Jump to content

6 month licences ?


onionbargee
 Share

Featured Posts

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...

 

Well I think it states the position perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

I suppose the only gain to be had if fred bloggs licensed your his boat would be that there would be a 12 month license instead of a 6 month one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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?

Your right, I thought fraud was defined as financial gain, but it can be personal gain as well.

 

Then there is the question of can the licence be revoked if CRT find out the name is ficticious ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there is the question of can the licence be revoked if CRT find out the name is ficticious ?

I would have thought that obtaining a license in a false name was fraudulent and would automatically make the license void due to having been obtained criminally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right, I thought fraud was defined as financial gain, but it can be personal gain as well.

 

Then there is the question of can the licence be revoked if CRT find out the name is ficticious ?

 

If they did revoke it, would the ficticious persona launch the judicial review or the real owner? I suspect the game of cat and mouse would end badly for you but it makes for interesting forum posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If they did revoke it, would the ficticious persona launch the judicial review or the real owner? I suspect the game of cat and mouse would end badly for you but it makes for interesting forum posts.

I'm sure by that time the boat would have been sold back to the real owner for £2, and the previous owner Mr Mo Lester has emigrated to Kazakhstan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure by that time the boat would have been sold back to the real owner for £2, and the previous owner Mr Mo Lester has emigrated to Kazakhstan.

 

I'm not so sure you'd get away with it. Worth remembering - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course there are only 3 parties that are interested in what price a boat has sold for....

 

1. the buyer

2. the seller

3. the insurance company (since if a boat has changed hands for 37p and some pocket lint that is the value they will place on it for insurance)

 

CRT aren't interested in the value of the boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course there are only 3 parties that are interested in what price a boat has sold for....

 

1. the buyer

2. the seller

3. the insurance company (since if a boat has changed hands for 37p and some pocket lint that is the value they will place on it for insurance)

 

CRT aren't interested in the value of the boat.

 

Not so.

 

Marine insurance is on the basis of an agreed value (unlike motor insurance).

 

What has been paid for the boat, and its market value, are simply not relevant in the event of a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not so.

 

Marine insurance is on the basis of an agreed value (unlike motor insurance).

 

What has been paid for the boat, and its market value, are simply not relevant in the event of a loss.

when I insured my boat the insurance co refused a figure that was over £1000 above what was paid for the boat even though the price of the boat had been haggled down by several thousand on the basis of work that was required (and had since been carried out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when I insured my boat the insurance co refused a figure that was over £1000 above what was paid for the boat even though the price of the boat had been haggled down by several thousand on the basis of work that was required (and had since been carried out)

 

My insurance company questioned the figure given. The reason was, the figure given for "value" was £500 higher than the figure given for the purchase price. When they asked the question, I answered "because that's what the boat is worth". Since they had also insisted on a survey - including a valuation by the surveyor - and this had been provided in writing, they had no option but to accept the higher figure and accept that I'd done a good deal in buying below the boat's actual value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.