They would not get the arrears in licence fees for boats summarily seized, although I see no real reason why they could not file a money claim for those - but they are not entitled [so far as I can see] to deduct those sums from any subsequent sale of the boats. The '83 Act entitles them to recovery of the removal and storage costs [and a few boats are restored to owners on payment of those charges. From July 2012 to the present, of boats seized, 9 were returned upon payment of the charges, 8 were disposed of].
So far as the court Orders are concerned, for ‘Melmar’ on 9 July 2012, costs were awarded, to be assessed with consideration for the defendant’s financial status [Legal Aid was involved]; for ‘Shuna’ on 13 August 2012, costs of £995 were awarded; for ‘Tiffin’ on 17 September, costs of £1,000 were agreed to be paid to CaRT [the case was resolved by Consent Order without a hearing, in the interests of costs]; for ‘Aston’ on 12 October 2012, the opportunity was given to the boat owner to pay arrears in licence fees to avoid seizure, and costs were awarded of £1,147; for ‘California’ on 24 October 2012, costs were awarded of £1,375.
As no court Orders were sought for the summary removal of the other 30 boats in the period July to November, there were obviously no awards for costs, but where owners could be identified, there would doubtless have been money claims, or else simple demands for the costs of removal, as per their authority under the ’83 Act. Failure to cough up would have meant sale under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, as in the 8 cases mentioned in my first paragraph.
As of November that year, there were 1,124 boats currently within the enforcement process respecting licence defaults. That was a pretty good whittling down of the over 4 thousand as at March that year. It would appear that most, even of the 1,124, were resolved outwith either court action or summary seizure [although some of those could well have entered the court process later – or indeed, have been seized, post November 2012].
It might be of interest to note that not a single one of those latter, thousand plus licence evasion cases, involved CC licensed boats – all were home moorers.