Section 7: The Trust’s relationship with boaters

168. We are concerned by what we have learnt about the poor relationship between the Trust and a significant number of boaters, particularly, but not only, those who live on their boats. One of the main underlying causes is the mismatch between the Trust’s interpretation of the legal framework governing its licensing arrangements and the way in which a significant number of boaters wish to lead their lives. We noted earlier a tendency for many of these boaters, or their representative bodies, to view almost anything the Trust does with suspicion. The reaction to the appointment of our Commission and our terms of reference referred to in the introduction to this report is one example. We are aware of others. We have also been given examples of occasions where the Trust has been, at best, clumsy in some of its communications or dealings with individual boaters. We do not think this unhappy situation should be allowed to continue without a serious attempt being made to address it, by all sides.
169. The Trust is not and should not be a housing charity, nor a statutory housing provider. Taking on housing responsibilities would be outside its charitable objects and its core competencies. But it still needs to recognise the needs of those living aboard boats on the network for which it is responsible. Our impression is that the Trust has not yet fully come to terms with the effect of housing shortages and economic conditions on the nature of the population of its licence holders. In consequence it has not yet adopted a coherent strategy about how best to respond to it.
170. It is our hope that the changes to movement requirements we have recommended would, to some extent, mitigate one of the main causes of unhappiness and provide a good opportunity for Trust and stakeholders to take stock and reset the relationship. We recommend that the Trust should reassess the way it communicates and works with boaters and attempt to improve its relationships with them, particularly with liveaboard boaters.
171. If a reset of relationships is to be successful, even partially, it will need to be based on effective consultation about any reforms resulting from our report and genuine, inclusive and sustained engagement with boaters going forward. Many boaters are passionate about the waterways and have knowledge and skills they would be delighted to contribute. It will also depend on the Trust stepping up its efforts in campaigning and using its influence with Government departments to help find ways to address the difficulties caused for liveaboard boaters by issues like not having a land address for purposes of banking, car insurance, health care, local authority managed concessions like bus passes, and blue badges for those with disabilities.57
172. We have been impressed by what we have learnt about the activities of the Trust’s small welfare team of five people. The team supports individual boaters in relation to, for example, applications for housing benefit or the housing element of unified credit, registering with GP services, signposting to other organisations like Citizens Advice and the Waterways Chaplaincy, helping in applications for Equality Act adjustments or otherwise supporting boaters who are in crisis or having difficulties in adhering to licence terms and conditions. The Trust also occasionally advocates for boaters with Government departments to highlight the needs of the boating community when legislation which might impact on them is being considered. It is our impression, however, that this advocacy has focused mostly on issues like the planning framework. We suspect there is more that the Trust could do by way advocating for greater support for the needs of liveaboard boaters as a group and engaging more with Government on housing policy, for example by feeding into the homelessness strategy. In our view, effective advocacy of this kind would be consistent with its charitable objects, including those relating to inclusion.
173. The Trust’s ability to take on this role does, however, have limitations. Its welfare team can have a conflict of interest in dealing with difficulties between individual boaters and its employer. Staff performing these roles are generally only qualified to signpost to other services. They are not necessarily specialist advisers in housing, benefits, debt or immigration unless they have had prior professional experience. The Waterways Chaplains' religious mission, however lightly worn, may deter some boaters who do not identify as Christian. Local statutory or voluntary agencies may not have sufficient cases to build a base of expertise. Boater user groups often do have considerable experience and expertise, but may face resource constraints. There does not appear to be a single point of reference for the specialist knowledge needed for people living on boats. In addition to the standard specialisms of advice work, a knowledge of waterways law and current waterway authority guidance is required. It is a surprise, for example, to find nothing about living on a boat in Citizen's Advice’s excellent advice resources.
174. An independent charity that collates and develops existing knowledge and expertise could ensure that boaters whose boat is their sole or main residence have effective access to public services and welfare support and are not penalised or discriminated against compared to land dwellers. An organisation of this kind could have the ability to build the necessary relationships with local authorities, NHS and education providers. The Trust may be sensitive about it having an advocacy role. However, robust informed challenge would help to ensure that regulations are applied fairly. The new charity, which could possibly be a specialised department within an existing charity rather than standalone, could also be responsible for administering any hardship fund that the Trust may wish to establish. We recommend that the Trust should support and provide start-up funding for an independent charity that offers advice and advocacy to liveaboard and other boaters, including assistance with benefit claims.

Two final thoughts

175. Inevitably, in writing this report a large part of our focus has been on particular parts of the network and particular cohorts of boaters. In framing our recommendations we have, however, tried to take a wider view, particularly since we are aware that the Trust’s Boaters Survey shows much the same level of dissatisfaction about their experience of Trust waterways among boaters with home moorings as among those without.58 We suspect that is largely related to frustration with the Trust’s difficulties in dealing with boaters who do not move from temporary moorings when they should and issues like sunken boats. To the extent this is true, it is our hope that the recommendations we have made about the Trust’s enforcement powers and its use of them will lead to better experiences and satisfaction levels for all types of waterways users. The other main cause of dissatisfaction is likely to be about maintenance issues, as suggested in our introduction. Addressing this issue is well outside our remit. But we share the Trust’s hope that its Better Boating Plan will go some way to mitigate it.
176. We have two final thoughts. First, as part of the general relationship reset we have advocated, we suggest that the Trust may want to look again at the nature, process and content of its communications with all boaters. We referred earlier to one aspect of this in relation to initial engagement about relatively minor infringements of the rules. We have been given enough anecdotal evidence about other communications to make us wonder if there might be a more general issue for the Trust. One respondent to our survey, for example, contrasted what he described as the good treatment he receives as a volunteer with the treatment which, in his view, he receives as an itinerant boater. The latter makes him feel like he is dealing with a completely different organisation.
177. We have not been able either to follow up these reports in detail, or to hear the Trust’s side. But we have heard enough to think that the Trust could consider whether the tone and nature of its communications consistently measure up to the high, customerfriendly standard to which we hope it would want to aspire. As part of this, it has been pointed out to us, for example, that new licence holders do not receive a friendly hello and welcome of the kind that would be regarded as normal for new customers of many commercial organisations. We recommend that the Trust should review the tone and content of all its communications and other contacts and with boaters and other waterways users to ensure that they are in plain English and as customer friendly as possible.
178. Our second final thought relates to the Trust’s governing legislation. We have noted that some of our recommendations will require legislation if they are to be implemented. We have also drawn attention to the fragmented and disparate nature of the legislation under which the Trust performs its functions and to the problems that can cause. If the Trust succeeds in persuading DEFRA, the Government department with the relevant responsibility, to introduce legislation to implement our recommendations, there would be considerable advantage in using the opportunity to consolidate all the existing legislation in one place. We recommend that the Trust should make the case to DEFRA for consolidation of the legislation under which the Trust operates.

57 We understand that the Trust is already engaging with Homeless Link and Crisis to learn about how they have supported people who do not have a fixed address or postcode to access services and how it can link into their existing local support networks/hubs/centres supporting homelessness located around the hotspots on the Trust’s network.

58 2025 Annual Boaters Survey. In the case of liveaboard boaters, levels of dissatisfaction are higher for those with home moorings than they are for those without.