Dear Mr Richards

The Canal and River Trust (CRT) (1146792)

Thank you for your recent email.

You mention that the Commission has acted on four complaints regarding the
above charity in 2013/14, and have asked for information on each complaint
acted upon.

I have treated this as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act (the Act). The Act imposes a duty, set out in section 1
(1) (a) to confirm or deny whether we hold this information. In this
instance, I can confirm that we do hold information relevant to your
request.

I think initially, though, I should clarify the position a little further.
I think that the four complaints that you mention will be those referred
to in a recent Third Sector article. The article was based on a response
that we provided to a request for information from Third Sector. It asked
for details on the charities about which we had received the most
complaints for the years 2012 – 2014.

While we do not routinely record that information we do hold information
in respect of the number of complaint cases that we open. When we receive
a written complaint it is usual for us to open a case and record that we
have received a complaint either about the Commission or about a charity.
We do not, however, keep a running total of the number of complaints we
have had for each charity. The case is opened on the basis that we have
received a complaint about a charity on a particular issue. It does not,
though, show whether we might have received a number of complaints about
the same issue.

What we provided, then, was detail on the number of complaint cases that
we had opened for that financial year. I should also add that the number
of complaints received about a charity would not necessarily mean that
that charity had acted wrongly or contrary to its charitable purpose. For
instance if trustees have taken a well considered, but unpopular, decision
to close a property, this would not mean that the charity was badly run.
An internal dispute within a membership charity could result in several
letters of complaint or dissatisfaction but may not be a fair indication
of the level of service that is being received by the charity’s
beneficiaries.

Turning, then, to the information that you have asked for. I can see that
we opened 4 cases in respect of complaints received about this charity in
the year April 2013 to March 2014.

I will deal with each in turn.

1.   In April 2013 the Commission received a concern about the terms of
the Network Access Agreement (NAA); which is granted to CRT to authorise
connection to it’s waterway network and to charge for service facilities.
After considering this the Commission provided its response on 27 June
2013 (copy attached).

2.   In May 2013 we received a concern primarily about the charity’s
independence. We considered this matter and provided a full response on 19
November 2013 . Similar concerns were received and a further response was
also provided on 5 February 2014. (Copies of both letters are attached).

3.   In June 2013 we received a complaint about elements of the charity’s
service provision. After considering the complaint the Commission
responded on 17 June 2013 (copy attached).

4.   In July 2013 we received a complaint relating to the charity’s
management of the waterways. After considering the matter the Commission
provided a response on 19 July 2014 (copy attached).

I have therefore attached copies of the Commission’s response in each of
the four complaint cases that were opened in 2013-14.

I hope that this is sufficient for your needs.

Regards

Liam Carroll

Complaints and FOI Manager

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the original message from your system.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Mr Richards

The Canal and River Trust (CRT) (1146792)

Thank you for your recent email. I see that you have asked for an internal
review of your earlier request for information, as you feel that this did
not provide all the information held. I have not considered this as a
formal review, although this option remains open to you, rather I have
looked again at how we have dealt with this and whether we can provide
further information at this stage. The Act itself entitles a requestor to
information and given the nature of your earlier request I feel that we
provided an adequate explanation of the nature of the complaints that we
had received, together with the Commission’s final position. Given your
latest email I have looked again at what we hold and focused specifically
on the complaints themselves and any communication with the charity as
requested.

As you are aware there were 4 separate cases and I will deal with each in
the order I have used in my earlier email.

1.           The case C-364721 was opened in April 2013 as a result of a
complaint received from an MP on behalf of a constituent. The Commission
contacted the charity on this point and provided its final response on 27
June. A copy of this has already been sent to you.

I have now also attached details of the complaint received and
correspondence with the charity. As this information has been provided
under the provisions of the Act you will see that some information has
been redacted. This is because it is considered to be personal information
under Section 40 (2) of the Act, as the information constitutes third
party personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). 

Section 40(2) provides that personal data about third parties is exempt
information if one of the conditions set out in section 40 (3) is
satisfied, namely whether any of the data protection principles would be
contravened by the disclosure.  Under the Act, disclosure of this
information would breach the fair processing principle contained in the
DPA where it would be unfair to that person and/or is confidential. We
also applied this exemption to my earlier response and my apologies for
not making this clear at that stage.

I have also redacted signatures where they occur throughout the
information provided in accordance with Data Protection principles.

I have not included communications with and between Commission lawyers. 
The details of privileged legal advice are exempt from disclosure under
section 42(1) of the Act.  When applying this exemption, we must consider
whether the public interest in not releasing the information outweighs the
public interest in releasing the information.

The public interest in relying on the exemption is that it enables the
Commission to seek and receive clear, open and frank legal advice on
particular matters which arise.  Making the Commission’s privileged legal
advice on a case by case or point by point basis available to the public
is likely to impact on the legal advisers’ ability to provide such legal
advice.  This would hinder the Commission in exercising its regulatory
functions since it is essential that the Commission has access to clear,
open and frank advice about the extent and limitations on its powers an
the legal context in which it finds itself.  We have therefore concluded
that the public interest in withholding privileged legal advice outweighs
the public interest in disclosing it to the public. 

2.           The case C-365708 was opened in May 2013 as a result of a
complaint received about the charity’s independence. I have already sent
you copies of our responses dated 19 November 2013 and 5 February 2014.

I have now attached details of the complaint/s received, together with the
Commission’s responses/s to the complainant and its correspondence with
the charity in this respect.

Again I have withheld information under the exemptions provided by Section
40(2) and Section 42, for the reasons explained above.

3.           The case C-367249 was opened in June 2013 as a result of a
complaint about the charity’s service provision. I have sent you a copy of
the Commission’s response dated 17 June 2013.

I now attach a copy of the complaint and a response from the complainant.
Information has been withheld under Section 40(2) for the reasons given
above.

4.           The case C-368434 was opened in July 2013 and a response
provided on 19 July. I have already sent this but I now include the
original complaint, together with an email run that we were sent. Again
certain information is withheld under Section 40 (2).

If you think our decision is wrong, you can ask for it to be reviewed.  
Such requests should be submitted within three months of the date of our
response and should be addressed to the Charity Commission at PO Box 1227,
Liverpool, L69 3UG (email:
[1][email address].)  More information
about our Freedom of Information Act review service can be found on the
following link on our website:  
[2]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/medi....

If, after this, you remain unhappy with the decision, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision.  Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our review
procedure.  The ICO  can be contacted at the Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF (email:
[3][email address].)

Yours sincerely

Liam Carroll

Complaints and Freedom of Information Manager

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the original message from your system.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/medi...
3. mailto:[email address]

Dear Mr Richards

The Canal and River Trust (CRT) (1146792)

Thank you for your recent email. I see that you have asked for an internal
review of your earlier request for information, as you feel that this did
not provide all the information held. I have not considered this as a
formal review, although this option remains open to you, rather I have
looked again at how we have dealt with this and whether we can provide
further information at this stage. The Act itself entitles a requestor to
information and given the nature of your earlier request I feel that we
provided an adequate explanation of the nature of the complaints that we
had received, together with the Commission’s final position. Given your
latest email I have looked again at what we hold and focused specifically
on the complaints themselves and any communication with the charity as
requested.

As you are aware there were 4 separate cases and I will deal with each in
the order I have used in my earlier email.

1.           The case C-364721 was opened in April 2013 as a result of a
complaint received from an MP on behalf of a constituent. The Commission
contacted the charity on this point and provided its final response on 27
June. A copy of this has already been sent to you.

I have now also attached details of the complaint received and
correspondence with the charity. As this information has been provided
under the provisions of the Act you will see that some information has
been redacted. This is because it is considered to be personal information
under Section 40 (2) of the Act, as the information constitutes third
party personal data for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA). 

Section 40(2) provides that personal data about third parties is exempt
information if one of the conditions set out in section 40 (3) is
satisfied, namely whether any of the data protection principles would be
contravened by the disclosure.  Under the Act, disclosure of this
information would breach the fair processing principle contained in the
DPA where it would be unfair to that person and/or is confidential. We
also applied this exemption to my earlier response and my apologies for
not making this clear at that stage.

I have also redacted signatures where they occur throughout the
information provided in accordance with Data Protection principles.

I have not included communications with and between Commission lawyers. 
The details of privileged legal advice are exempt from disclosure under
section 42(1) of the Act.  When applying this exemption, we must consider
whether the public interest in not releasing the information outweighs the
public interest in releasing the information.

The public interest in relying on the exemption is that it enables the
Commission to seek and receive clear, open and frank legal advice on
particular matters which arise.  Making the Commission’s privileged legal
advice on a case by case or point by point basis available to the public
is likely to impact on the legal advisers’ ability to provide such legal
advice.  This would hinder the Commission in exercising its regulatory
functions since it is essential that the Commission has access to clear,
open and frank advice about the extent and limitations on its powers an
the legal context in which it finds itself.  We have therefore concluded
that the public interest in withholding privileged legal advice outweighs
the public interest in disclosing it to the public. 

2.           The case C-365708 was opened in May 2013 as a result of a
complaint received about the charity’s independence. I have already sent
you copies of our responses dated 19 November 2013 and 5 February 2014.

I have now attached details of the complaint/s received, together with the
Commission’s responses/s to the complainant and its correspondence with
the charity in this respect.

Again I have withheld information under the exemptions provided by Section
40(2) and Section 42, for the reasons explained above.

3.           The case C-367249 was opened in June 2013 as a result of a
complaint about the charity’s service provision. I have sent you a copy of
the Commission’s response dated 17 June 2013.

I now attach a copy of the complaint and a response from the complainant.
Information has been withheld under Section 40(2) for the reasons given
above.

4.           The case C-368434 was opened in July 2013 and a response
provided on 19 July. I have already sent this but I now include the
original complaint, together with an email run that we were sent. Again
certain information is withheld under Section 40 (2).

If you think our decision is wrong, you can ask for it to be reviewed.  
Such requests should be submitted within three months of the date of our
response and should be addressed to the Charity Commission at PO Box 1227,
Liverpool, L69 3UG (email:
[1][email address].)  More information
about our Freedom of Information Act review service can be found on the
following link on our website:  
[2]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/medi....

If, after this, you remain unhappy with the decision, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision.  Generally,
the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our review
procedure.  The ICO  can be contacted at the Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF (email:
[3][email address].)

Yours sincerely

Liam Carroll

Complaints and Freedom of Information Manager

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the original message from your system.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/medi...
3. mailto:[email address]