6 month licences ?

[onionbargee]

I don't think there is anything to stop anyone selling their boat to a friend for a pound, and licencing it with them as the new owner to avoid enforcement issues. It has certainly been done before.

[Greylady2]

Kelloggs Cornflakes are giving cut out constant Moorers Licences.

 

At least where I am anyhow.

 

I must not be bitching and keep my mouth shut. (Carry on up the Canal starring Sid James)

 

7 bloody weeks. Pfffft

Edited June 26, 2016 by Greylady2

[MtB]

Kelloggs Cornflakes are giving cut out constant Moorers Licences.

 

At least where I am anyhow.

 

I must not be bitching and keep my mouth shut. (Carry on up the Canal starring Sid James)

 

7 bloody weeks. Pfffft

 

 

Interesting.

 

Here on the K&A, one thing I've noticed is that most boats really do move every two weeks. Boaters here are far more compliant than on they southern Oxford where overstaying is rife.

[Greylady2]

Interesting.

 

Here on the K&A, one thing I've noticed is that most boats really do move every two weeks. Boaters here are far more compliant than on they southern Oxford where overstaying is rife.

Yer I don't want to be a do Gooder and will never snitch or name but geesh.

 

Right next to a water point too. :-(

 

Mtb 95% here are OK but it's the dirty dozen that spoil it.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Greylady2

[Paul C]

I don't think there is anything to stop anyone selling their boat to a friend for a pound, and licencing it with them as the new owner to avoid enforcement issues. It has certainly been done before.

 

Sounds fraudulent, though.

[magnetman]

Yes but you'd need several friends. Also if you sold the boat to a friend of a friend for a pound then maybe they would no longer be your friend but would have your boat?

 

For some reason I think this leads to trouble and if you keep using the same friend someone at CRT will notice it.

[Jerra]

 

Sounds fraudulent, though.

Sounds risky unless you have absolute total faith that the friend wont be tempted by getting a boat worth a few thousand for £1.

[Greylady2]

I have £2 any boats going cheap ?

[MtB]

I have £2 any boats going cheap ?

 

 

I'll build you one like this for two quid!

 

[Greylady2]

I'll build you one like this for two quid!

 

Looks more sea Worthy than a couple I saw last week.

 

1 half sunk, tother needed torpedo'ing

[onionbargee]

Sounds risky unless you have absolute total faith that the friend wont be tempted by getting a boat worth a few thousand for £1.

I didn't mean that the friend actually owns the boat, you are just using their details on the licence form.

[Arthur Marshall]

I didn't mean that the friend actually owns the boat, you are just using their details on the licence form.

I suppose it comes down to what the license actually does. If it just lets the boat float about, it won't matter whose name is on it. But presumably the licensee is the one CRT will pursue for any misdemeanours, or would they keep a separate record of the owner? And if the boat causes damage, who is liable? Owner, driver or licensee?

Worms, can of, probably.

[Jerra]

I didn't mean that the friend actually owns the boat, you are just using their details on the licence form.

I was commenting on the post which said:

 

I don't think there is anything to stop anyone selling their boat to a friend for a pound, and licencing it with them as the new owner to avoid enforcement issues. It has certainly been done before.

 

As far as I am aware their is no way of selling that doesn't transfer ownership. Just having a different name on the license is somethjng else IMO.

[Mike Todd]

Kelloggs Cornflakes are giving cut out constant Moorers Licences.

 

At least where I am anyhow.

 

I must not be bitching and keep my mouth shut. (Carry on up the Canal starring Sid James)

 

7 bloody weeks. Pfffft

I thought from another thread that Peel now had the most attentive Enforcement Officer on the system.

 

(Since some folk on this forum don't always understand my oblique humour, I recall that Kellogs is on Bridgewater)

[Greylady2]

I thought from another thread that Peel now had the most attentive Enforcement Officer on the system.

 

(Since some folk on this forum don't always understand my oblique humour, I recall that Kellogs is on Bridgewater)

I was being subjective to the cut out tokens kelloggs use to give away. Lol

 

Kellogs is on the Barton Dock Road indeed Manchester, no where near me though Hehe.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Greylady2

[mayalld]

I was commenting on the post which said:

 

I don't think there is anything to stop anyone selling their boat to a friend for a pound, and licencing it with them as the new owner to avoid enforcement issues. It has certainly been done before.

 

As far as I am aware their is no way of selling that doesn't transfer ownership. Just having a different name on the license is somethjng else IMO.

 

Perhaps we are talking about "friends" in the same way as Chris Pink's "friends" who turn up and post here from time to time.

[MtB]

 

As far as I am aware their is no way of selling that doesn't transfer ownership. Just having a different name on the license is somethjng else IMO.

 

This is the point to my question from earlier that no-one seems to get!

 

Is it possible to licence a boat you don't own?

[Arthur Marshall]

Insurance etc would have to in your name too , as if it ain't , you can't have a licence. You'd also have to pay for the Safety cert for the same reason. If you weren't CC, the mooring would have to be... Might as well buy a boat.

Actually, I suspect the answer is no, or some plonker could licence my boat without telling me, which would be a nuisance.

[David Mack]

 

 

Is it possible to licence a boat you don't own?

 

The licencing stuff on the CRT website refers to the applicant for a licence for a boat, rather than the boat owner, suggesting that these can be different people. But then there are references to "your boat" and the need to notify a change of ownership, which are couched in terms of the licence holder being the owner. A bit grey really, but since they don't specifically require the owner to apply for the licence, I would say it is OK for someone other than the owner to be the licence holder. Same as with a a car, where the DVLA stuff is clear that it is the Registered Keeper who taxes a car, and not necessarily the owner.

Insurance etc would have to in your name too , as if it ain't , you can't have a licence. You'd also have to pay for the Safety cert for the same reason. If you weren't CC, the mooring would have to be... Might as well buy a boat.

Actually, I suspect the answer is no, or some plonker could licence my boat without telling me, which would be a nuisance.

 

The BSS can be in a different name - often is if the boat has been sold with a current certificate.

[onionbargee]

There is nothing in the licence process that can't be done in an invented name. I have a feeling that CRT can't actually check the insurance policies, I may be wrong on that. The BSC is for the boat, and not the owner, payment can be from anyones account, or in cash. There is no requirement to prove your identity in any of the licence process.

 

A licence is not proof of ownership, so no one would licence someone else's boat without their knowledge.

[NigelMoore]

 

The licencing stuff on the CRT website refers to the applicant for a licence for a boat, rather than the boat owner, suggesting that these can be different people. But then there are references to "your boat" and the need to notify a change of ownership, which are couched in terms of the licence holder being the owner. A bit grey really, but since they don't specifically require the owner to apply for the licence, I would say it is OK for someone other than the owner to be the licence holder. Same as with a a car, where the DVLA stuff is clear that it is the Registered Keeper who taxes a car, and not necessarily the owner.

 

The BSS can be in a different name - often is if the boat has been sold with a current certificate.

 

Agreed. I see no reason, for the moment, why anybody could not legitimately apply for a licence for a boat they do not own, provided that the owner consented. The applicant and holder of the licence would be considered the ‘master’ of the boat and liable to CaRT for any breaches of the byelaws etc [but then any temporary ‘master’ would be so liable anyway].

 

It would be the owner, however, who suffered any consequences arising from seizure under s.8.

 

Furthermore, only the owner [as someone with an ‘insurable interest’ could take out a comprehensive insurance policy, though that policy could include anyone he allowed to have control of it – and I rather think [without checking] that a relevant third party only insurance policy can be obtained for any boat you intended to take control of, regardless of whether you owned it.

 

This is all ‘off the cuff’ comment though, not to be relied upon.

 

[NigelMoore]

A licence is not proof of ownership, so no one would licence someone else's boat without their knowledge.

 

I think you are slightly confusing issues here? It is true – as David Mack has said - the licence for the boat, as with a licence for a car, is not proof of ownership, but why should that prevent anyone licensing a boat without the owner’s knowledge? It merely requires certain false details to be provided as to the identity of the boat.

 

It has been done before – the most carefully planned theft of a hire narrowboat was carried out doing just this. The couple checked out the boat they intended to take – measurements etc - planned a colour change and built disguising additions beforehand. They then successfully applied to BW for a licence for the boat as a newcomer to the system under a different boat name [having already taken out insurance in that name].

 

They then hired the boat for a couple of weeks, during which time they repainted it and modified the exterior with the pre-built additions, to suit their new licence plates.

 

[HaulierP]

 

Agreed. I see no reason, for the moment, why anybody could not legitimately apply for a licence for a boat they do not own, provided that the owner consented. The applicant and holder of the licence would be considered the ‘master’ of the boat and liable to CaRT for any breaches of the byelaws etc [but then any temporary ‘master’ would be so liable anyway].

 

It would be the owner, however, who suffered any consequences arising from seizure under s.8.

 

Furthermore, only the owner [as someone with an ‘insurable interest’ could take out a comprehensive insurance policy, though that policy could include anyone he allowed to have control of it – and I rather think [without checking] that a relevant third party only insurance policy can be obtained for any boat you intended to take control of, regardless of whether you owned it.

 

This is all ‘off the cuff’ comment though, not to be relied upon.

 

I wonder about the relevance of all this conjecture regarding what can and can't be done regarding ownership and Licensing with

some people on here apparently delighting in spending their time playing "Spot the Loophole".

In 35 years afloat I have at times done all of the above and not to be obstructive or avoid paying my way,but more often than not as

a way of protecting an asset as I built up a small business etc.

[Arthur Marshall]

In the T&Cs for the licence to be issued to you, it defines "you" as " You, your, or yours’ means the owner or lawful keeper as described in the application or renewal form and includes a person in charge of the Boat with the permission of the owner or lawful keeper."

Not sure if that helps...

[Paul C]

There is nothing in the licence process that can't be done in an invented name. I have a feeling that CRT can't actually check the insurance policies, I may be wrong on that. The BSC is for the boat, and not the owner, payment can be from anyones account, or in cash. There is no requirement to prove your identity in any of the licence process.

 

A licence is not proof of ownership, so no one would licence someone else's boat without their knowledge.

 

The wording of the Fraud Act 2006 is quite broad-reaching. You're either dishonetly making up/using these invented names etc for a gain of some kind; or there's no gain.

 

If there's a gain - its fraud.

If there's no gain - what's the point?