Benefits, if any of Part 1 registration?

[djs]

Our new (to us) boat used to be part I registered. It's now on the SSR (Part III). Are there any benefits in reinstating the Part I registration before we head off on an extended trip?

the boat is jointly owned.

We don't intend to secure any lending on the boat so there's no requirement for Part I. I just wondered what other long term cruising folk did and whether Part I provided any additional help with officialdom or security for either of us if something should happen to one of us during our trip and the other was left alone with the boat.

Thanks in advance

Dave

 

[maxi77]

The fundamental is that part 1 does establish title which may or may not be important to you.

 

[duncan99210]

The only thing most officals are interested in is a bit of paper saying the boat is registered somewhere. For this, SSR is enough. Simple to get hold of and cheap.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Having an established title, through part I, is useful on re-sale. It removes all doubt about the provenance of the boat. Also the next buyer may value the ability to raise finance.

 

[Tranona]

Can be expensive to re-register as if there is a break you have to effectively start from scratch. speak to the registrar in Cardiff who will advise what you have to do.

As already said, little advantage from the cruising point of view as the SSR is perfectly acceptable, but Part 1 does give a record of ownership that is arguably more secure than your collection of previous Bills of Sale.

May not be an issue but with joint ownership registered the boat cannot be sold without both owners' agreement.

 

[GrahamM376]

May not be an issue but with joint ownership registered the boat cannot be sold without both owners' agreement.

Part 3 registration can also be in joint names. Whilst not proof of ownership, it would most likely raise questions with brokers or potential purchasers if only one person trying to sell.

 

[Tranona]

When I was typing that I realised that joint ownership could be signalled by the previous Bill of Sale - as it is for our boat. However a boat could have joint ownership without a Bill of Sale, and if it is not registered, it would not appear anywhere.

In fact the great weakness of Part 1 is that registration of changes is not compulsory, so the beneficial owner may nnot be the one on the register - exactly the position if the registration has lapsed.

 

[GrahamM376]

One advantage of Part 3 is that the registered length is what you put on the form, which can be used to reduce marina charges, whereas Part 1 requires the boat to be measured so you may have to put up with paying 20% extra because it's 5cm over (say) 12m.

 

[Conachair]

One advantage of Part 3 is that the registered length is what you put on the form, which can be used to reduce marina charges, whereas Part 1 requires the boat to be measured so you may have to put up with paying 20% extra because it's 5cm over (say) 12m.

A voice from the real world. On this side of the pond anyway where you might end up using marinas more. Ssr doesn't have port of registry on it, once or twice I've had officials get a tiny bit perplexed about this, but carried on smiling and wasn't a problem. Also, you aren't supposed to have an Ssr if you are non resident, though in practice this isn't really a problem either if you keep quiet about it and have a proper UK address to use.

 

[GrahamM376]

A voice from the real world. On this side of the pond anyway where you might end up using marinas more. Ssr doesn't have port of registry on it, once or twice I've had officials get a tiny bit perplexed about this, but carried on smiling and wasn't a problem. Also, you aren't supposed to have an Ssr if you are non resident, though in practice this isn't really a problem either if you keep quiet about it and have a proper UK address to use.

We've had no hassle about absent port of registry so far and avoid marinas most of the time. The residence qualification for the SSR has one useful point - "If you are resident in the UK for tax purposes, you will generally be regarded as resident for the purpose of registration".

 

[macd]

...and whether Part I provided any additional help with officialdom or security for either of us if something should happen to one of us during our trip and the other was left alone with the boat.

Overseas officials by and large seem perfectly happy with SSR. One recently accepted my Part 1 most quizzically -- he'd never seen one before! I have it mainly because it came with the boat and I saw no reason to change.

Other than title, the one practical benefit Part 1 provides is a supposed guarantee of consular assistance, which could certainly be useful.

 

[djs]

Thanks All

So it would seem that for us there isn't any 'real world' advantage of Part I over SSR. I admit to having been a little dubious of the SSR after hearing that a marine surveyor on the south coast has his Landrover Discovery on the SSR - apparently done to demonstrate the absence of checks in the registration process.

As has been said it sound like the decison needs to be based purely on whether I'm going to sit more comfortably with solid proof of title.

 

[Tranona]

So it would seem that for us there isn't any 'real world' advantage of Part I over SSR. I admit to having been a little dubious of the SSR after hearing that a marine surveyor on the south coast has his Landrover Discovery on the SSR - apparently done to demonstrate the absence of checks in the registration process.

As has been said it sound like the decison needs to be based purely on whether I'm going to sit more comfortably with solid proof of title.

Your proof of title is your Bill of Sale, not registration. The latter is just what it says - a register showing the details on the Bill of Sale at the time it was registered. If you don't register the change in ownership, then the register is not proof of title. Its security is based on the assumption that changes are registered.

You are right in a way about the SSR, but as it was never intended to be a record of ownership but a way of demonstrating that the boat is covered by UK rules as laid out in the Merchant Shipping Act you can't criticise it for not being something it isn't (although the lack of checks on whether a boat actually exists or the owner qualifies is a bit of a problem for some!)

 

[jimbaerselman]

Your proof of title is your Bill of Sale, not registration.

Errm. Not quite. Without reference to part 1 a bill of sale proves a transaction only. There is an assumption that the seller had full title to the vessel, didn't have a mortgage, or (heaven forbid!) didn't sign another bill the day before. His word only.

Part 1 removes that uncertainty, and insistence that it is updated while cash is in escrow as part of the transaction guards against such a swindle. There's no such guard using part 3.

 

[Tranona]

Errm. Not quite. Without reference to part 1 a bill of sale proves a transaction only. There is an assumption that the seller had full title to the vessel, didn't have a mortgage, or (heaven forbid!) didn't sign another bill the day before. His word only.

Part 1 removes that uncertainty, and insistence that it is updated while cash is in escrow as part of the transaction guards against such a swindle. There's no such guard using part 3.

You are right about removing some of the uncertainty, but registration is not title.

Think about it the other way round. The OP has a boat where registration has lapsed - that is either a change in ownership has not been registered or the registration has not been renewed at the 5 year renewal point. However, he has title through his B of S as the previous owner has passed it to him (or them).

Unless regstration becomes legally compulsory, it will always be just evidence of title, not title itself.

Part 3 was never intended to be registration of any ownership rights so is irrelevant in any transaction involving the boat.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Yes. That's why I said "without reference to".

Reference to a part 1 register will show if it's out of date. It'll also show if the person offering the sale is different from the registered owner. In the first case it's no longer proof of title, but equally, there's be no charge on the boat; in the second you'd ask to see the intermediate bill of sale and query why it wasn't re-registered.

 

[lindsay]

Oh, yes there are!

.......good reasons to prefer Part 1 to SSR. Conachair has it.

If, for example, you are cruising the Mediterranean, and decide to spend some time in one place, then after six months (I think)with the SSR, the local authorities can start bleating about local registration. If you have Part 1, they cannot since you are ostensibily on an integral part of Great Britain..... at least that was the status a few years ago.

I got the info both from a UK source and a local agent who was suprised that such a small ( and scruffy ) yacht could have the Part 1, which he normally associated with big motor yachts. As I also understood it, the UK also expects you to relinquish SSR once you have left, whatever that means, but they are apparently, "flexible" on this.

So, in my book Part 1 well worth the cost in peace of mind.

I agree that this info needs updating and confirming.

 

[Tranona]

If, for example, you are cruising the Mediterranean, and decide to spend some time in one place, then after six months (I think)with the SSR, the local authorities can start bleating about local registration. If you have Part 1, they cannot since you are ostensibily on an integral part of Great Britain..... at least that was the status a few years ago.

I got the info both from a UK source and a local agent who was suprised that such a small ( and scruffy ) yacht could have the Part 1, which he normally associated with big motor yachts. As I also understood it, the UK also expects you to relinquish SSR once you have left, whatever that means, but they are apparently, "flexible" on this.

So, in my book Part 1 well worth the cost in peace of mind.

I agree that this info needs updating and confirming.

Not just updating and confirming but throwing in the bin!

Registration of your boat per se has no influence on the "6 months" issue. That is solely related to the owner's residential status - if at all. If there is an issue of re-registration it applies equally to both types of registration.

As to "relinquishing" SSR there is no mechanism for this. There are rules on eligibility which are based on residence in UK and many people who keep their boats elsewhere meet the requirements and register their boats on the SSR. The eligibility requirements for Part 1 are different and it is possible for a non resident to use that register.

 

[lindsay]

Clarified

Thanks for the clarification. Then, if I understand correctly, if, as a liveaboard, you intend to become a non resident in the UK ( or have become non resident already) and wish to simplify your cruising life, you are better off with Part 1?

If so, this is what I understood in the first place, but for somewhat woolly reasons.

 

[GrahamM376]

Thanks for the clarification. Then, if I understand correctly, if, as a liveaboard, you intend to become a non resident in the UK ( or have become non resident already) and wish to simplify your cruising life, you are better off with Part 1?

Technically you should have part one but, whether you are better off or not depends on you viewpoint - is it worth the cost? There are lots of UK flagged boats on Part 3, owned by foreign nationals who have never set foot in the UK and they get away with it.

Although possibly another debate, whichever route you decide on think very carefully about becoming officially non resident as it can create all sorts of problems if you decide to return at a later date. Friends who returned to the UK after only 3 years had problems finding they were treated worse than immigrants who have never paid contributions. They found they were no longer in the "system" no longer had a GP, problems with pensions etc. Always maintain an address in the UK and, if possible, stay on the electoral role at a family or friends address.