Search the Community

I wonder what they consider to be 'proof of ownership' ? As far as I am aware, in the UK, the only document that actually proves ownership (title) is the Small Ships Register (SSR) Part 1. The commonly used SSR Part 3 does not prove Title, purely country of registration. There may well be some but I don't think I have ever seen an SSR registered Narrowboat, but, it is fairly common on Motor Cruisers. Any eligible pleasure craft owner can apply to register under Part I of the UK Ship Register. The advantages of Part I registration is that you can: prove title to your boat prove your boat’s nationality use the boat as security to obtain a marine mortgage obtain ‘Transcripts of Registry’, which show the boat’s previous owners and whether there are any outstanding mortgages Part I registration costs £124. To be eligible you need to be one of the following: British Citizen British Dependent Territories Citizen British Overseas Citizen company incorporated in one of the EEA countries citizen of an EU member state exercising rights under articles 48 or 52 of the EU Treaty in the UK company incorporated in any British overseas possession which have its principal place of business in the UK or those possessions European Economic Interest Groupings Part III is a simple and cheap form of registration that proves a boat’s nationality. If your pleasure craft is under 24 metres you can register with Part III of the UK Ship Register. Registration costs £25. Eligibility to registerIn order to be eligible, all owners must be resident in the UK for 185 days of the year and be one of the following: British Citizen non-UK citizens exercising their EU right of freedom of movement or worker’s right for establishment British Dependent Territories Citizen British Overseas Citizen British subject under the British Nationality Act 1981 British National (overseas) under Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 Commonwealth Citizen not falling within this list Part III registration is not for: companies fishing vessels submersible ships boats 24 metres or over in length

We have looked at a few boats and the last two brokers have told us that they will not offer a boat up for sale untill they have proof off ownership.

License is NO proof of ownership, I could rent a boat out and get the tenants to license it themselves. The brokers with the best reputations on the cut cannot guarantee debt free ownership, but they do provide protection if their searches do not reveal some hidden aspect. Both Abnb and RugbyBoatSales give you a letter of assurance - with a statement outlining the limits of what they can achieve

I thought that too, presumably as there is no proof of ownership as such them I guess you've have to contact the previous owner. Luck I'm not a VAT inspector. K

I don't think they are. There is one broker (Whilton) with a widespread reputation for passing off boats owned by them directly as being sold 'on brokerage'. I'd ask some very searching questions if I were you about proof of ownership should you buy a boat purporting to be a brokerage sale. MtB

Having owned Melaleuca for seven years, I thought I'd had all the surprises, bad and good, but today I was proved wrong. The base of the gas locker is painted inside with raddle red, and I always assumed that it was steel. During the last BSS test, the examiner pointed out that it's in fact ply, and we came to the conclusion that the ply had put over the steel to protect it from bashes and damage. At the end of last season we noticed that the ply was damp and delaminating on a few places, and put restoration on the list of winter jobs. Today was the day, so the gas locker was emptied, and work began. What we discovered is that the base of the gas locker is ply, which is almost all wet and rotten. Under the ply is about 8 inches of solid sprayfoam, the bottom half of which is wet, and at the bottom of that is the original steel base of the gas locker, with half an inch is water sitting on it, and lots of rust (obviously). I can't believe that Jonathan Wilson built the boat like that: it must be a later addition. Probably by the same loon who filled the spaces under the front deck and counter with rockwool, which promptly soaked up all condensation on the cold steel and held it there, rusting the boat from the inside. The motive for the sprayfoamed gas locker might have been the same - ie to deal with condensation on the underside of the gas locker base. I think it's more likely a BSS thing. The gas locker drains are only just low enough for the position of the false floor, they must surely have failed a BSS for the original floor level. BSS bod question: is sprayfoam topped with ply considered a gas-proof material for the BSS, or has this been a big BSS fail all along? The arrangement is certainly not gas-tight, so relies on the original steel floor to keep leaked gas out of the boat. The steel floor which has been wet for years, and may well be perforated by now. The irony is that cabin is insulated with polystyrene! There's no sprayfoam anywhere else. I think that the only sensible fix to this is to hack out all the rotten ply and wet sprayfoam, de-rust the original floor and paint it, repairing first if there are holes, then get Mike the boatbuilder to build us a new, gas tight, false floor in steel at the same level as the old one, leaving a sealed empty compartment between the two. Other suggestions, however, gratefully accepted. Ah, the joys of boat ownership! MP.

Congratulations and commiserations. They do say that the two happiest boating days are when you buy your boat and when you sell your boat; you seem to have achieved both in one fell swoop. And that's a proper engine room and a fine looking boat. I have a (single) 6 cylinder ford Lehman in my Dutch Cruiser, it has a bullet proof reputation and mine hasn't missed a beat in my two years of ownership. I expect it to break 2000 hours when I take it to the pub this evening.

Really don't want to watch the video again but thought at one point he said they hadn't received anything from c&rt but then produced a licence form as proof of ownership

Your quite correct that there is not evidence in the video of the canopy damage, and it may be fictitious or grossly exaggerated like the rest of the video. The sergeant appears to be under the believe that there is no paperwork and openly states this in front of the CRT reps, I don't think it unreasonable to presume that they did indeed have not paperwork, if they did have paperwork, see no reason at all why it would not be a benefit to show it to him and the camera. While he did not have cast iron proof of ownership (surprising hard, actually, in a lot of cases) he did have a have some paperwork which apprently had both his name and the boats details on BW letterhead, all be it apparently with his old address. As said, we do not know enough details to comment much, other than what is in the film, which is all from one side, its imposable to take sides and I certainly do not plan to do so. I have asked on the youtube page where the boat was moored before the events on the film, and if it had ever ventured onto the river from there. There has been no reply. Furthermore, I do not know the legalities of keeping a boat on the Trent. Thee CRT website states a licence is needed to keep or use a boat on the rivers they own, including the Trent, and slightly reading between the lines you get the impression that the boat was on a linear river mooring, at which point it is looking sketchy at best. That said, the legal details around this sort of thing are rarely and its quite plausible that the CRT site over simplifies the case. For instance (all be it a slight digression) I have a Cat B driving licence, which in normal cases limits me to 3.5ton max (plus trailer up to 750kg) however if its over 30 years old at the time, and has 8 or less passenger seats, I can legally drive a bus or coach of unlimited weight (typically around 16-18ton gross. This was published on the direct.gov website but in the last year have been removed, ringing them to confirm the situation, and its unchanged. nidirect.gov also still contains the above information, as do some third party sites that have independently hosted pdf leaflets provided by the dvla. Daniel

For me, there are a lot of warning bells on this one. I'd like some kind of proof of who owns the boat, otherwise you might hand over cash only for the real owner to come and claim the boat, meaning you'd lose everything. If the ownership is legit, how on earth does a hole get knocked in the hull of a normal boat? I would strongly advise getting the hull checked if that is true. It's more likely a story concocted to explain an odd feature, like a patch welded to the hull covering an old skin fitting. Or not, who knows This sounds really risky as it stands Richard Let Matty's comment go, it's getting in the way

we got our current boat from Venetian 2 and a half years ago, only one small complaint. We had been led to believe that the seller was the previous owner when in fact the boat had been bought by venetian and they were the owners. This was used as a way of getting our offer higher than are original offer as they had to "ring the seller" anyway we got it for less than the asking price and have had very few problems considering the age of the boat. Next time we will ask to see proof of ownership but i wouldnt hesistate buying a boat from there again if the boat was right! Finding an engineer you trust however is another matter, other half can do lots but there have been occassions when we have needed someone and we found some to be a little bit expensive with work done being suspect. Oh and we used an independent surveyor.

If the policy terms specifically require the serial number before a claim will be considered then they may have a problem unless the suggestions above are sucessful. If the terms of the policy does not specifically require the serial number then I think one has to bear in mind that what the insurance co. is trying to achieve is to ensure that the claim is not fraudulent - eg they flogged the outboard on eBay and then made an insurance claim. So maybe the insurance co would be satisfied with proof of purchase / ownership, followed by proof that a replacement has been purchased. Anyway, it is a line to take with the insurance co to see if a mutually acceptable level of proof can be reached.

Mike's right. I went to one broker who claimed they could tell me nothing about the boat, it's history, it's owner, etc, - 'we have so many boats, we can't be expected to' was the excuse. Then they had no paperwork at all, no file on the boat even. until they began to realise they looked so stupid that they went to look - then suddenly there was lots of paperwork after all! Trouble was, it showed the owner was..... them! They'd bought the boat for resale and were passing it off as a brokerage boat (I guess the legal implications are different). Luckily, I had read about their shenanegins (probably on here) before I went to look at this one particular boat (sister to the one I bought elsewhere) so I was forearmed. Naturally, I walked, despite the boat itself. I bought through ABNB (other brokers are available) and had nothing but a positive experience regarding the financial and admin aspects - refundable deposit, proof of ownership, handling of outstanding finance, client account, etc. I also had a sea trial without being committed. I say finance and admin because I think Caveat Emptor still applies when selecting your boat wherever you get it, whoever the broker, surveyor, or whatever. The risks just ratchet up to 11 if you start with a dodgy broker in the mix.

Certainly before the broker we used would even consider selling the boat we had to produce proof of ownership, a confirmatory e-mail from C&RT that the boat had been registered before and after the name change we made and agree that they could investigate if there was any outstanding debts against the boat. The broker quotes what price they think will attract a buyer if this is about or a bit more than you think it is worth (& you will end up getting for it) you put it with them. They find a buyer he offers less than you are asking and you have to decide do you want to run with that price or wait for a buyer with more money. The buyer and seller have to be pragmatic about things. There is a price where the buyer thinks they is paying a bit more than they should and the seller thinks they are selling for a bit less than they should, that's the market price. Everyone is happy (sort of) and the deal goes through. No one has a gun held to their head, if you really don't like the deal on offer you have to move on.

Quicky about bikes. Used to be that if you have owned them as use for over a year then import duty was waived. If new purchase then duty levied. May have changed but all I needed was proof of ownership that was in excess of a year.

The 1971 Act made it compulsory for a pleasure boat to be registered, the certificate for which BW were obligated to issue upon receipt of payment and delivery of certain particulars as set out in Schedule 2 of that Act, “together with such additional information as the Board shall, from time to time, determine”. The certificate was to be issued to the applicant, the Act specifying that it “shall be subject to compliance by the applicant with the terms of any enactment relating to a river waterway.” The Schedule 2 particulars required both the name and address of the owner, and [if different] the name and address of the applicant. One might presume from that that the certificate could lose validity if this and/or “such additional information” was not supplied; the charge was not paid, or if the use of the boat was not in compliance with any enacted river waterway terms of use. However, against the presumption - The Act did not specifically provide that the certificate would be invalidated by non-payment; it provided that BW could recover the charge in law from either the owner or master of the vessel [who conceivably could be a person other than the applicant]. Neither did failure to comply with the required display of the registration name or number invalidate the certificate; again, this was an offence subjecting the master of the vessel [who need be neither applicant nor owner] to a specified fine. Likewise, the terms of any enactment relating to the river waterway making certain usages unlawful, will also have carried prescribed penalties, in most instances once again relating to the master of the vessel, who might again be someone other than either owner or applicant. The meaning must be then, that possession of the certificate does not free the owner/applicant/master [as appropriate] from the legal requirements relating to the certificated boat, but that the boat’s certificate is not invalidated by such breaches. Of course, if the required owner/applicant details had not been provided in the first place, the certificate would not have been issued – so the question is still, what happens on change of ownership? The Act provided in s.19 that - (1) “Upon every transfer of ownership of a pleasure boat . . . in respect of which a pleasure boat certificate . . . is in force, the transferor shall, and the transferee may, forthwith give notice to the Board of such transfer and upon such notice being given such pleasure boat certificate . . . shall no longer remain in force. (2) “The Board on receipt of notice of the transfer shall without charge issue to the transferee a new pleasure boat certificate . . . in respect of the pleasure boat . . . for the period for which the existing certificate is unexpired. (3) “Until such notice shall have been given, the transferor shall, for all the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the owner of such pleasure boat . . .” [my bold] So the Board must be notified of change of ownership, and the onus of doing so rests upon the seller. There is no such clarity relating to pleasure boat licences, which also relate to the boat rather than to the holder of that "relevant consent". Some implied cross-over of legislated procedure might be inferred, but whether or no, given that it is the holder of the licence who held accountable for any failures to comply with s.17 of the 1995 Act [as the registered keeper of a car is held responsible for acts relating to the car in the absence of proof to the contrary] then self-preservation would dictate informing CaRT that the boat was no longer yours!

The UK Government already has a boat registration and proof of ownership scheme called (surprisingly) "The Small Ships Register" https://www.gov.uk/register-a-boat/the-uk-ship-register It covers all small boats up to 24 metres long, you can have : Part III - registration, etc. or Part I - Proof of Ownership When we had Sea-Going boats we were always SSR, as once you gave the SSR number, they could find out all the needed to know in an emergency, home address, home port, next of kin etc etc. There is no legal requirement for this, membership is purely voluntary. I think that over the years the 'Inland waterways' folk have fought to remain outside and shipping controls and have valued the 'historical freedoms' and it is now (occasionally) coming to bite them in the bum.

I stand to be corrected by my learned friends - but - I dont believe that to be the case. Legally - the broker is the Vendors agent, so by paying the broker, the buyer is paying the vendor. It is not like a Farmer selling milk to Tesco, who then sells it to Jo Public, as the Farmers transaction is with Tesco, and it remains his 'propery' until paid for in full by Tesco, and it remains Tesco's property until paid for in full be Jo Public. If you are selling your boat, but cannot make the meeting with the seller to collect the money, you send Tattoed Stan from the pub to collect it for you, on the promise 'you'll see him right with a pint or two'. He collects the money, gives the buyer a receipt to say they have paid, hands over the keys and the new owner disappears down the cut. On the way back to the pub, with a pockefull of money, Stan decides a last minute holiday sounds a good idea, pops into the travel agents and gets himself off on a world cruise departing that afternoon. Stan has stolen the money from you and your only possible action for recovery is to start a personal legal action against him. If there is no 'client account', or there is, but it is empty - It is simple theft. For boats on brokerage, but unsold, they need to produce proof of ownership (+ copy of the brokerage contract) to the Administrators which should enable them to recover their own boats (at their own costs)

Hi Hi all i need help, advice n/or suggestion please. I m looking for a place to moor a small cruiser thats currently at Lots Ait yard in Brentford. I might have someone to help me tow it out but not 100% guarantee. Need to secure help asap for towing & mooring for this friday at the latest else i might lose the sale. Im buyin a cheapo that needs lots of repair but that floats n will become my home. Today s my birthday, please help me out make this happen. Its my small chance of an entry to boater s life . Havent much money at the mo but will pay (find the money to) for any service. More info and questions (feel free to correct me if im wrong, im open): One option is to tow the boat on a Trade Plate, through Thames Lock & Brentford Lock to the 14day visitor moorings. > how to get a trade plate? Option 2 is that someone would let me moor around Brentford for a while til i sort out documents etc. In option 1 I ll need to get -within 14 days - boat safety certificate, insurance n licence. Where to get, how to get these procedure done? How long do they take to get done? (is it possible to get a licence within 14 days?) How much money they cost? Which are essential to get on the canals, non-tidal river? Is the licence for river Lea cheaper as I was told? Im reading as much infos as i can about boating but im sure that its clearer and more accurate if it comes from the boaters community as i know the reality is different. Also how is it to rename the boat or sort out proof of ownership as there s no documents i believe. (sorry for all the questions i m on this for hours trying to make this happen ) Thank you very much everyone. Ludo

At the risk of being slightly off-topic, would not the keeping of a Log Book showing the movements of your boat be sufficient proof of the movement of your boat? And slightly more off-topic, what happens with Shared Ownership boats as they are likely to be recorded at the same VMs in a short period of time and be accused of overstaying, when in fact they have returned to base and had a crew change in-between?

Good luck with that! In my experience, if they do not wish to disclose archived documentation, then you haven’t a hope in hell of extracting it. There will always be an explanation for why they don’t have it, whether because it never existed, or has since been destroyed/misplaced. You will hardly ever be in a position to contradict their disclaimer, and who could possibly elicit proof of fraud in this respect? I have run up against this obstructionism in the current proceedings against me that Mr Parry insisted were necessary. The effort to elicit the material has uncovered ‘interesting’ paradoxes. In early 2004/5 the Crown Prosecution Service pursued a case of Criminal Damage against an ex-tenant who had cut down our gates and thrown them into the river. The perpetrator referred his solicitors to BW, and they obligingly produced from the Estates Department [ever creative] a couple of maps purporting to outline the extent of BW’s land ownership. [ For those who might be wondering what on earth BW had to do with it, the defence relied on being able to show that the perpetrator had reason to believe that BW consented to his otherwise criminal action.] The local moorings manager wrote to the Estates Department for ‘evidence’ that the perpetrator could use to demonstrate that BW owned the land on which the gates had had been installed – Armed with assurances that BW had deeds to the land, and provided with annotated maps outlining the [alleged] BW borders, the manager sent these off to the perpetrator’s solicitor – Bear in mind that these maps were produced as evidence in criminal court, and were backed by Mr Bannister’s sworn testimony that they represented BW holdings as established and verified by the Estates Department. Now it is not that I accord any credence to anything supplied by BW’s Estates Department, especially since their later forged amendation of their ‘Terrier Map’ [now described as “a mistake”, and classed by Mr Parry as “irrelevant”], but the fact is that the northern border position is advantageous to me in the current proceedings. I therefore asked for copies of the colour originals [i only had the B&W faxed copies], and for the backing documentation relied upon to produce the maps. For over a month this request was ignored. Then I wrote to the instructed barrister asking for his assistance in persuading CaRT to comply. He duly wrote concerning this, but still nothing. So I wrote to the Court for an Order for disclosure, which finally elicited - just a few days ago – colour copies of what was sent to the criminal court, and the correspondence posted above. As for the background documentation on which the maps were allegedly based, the accompanying letter claimed – Now, I am not sure what to believe in this instance. The most probable situation is that BW [as usual] just concocted the maps with no supporting basis at all, sure in the knowledge that the courts would never think to question their veracity. BUT – relevant to my opening comment – this is an either/or situation. Either the ‘evidence’ supplied to the court under oath was pure fiction, having no basis in historical documentation, or they are lying now, and are deliberately withholding that documentation. [The option of being unable to find what might have once been available is just too absurd to entertain.] I’m not going to push this further; I am going to ask the court to give full credence to the previous BW claim respecting the northern border limit. It sometimes has worked in my favour when the courts have believed certain BW evidence. In the criminal case, it actually worked in my favour that the magistrates could not conceive of BW being anything other than possessed of immaculate probity! In Tony Dunkley’s case, it also seems scarcely necessary to obtain the background data – but then again there is no harm trying; one never knows what might surface in reluctantly disclosed material.

You've asked two separate questions really. 1) There are endless threads on here about how to verify the seller genuinely IS the owner and has the right to sell. The upshot is you can't really. There is no 'proof of ownership' document or register so it's down to you using your wits. The seller having a receipt from when he bought it plus a folder stuffed with maintenance receipts etc all in his name helps quite a lot though. Or rather if this stack of documentation is claimed not to exist, smell one BIG RAT. 2) Scam adverts have one huge indicator, they always try to fool you into paying for the boat before you see it. Usually a bargain low price coupled with a string of excuses why you can't view it but must pay for it NOW, to avoid losing the bargain of a lieftime you've amazingly just found. The second indicator is often an odd location eg scotland or isle of wight plus poor command of English language. MtB P.S. One scammer a few weeks ago even came on here defending hereself and accusing us of racism as we picked apart the inconsistencies and showed up the lies in her advert. Have a search!

I've kept all my receipts from boat build onwards plus written blog about step by step build, she has RCD, and other security markings that illustrate clearly ownership. Before went down Sailaway route I looked around 2nd hand boats and proof of ownership concerned me.

I had not heard about this drop in revenue, and on reflection it’s hardly surprising. Why the UK has changed to the no visible proof system is beyond me. Here, when you buy a car and change the ownership details you pay a one-off road tax based on the horse power. We also have to show mot and insurance stickers on the windscreen. It still doesn’t stop tax avoidance, no doubt. Oh, and if you sell a second hand car it must have at least 6 months mot left.