Boat off mooring - salvage claimed

[Seajet]

It is the worst utter scum who tries to benefit from the misfortune of others.

A friend of mine had his motorbike conk out, when he went to recover it, gone; but a quick search found it under a cover at a local house; the lowlife home-owner had bagsied it.

A quick ' chat ' ensued and mate had his bike back.

Seems the same in this case to me, theft with extortion thrown in !

The OP should mention he knows the scrote's address, and openly photograph him when recovering HIS boat, also mentioning that he'd better pray nothing happens to it or said scrote will automatically be deemed responsible and get 10 X any damage inflicted.

A very sad case, hope it works out OK.

 

[pmagowan]

It may not be a wreck, but that doesn't mean it cannot be salvaged. A drifting tanker accepting a tow line from a salvage tug hasn't been "abandoned without hope of recovery" either.

Presumably this definition is why the Receiver of Wreck wasn't interested, but I'm not convinced about the further conclusion that it's therefore "lost property".

Pete

I believe there are 2 possibilities here. One is that a tow is accepted as a tow and the charge is for the tow not the salvage. The other is that the tow is accepted because without it the boat would be at immediate risk of foundering and as such accepting the tow is accepting that you have abandoned her. I remember reading about it and what defines it so I will try and look it up.

 

[Mariner69]

PRV at Post #8 above has set the information out very well.

I used to work in London as a lawyer in salvage and other jobs for big ships and salvage is one of the most interesting areas in Admiralty. We had one case where a new 125 metre ship was launched off the ways in the Caribbean and before the tugs could make fast a small gentlemen in a small boat had picked up a line and claimed salvage. He managed to make life very difficult and whilst he didn't make the mega bucks he thought he was entitled to he did go off happy with about 5 cases of decent Rum (like anchor threads I will not expand on this point).

From the OP's description it is salvage. Asking the police (and the Receiver of Wrecks for that matter) about maritime matters will provide an answer that has little if anything to do with reality since maritime law is complex but very entertaining and it predominately civil action (oil pollution is criminal as well).

IMHO the best step is to see the price of a reasonable mountain bike, weigh the price to the money saved by this guy, and make an offer to him (it doesn't have to be the full amount) and horse trade. It will be cheapest in the long run. In theory your underwriter should do all this for you but it depends very much on the excess involved so even that is not straight forward. When you agree, hand over a cheque and have a receipt signed for 'Full and Final Settlement'.

Also double check the mooring for security to avoid it happening again.

 

[mikefleetwood]

It may not be a wreck, but that doesn't mean it cannot be salvaged. A drifting tanker accepting a tow line from a salvage tug hasn't been "abandoned without hope of recovery" either.

As I recall, such tow are done under the terms of "Lloyds open form" salvage or some-such. Doesn't really apply to my little boat, so I've no idea what that means in practise. I suspect it's some form of international insurance agreement to pay the costs of a tow that falls within certain rules. I would be very surprised if it was applicable in this case, but now they know where to look, perhaps some expert will advise. In any case, I think there has to be agreement before the tow is accepted.

Otherwise, as far as I can see:

1/ in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, it's not a wreck, and wasn't "abandoned without hope of recovery" - so no rights of salvage from that source.
2/ Unlikely to be covered by "Lloyds Open Form" (although I am prepared to be proved wrong) - so again no rights of salvage
3/ It has been pointed out that it is theft to "deprive the owner of the use of his property" - so, at the moment, the boat is technically "stolen".

In the light of all this, I suggest:
1/ the owner thanks his "rescuer" heartily and offers him a token reward for his troubles, say, in the region of £50-100, or equivalent in beers.
2/ if this is not accepted, report to the police that property to the value of £6k (or whatever) has been stolen, and that he knows who has it, and that person has taken steps to prevent him recovering it.

 

[pmagowan]

As I recall, such tow are done under the terms of "Lloyds open form" salvage or some-such. Doesn't really apply to my little boat, so I've no idea what that means in practise. I suspect it's some form of international insurance agreement to pay the costs of a tow that falls within certain rules. I would be very surprised if it was applicable in this case, but now they know where to look, perhaps some expert will advise. In any case, I think there has to be agreement before the tow is accepted.

Otherwise, as far as I can see:

1/ in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, it's not a wreck, and wasn't "abandoned without hope of recovery" - so no rights of salvage from that source.
2/ Unlikely to be covered by "Lloyds Open Form" (although I am prepared to be proved wrong) - so again no rights of salvage
3/ It has been pointed out that it is theft to "deprive the owner of the use of his property" - so, at the moment, the boat is technically "stolen".

In the light of all this, I suggest:
1/ the owner thanks his "rescuer" heartily and offers him a token reward for his troubles, say, in the region of £50-100, or equivalent in beers.
2/ if this is not accepted, report to the police that property to the value of £6k (or whatever) has been stolen, and that he knows who has it, and that person has taken steps to prevent him recovering it.

+1

It may be possible to hint, strongly, to the 'salvager' that although you are thankful for his assistance, it does not count as salvage and that you will remain thankful if he quickly changes his position and hands back your property, for which your thanks may take the form of a reward for their good deed. Should they not adjust their position you will call the police and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law and do what you have to in order to recover your stolen property.

 

[bedouin]

3/ It has been pointed out that it is theft to "deprive the owner of the use of his property" - so, at the moment, the boat is technically "stolen".

No - to be theft you need "permanently" so as there is a clear intention to return the property it is not theft (and therefore as far as I know not criminal).

 

[prv]

I believe there are 2 possibilities here. One is that a tow is accepted as a tow and the charge is for the tow not the salvage. The other is that the tow is accepted because without it the boat would be at immediate risk of foundering and as such accepting the tow is accepting that you have abandoned her.

Nope.

What has happened is that somebody has pointed to a definition of "wreck", and several people on this thread have mistaken it for a definition of "salvage". They are two separate concepts, only tangentially related.

Pete

 

[pmagowan]

No - to be theft you need "permanently" so as there is a clear intention to return the property it is not theft (and therefore as far as I know not criminal).

“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”..

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. .
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.

So, I suspect, although IANAL, that once he is aware that he can not claim salvage then continuing to withhold the property amounts to theft.

 

[prv]

So, I suspect, although IANAL, that once he is aware that he can not claim salvage then continuing to withhold the property amounts to theft.

That's somewhat moot given that he can, in fact, claim salvage, and indeed is in the process of doing so.

Pete

 

[prv]

1/ in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, it's not a wreck, and wasn't "abandoned without hope of recovery" - so no rights of salvage from that source.

You're probably correct that it isn't a wreck. It also isn't a cheeseburger. Neither of these facts have any bearing on whether or not it has been salvaged.

2/ Unlikely to be covered by "Lloyds Open Form" (although I am prepared to be proved wrong) - so again no rights of salvage

Lloyds Open Form is irrelevant, since the parties didn't agree on it before the act took place. It's a simple act of salvage as defined by the relevant law.

3/ It has been pointed out that it is theft to "deprive the owner of the use of his property" - so, at the moment, the boat is technically "stolen".

It's only theft if there's the intent to permanently deprive, and there are all kinds of situations in which it's legitimate to hold onto property without it being theft. I'm not 100% certain in the case of salvage, but in general maritime law is fairly robust in allowing this kind of stuff, due to the traditional difficulty of pursuing an inherently mobile entity like a ship.

Pete

 

[jerrytug]

"WIKI The Law of Salvage" is good, the concept goes back many centuries. He certainly *can* claim salvage, and £100-ish,or a bit more, wouldn't be far off.

 

[pmagowan]

Nope.

What has happened is that somebody has pointed to a definition of "wreck", and several people on this thread have mistaken it for a definition of "salvage". They are two separate concepts, only tangentially related.

Pete

Yes, but the only thing that applies here is the salvage of a wreck as that is the route he took. We are not talking about tows or anything else. They claimed salvage through the reciever of wrecks, which has been denied, if I understand correctly.

 

[Mariner69]

It is simple common law salvage.

 

[prv]

Yes, but the only thing that applies here is the salvage of a wreck as that is the route he took. We are not talking about tows or anything else. They claimed salvage through the reciever of wrecks, which has been denied, if I understand correctly.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I'm not aware of any special distinction between "salvage of a wreck" and ordinary salvage. You don't claim salvage of a vessel through the Receiver of Wreck, so he has quite correctly said "nothing to do with me, guv". Everything else is just swirling misinformation from people (including the Police and Coastguard, sadly) unfamiliar with maritime law. I don't claim to be an expert, and I'd certainly read up on the subject before acting if I was personally involved in this case, but I know enough to recognise that much of what's being said here is complete rubbish.

Note that Post #23 is written by an actual salvage lawyer.

Pete

 

[pmagowan]

I think very few of us are experts, we are just people giving opinions on a forum. If the OP wants an expert then they need to get one from the appropriate place.

It seems in this case Mr Padlock went to reciever of wrecks as he though it was a wreck. It seems it is not.

If I understand correctly, if he is trying to claim common law salvage then he has to prove that the boat was in danger. In this instance I would simply inform the insurance company and let them deal with it. I suppose they would likely bung him £100 to avoid any problems.

Perhaps I should have claimed salvage on the boat that I tied up with my mooring line when it broke free. in the end I got nothing, not even my mooring line back.

 

[prv]

It seems in this case Mr Padlock went to reciever of wrecks as he though it was a wreck.

Hmm, I read that bit of the OP differently. It's not very clear, perhaps MoodySabre can elaborate. I understood it to mean that the owner of the boat asked the Coastguard what to do (not sure why them) and the Coastguard asked the Receiver of Wreck on his behalf. The RoW said it wasn't any of his business, thus starting the red herring of "lost property" and the police.

Red herrings aside, it's a simple salvage claim; the salvor and the owner need to agree a fee for the salvage work that was done. The owner may wish to ask his insurance company to do the negotiating on his behalf, indeed his contract with them might require that if they are to pay the fee that's eventually agreed. Or if the two of them can agree a relatively small fee for what was a fairly simple and low risk bit of work, he needn't trouble the insurers.

As I said back in post #8.

Pete

 

[pmagowan]

Hmm, I read that bit of the OP differently. It's not very clear, perhaps MoodySabre can elaborate. I understood it to mean that the owner of the boat asked the Coastguard what to do (not sure why them) and the Coastguard asked the Receiver of Wreck on his behalf. The RoW said it wasn't any of his business, thus starting the red herring of "lost property" and the police.

Red herrings aside, it's a simple salvage claim; the salvor and the owner need to agree a fee for the salvage work that was done. The owner may wish to ask his insurance company to do the negotiating on his behalf, indeed his contract with them might require that if they are to pay the fee that's eventually agreed. Or if the two of them can agree a relatively small fee for what was a fairly simple and low risk bit of work, he needn't trouble the insurers.

As I said back in post #8.

Pete

Thats probably it.

 

[MoodySabre]

Hmm, I read that bit of the OP differently. It's not very clear, perhaps MoodySabre can elaborate. I understood it to mean that the owner of the boat asked the Coastguard what to do (not sure why them) and the Coastguard asked the Receiver of Wreck on his behalf. The RoW said it wasn't any of his business, thus starting the red herring of "lost property" and the police.

Red herrings aside, it's a simple salvage claim; the salvor and the owner need to agree a fee for the salvage work that was done. The owner may wish to ask his insurance company to do the negotiating on his behalf, indeed his contract with them might require that if they are to pay the fee that's eventually agreed. Or if the two of them can agree a relatively small fee for what was a fairly simple and low risk bit of work, he needn't trouble the insurers.

As I said back in post #8.

Pete

I understand that the owner was told by the coastguard (who had already spoken to the RoW) that the boat had come off its mooring and been padlocked up by XX. This happened 4 days after the boat was padlocked to the rescuers mooring. Perhaps the rescuer got impatient that he hadn't heard from the owner and told the coastguard who was able to find out who the owner was (presumably through the local council moorings organiser).

 

[mikefleetwood]

I don't believe gypsies were involved in this case - no one has mentioned them (so far).

 

[prv]

I understand that the owner was told by the coastguard (who had already spoken to the RoW) that the boat had come off its mooring and been padlocked up by XX. This happened 4 days after the boat was padlocked to the rescuers mooring. Perhaps the rescuer got impatient that he hadn't heard from the owner and told the coastguard who was able to find out who the owner was (presumably through the local council moorings organiser).

Ta, makes sense.

Pete