Stolen Boat Taken From Kensal Green - Blue 34FT Springer

[MtB]

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

 

Yes you can. With shared ownership flats you own a percentage of the lease (often, but not always, 50%) and rent the remaining proportion of the flat from the freeholder until such time as you can afford to buy that too, or you sell up and move on. You get to pay a mortgage AND rent!

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

 

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

 

 

I don't know - from some recent relevations, it seems quite a lot of it may be spent trying to dig up dirt on murder victim's families and friends to try to cover Police arses, unfortunately.

[LoneWolf]

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

 

I think you're being a bit harsh on beezel here mike. seems to me that he's just spotted a boat he used to rent thought something was a bit off done some googling and discovered it has been reported as stolen and is trying to help

 

He's then gone to the trouble of explaining how it worked when he part owned/rented the boat when asked. I'm very interested in this because i'm thinking of maybe doing it in the future and it's good to hear from people who actually have experience of doing it rather than the usual suspects jumping in with the 'it's impossible' line parrot fashion without any experience or actually looking any facts up.

[LoneWolf]

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

 

for clarity, i wasn't including your posts in my 'parrot fashion' comment above and the instances when things go wrong are all being noted but i think it's possible to rent out a boat in a perfectly legit manner by the share route.

If it ever comes to it i will report back in due course

 

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.

 

You mean the selling 1 share and paying rent contract as between the original owner and the OP?

humm...Offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create a legal reationship. yup, It sounds like an enforceable contract to me.

 

If you mean the latest selling of 64 shares when one only owns 1 share then this is the original caveat emptor situation and its tough luck to the person who thought they brought the boat last.

[alan_fincher]

 

He's then gone to the trouble of explaining how it worked when he part owned/rented the boat when asked. I'm very interested in this because i'm thinking of maybe doing it in the future and it's good to hear from people who actually have experience of doing it rather than the usual suspects jumping in with the 'it's impossible' line parrot fashion without any experience or actually looking any facts up.

I don't know if I, (or indeed Lady Muck!), are amongst what you call "the usual suspects" or not, but I would suggest that you can manage to do all manner of things that actually are not soundly based, and the vast majority of the time get away with it, if nothing actually goes wrong. That doesn't automatically then prove they are legal!

 

I'm certainly not intending to have a go at "beezel", who I am prepared to believe came to the arrangement they did in good faith, and thought it was sound.

 

However I don't think the fact that they have done it and had no problems actually proves anything, other than they personally had no problems when they did it.

 

The sheer fact that they say they bought a 1/100 share, but the amount paid was for 1/64, and they don't know why, I would have thought is proof that even if they believe someone else understood exactly what the deal was, there were elements of it that they are still not able to explain themselves.

 

As they have actually said they were paying rent to the person owning 99% of the boat, (or is that 63/64ths of the boat?), to me says you cannot treat this under the same regulations as if it were a private boat.

 

It may actually be worse than this, because if this is being rented out as a residence, I suspect it may well come under the same tight controls about gas appliances as if it were a domestic house. But here I do admit I'm straying into unfamiliar territory, so am not saying this is definitely the case, but I think there is at least a possibility, isn't there?

 

EDIT:

 

LW - If you think it is OK, or believe it might be, can you explain why you believe the less stringent "private" BSS is stated to be adequate, even though 99% of the boat is being hired out for a commercial fee? I can't see how anything other than the BSS regs that apply to a boat let out for hire could possibly apply, or how you could legitimately circumvent this.

Edited July 10, 2013 by alan_fincher

[LoneWolf]

I don't know if I, (or indeed Lady Muck!), are amongst what you call "the usual suspects" or not, but I would suggest that you can manage to do all manner of things that actually are not soundly based, and the vast majority of the time get away with it, if nothing actually goes wrong. That doesn't automatically then prove they are legal!

 

I'm certainly not intending to have a go at "beezel", who I am prepared to believe came to the arrangement they did in good faith, and thought it was sound.

 

However I don't think the fact that they have done it and had no problems actually proves anything, other than they personally had no problems when they did it.

 

The sheer fact that they say they bought a 1/100 share, but the amount paid was for 1/64, and they don't know why, I would have thought is proof that even if they believe someone else understood exactly what the deal was, there were elements of it that they are still not able to explain themselves.

 

As they have actually said they were paying rent to the person owning 99% of the boat, (or is that 63/64ths of the boat?), to me says you cannot treat this under the same regulations as if it were a private boat.

 

It may actually be worse than this, because if this is being rented out as a residence, I suspect it may well come under the same tight controls about gas appliances as if it were a domestic house. But here I do admit I'm straying into unfamiliar territory, so am not saying this is definitely the case, but I think there is at least a possibility, isn't there?

 

EDIT:

 

LW - If you think it is OK, or believe it might be, can you explain why you believe the less stringent "private" BSS is stated to be adequate, even though 99% of the boat is being hired out for a commercial fee? I can't see how anything other than the BSS regs that apply to a boat let out for hire could possibly apply, or how you could legitimately circumvent this.

 

Lady mucks is not a usual suspect because her posts are backed up by experience of actual times when things have gone wrong

i'm still on the fence on you i'd have to check what you actually said

 

Where did i say that i thought the private BSS would apply? We've already heard from BSS Rob who seems fairly credible to me.

I'm not making any comment on the legitimacy of the OPs rental either.

What i'm saying is that i think it is possible to legitimately rent out a boat - getting a 'hire standard' BSS is just one of the hoops to jump through - not a reason to say 'cant be done'

[MtB]

It may actually be worse than this, because if this is being rented out as a residence, I suspect it may well come under the same tight controls about gas appliances as if it were a domestic house. But here I do admit I'm straying into unfamiliar territory, so am not saying this is definitely the case, but I think there is at least a possibility, isn't there?

 

Focusing on this bit, which I know about in quite some detail professionally as both a landlord and a gas bod, you're right the GSIUR apply as it is a residence. In addition, as it is rented residential accommodation the GSIUR demands an annual landlord gas safety inspection and written record.

 

Maximum penalty for failure to comply with this requirement is a six month prison sentence. Most landlords get away with a £20k fine though and an order to comply in future, according to articles in Gas Engineer magazine.

 

All it takes is a tenant to make a complaint to GSR about the LL failing to carry out the annual LGSC, and the full might of the HSE swings into action....

 

 

MtB

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

OK my misunderstanding then!

 

I thought wrongly you were suggesting that what "bezeel" thinks made it all fully legitimate actually did.

 

It sounds as if you actually agree that it wasn't sufficient.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done if you jump through enough hoops, only that I don't accept the explanation that what was done in this case gets around all that was required.

 

So probably we do not disagree after all, I think.

Focusing on this bit, which I know about in quite some detail professionally as both a landlord and a gas bod, you're right the GSIUR apply as it is a residence. In addition, as it is rented residential accommodation the GSIUR demands an annual landlord gas safety inspection and written record.

 

Maximum penalty for failure to comply with this requirement is a six month prison sentence. Most landlords get away with a £20k fine though and an order to comply in future, according to articles in Gas Engineer magazine.

 

All it takes is a tenant to make a complaint to GSR about the LL failing to carry out the annual LGSC, and the full might of the HSE swings into action....

So I conclude whilst you can jump through a lot of hoops, some of those would not necessarily be trivial, and would certainly add further to the overhead costs of trying to do it.

[LoneWolf]

OK my misunderstanding then!

 

I thought wrongly you were suggesting that what "bezeel" thinks made it all fully legitimate actually did.

 

It sounds as if you actually agree that it wasn't sufficient.

 

I'm not saying it can't be done if you jump through enough hoops, only that I don't accept the explanation that what was done in this case gets around all that was required.

 

So probably we do not disagree after all, I think.

So I conclude whilst you can jump through a lot of hoops, some of those would not necessarily be trivial, and would certainly add further to the overhead costs of trying to do it.

 

I dont know if it was sufficient or not as we dont have the facts

 

I haven't considered the share + rent option when i was doing my research - I was thinking more of a more expensive 1 share paid in instalments structure. Possibly with an option to purchase more shares at the end of the term

 

By the way, from the reading ive done recently i've concluded that the reason for going down the share route rather than the 'rent' route is that 'rent' basically means one has to follow the other conditions that would be applicable to hire boats such as having a mooring with full services and a place to safely load and unload etc. These are all sensible for hire boat operators but not really needed for the situation when someone is renting a boat to live on for a year. They still need to be followed which is what would be the expensive tricky part

ie it's not to get around the more stringent BSS regulations

 

It's not a money maker though you're right about that but then some of us still do things for non profit motives

[Lady Muck]

I'd wager that most of the share boats (i.e. landlorded boats) out there are probably still not compliant - I certainly didn't know that one needs the commercial BSS. I wonder if that would then affect your insurance policy?

 

I suppose all the regulation in the world will not stop your tenant if they decide they're going to sell your boat. It's not an arrangement to be entered into lightly and certainly not with someone you don't know.

[madcat]

I hope the proper owner gets their boat back.

I think I would find renting anything out too worrying to contemplate without a tried and tested legal framework to cover the deal. Some people are just not good to deal with.

[mayalld]

no because it is classed as having joint ownership

 

And you know this because?

 

Oh yes, because the man who "rented" the boat to you told you.

[mayalld]

 

 

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

 

 

It seems to me that people who concoct labarinthine shared ownership fictions sidestep the rules that apply to hiring boats out and then find that their "co-owner" rips them of are reaping what they sow.

[alan_fincher]

 

I dont know if it was sufficient or not as we dont have the facts

 

Well then we do disagree at least a bit, after all!

 

I'm convinced that based on what we have been told, the particular arrangement described by "beezel" is not an acceptable work-around to the regulations for a boat that is hired out.

 

To me it seems to fail for multiple reasons, and is a long way short of being "nearly OK". I doubt there is any re-describing or "tweaking" of such an arrangement that would make it legitimate.

 

But, as ever, I am happy to be proved wrong, if I am!

[Chris Pink]

But maybe this country has become like Italy in the 1990s where it is impossible to get up in the morning without breaking some law or another so the 'real' laws become;

 

1. don't get caught

2. If you do get caught, make sure your cousin is in a place of influence.

 

It's all very well tutting at the social and housing crises in this country but then closing off every small possibility the people with less advantages than you have of finding a place within it only exacerbates the issues.

And perhaps if we are going to campaign and tut about people making private agreements - you'll note my use of the word 'private' - to live on a boat then we should also start campaign about those exploiting loopholes in planning law to live on leisure moorings?

[alan_fincher]

I'm not really intending to "tut" Chris, so sorry if that is how it is coming across.

People are ultimately free to try and do what they want to do, and to make their own adult decisions, (of course!).

However I do think it is completely fair to be able to question whether an arrangement that someone has come and very publicly stated is fully legal actually is.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that some people are not very questioning, and may simply take such statements as true, if they go unchallenged.

 

If it is being discussed in the public domain, then I think it reasonable that it is challenged, so that anybody else reading it, more accurately understands the real situation, and can then go into such an arrangement with their eyes open, if that is what they still choose to do once the facts are presented to them.

[Chris Pink]

I don't think anybody should enter any kind of agreement like this without both beware completely aware of the full implications and knowing very well the person they are dealing with.

Unfortunately the people most likely to get burnt in arrangements like this are those who are desperate, those who don't research properly and those who trust inappropriate people. All characteristics of the less advantaged in our society.

Trouble is making layer after layer of law and regulation neither prevents this or helps anybody except the bureaucrats.

 

I have recently seen an advert of someone (desperate by their own admission) looking for a boat to rent. They are walking into this minefield. But they have to live somewhere. They are more likely to be given somewhere to live by an unscrupulous 'Rackman" of the waterways than to leap the hurdles into private renting of land based property. I can only hope, because I know these people slightly that someone honest and decent helps them out.

 

Otherwise what can they do? Couple, small child, dog, no capital - What does someone like this do in this society?

[Lady Muck]

I agree, Chris. Families like this used to squat, didn't they? No social housing, no squats, no chance of renting without a good credit rating and a regular salary.

 

I don't really care about what the law says, what I do care about is people getting hurt, losing their stuff or being ripped off. As you say, people do need to know what they're getting into.

 

Anyone who plans to live on a leisure mooring, cruise a small area. My question to them is always, 'what is your plan B should it be cracked down on and you can no longer meet the requirements?' I'd say most people go on and do it anyway, but hopefully they've thought about it enough. But what if a plan B isn't an option? We're fortunate, we could figure out a plan B no problem.

 

But as you say those who are desperate are the ones who end up getting in trouble. And I've seen heartbreaking stuff, I remember a young family (newborn baby) living on a wooden boat that had been raised after being sunk for a month. The boat was a wreck, really damp and affecting their childs health, but they had no choice to live on it while they waited for it to sell. I have a friend who lost his job and needed to move. Despite trying for months, he could not find a place to rent in London. It's no DSS everywhere. He ended up sofa surfing for almost a year before he mananged to get a job and be able to rent a flat.

 

Anyway, I think it's very important that we have a thread like this, where it can be seen, I think we've set out the pitfalls very well.

 

And think I'd much rather be the landlord of a flat than a boat - boat seems to be on a whole different level of problems!

Edited July 11, 2013 by Lady Muck

[Chris Pink]

Indeed. This couple were living on a GRP boat with a tent on top. They were lucky enough to get a house for the birth of their son but that's apparently come to an end.

 

Plan B's are a luxury, Lady M. We are indeed fortunate if we have one. It's the ones who don't have Plan A i worry about.

 

It's difficult to talk about these things on an open forum. I hope that anyone considering doing something like this talks to people in an environment where the reality can be truly discussed.

 

I've not come across Shelter in a long time, do they have any mandate for the waterways? They were great for squatters in the 70s and 80s. Maybe I'll mosey around and have a look.

[Lady Muck]

I think it's time that Shelter did have a mandate for the waterways, I think BW/CRT have ended up with a nightmare that they didn't create and it;s obvious that they're really not cut out to deal with it either. It seems to have suddenly exploded as the situation on the bankside gets worse.

 

And can we have a slow handclap for the governments of the last 20 odd years for helping to create this mess?

[Chris Pink]

This would appear to be it;

 

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/finding_a_place_to_live/houseboats

 

 

Renting a houseboat

If you rent a houseboat, make sure that it is being rented to you with a residential mooring. Most residential moorings do not allow houseboats to be rented out, so make sure that your landlord has got permission for you to stay there.

Back to top

Useful information on houseboats

You can find out more about living aboard a houseboat from Canal Junction or the Canal & River Trust.

Mind I've just had a look at their website on squatting and that's a joke compared to the real and pertinent information they used to put out in the 70s and 80s.

Would it be cynical of me to believe that Shelter has jumped on the housing association / corporate charity cash cow? I wonder how much their chief executive is paid and how long they are, or expect to be, in post.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Chris Pink

[Lady Muck]

Well, that's going to apply to just about nobody isn't it? *sigh* Reality is thataway ------->

 

I think the bankside (lawyers, local authorities, Shelter), need to be educated better about the waterways.

 

And while I'm following this thread I've got a little tv on in the corner of my monitor, one of those dreadful property progs - someone has just bought a terrace house in Stratford. The voice over says, 'he's going to turn this property into a rent machine!'

 

I feel ill.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Lady Muck

[RLWP]

I think it would be worth splitting this out into a separate thread. The title of this thread doesn't show it contains content on the pitfalls of renting, and has enough potentially incendiary content about this particular boat to catch fire and get locked

 

Richard

[alan_fincher]

I don't think anybody should enter any kind of agreement like this without both beware completely aware of the full implications and knowing very well the person they are dealing with.

 

Unfortunately the people most likely to get burnt in arrangements like this are those who are desperate, those who don't research properly and those who trust inappropriate people. All characteristics of the less advantaged in our society.

 

Trouble is making layer after layer of law and regulation neither prevents this or helps anybody except the bureaucrats.

 

I have recently seen an advert of someone (desperate by their own admission) looking for a boat to rent. They are walking into this minefield. But they have to live somewhere. They are more likely to be given somewhere to live by an unscrupulous 'Rackman" of the waterways than to leap the hurdles into private renting of land based property. I can only hope, because I know these people slightly that someone honest and decent helps them out.

 

Otherwise what can they do? Couple, small child, dog, no capital - What does someone like this do in this society?

Yes,

 

Don't disagree with any of that.

 

I do think those on both sides of any rental and/or shared ownership agreement need to go into it with their eyes open though.

 

It is not necessarily just about protecting the person taking on a "tenancy". However altruistic the owner of the boat may be, they are effectively becoming a landlord, whether officially or unofficially. If what they are renting out, (even if for peanuts and simply as a gesture of goodwill), ends up killing or injuring the "tenants", they could find themselves in one big heap of trouble, however well intentioned they were originally.

 

And so far we are only there in the territory where those on either side of such an arrangement are not deliberately trying to act improperly or rip someone off. Once those possibilities kick in too, particularly if someone is more interested in money than people's safety, then, as LM says, it has the potential to be a minefield.

[Chris Pink]

It's alright Richard, I think we've got a way to go before anyone calls you a petite chatte.

I think it would be worth splitting this out into a separate thread. The title of this thread doesn't show it contains content on the pitfalls of renting, and has enough potentially incendiary content about this particular boat to catch fire and get locked

 

Richard