Following a post on the OwnerShips forum, I have had several requests for copies of a document entitled "Draft Guide to Boat Licencing 17 Mar 08" by British Waterways Sally Ash.

This document was made available to certain user groups for comment. I was also asked to comment.

The the purpose and status of this document is unclear. My understanding was that I was being asked to comment on a draft of the "missing" 2008 Fees and Conditions which would have incorporated conditions related to shared ownership (I was querying why it had not been produced in early March as expected).

As such, there is little point in making the document generally available. If it was BW's intention they would have already done so! However, I am happy to provide my comments on the document(below).

I should add that despite "comments on my comments" from Sally Ash and her director Simon Salem I am still unable to say what the purpose of the draft guide was, what BW's policy towards shared owners is, and what justification exists for that policy!

Regards

Allan

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Ms Ash

I have been asked by British Waterways to comment on your document:-

Draft guide to boat licencing 17 Mar 08.pdf

My main interest in this document is as follows:-

British Waterways apparent failure to discharge a non-binding commitment documented in the Ombudsmans report into Complaints 137 and 165 section 8.4 & 8.5.

British Waterways inability to learn from its consultation on shared ownership.

British Waterways contradictory attitude towards shared ownership.

I will comment on each, in turn, below.

**Preamble**

When I was asked to comment, I made the false assumption that British Waterways would provide me with a pre-publication copy of its "2008 Fees & Conditions" document together with a revised application form.

It was my intention, in a spirit of co-operation, to:-

Compare these documents with the policy and guidance now published on Waterscape and "approved" by the Waterways Ombudsman (in section 8.5 of the above complaint). Following that, either confirm that they were the same or point out any changes that have crept in.
Provide British Waterways with an honest assessment of any challenges or complaints that might be made by shared owners, user groups or shared ownership management companies.

As you are aware events have overtaken a complaint from Challenger and the Waterways Ombudsman has, for the time being, barred my complaint into British Waterways conduct during implementation of its shared ownership policy. However, this does not mean that other complaints will not be made following publication of your terms and conditions or that my complaint will not be resurrected if you fail to deliver on your non-binding commitments.

To enable me to provide an assessment, I asked Johnathan Byant to provide me with a statement as to British Waterways policy and more importantly its justification for that policy. As you are aware both have evolved over time and as things stand there is much confusion as to what British Waterways policy is and its justification for that policy. Unfortunately, that statement has not been forthcoming.

If you send me the relevant documents and a statement of policy and justification I am still happy to do this.

However, what I was sent was not what I expected! Furthermore, no explanation was given as to the purpose of this draft guide. Is it a guide to guidelines? Is it a rewrite of terms and conditions? An explanation of licencing policy and how licencing works? Is it a supplement to existing documents or a replacement of existing documents?

What is obvious is that it contains changes to policy guidelines and licencing conditions as a result of British Waterways Licence Fees consultation. However, I note that British Waterwaterways makes no mention that it extended its "Fees" consultation to include changes to licencing conditions in the conclusions document published on the www.britishwaterways.co.uk.

I can only concur with the views expressed by Ian Ferguson of the Dutch Barge Association in a letter to British Waterways dated 5th January (copy attached):-

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 Consultation process. We feel that this policy changes the scope of the Consultation to such an extent as to invalidate it totally..............

I trust that the consultation evaluation document produced as a response to the binding recommendation (Complaints Number 137 and 165 section 8.6 and boxout) and now with the Waterways Ombudsman in draft form gives a full account of how the scope of the "fees" consultation was extended but no mention was made in the conclusions document.

**British Waterways apparent failure to discharge a non-binding commitment**

The current situation with regard to this issue is as follows:-

You produced a document which was sent out to applicants giving guidance on how to choose a licence and containing the "shared ownership" conditions. This was sent to applicants both before and after the year end. Indeed, I received such a document in a renewal pack in January. However, I was told in February that this information was no longer being sent out. I decided to verify this by requesting a starter pack. This pack was sent to me on 10th March and it seems that what I was being told was true. It contains 2007 Fees and Conditions, 2008 "Fees and Conditions - without the conditions" (both documents being rather tatty photocopies of stapled originals), an application form still allowing only one licence applicant rather than two (you have been aware for over 15 months that your licence form, IT and manual systems need updating!) and various other starter pack goodies. However, the guidance documentation on choosing a licence and "shared ownership" conditions were not enclosed!

In short, licence applicants are still being sent information that suggests that managed shared ownership boats must be licenced at the business rate ....... and this a over year after British Waterways wrongly and retrospectively changed its conditions of licencing.

At face value it would seem to me that you are trying to use the "guide" simply as an excuse for not having licencing conditions published. This is just not acceptable:-

For the last 15 months you have been forcing shared owners and management companies to licence according to conditions that you have not published in an appropriate manner.

For the last 15 months you have been preventing "two licence applicants" from making licence applications by withholding documentation allowing them to do so.

You still have a condition in place that was removed due to a previous complaint and it seems that as recently as January this year you made an attempt to get support from APCO to enable you to justify that condition.

You are now asking for comments on a guide. The guide changes the conditions and guidance on Waterscape dramatically - who requested you make these changes? Why are they not highlighted in yellow? Have you consulted with private owners and NABO regarding the fundamental change you are making to private licences? (I can see that the change regarding insurance was made in response to a request by ABC Leisure but this will be considered as unfair by other management companies - it smacks of both cronyism and favoritism.)

Why is it so difficult for you to publish 2008 Fees and Conditions that reflect the guidance on Waterscape?

All you need to do then is photostat these (hopefully minus staples!) and send them out pending a reprint. You can do the same for the application form to allow two licence applicants (I should add that British Waterways must have taken into account the cost of changing its IT and manual systems to support multiple licence applicants as part of the consultation. It is a requirement. It seems from the draft guide that you have yet to amend your systems and now wish to avoid doing so).

**British Waterways inability to learn from its consultation on shared ownership.**

It would seem that British Waterways still has much to learn in this area. Consulting on fees and then telling selected user groups and "trade" companies that you are also consulting on any changes they would like to see to terms and conditions is just plain moronic. Furthermore, not documenting that you have done so simply compounds the stupidity, particularly when you have told the Waterways Ombudsman that the "fees" consultation is being well run and it will be evaluated by someone outside the consultation team.

I should add that British Waterways actions would have remained a mystery to me if I had not been in contact with ABC Leisure and various letters had not been made available (thanks to Jonathan Bryant).

**British Waterways contradictory attitude towards
shared ownership**


In the latter part of last year you asked Allen Mathews (OwnerShips MD) to attend what I can only describe as a "bury the hatchet" meeting with yourself and Simon Salem. I was also invited to attend that meeting but declined. Mr Mathews was told by Simon Salem in your presence that he now considered that shared ownership boats were being licenced correctly according to British Waterways policy (i.e. Challenger as business due to retained shares and livery and OwnerShips as private) and apart from the usual occasional random checks that could be considered the end of the matter. Mr Mathews duly informed 1200 customers (by email and at Owners meetings) that British Waterways had given him an assurance that attempts to licence OwnerShips craft at the business rate were now at an end.

Mr Mathews was absolutely convinced by Mr Salems sincerity. I was not! To me actions speak louder than words and your attempt to reinterpret conditions on the ex-Challenger Owners website and your actions in attempting to get APCO to demand that shared ownership boats should be licenced at the business rate simply confirms my view that it has been (since 2005) and continues to be British Waterways policy to make all private shared owners who employ the services of a management company pay the business rate. Furthermore, as your implementation shows you will go to any lengths to achieve your aims!

It seems that APCO and its members no longer wish to endorse the concept of charging shared owners at business rate as your telephone conversation and the subsequent letter (attached - dated 10th January) from Nigel Hamilton, a near neighbor of mine, indicates. This is hardly surprising as APCO has three members who directly manage shared ownership craft and believe that they are not in competition with other APCO members. They also have members to who benefit indirectly by providing services

British Waterways should be telling APCO that it considers that shared ownership boats are being licenced correctly in accordance with a British Waterways policy which determines licence category. You should be telling them that with the demise of Challenger all managed shared ownership boats will probably qualify for private licences in future under your policy. Perhaps you should be telling them that with Challengers liquidation your policy serves no useful purpose whatsoever!


What you did actually tell APCO earlier this month was:-

A weekly hire boat is charged more than a shared ownership boat which is in use year round. Despite BW’s efforts following a 2005 ruling by the Ombudsman, the great majority of commercially organised shared boats licence as private boats. There is continued debate over whether this is fair.

Simon Salem has indicated to the majority of shared owners (via the MD of the largest shared ownership company) that he considers that boats are being correctly licenced. Why are you contradicting him? Did the two of you deliberately set out to mislead OwnerShips MD? If so to what purpose?

Also, why are you still attempting to justify business rate based on a premise that was fully explored and rejected during the consultation (as explained in the consultation outcome document)?

**Should British Waterways simply not implement terms and conditions relating to shared owners?**


With Challengers failure, it is almost certain that all shared ownership craft will be licenced as private in future. This means that the justification for the policy given in in the May 2006 conclusions document is invalid. If all boats can licence as private then ‘hybrid’ boats that straddle the “private” v. “business” classification no longer exist. If they do not exist then no legislation is needed to deal with them.

British Waterways have a duty to simplify regulation. As the new conditions serve no useful purpose you have a duty to withdraw them.

By implementing British Waterways will be exposed to extra costs ensuring that its IT and manual systems can deliver multiple licence applicants as intended. It is already being heavily criticised regarding IT costs on the moorings pilot.

By implementing (or not withdrawing) conditions that serve no useful purpose British Waterways is open to unfairness complaints.

**Summary**

British Waterways should not ask for comments on documents without explanation unless the purpose is clear from the document itself . The purpose of the document you sent me is not clear. If it is intended that this document replaces all current terms and conditions, guidelines etc. then British Waterways should consider decoupling the "rewrite" from other changes. If, as the name suggests, it is a guide British Waterways should either reference the documents it refers to or reproduce them without change.

British Waterways needs to accept that, due to changes in the marketplace, all managed shared boats must now be treated in a similar manner to other privately licenced craft. This includes removing all legislation and guidelines relating to those boats.

The contradiction between what has been said by Simon Salem ("boats are being correctly licenced as private") and what is being said by yourself ("this is unfair") needs to be addressed and both shared owners, management companies and APCO need to know where they stand.

British Waterways need to investigate what went wrong with the "fees" consultation and if it was invalidated by a change in scope. It also needs to consider if it is wise to ask for suggested changes to terms and conditions in the manner it did. Finally, British Waterways needs to consider why it was not open about the scope of the consultation and why changes were not documented.

Kindest Regards

Allan Richards
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++