Can I sell shares in my boat?

[jupiter1124]

I have owned my boat for many years but as I get on in years I am using it less. And the cost of licensing, mooring and maintenance is increasingly hard to justify.

 

I'd love to rent out the boat while I'm not using it but I gather that that's a non-starter because of elfin safety, insurance, business license requirements etcetera.

 

So i wondered if perhaps I could skirt around a lot of that and form a syndicate by privately selling off shares in my boat to turn it into a part own share boat. I know that it's done a lot on the waterways so I wondered if that would be an option. Maybe retain half the shares and write into the agreement a (reasonable) fixed monthly maintenance contribution or something like that.

 

I rather enjoy a lot of the parts of boat ownership that may be less appealing to other shareholders - I prefer boating in winter and as a childless retiree I don't need it in school holidays. I enjoy doing or at least organising the maintenance and I have a mooring near my house which it can lay upon. As long as I can do 2-3 months a year boating I'm not fussed when or where it is.

 

I'm picturing an arrangement where I sell off say six 1/12th shares that entitles the part owner to a month of cruising a year, with a fixed monthly contribution towards known costs (e.g. licensing, mooring, known maintenance like blacking) with an agreement that I as the primary owner arrange and organise those things.

 

I can imagine there is a lot that I haven't thought about, and probably a number of legal loopholes and pitfalls, or this would likely be a more common arrangement. Not least I wonder if this kind of thing would be appealing to others.

[dmr]

Quite a few canal boats and sea going boats are owned by syndicates. I believe, that with sailing boats at least, it is a tradition to split a boat into 12 shares, though any member could own more than one share.

 

(but Google tells me there should be 64 shares so I might be talking bollocks 😀)

[Rob-M]

Have a look at some of the existing share syndicates as I expect they have details of how they run them. As an example https://carefreecruising.com/our-scheme-2/

[David Mack]

Some years ago Ownerships and Challenger were the main share boat operators/managers. Both companies went belly up. Some of the syndicates elected to transfer to other managers and some went self-managed. I know there are some forum members who have gone the latter route and who may be willing to advise how it worked for them.

[ditchcrawler]

The biggest problem is finding people who don't just want to pick the boat up Saturday morning and drop it off the next leaving someone to clean it, fuel up and do any servicing.. We were in a   group with 12 shares, 4 owned by the company that set it up and the rest shared between 7 of us. We later bought the company shares and also reduced the number of owners to 4. Between us we organised everything, maintenance , licencing, painting etc. It is essential you have a watertight agreement on exactly what happens. One of our members wanted to let every tom dick and harry use his share, probably in return for a few bob. Another let his family used it who flattened the batteries completely sitting drinking and playing cards all night with all the lights on.

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

The biggest problem is finding people who don't just want to pick the boat up Saturday morning and drop it off the next leaving someone to clean it, fuel up and do any servicing.. We were in a   group with 12 shares, 4 owned by the company that set it up and the rest shared between 7 of us. We later bought the company shares and also reduced the number of owners to 4. Between us we organised everything, maintenance , licencing, painting etc. It is essential you have a watertight agreement on exactly what happens. One of our members wanted to let every tom dick and harry use his share, probably in return for a few bob. Another let his family used it who flattened the batteries completely sitting drinking and playing cards all night with all the lights on.

I have no idea how that happened

[howardang]

29 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Some years ago Ownerships and Challenger were the main share boat operators/managers. Both companies went belly up. Some of the syndicates elected to transfer to other managers and some went self-managed. I know there are some forum members who have gone the latter route and who may be willing to advise how it worked for them.

I was an owner in two of these self managed scheme after Ownerships went belly up and both schemes worked very well.  In your scheme it seems to be a hybrid between a syndicate run scheme and a managed shame and I am not sure how CRT or an insurance company would view it. I for one would not like to join such a scheme where you regard yourself as a principal owner and dictate repairs etc. My suggestion would be to put the scheme to CRT in the first instance to get their views before going any further.

 

Howard

Edited June 18, 2023 by howardang

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

59 minutes ago, jupiter1124 said:

I have owned my boat for many years but as I get on in years I am using it less. And the cost of licensing, mooring and maintenance is increasingly hard to justify.

 

I'd love to rent out the boat while I'm not using it but I gather that that's a non-starter because of elfin safety, insurance, business license requirements etcetera.

 

So i wondered if perhaps I could skirt around a lot of that and form a syndicate by privately selling off shares in my boat to turn it into a part own share boat. I know that it's done a lot on the waterways so I wondered if that would be an option. Maybe retain half the shares and write into the agreement a (reasonable) fixed monthly maintenance contribution or something like that.

 

I rather enjoy a lot of the parts of boat ownership that may be less appealing to other shareholders - I prefer boating in winter and as a childless retiree I don't need it in school holidays. I enjoy doing or at least organising the maintenance and I have a mooring near my house which it can lay upon. As long as I can do 2-3 months a year boating I'm not fussed when or where it is.

 

I'm picturing an arrangement where I sell off say six 1/12th shares that entitles the part owner to a month of cruising a year, with a fixed monthly contribution towards known costs (e.g. licensing, mooring, known maintenance like blacking) with an agreement that I as the primary owner arrange and organise those things.

 

I can imagine there is a lot that I haven't thought about, and probably a number of legal loopholes and pitfalls, or this would likely be a more common arrangement. Not least I wonder if this kind of thing would be appealing to others.

Looking at your previous posts when you mentioned you painted you boat, Can you put some pictures of your boat on, internal and external and information, maybe a value you think your boat is worth? What are you looking at per share? as you maybe way out of the ball park with your valuation and costs per share, often boaters think their boat is worth more than it actually is, so please put some photos on👍

Edited June 18, 2023 by BoatinglifeupNorth

[David Mack]

28 minutes ago, howardang said:

My suggestion would be to put the scheme to CRT in the first instance to get their views before going any further.

My suggestion would be that you don't even hint at your scheme to CRT. Some years ago BW/CRT decided that shareboat schemes operated much like hire boats, so should pay the higher hire boat licence fee. There was much protest from people who asked how a share boat (in which shares were held by 12 individuals) was any different to a boat owned by a couple, or how 12 owners paying a management organisation to arrange licencing, insurance, maintenance etc. was really any different to a single private owner paying a boatyard to do repairs. Eventually a compromise was reached whereby commercially managed share boat schemes (of the Challenger/Ownerships type) would pay the higher licence fee, but those where the management was done wholly by the co-owners would continue to be regarded as private leisure boats. In such cases one named individual is the point of contact with CRT and is the boat owner as far as they are concerned.

 

The OP's scheme, with him holding half the shares and doing all the management looks to me a little like the commercial type of operation, particularly if the fee structure includes an element of the other 6 owners paying the OP for his management role.

Edited June 18, 2023 by David Mack

[howardang]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

My suggestion would be that you don't even hint at your scheme to CRT. Some years ago BW/CRT decided that shareboat schemes operated much like hire boats, so should pay the higher hire boat licence fee. There was much protest from people who asked how a share boat (in which shares were held by 12 individuals) was any different to a boat owned by a couple, or how 12 owners paying a management organisation to arrange licencing, insurance, maintenance etc. was really any different to a single private owner paying a boatyard to do repairs. Eventually a compromise was reached whereby commercially managed share boat schemes (of the Challenger/Ownerships type) would pay the higher licence fee, but those where the management was done wholly by the co-owners would continue to be regarded as private leisure boats. In such cases one named individual is the point of contact with CRT and is the boat owner as far as they are concerned.

 

The OP's scheme, with him holding half the shares and doing all the management looks to me a little like the commercial type of operation, particularly if the fee structure includes an element of the other 6 owners paying the OP for his management role.

I remember the discussions about commercial and private schemes very well having been deeply involved. Of course the OP  could do what you suggest but if I was a potential purchaser of a share I would hope that it was run properly and above board. Your advice seems to lean towards bending the rules and I would not wish to buy into such a scheme.

 

Howard

[BoatinglifeupNorth]

What happens if the OP’’s boat is a mess? let’s see if @jupiter1124 will put some pictures of his boat on and a value and share price.

  Totally pointless discussing this if the boat involved is a totally unviable project.

  

[nicknorman]

My friend’s boat is in fact Co-owned by 3 other people. It has been thus since they bought the boat in 1990. So I don’t think there can be any “legal” (ie CRT or insurance company) issues.

 

What can be an issue is syndicate members falling out. And as has been mentioned, whether other people would want to join a syndicate where one person was in total control of proceedings.

[haggis]

10 hours ago, David Mack said:

My suggestion would be that you don't even hint at your scheme to CRT. Some years ago BW/CRT decided that shareboat schemes operated much like hire boats, so should pay the higher hire boat licence fee. There was much protest from people who asked how a share boat (in which shares were held by 12 individuals) was any different to a boat owned by a couple, or how 12 owners paying a management organisation to arrange licencing, insurance, maintenance etc. was really any different to a single private owner paying a boatyard to do repairs. Eventually a compromise was reached whereby commercially managed share boat schemes (of the Challenger/Ownerships type) would pay the higher licence fee, but those where the management was done wholly by the co-owners would continue to be regarded as private leisure boats. In such cases one named individual is the point of contact with CRT and is the boat owner as far as they are concerned.

 

 

As it was me who took the case to the Ombudsman all those years ago I don't think that is quite correct. My memory says that a higher licence fee was paid if the management company still owned part of the boat. As that was the case with Challenger, I believe they had to continue paying the higher fee - 247% if I remember correctly. Boats with OwnerShips and other companies started paying the same fee as privately owned boats. Sally Ash of BW fame could never understand the difference between a boat owned by several people and one owned by a company like timeshare and used by several people. 

Thinking back to the saga I have fond memories of Eugene Baston who was on our side and helped "behind the scenes" but not so fond memories of the iWA who when approached refused to help.  

[ditchcrawler]

The agreement between members and what they own and are responsible for has to be watertight 

[Tracy D'arth]

Put the boat into a hire fleet as a sponsored boat and you can still have use of it but the fleet pays the extra licence and insurance etc. The boat has to be up to hire standards though regarding gas certificates, ventilation, heeling test etc.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Put the boat into a hire fleet as a sponsored boat and you can still have use of it but the fleet pays the extra licence and insurance etc. The boat has to be up to hire standards though regarding gas certificates, ventilation, heeling test etc.

This also depends whether the hire fleet wants a boat with whatever features the OPs has -- many fleets want a close-to-their-standard layout, and commonality of fittings (heating, propulsion, electrics...) with the rest of the fleet so they don't have to learn how to maintain a different "one-off" and possible keep spares for it. Apart from the fitout needing to be to hire standards, hire boats are also often designed to be easily maintainable (access hatches etc) in a way that some private boats aren't... 😉

 

It can be a very good scheme to reduce the costs for new boats -- see the Aqua Narrowboats fleet for example -- where they build the boat inhouse to the customer's requirements using their preferred methods and components, but more difficult to make work with an existing private boat -- and such fleets also tend to not want to take on older boats, only new or nearly-new ones.

Edited June 19, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

48 minutes ago, haggis said:

As it was me who took the case to the Ombudsman all those years ago I don't think that is quite correct. My memory says that a higher licence fee was paid if the management company still owned part of the boat. As that was the case with Challenger, I believe they had to continue paying the higher fee - 247% if I remember correctly. Boats with OwnerShips and other companies started paying the same fee as privately owned boats. Sally Ash of BW fame could never understand the difference between a boat owned by several people and one owned by a company like timeshare and used by several people. 

Thinking back to the saga I have fond memories of Eugene Baston who was on our side and helped "behind the scenes" but not so fond memories of the iWA who when approached refused to help.  

Thanks @haggis. Mine was a superficial overview dragged from the depths of my memory, so probably not correct on all points, and I was never directly involved in the the issue.

[yes]

 

We joined a well established syndicate with 5 shares a few years ago.  It has worked very well for 30 years plus, with people joining playing to their existing experience or getting up to speed with new areas over time (Planning/Admin/Mechanics/Other services/Painting)

 

Overtime half shares have emerged, to reflect changes in existing members circumstances.

 

The boat is owned by an unincorporated association with each shareholder a member, but other than that, there are no big complexities.  RCR/CRT all works nicely.

 

I think the main shift from owning your own boat would be 'letting go' to democracy - maintainance decisions, route planning etc. will all need to be made by the wider group, albeit with you likely starting as chief mechanic, administrator, but it will take a little effort from you to actively hand this over to other people.   This goes all the way down to getting used to other peoples driving skills, common sense, preferred crockery/tea bag brand.  If you can be laid back about these, and can find the right partners, then it should be a success.

 

I'd personally say a smaller number of shares will probably get more buy in/commitment (say 5 or 6), with experience building up over time.  We had a really strong response to the last share that was up for grabs, so now is a good time to do it.

Edited June 19, 2023 by yes

[howardang]

13 hours ago, haggis said:

As it was me who took the case to the Ombudsman all those years ago I don't think that is quite correct. My memory says that a higher licence fee was paid if the management company still owned part of the boat. As that was the case with Challenger, I believe they had to continue paying the higher fee - 247% if I remember correctly. Boats with OwnerShips and other companies started paying the same fee as privately owned boats. Sally Ash of BW fame could never understand the difference between a boat owned by several people and one owned by a company like timeshare and used by several people. 

Thinking back to the saga I have fond memories of Eugene Baston who was on our side and helped "behind the scenes" but not so fond memories of the iWA who when approached refused to help.  

As you may remember my wife and I were shareholders in Ownerships like yourselves, and like many others we certainly remember the feeling of injustice in being classed as a commercial operation. We were very grateful for your efforts in fighting our corner with BW/CRT to change the rules,  and in winning an agreement that when all shares in a boat  were totally owned by the owners with no shares being owned by a management company, then those boats were treated in exactly the same way as any other privately owned boat, which was indeed, and meant that we were able to take advantage of a fairer licence fee, rather than being treated as a commercial operation and charged at a higher rate. . We employed Ownerships  to do the day to day operational management until a few years later when they ceased trading, at which time we decided in both our boats, to form owners syndicates and run them in all aspects  by the owners. In our case and in many other shared ownership boats, this arrangement has worked very well and in our case went on until we decided to give boating a break a couple of years ago. I think it is fair to say that over 100 hundred shared boats are run under this basis very satisfactorily. Certainly, my wife and I had many years under this system and enjoyed our involvement and satisfaction in being totally responsible with the rest of the syndicate for looking after our boat.

 

Howard

 

 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by howardang

[davem399]

1 hour ago, haggis said:

As it was me who took the case to the Ombudsman all those years ago I don't think that is quite correct. My memory says that a higher licence fee was paid if the management company still owned part of the boat. As that was the case with Challenger, I believe they had to continue paying the higher fee - 247% if I remember correctly. Boats with OwnerShips and other companies started paying the same fee as privately owned boats. Sally Ash of BW fame could never understand the difference between a boat owned by several people and one owned by a company like timeshare and used by several people. 

Thinking back to the saga I have fond memories of Eugene Baston who was on our side and helped "behind the scenes" but not so fond memories of the iWA who when approached refused to help.  

I remember this period when we were able to get a cheaper licence for our OwnerShips  boat, thanks to your efforts.  If I remember correctly, we had to get a nominated owner to apply for the licence, rather than someone from the OwnerShips office?

 

Our boat is originally an OwnerShips one, now 21 years old and I have been an owner from the start.  It suited the group of owners to be managed when OwnerShips collapsed and we went with ABC, who were into management of shared ownership boats at the time. When they pulled out of this, we went with BCBM, which is where we are today.

 

A couple of the things we kept in place when we went to ABC was the OwnerShips syndicate agreement and holiday allocation method.  For those unfamiliar with the latter, we have school holiday shares, who get to chose their weeks first in the school holiday periods, then the other owners choose.  Each year, the order of choosing weeks changes, as pairs of owners move up two places, and the top pair from the previous year go to the bottom of the list.  Hence, with 12 shares, you move up the list over 6 years, giving you more choice of weeks as you move up.  

 

We tend to move base every couple of years to cruise a new part of the network, and usually to a hire company base who are geared up to perform quick turnarounds between different owners.

[Onewheeler]

Our French boat is shared with a DIY syndicate. Six shares, five partners (one has two shares). Works well but we all get on. We've "bought" months during April - September, but swap fairly promiscuously. The winter months are available for anyone to use so long as they rewinterise, the French canals are largely shut over winter. We pay £600 - £1000 a year depending on how much work is needed and how much is in the account.

[Bod]

Sell your boat.

Buy shares in a ready made syndicate.

Sit back and relax.

 

Bod

[Alan de Enfield]

13 hours ago, dmr said:

Quite a few canal boats and sea going boats are owned by syndicates. I believe, that with sailing boats at least, it is a tradition to split a boat into 12 shares, though any member could own more than one share.

 

(but Google tells me there should be 64 shares so I might be talking bollocks 😀)

 

The legal position that the ownership of a boat is split into 64 shares - If you buy a boat (a real boat) then your bill of sale will show you own 64/64 shares

 

The relevant part of the BoS when we bought Sea-Wolf

 & the full document.

 

 

 

Bill Of Sale MCA.pdf

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The legal position that the ownership of a boat is split into 64 shares - If you buy a boat (a real boat) then your bill of sale will show you own 64/64 shares

Convention or historical practice maybe. But can you show anything that says legally an inland waterway boat can only be held in 64ths?

[MtB]

1 hour ago, Bod said:

Sell your boat.

Buy shares in a ready made syndicate.

Sit back and relax.

 

Bod

 

^^^This^^^

 

The first sensible suggestion so far. 

 

Unless the OP loves office work, administration and being a referee between conflicting share holders. 

[PeterScott]

14 hours ago, jupiter1124 said:

I have owned my boat for many years but as I get on in years I am using it less. And the cost of licensing, mooring and maintenance is increasingly hard to justify. I'd love to rent out the boat while I'm not using it but I gather that that's a non-starter because of ...  So i wondered if perhaps I could skirt around a lot of that and form a syndicate by privately selling off shares in my boat to turn it into a part own share boat. I know that it's done a lot on the waterways so I wondered if that would be an option. Maybe retain half the shares and write into the agreement a (reasonable) fixed monthly maintenance contribution or something like that. ...

Valuable advice in contributions so far.

Try reading/asking Philip at https://www.boatshare.co.uk  who has long experience and thorough knowledge of shared-narrowboats.

 

Nobody has mentioned the view from a possible part-owner. They are likely to pay, say a twelfth of fifty thousand pounds for the capital in the boat, and then maybe a thousand pounds each year for the right to use the boat for a month. Those lumps-of-money may be a stretch for the family. For those of us familiar with boat-maintenance, a thousand-pound job, or five-thousand to sort out the engine, or ... are just something we might shrug-off as one-of-those-things: it could be a major issue for our new part-owner. Even more serious is that small-hole in the pumpout tank, which needs to be replaced for one of those five-thousand-pound jobs, and use the three or four weeks that were the family's WHOLE-YEAR's holiday.  Someone has to tell them the bad news ...