

At the beginning of 2012 a court claimed BW could action the s.8, but that I was still entitled to use the waterways as per my licence [i just needed to move from the mooring in other words].

 

In the run up to an appeal against the February decision, the licence fell due and was blocked – I think they didn’t want me to be able to come back onto the main system at all if they had won the appeal, and refusing a licence was one of the means they chose to ensure that. There were others.

I don't understand this. The boat was subject to a section 8 notice - so was it already on the waterways when you applied for the licence or had it been removed to a marina or hardstanding?

 

I think we are missing some pertinant facts from the argument here

 

It was on a section of the waterways, that did not need a licence, adjacent to the area I liked to cruise, which did. I had had a licence for the past 5 years – I didn’t need to apply for one, I just needed the renewal notice.

 

The “argument” is whether the Ombudsman properly fulfilled his function in claiming that I need not have cancelled my holiday just because I was unlicensed to cruise that area where I DID need a licence. He didn’t read the dates on pertinent letters properly, claimed that I should have told CART why I wanted the licence when I did, yet ignored the evidence that I HAD told CART that I wished to holiday when I did.

 

The background is relevant only to why I was paranoid about it.

 

Perhaps I need to clear up that this isn’t about the licence itself – in the course of the Internal Complaints procedure CART candidly accepted that they had cocked it up, and properly apologised. What they wouldn’t accept was any responsibility for my having to cancel the planned holiday as a result of the cock up.

[Paul C]

Ok 'm confused here unless you provide more information:

 

Section 8 proceedings are the removal of unlicenced boats from the canal - but you're saying you had a licence all the time and kept renewing it. Why the S.8 proceedings? More info needed here.

 

BW/CRT normally only take S.8 matters to court in the case of liveaboards - is this boat used to live on, or leisure use (holiday), or both?

[mayalld]

 

It was on a section of the waterways, that did not need a licence, adjacent to the area I liked to cruise, which did. I had had a licence for the past 5 years – I didn’t need to apply for one, I just needed the renewal notice.

 

 

Whilst it is clear that you want to make a case out of only part of what you are telling us, it is equally clear that the whole story is relevant here.

 

From the above, do I assume that you moor in one of those marinas where you don't need a licence and that it is your practice to buy a short term licence each time you go out (remaining legally unlicenced the rest of the time), but that CRT are refusing to sell you a short term licence?

[GillianOlcay]

Ok 'm confused here unless you provide more information:

 

Section 8 proceedings are the removal of unlicenced boats from the canal - but you're saying you had a licence all the time and kept renewing it. Why the S.8 proceedings? More info needed here.

 

BW/CRT normally only take S.8 matters to court in the case of liveaboards - is this boat used to live on, or leisure use (holiday), or both?

 

Section 8 proceedings are supposed to be only with the removal of unlicensed boats from the canal. I wasn’t licensed at first, when the s.8 was made, but I licensed the boat within the month. It made no difference. Why did they carry on with proceedings? Good question. I’ve never had an answer from them to give you.

 

The boat was/is used both for living aboard and for leisure use.

[GillianOlcay]

 

Whilst it is clear that you want to make a case out of only part of what you are telling us, it is equally clear that the whole story is relevant here.

 

From the above, do I assume that you moor in one of those marinas where you don't need a licence and that it is your practice to buy a short term licence each time you go out (remaining legally unlicenced the rest of the time), but that CRT are refusing to sell you a short term licence?

 

No. I am moored where I don’t need a licence, but my practice was to maintain a year-round one anyway. That way I could go off whenever I wanted without having to plan for it. Short term licences end up expensive if you take too many per year.

 

My renewal notice came by every year in good time. Last year I should have had a renewal form in good time also, but [according to CART’s explanation] they messed up admin. procedures, so they didn't sort the 'problem' until after I needed to use it. I had been legally licensed full-time for years.

 

It isn’t that they are any longer refusing to give me a licence, it is just that they took too long to sort out their own ‘muddle’ last year, for which they apologised. They have ostensibly straightened out the administrative hiccups following my initial complaint. The hiatus in fact only lasted a few weeks, but it was a vital one. I think they should accept responsibility for the consequences of their ‘mistakes’, equally as we are rightly held by them to be responsible for ours.

[Graham Davis]

Sorry, but you are obviously still missing out the pertinent facts.

 

Seems to be a common trait by some posters at the moment!!

[GillianOlcay]

Well I must be going completely doolally, because I can’t make out what on earth you might be thinking of.

 

This is about CART tripping over themselves wanting to refuse a licence but coming up with nothing better than “we can’t advise you; it’s with our solicitors”.

 

When challenged they claimed an initial confusion over the basis of my licence [which was rubbish] and sent a new application form. Then they said sorry for the confusion, we understand now, send us your money and we’ll send your licence – but too late for my planned holiday.

 

What’s difficult to understand about that? What “pertinent facts” do you think there might be missing that could clarify things for you? You must have something in mind.

 

Everyone seems to think I’m complaining about being refused a licence – but I've already done that, and that was sorted; it’s now only the issue of whether they should accept responsibility for my not getting it in time for when I needed it.

 

Both CART & the Ombudsman took the view that I’d have been ok’d to go without the licence, if I’d told them about my plans beforehand. Both overlook the fact that I had told them [not that I believe there had been any need to.]

 

Where’s the “obvious” missing bits?

[pelicanafloat]

Seems perfectly clear, no missing bits :-)

 

Seems to me that you wrote of your impending holiday. Assuming that you intend going in your boat on holiday, why didn't you just stick a "licence in the post" sticker on the window and go off on your travels? I don't understand why you didn't cast off, unless of course you were too upset to do so, but no idea whether this is a reasonable basis for a claim.

 

It annoying that cart mucked up, but at least you are now licensed, and free to roam. Not sure if this what you wanted. Cart mucked up our timing into Liverpool last year due to laziness/inefficiency/stupidity/whatever, luckily we were able to accommodate a change of plan for one month later! It could in other circumstances been very annoying.....

[MtB]

In my opinion CRT are not liable for consequential losses, even if was their cock-up which I remain to be convinced about.

 

The fact that you boat appears to have been the subject of a Section 8 suggests there is a whole lot more to the story than you say. Once a boat has been 'Section 8'ed there is no going back as I understand it. They no longer want that owner as a customer.

 

MtB

[DaveC]

Are you claiming compensation from CaRT?

 

 

 

Dave

[Bones]

Section 8 proceedings are supposed to be only with the removal of unlicensed boats from the canal. I wasn’t licensed at first, when the s.8 was made, but I licensed the boat within the month.

 

Regardless of who ruined whose holiday.... If a boat isn't licensed and there is a section 8 for not licencing it then licensing it doesn't, in my understanding, make everything instantly OK does it? Once proceedings are underway, proceedings are in place?

 

I thought I understood section 8 until a local boat was removed from the waterways. It was licenced but the Boat didn't have a mooring and had overstayed which I was told (not by the authorities) was due to the mooring situation. I also thought that the licence was about floating on CRT waters whether in a marina or not and nothing about cruising.

[mark99]

Why was the Section 8 placed on the boat in the first place?

[Dave_P]

To the OP: I was with you all the way until this section 8 stuff came up. Clearly there's a back-story here which probably explains why there was a delay in issuing your license. That's why most repliers have been suspicious of what you're saying.

[GillianOlcay]

Assuming that you intend going in your boat on holiday, why didn't you just stick a "licence in the post" sticker on the window and go off on your travels? I don't understand why you didn't cast off, unless of course you were too upset to do so, but no idea whether this is a reasonable basis for a claim.

 

 

Well I could have. In effect, that’s what CART & the Ombudsman ended up saying I could/should have done. But I was paranoid.

 

In the first place, their assurances are all post the event; it’s all “if we had known of your plans, that’s what we would have told you”. So the Ombudsman blames me for allegedly not telling them.

 

You have to understand that a licence block had happened to me before a few years back, on the same grounds as what is claimed happened last year – they wanted to check the status of my home mooring. The difference is that on that occasion they were genuine; I got in touch with BW in good time by phone and email to find out what the problem was; they explained they wanted confirmation of my home mooring [because I was mostly moored up elsewhere], I explained that the home mooring remained the same, and that was it – nice polite letters from Ms Figueiredo and everything sorted in good time.

 

But this time that didn’t happen – they didn’t say they wanted to check on the mooring status, they said they couldn’t advise me because it’s in the hands of solicitors. That’s a whole different ball-game! They didn’t get around to playing the same excuse as previously [ I don’t think it had been an excuse on the previous occasion, but they couldn’t run it twice in my opinion, when the whole situation had already been explained back then, to their satisfaction] until it was too late. So that’s why I didn’t just go anyway – it all sounded a bit alarming and I didn’t want to take any risk.

 

In my opinion CRT are not liable for consequential losses, even if was their cock-up which I remain to be convinced about.

 

The fact that you boat appears to have been the subject of a Section 8 suggests there is a whole lot more to the story than you say. Once a boat has been 'Section 8'ed there is no going back as I understand it. They no longer want that owner as a customer.

 

MtB

 

Maybe they aren’t liable, legally. I wanted some token recognition at least of what I saw and still see as baseless interference – whether you see that as arising from genuine confusion or [as I do] more sinister motives. In that sense I am with you, for obviously different reasons, when you remain to be convinced about whether it was their cock up [as they claim].

 

As far as “no longer wanting that owner as a customer”, they had been happy to take my money for the past 5 years. In fact, Debbi Figuieredo’s letter back in 2009 concluded: “We will licence your boat with pleasure, and if a court later decides mooring fees are due as well, we can sort that out then.” That’s not a verbatim quote, but it was something like that.

Are you claiming compensation from CaRT?

 

 

 

Dave

 

I felt some compensation would be appropriate, however token, under the circumstances. Maybe MtB is right and they don’t owe it, but that wasn’t the response they made; their response was that I needn’t have cancelled my holiday so it was down to me.

Regardless of who ruined whose holiday.... If a boat isn't licensed and there is a section 8 for not licencing it then licensing it doesn't, in my understanding, make everything instantly OK does it? Once proceedings are underway, proceedings are in place?

 

I thought I understood section 8 until a local boat was removed from the waterways. It was licenced but the Boat didn't have a mooring and had overstayed which I was told (not by the authorities) was due to the mooring situation. I also thought that the licence was about floating on CRT waters whether in a marina or not and nothing about cruising.

 

You raise some interesting points there Bones. But without being sure of the exact details, the whole point of s.8 is that it is there to be used as a last-ditch remedy.

 

If a notice is not to be served until all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the owner and persuade them to get the licence, then that should be the whole point of the exercise. Once the owner has complied, why serve the notice? It should “make everything instantly OK”.

 

As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as unstoppable proceedings either, whether with s.8’s or anything else. There has to be a point to it, and once that aim is accomplished, things should stop. Otherwise it is just using seizure and/or expulsion of boats as a punishment for past sins long forgiven [or something].

 

I think you are perfectly right in your last sentence. A boat licence is about just being on the relevant water whether cruising or mooring. If the boat needs a licence to be on the water and doesn’t have one, it is on the waterway without lawful authority, which is what s.8 is all about. It would be interesting to know the story with the boat you mentioned.

[Paul C]

Can you explain to me about your home mooring, and how this doesn't require a licence?

[cheshire~rose]

I suspect most people reading this (like me) are struggling to understand how this matter got so out of hand to start with.

 

We pay for our licence and obey the rules regarding moorings and pay our marina fees on time. The thought of ever having a section 8 placed on our boat fills me with horror.

 

It is true to say that section 8 proceedings cost a C&RT a lot of money and so they would go to all possible lengths to try and encourage the owner of any boat to comply with the rules prior to taking those proceedings. Once a boat (or probably more importantly it's owner) has the stigma of having had a section 8 applied to it it C&RT will know that in future the procedure of relicensing will be a slightly longer process as they have to check everything with a fine tooth comb.

 

It is not rocket science to understand that C&RT prefer the type of customers that are not so expensive and high maintenance and so while I can plainly see that you feel aggrieved by what has happened I think this could be a fair warning to everyone out there that it is much easier to just comply with the rules and be proactive, open and honest with C&RT about any difficulties you may be experiencing before you get to the point of getting a section 8 as everything becomes much more tiresome and complicated after that. Every business prefers the customers that are low maintenance!

 

By taking this issue to the ombudsman it will have meant C&RT have had to invest even more time and money in dealing with the problem arising around one boat on the system. This means less cash in the coffers for maintaining the canal that the majority would like to see their licence fees put towards. While I can understand how dissapointing it is to have missed out on your holiday perhaps it might have been much easier in the long run to have complied with the rules way back and avoided getting the section 8 rather than try and get those of us who pay our licenece fees on time and comply with the rules to sympathise with your plight after the event

[GillianOlcay]

Why was the Section 8 placed on the boat in the first place?

 

According to the patrol officer: to get my attention.

[RLWP]

My experience of the Section 8 process is that it takes a hell of a long time to get to that point - about a couple of years for the boat I was involved with. Before the section 8 there are an interminable number of warnings and structured letters

 

Did you get taken through the whole process first?

 

Richard

Edited September 3, 2013 by RLWP