Skeletons?

FOLLOWING Allan Richards' initial query regarding the independence of the Ombudsman's scheme CaRT has come under further close scrutiny, writes Pam Pickett.

Interestingly, as a result of Allan's initial article and the ongoing 'test case' for a boater with a home mooring, some surprising (shameful?) 'skeletons' now appear to have fallen out of CaRT's cupboard.

Not managing its legal cases correctly

It isn't so long ago that Richard Parry emailed me to say he would not wish any to think CaRT was not managing its legal cases correctly, yet here we have boaters having been served with a Part 8 Civil Procedure, without the accompanying Response Pack more usually included by a court. That the Response Pack advises of the necessity to acknowledge service of the papers within fourteen days of receipt, and allows for a defence to be raised within this time limit would, one would have thought, have been a necessary piece of information for any boater at risk of losing his/her home?

Misleading boaters?

That even one of the most 'clued in' legal procedures on our waterways didn't notice the difference between CaRT's Section 8 and the Part 8 Civil Procedure the boater was served with, again minus the Response Pack, has to be a matter of some concern; the Section 8 advising of CaRT's intention to take legal action, the Part 8 being the business end of the exercise by which CaRT, should the case not be defended, appears to seek only to virtually 'rubber stamp' the removal of a boat from its waters.

Whilst unless loss can possibly be proved as a result of non-receipt of the Response Pack, I very much doubt there is any illegality here, morality however I could question! One such Response Pack being omitted I can live with, possibly two, but when it becomes more then I can only leave all to draw their own conclusions.

Not acting within his remit?

With regard to Allan Richards second piece re the Ombudsman Scheme, CaRT only after much prompting and some 90 days late finally issued papers in respect of a Subject Access Request sought by the boater about to be taken to court. With other avenues exhausted this boater had, as any of us in trouble probably would, sought the help of one he felt would give just consideration to his case and would provide protection for him as an individual where there was such an imbalance of power, the Ombudsman.

Careless, or unfit for purpose?

In the event however and surely giving the utmost validity to Allan Richards' comment, it appears from emails between the Ombudsman and CaRT contained within the papers now received by this boater from CaRT, the Ombudsman was happier to act on behalf of CaRT than on behalf of him as an individual—surely against his remit? 'Skeletons' indeed! However, before I go on to a further matter of some concern I find it strange that an Ombudsman would also find it necessary to ask the 'prosecution' (CaRT) to advise him of points of law for this case.

From little acorns?

Finally I wish to comment on yet another matter involving Richard Parry's take with regard to tickets issued to boaters. I recently reported upon boater Tony Ball's distress when accused of overstaying by an Enforcement Officer, incidentally not the only boater approached on the same day, though on different moorings with both approaches found (advisedly) to be totally incorrect.

Whilst this matter raised comment amongst boaters it also brought a reaction from Richard Parry. My piece it seems being regarded as having 'blown the matter out of all proportion' and furthermore that 'ticketing a boat is a long way from the issuing of a Section 8'. Well Richard all I can say here is tell that to those liveaboards whose boat is their only home and with the other boater wrongly ticketed and in this category, too scared to complain lest he then be 'targeted'.

Abscond?

I don't know what message the Trust intended to give by its removal of Geoff Mayers boat. I do know that the considerable distance and prohibitive cost of that removal whilst it is now said by CaRT to have been for reasons of safety for the boat, it was previously, if memory serves me right, mentioned in court that Geoff may abscond? With a licence refused by CaRT and in a boat the proportions of which would not allow him to get very far! Message loud and clear. Liveaboards take on the Trust at your cost!

How sad that our previously gentle and peaceful waterways, an escape for all from the rat race is at the hands of CaRT becoming such a worrying place to be!