Caring for boaters

I HAVE a concern, a concern related to CaRT's maintenance budget that appears to me to be being depleted by its determination to rid the system of paying boaters by revoking their licences, writes Pam Picket.

However, having looked at the number of boats that CaRT has removed from the system to date, I find it strange that so many of the owners of those boats have seemingly failed to appear at any court hearings. Curious indeed unless of course those boats were deemed sunk or abandoned, and the owners couldn't be traced?

Failed to inform

Regardless, I have taken an interest in those Part 8 [Not to be confused with Section 8] proceedings issued by CaRT. In the recent case of the removal of Pearl and in the light of a further impending court case, I now wonder if credence could perhaps be given to the owner of Pearl who could be making a valid point when he claims CaRT failed to 'fully inform' him? That it was as a result of this that he did not attend the initial hearing?

The impending case I refer to however is to be a 'test case' for CaRT. It is to be the first case to be taken against a a boater with a validated home mooring (and not a not cheap get out of gaol 'ghost' mooring). My concern here is that in the case of a Part 8 hearing, as this case is also to be, this boater has not been advised of the necessity to acknowledge receipt within a 14 days period of the papers served by CaRT. Neither has he been advised that failure to do so would render attendance at the proposed hearing futile, as he would then not be allowed to speak? Something Pearl's owner has also claimed to be the case?

A 10 minutes hearing

To clarify, a Part 8 hearing is apparently a hearing that CaRT does not expect to be contended, and the ten minutes of court time apparently allocated would appear to be commensurate with this. I am advised that a Part 8 is more usually used in the case of abandoned boats where the owners cannot be traced.

Perhaps CaRT would like to comment as to why the legal papers currently served contain no information with regard to the importance of the necessity to acknowledge receipt?

[A Part 8 is an hearing without defence and 10 minutes is allowed by the court. CaRT solicitors in all its 103 pages of documentation omitted to inform Tony, the licence paying owner of Pearl, of the need to acknowledge within 14 days, but even then would not have been allowed to speak at the hearing.]