Stolen Boat Taken From Kensal Green - Blue 34FT Springer

[WJM]

 

 

 

You could buy a 1/64 share in a cargo, or fishing, vessel but you wouldn't have any right to tell it where to go. You would with most contracts be entitled to a share of profits but i still think that would have to be agreed rather than assumed.

It depends very much on the contract. Any shareholding in a commercial vessel will use a fairly standard and time-proven contract to define rights and authorities.

 

If this 'vehicle' for bypassing rental law is not based on a thoroughly comprehensive contract then the whole situation could be wide open for an opportunist.

 

And since this wheeze does not appear to have been done before, the chances of the contract being thorough are greatly reduced.

[Chris Pink]

Ah, so I was partially correct!

Haggis

 

Interesting. Seems like common sense anyway. Mainly ventilation and increased gas safety, no?

[Mike Tee]

I've just re-read the last few pages of this thread and I think I'm losing the will to live!

 

Does the Inland Revenue follow these forums and has tax been paid on all this rent?

 

Now going out to sit in the sun while its still shining.

[WJM]

Does the Inland Revenue follow these forums and has tax been paid on all this rent?

No - they don't have the resources. They use system with higher probabilities of results.

[Lady Muck]

In a nutshell - boat rentals - don't even go there!

[beezel]

amen to that.

 

 

to finish up CRT are very interested in this and so are the police

[lynalldisocvery]

amen to that.

 

 

to finish up CRT are very interested in this and so are the police

Im sure interested and actually doing something are two different things altogether.

Anyway what is your response to the question from Chazzy at the top of this page?

 

 

Lynall

[Naughty Cal]

Im sure interested and actually doing something are two different things altogether.

Anyway what is your response to the question from Chazzy at the top of this page?

 

 

Lynall

That's an interesting point. Just how many "owners" does this boat have right now?

[MtB]

im sorry i cant say where it is.

Why not?

 

MtB

P.S. I'd say you can, but have decided not to. One wonders why....

[beezel]

That's an interesting point. Just how many "owners" does this boat have right now?

okay guys im not interesting in arguing here.

 

to answer all questions.

 

1) i rented 1% from owner at end of tenancy he purchased my 1% back by returning my deposit. (chazzy)

 

example. . . . . .

boat value is £20000

divide by 64 = £312.50 (dont ask me why its divide by 64. for some reason it just is)

 

£312.50 was my 1% share

so i paid a deposit of £312.50 (my 1%share)

my monthly rent was £312.50 (THIS IS RENT ONLY. NOT PURCHASING MORE SHARES)

 

joint ownership meant i needed to have my own insurance for contents only. everything else was covered by landlords/majority owners insurance

BSS was checked and found to be okay with these arrangements.

 

 

 

2) i no where the boat is but cant tell you MtB because for all i no you might be the crook who nicked it (no offence). im sorry but its a need to no kinda thing.

plus ive been asked by CRT and the police not to. as boaters and there community talk a lot and they didnt want to spook the criminal(s)

 

3) the boat has only and ever had 2 owners as per the contract the owner had drawn up (99% owner and 1% to the tennant)

 

CRT no were the boat is and so do the police as ive given them photos and GPS coordinates

 

CRT say its a civil dispute BUT also that the boat might have been fraudulently sold making it a criminal offence.

it seems that the new tenant is trying to rip of the true owner by selling there 1% (£312.50) as if they owned 100% (£20000)

 

my involvement in this debarkal of a story is.

i went to go and view a boat only to find this very boat in question (ABACUS 72101) but re-painted and disfigured.

2 days later by chance searching google "springer 34ft" brought up "lady mucks" forum page

 

Stolen Boat Taken From Kensal Green - Blue 34FT Springer

 

with a picture of it too. taken i might add by what looks like the fraudulent party involved

 

i posted on this forum because i rented the very boat in question 18 months ago without ANY problems

and was trying to reach the landlord/owner to helpout as id seen the boat that previous weekend but he's changed his mobile number.

thanks to some advice from some of the posts here ive made contact and things are being delt with

 

As a boater on the cut and a descent human being i dont want to see a good man lose his £20000 boat for £312.50

 

hope this answers all questions

Edited July 10, 2013 by beezel

[Chris Pink]

(dont ask me why its divide by 64. for some reason it just is)

 

 

hope this answers all questions

 

Not quite all questions;

 

 

The Act for the Registration of British Vessels in 1845 and The Merchant Shipping Acts of 1854 :

• that the property in a ship shall be divided into 64 shares;
• that not more than 64 individuals shall be entitled to be registered at the same time as owners of any one ship;
• that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as Owner of a fractional part of a share in a ship but any number of persons not exceeding five may be registered as joint owners of a ship or of any share or shares therein.

and previous to that;

A minute of the General Shipowners Society of December 11, 1823, records the Committee also conceive that the division of the property on ships, into sixty four assumed shares, upon the binary principle of halving the ship, and proportions under each, down to a sixty-fourth part, will be found in practice to be a more convenient system.

From http://www.lr.org/Images/25%2064%20Shares_tcm155-173538.pdf

I always thought Mike the Boilerman was a bit dodgy.

A corollary:

 

Does anyone know why this doesn't apply to canal boats;

 

 

"The British Registry Act of 1786, in the reign of George III, enlarged the scope of the boundary of registration and made it compulsory for every owner of a vessel of 15 tons or more to have the tonnage measurement ascertained and a certificate of registry to contain full particulars, dimensions etc."

Edited July 10, 2013 by Chris Pink

[MtB]

it seems that the new tenant is trying to rip of the true owner by selling there 1% (£312.50) as if they owned 100% (£20000)

 

I'm totally confused by the whole situation, as will be any of the authorities I bet.

 

I'll focus on the one bit I find easy. A 1% share of a £20k boat would be £200.00, not £312.50.

 

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

okay guys im not interesting in arguing here.

 

to answer all questions.

 

1) i rented 1% from owner at end of tenancy he purchased my 1% back by returning my deposit. (chazzy)

 

example. . . . . .

boat value is £20000

divide by 64 = £312.50 (dont ask me why its divide by 64. for some reason it just is)

 

£312.50 was my 1% share

so i paid a deposit of £312.50 (my 1%share)

my monthly rent was £312.50 (THIS IS RENT ONLY. NOT PURCHASING MORE SHARES)

 

joint ownership meant i needed to have my own insurance for contents only. everything else was covered by landlords/majority owners insurance

BSS was checked and found to be okay with these arrangements.

 

So if I'm a hire company, can I "sell" 1/100 (or 1/64???) of my hire boat to each new set of hirers, (treating it as a deposit), making them minority owners, then simply buy that share back at the end of their hiring.

 

In that way I can then licence and BSS as a private boat?

 

I'm surprised Alvechurch, Black Price, Viking etc have not picked up on this as a way of keeping their costs down!

[Naughty Cal]

I'm totally confused by the whole situation, as will be any of the authorities I bet.

 

I'll focus on the one bit I find easy. A 1% share of a £20k boat would be £200.00, not £312.50.

 

 

MtB

It wouldnt be a 1% share it would be a 1/64 share

So if I'm a hire company, can I "sell" 1/100 (or 1/64???) of my hire boat to each new set of hirers, (treating it as a deposit), making them minority owners, then simply buy that share back at the end of their hiring.

 

In that way I can then licence and BSS as a private boat?

 

I'm surprised Alvechurch, Black Price, Viking etc have not picked up on this as a way of keeping their costs down!

I expect it isnt as easy as that otherwise they would all be doing it

[Lady Muck]

Oh, it's easy alright, there are lots of people doing it already, but it doesn't make it legit. It all works just fine until something goes wrong. I wonder if CRT are treating it as a civil dispute because the contract is worthless? Just a thought.

[Naughty Cal]

Why would CRT be interested?

 

So long as it licenced they wont care.

[Athy]

So if a stolen car displays a tax disc the police won't bother trying to stop it?

[Naughty Cal]

So if a stolen car displays a tax disc the police won't bother trying to stop it?

The police will have an interest in a stolen boat much the same as a stolen car. But why should CRT be interested. The DVLA dont head out looking for every stolen car.......

[Grace and Favour]

The police will have an interest in a stolen boat much the same as a stolen car. But why should CRT be interested. The DVLA dont head out looking for every stolen car.......

Maybe CRT are interested because the baot 'may' not be correctly licenced (in their opinion)

Or it may be that the owner(s) are doing this with more than one boat, and CRT wish to pull them up short?

It may be that CRT are as confused as we are - and wish to understand the MO better?

[Lady Muck]

Because a boat that's incorrectly licensed can be removed? CRT are very interested, they do deal with these incidents and it's a nightmare for them having to sort these disputes out (and there are a lot!)

[MtB]

Interesting isn't it. 99% of boaters play with a straight bat, and administration of their accounts costs 1% of the licencing and enforcing team budgets.

 

The remaining 1% of boaters try to blag the system with invented stories and convoluted rubbish like this 1% share being rented, bought back, sold on, stolen, etc and endless time gets expended by the office people at CRT, BSS, and police. I bet 99% of the work done by the licencing and enforcement teams is caused by the twaddle spouted by the 1% such as poster beezel and Paul Davies.

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

Interesting isn't it. 99% of boaters play with a straight bat, and administration of their accounts costs 1% of the licencing and enforcing team budgets.

 

The remaining 1% of boaters try to blag the system with invented stories and convoluted rubbish like this 1% share being rented, bought back, sold on, stolen, etc and endless time gets expended by the office people at CRT, BSS, and police.

Except I don't imagine for a moment that for licensing purposes CRT ever knew this boat as anything other than 100% owned by the "renting" owner.

 

(Or at least, not until now!)

 

I suspect in the eyes of CRT, the boats insurers, and the BSS office this remained just a boat in single private ownership.

 

 

 

I bet 99% of the work done by the licencing and enforcement teams is caused by the twaddle spouted by the 1% such as poster beezel and Paul Davies.

 

MtB

I bet it isn't!

[Chris Pink]

Interesting isn't it. 99% of boaters play with a straight bat, and administration of their accounts costs 1% of the licencing and enforcing team budgets.

 

The remaining 1% of boaters try to blag the system with invented stories and convoluted rubbish like this 1% share being rented, bought back, sold on, stolen, etc and endless time gets expended by the office people at CRT, BSS, and police. I bet 99% of the work done by the licencing and enforcement teams is caused by the twaddle spouted by the 1% such as poster beezel and Paul Davies.

 

MtB

 

Interesting idea Mr B. - 99% of the police budget is spent dealing with criminals.

 

Really? Shocking!!!

[MtB]

Interesting idea Mr B. - 99% of the police budget is spent dealing with criminals.

 

Really? Shocking!!!

Is it? I thought 99% of the Police budget was spent on hassling motorists.

 

 

MtB

[WJM]

 

1) i rented 1% from owner at end of tenancy he purchased my 1% back by returning my deposit. (chazzy)

 

 

 

3) the boat has only and ever had 2 owners as per the contract the owner had drawn up (99% owner and 1% to the tennant)

 

 

it seems that the new tenant is trying to rip of the true owner by selling there 1% (£312.50) as if they owned 100% (£20000)

 

 

You cannot be an owner AND a tenant at the same time - the two are mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

(btw, when you refer to knowledge the word is 'know', not 'no')