Search the Community

Was that really neccessary? We had legally witnessed docments of purchase by both my wife and myself, which I am confident would have been recognised by any Court in the extreemly unlikely event of ownership being challenged. A boat being licenced jointly by two people is not in itself Legal proof of ownership by either of them.

I wouldn't say your wife's nor your name being on C&RT records would be proof of ownership of the boat but it might help . I expect formal documents are absent for many inland craft leaving little in the way of proof of ownership. Mind you most stuff we own we may not have retained proof and its not an issue in practice. Presumably you have joint names on the boat insurance. The reaction from C&RT is not unreasonable given you have, as far as they are concerned, added a new joint owner. I think it may be just me who pays the extortion money/license fee as far as C&RT are concerned but I have other documents to prove my wife and I each own half shares in the boat.

If the boat is on Canal & River Trust waters it should have a number, displayed (something like 54321), and a current BSC certificate. Did you get any paperwork. Do you have proof of ownership, as the another post says you want to get in to this boat but don't have a key.

If the boat is on Canal & River Trust waters it should have a number, something like 54321, and a current BSC certificate. Did you get any paperwork. Do you have proof of ownership, as the another post says you want to get in to this boat but don't have a key. I paid £160 for my certificate, travel was £20. I have a narrowboat with a few bells and whistles, but I don't think you will get yours much cheaper as the Examiner has to pay through the nose for his qualification and training.

Yes it is part of the canal in the sense of land but it is not used for the process of moving boats along. This is where the money is. If what you say " ask them for an inch and you'll have to pay " applies everywhere then that great because the system needs funding. Obviously in high demand areas a way is found to get the money but thus far it has not proved satisfactory or economically sensible to just demand payment for use of towpath land everywhere. The fact that we have situations like the Ward case on the K&A is proof that the use of the land is a contested and contentious subject. Ownership of the land is not contested. It belongs to the navigation authority but the use of it is contested because people are allowed to pile up possessions and use the land as a garden when it is nothing of the sort. This will lead to negative outcomes.

Inland waterways boats are not 'registered' there is no 'log book', no proof of ownership, and usually very little in the way of any paperwork. There is nothing that a broker can do except take your money and say he has "found nothing" Also, remember that a Broker is acting on behalf of the seller, not the buyer, he will not do anything, or say anything. that could jeopdise the sale. You need to use a good surveyor (few and far apart) who can advise you on the condition of the boat, but at the end of the day their 'small print' on the survey will say "if you have a problem, don't come back to us, we may have missed something, it is not our responsibility, tough !" Or words to that effect.

My approach was two fold. It had to look nice, ie stylish lines in as much as an outsize steel date box could ever have,that took about three months to develop my "eye". I am often complimented on the look of the boat. During that three month time I found out which boats were built by good builders. I typed my requirements in to Apollo Duck, and found one on New and Used. Another was suggested by @Tumshi, thiswas the one I bought, in fact the only one I viewed, I was living "abroad", as in Scotland. The one i had picked out myself was not wholly owned by the vendor. I had to research this., caveat empetor. The first question I asked the vendor of my own boat was proof of ownership , no problem to someone who has owned ot for twenty years. I insisted on a Bill of Sale on my ownership transfer. Vendor was uncomfortable, but he agreed as he wanted my money and I wanted his boat. I have a washing machine but don't use it as I am solo liveaboard and happy to use launderette in summer . in winter when the stove is on I wash my socks snd my etcs and both dry overnight. I have enough bedding to last for weekly changes over four weeks. I think men should learn to wash their own shreddies, if they don't, they are not suitable husband material, not in any way,

It has become much more difficul to get a mortgage (loan secured on the boat)for 'low priced boats' but in the past it was not uncommon. It is still widely used to fund the purchase of expensive boats. Which is why when you use the Governments Boat register Part 1, it can be used as proof of ownership for mortgage purposes. Unfortunately it is not a compulsory registration and, the general dislike for 'paperwork' on the inland waterways means that I doubt any canal boats are so registered.

Apologies - slip of the finger - yes BMF. The responsible divison of the BMF that cover boat sales outlets and brokers is the BRMA (Boat Retailers and Brokers Association) whose code of practce for all member to adhere to includes the following section : 15. All Boat Retailer and Brokers shall have and/or will offer to clients:- a. Appropriate Professional indemnity insurance to cover errors and omissions occurring in the course of their broking activities b. Use their best endeavours to verify the complete history of ownership of Any 2 hand craft offered for sale c. Use their best endeavours to verify (if possible) the VAT status of 2 Hand Craft, advising prospective clients of any VAT liabilities that may exist in the absence of proof positive of VAT paid status. d. All craft offered for sale to conform with relevant legislation (RCD etc) e. For 2 Hand craft the ability to offer clients a choice of at least 3 suitably accredited surveyors from IIMS, RINA or YBDSA f. Staff training – minimum standards and staff development and on-going training So to answer your question all BMF / BRMA members have 'signed up to', and agreed that they will not sell a boat which does not comply with the RCD and has all those things in place that I listed a couple of days ago : Before making a product available on the market, the distributor must verify that: • The product bears the CE marking as required in Article 17 • It is accompanied by the following documents: Declaration of Conformity, Instructions and safety information, The owner’s manual in the appropriate language for the craft and the engines if installed • It meets the product identification and traceability requirements, the manufacturer’s identification or the importer’s identification if applicable

You said he will have difficulty buying the car - he won't. Filling in a fictional address or, a friend or relatives address is not unknown and as the DVLA say "This document is not proof of ownership" it is where the vehicle is registered. He may not even wish to register it, or insure it or tax it and no one will be the wiser (until the ANPR catches up with him).

Best: A coal scuttle in Saltford marina dropped by me. It had corroded such that it sank vertically due to the holes, and could be pulled back out the same way by the handle using a boat hook. Didn't last very long after that, though, obviously. Worst: The only key to a second (or possibly 5th)-hand car in the same marina by my husband. Fortunately there was a main dealer within walking distance who; after furnishing them with the registration number, proof of ownership, and some time and money; got us a new key.

When I bought my boat (in 2013) it had the original sales invoice from the builders and the invoice relating to its second sale (I was the third owner). These documents, unlike the service history, BSS etc, were not made available to me until the purchase was complete. I thought that was fair enough, I had the brokers word that they existed and that they constituted sufficient proof of the seller's ownership of the boat, I didn't think that the actual figures were any of my business until I owned the boat (perhaps not even then).

This is how we brought our barge in Belgium. It’s seems that following this thread and other on here that proof of boat ownership or of it being free of debt is a minefield and surely it is time for a registration scheme but not SSR as this is very loose with no checks. The monetary value of quite humble narrow boats certainly makes it open to scammers especially with the people desperate to find somewhere to live who have zero knowledge apart from watching some U tube channel. Over 60 years we brought 3 nbs and had one built, the one from British Waterways came with no paperwork except a receipt and likewise the one from Willow Wren but it was fair to assume they owned them the private one was well known and had been in the same ownership for years. The barge in Belgium was the only one we had a survey on as it was 80 years old and had obviously been a bit neglected as well as having little knowledge of these craft. The surveyor found some thin places and the need for a new shaft and bearings which the owner (as per the contract) has the option of putting right or we had the option of pulling out with our deposit returned. The owner had some of the work put right and a sum was deducted from the final payment for the other bits to be put right later.

I've said this for some time - but agreed the SSR (Pt3) is not what is needed, but, whilst more expensive the Ships Register Pt1 is exactly what is required and offers proof of ownership for any mortgages, records of owners, etc etc. The problem for existing boats in the 'we hate paperwork' canal system will be the proof required - primarily the 'builders certificate' and original bill of sale Other requirements can be met reasonably easily (but at some cost) I'm guess that the Radio requirement and the ITC would be classed as 'not relevant'. It should be realtively simple to introduce for new-build boats from a certain date. Part 1 registration - commercial or pleasure boats You can use Part 1 of the register if you have either: a commercial boat, unless you plan to use it for fishing a ‘pleasure vessel’ - this means you do not make any money from it Registering your boat on Part 1 of the register means you’ll be able to: get a marine mortgage against your boat spend more than 6 months outside the UK It costs £153 to register for 5 years. You’ll be sent a renewal notice when it’s time to renew. It costs £72 to renew your registration for another 5 years. Before you start You’ll need: the dimensions of your boat the previous registration details of the boat (if it’s been registered before) the bill of sale the radio signal detail - including your UK radio call sign, Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number and International Maritime Organization (IMO) number the builders certificate a certificate of survey for tonnage and measurement an international tonnage certificate (ITC69) safety certificates Register a boat: The UK Ship Register - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If (and we don;t know) the broker was also the owner then the OP will have no prblem getting his money back, or satisfaction in other ways (pistols at dawn ?) A commercial seller must accept the item back for a full refund, or repair it at no cost if it is not 'fit for purpose' - I'd suggest that breaking down twice in 3 days shows it is not 'fit for purpose'. How long do you have to return a faulty product? The Consumer Rights Act gives you the legal right to either get a refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, or get it repaired - depending on how long you've owned it: 0-30 days: You can claim a full refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described. 30 days-six months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund. Six months or longer: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a partial refund, and the burden of proof is on you to prove the product is faulty. If you'd prefer a repair or replacement in the first 30 days you can ask the retailer, but it cannot refuse to give you a refund. The 30 day right to a refund doesn't apply to products you've bought as downloads - such as music, games or apps. You can, however, ask for a digital product to be repaired or replaced if it develops a fault. And if this isn't possible, or unsuccessful, you have the right to get a price reduction - which could be the full amount you paid. The 30 day period is shorter for perishable goods, and will be determined by how long it is reasonable to have expected the goods to last. For example, milk would be expected to last until its use-by date, as long as it’s stored correctly. Your right to a repair or replacement You can state your preference, but the retailer can normally choose whichever would be cheapest or easier for it to do. If the attempt at a repair or replacement is unsuccessful, you can then claim a refund or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product. Beyond the first 30 days of ownership you're entitled to a full or partial refund instead of a repair or replacement if any of the following are true: an attempt at repair or replacement has failed the cost of the repair or replacement is disproportionate to the value of the goods or digital content a repair or replacement is impossible a repair or replacement will cause you significant inconvenience the repair or replacement will take an unreasonably long amount of time. If a repair or replacement is not possible, or the attempt at repair fails, or the first replacement also turns out to be defective, you can reject the goods for a full refund. If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement. If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise. The retailer can't make any deductions from your refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement. The only exception to this rule is motor vehicles, where the retailer may make a reasonable reduction for the use you've already had of the vehicle after the first 30 days. If a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership of it. In practice, this may require some form of expert report, opinion or evidence of similar problems across the product range.

Yes that is what I said. Having read thru the legislation again it needs to be either not as described, unsatisfactory, or unfit for purpose NOT just "I've changed my mind" 0 - 30 days you can claim a full refund for goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described. 30 days - six months you must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a refund six months or more you must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace it before you can claim a partial refund, and the burden of proof is on you to prove the product is faulty If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise. The retailer can't make any deductions from your refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement. The only exception to this rule is motor vehicles, where the retailer may make a reasonable reduction for the use you've already had of the vehicle after the first 30 days. If a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership of it.

I think my original post may have been too subtle, I was trying not to make an accusation which I could not substantiate. In my post I clearly said that when I sold the boat I included both the original sales invoice and also the invoice (RYA version) when I sold her. I'm fairly certain that if the current owner had been aware that the boat had been purchased for £50,000 in 2019 they may have thought long and hard before paying almost 50% more for a boat 3 years older. It has been pointed out many times on this and other boating forums that often a boat is the most expensive thing many people buy after a house but there is no requirement for any paperwork, not even proof of ownership, hence the Buyer Beware. The paperwork I handed over to my purchaser should have been, in my opinion, retained and passed on to future purchasers, maybe it was I don't know. Possibly the current purchaser wanted the boat so badly that price was no object. Yes, it was Winter Rose, as far as I am concerned I sold her for a fair price and I have no regrets as the quick sale meant I was able to purchase my current boat a Luxemotor barge for a very good price. The current Winter Rose Luxemotor, (the name has personal reasons), has allowed my wife and I to experience a very different type of boating in Europe from the UK rivers and canals, long may it continue. Ken

Maybe we are getting a little closer : The BMF code of practice for their members states : Boat Retailers and Brokers Code of Practice Boat retailers and brokers must adhere to the following terms 15. All Boat Retailer and Brokers shall have and/or will offer to clients:- a. Appropriate Professional indemnity insurance to cover errors and omissions occurring in the course of their broking activities b. Use their best endeavours to verify the complete history of ownership of Any 2 hand craft offered for sale c. Use their best endeavours to verify (if possible) the VAT status of 2 Hand Craft, advising prospective clients of any VAT liabilities that may exist in the absence of proof positive of VAT paid status. d. All craft offered for sale to conform with relevant legislation (RCD etc) To premempt any further suggestion that 'shall' is not mandatory : Must and shall are words in English language that have similar meanings. Both of them indicate the fact that something is mandatory and should be carried out as a duty. However, shall is used more in legal circles while must is used more often by common people. Many believe shall to be more formal of the two and fit for use in legal documents and contracts to stress a role or responsibility. Shall is a verb that indicates a strong desire, intention, or assertion. It also refers to something that will take place in the future. It is also used to give an order or make a promise. It also indicates inevitability of something or an event. Take a look at the following examples to understand the meaning and usage of shall in English language. It is similar to will when used in first person. • You shall complete the job by tomorrow (order) • The train shall arrive tomorrow noon (future event) • The justice shall be served (inevitability) • The tenant shall make payment on every 5th day of a month (obligation)

The deal is very strange - there are in effect two separate elements to this deal. As Estate Agents they presumably know all they need to know about land sales, but boats are something else again, and they probably have no idea of the implications. You are quite right to press for sight of all the appropriate paperwork - you could ask for proof of ownership of the boat, which would probably confuse them no end. Certainly sight of the survey is a very basic requirement - you could at least make up your mind whether you wish to take it further at that point. Have they quoted any sort of value for the land and the vessel separately? Tam p.s. to continue that thought, people here can probably suggest a fair price for the boat, and that would show what they think the land is worth.

The previous proposals and considerations : 3. Proposals 3.1. Proof of identity and a reliable contact address should be required for all customers. Credit references required for direct debit mandates. Applicants must be over 18. 3.2. We should differentiate between licences for individuals and licences for businesses. Administrative systems, terms and conditions and standard communications should reflect this. (a) The licence should be simply understood as giving the right to float on our waterways. As far as practical, we should avoid overloading it with detailed regulations relating to commercial trading activities which would be more efficiently dealt with through a trading agreement with the boat operator. (b) There are potentially many different aspects to a trading operation, with implications for the management of specific sites. A trading agreement or operator’s licence would provide a much better vehicle for setting out conditions such as whether the trader can use the towpath, access for loading and unloading, touting for business, noise control, health and safety requirements etc. (c) A new set of template trading agreements should be prepared to cover floating business operations, as is already the case for hire boat operators. Agreements will be negotiated locally following national guidelines. This will enable us to simplify the licence system to concentrate on the key factors outlined in section 3. We will need template agreements for the following types of business: • • • • • Trip and restaurant boats . These depend on a specific location/stretch of waterway for their business. They make less intensive use of the navigation than hire boats, and the majority of end-customer value arises from the on-board service. business barges and ‘shop’ boats Time share and shared ownership enterprises (customer care standards being achieved by some operators are a cause of concern, and this should be addressed through the trading agreement) Charities operating trip boats or holiday boats for deserving groups or other charitable purposes Commercial carriers, which all require some form of loading and unloading permissions. The system will cover freight operations on commercial waterways currently outside the scope of the existing licensing scheme 3.3. Houseboat certificates should only be issued to genuinely static vessels. The issue of residency is much more relevant to moorings management and should not be an issue for licensing. 3.4. The main drivers for licence price variations should be: (a) size of boat: but we should drastically reduce the number of length categories and introduce a ‘beam’ factor. There is little rationale for the large number of differentials we have at present. The main reasons for retaining some elements of pricing according to size are: • the practical difficulties of implementing a change involving complete removal of this factor - there would be unacceptably large numbers of losers and winners. • likelihood of sharing locks a marketing case for an attractive entry-level rate to encourage new boaters The ultimate target could comprise as few as three categories, but this would need to be phased in over say, five years. For example • • • market entry’ boats, typically under 7m – to encourage new customers medium sized family boat, up to 12m – another popular entry level category boats over 12m which are typically the choice of people with high commitment to boating. Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m. (b) Duration of licence: we recommend a relative reduction in the price for short term access combined with a restriction on the number of such licences that an owner could purchase during a year. The purpose of this is to increase visiting craft and new market entrants. (c) intensity of use: extensive use indicated by continuous cruising/occupancy, commercial hiring, multi-user arrangements etc. should pay a premium (d) extent of geographic access: craft using only isolated stretches such as Monmouth & Brecon, Bridgwater & Taunton and Lowlands waterways should pay less than those with full access. Consider increasing the number of geographic zones, possibly implemented via card readers at zone boundaries. This could be refined to allow for additional charges for access to particularly intensively used areas, and lower costs for less popular zones. It would involve some users paying more and some less. (e) Policy objectives such as encouraging new entrants to boating, use of electric power, encouraging hire operators to adopt ETC quality standards, encouraging use of less popular areas. We could also consider verifiable user concessions – dependent on introducing proof of identity requirement. For example, we might consider a lower rate for loyal senior customers – 10+ years or more licensed continuously with no payment defaults and over 60 years old. (f) The fee structure should be simplified to define a single baseline fee for the most popular size/type of craft. In the following trial example, the baseline is a privately owned pleasure craft over 12 m long with a registered permanent mooring, licensed for 12 months. Note all these figures are hypothetical. If basic principles are agreed, we will construct simulation model with aim of calculating rates that will protect total revenue and reflect policy objectives. Nor is the list definitive – additional criteria may be added as work proceeds on the scheme.

Pre-nationalisation ownership, which is the basis of what gives all canals their names. The BCN is those canals owned by what was once the Birmingham Canal Company, and then became the Birmingham and Birmingham & Fazeley Canal Company. I'm not actually sure whether the company referred to itself as the BCN or if that was just what it called the canals given it's own ridiculously cumbersome official name. The non-BCN bits are: Grand Union from Proof House Junction to Bridge 85 (between Acocks Green and Olton) Birmingham & Warwick Junction Canal throughout Worcester & Birmingham from Worcester Bar to about the mid-point of Wast Hill Tunnel Stratford from King's Norton Jn to a point about mid-way between bridges 6 and 7

A couple walking along a rural canal path had a shock when they came across a five-foot snake. The boa constrictor, which was said to be sunning itself in a bid to try and keep warm, was found on the path in Chasewater, near Cannock, on Thursday. Volunteers from Linjoy Wildlife Sanctuary and Rescue - Midlands were called to collect the snake. The charity is now housing the snake and monitoring its health while waiting to see if anyone comes forward to claim ownership. Founder Lindsay Newell said there's a chance the snake could have escaped, which was found in a spot not near any houses, but nobody has so far come forward. "The lady and gentleman who came across it on the canal path, they were shocked, she said. "I'm not sure what it was doing where it was, it was in the middle of nowhere. "We've had a few offers to rehome it, but we won't do it straight away. Until we know its eating OK. It's now in a vivarium." Volunteers will attempt to feed the snake over the coming days, but Lindsay warned that snakes can take a few days before showing signs of illness so its condition will be monitored to make sure it's not unwell. Lindsay described the snake as "docile" yesterday but became more active as it warmed up as the hours went by after it had been taken in. She continued: "I don't know how long it's been out. Where it was, it was in the sun. It was probably cold, trying to get some heat. "I would have thought someone would be looking for it by now." We had a callout to this large Boa Constrictor that was spotted in a hedge bottom along a canal near Chasewater near Cannock. Mark went over to get him. The snake is around 5ft long and is ok considering it’s been out during the cold weather. He may have escaped locally or been dumped into the wild. If you believe this is your pet then please contact us. Proof will be required. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-hubs/staffordshire/cannock/2022/10/14/shock-for-couple-as-five-foot-snake-found-on-rural-canal-path-near-cannock/

My point exactly. Where is the 'proof of ownership' from the previous seller, or the one previous to him. I could accept that a receipt from the manufacturer to MrX is a proof of ownership, but unless there is then a receipt from Mr X to MrY, to MrZ, then the trail is lost. Brokers have no more ability to determine proof of ownership that the man in the street does, they purely rely on a statement to that effect from the seller. Mind you - even a car's V5 (Log Book) states "this is not a proof of ownership" but we buy cars quite happily. Typical clauses from a brokers contract : 1.1. The following original Documents shall be prepared by the Seller and held by the Broker in advance of Completion and shall be delivered to the Purchaser on Completion; 1.1.1. The Builders Certificate and Bill of Sale and all subsequent Bills of Sale in the Seller’s possession relating to the Vessel; 1.1.2. A properly executed Bill of Sale relevant to the Purchaser in favour of the Purchaser or his nominee; 1.1.3. The Certificate of Registry in respect of the Vessel, if applicable; 1.1.4. Evidence by way of original or true copy documents, which have been certified as a true copy by practising lawyer, regarding the VAT status of the Vessel including Builder’s invoices, evidence of VAT payment and dates of arrival in the European Community; 1.1.5. Evidence of compliance with the Recreational Craft Directive; 1.1.6. An express written declaration by the Seller that at the moment of Completion and delivery to the Purchaser the Vessel is free of all debts, claims and charges of every kind; 1.1.7. Where the Seller is a company, certified true copies of the corporate authorities approving this Agreement and appointing the signatories for the Bill of Sale; 1.1.8. Any delivery order or authority necessary to enable the Purchaser to take immediate possession of the Vessel; and 1.1.9. Where applicable, an undertaking shall be given by the Seller to the Buyer to delete any Registry entry pertaining to the Vessel

The only proof of ownership that most sellers will have is the receipt from the previous seller, possibly accompanied by a short statement of the matter of the sale..