Boatyard won’t release boat

[Bru]

One point in law ... the marina cannot have a lien on the boat* and if the sale is completed cannot pursue the new owner for debts incurred by the previous owner

(* The circumstances where a maritime lien upon a vessel that persists after sale are very tightly proscribed and do not include mooring / yard fees or bills for work carried out)

However, this is a bit of a moot point since the boat is out of the water and will require the cooperation of the marina for it to be launched.

 

[HissyFit]

I found this to be interesting reading: Berthing & storage: What to do when boat owners don’t pay their fees

Extract:

Harbours, Docks & Piers Clauses Act 1847

This Act applies to marinas that were created by special Acts of Parliament and are therefore usually commercial or fishing ports.

The marina can arrest or detain any boat that is berthed or stored in the marina in respect of which there are outstanding fees (known as “rates” under the Act). The boat can be detained until the fees are paid or, in the event that they are not paid, the marina can sell the boat. The marina is entitled to do so without the need for authorisation from the court. The action is taken against the boat and not the owner so it does not matter if the current location of the owner is not known by the marina.

To exercise the power, the marina must make a formal demand for the outstanding fees. If they remain unpaid, the marina can then arrest the boat by serving a notice that it has been seized in accordance with the Act. The notice is served by placing it on the boat. The notice should also be sent to the owner (if the marina knows where they are). If the fees are not paid within 7 days of serving the notice of arrest, the marina can have the boat valued by two independent valuers and sold. The proceeds of sale will be used to pay the outstanding fees and the marina will have to account to the owner for the balance."

This does not involve a lien, and I wonder why more marinas don't use it to get rid of more abandoned boats when they outstay their welcome.

 

[Fanny Haddock]

Ah, that finally puts the outstanding bill into some perspective. In now seems clearer that the previous owner either settles the bill as anticipated or, one way or another, the deal is off and you get your money back which would be a very unsatisfactory outcome.

Except he's already spent it on a racing yacht. I would have gone for a 10% deposit/90% balance but here's hoping all goes well.

 

[LittleSister]

Or the seller whp has 90 % of the money does a runner and you are left with ? Why has he not paid yet?. And more costs.
Hope all turns out well.
Steveeasy

His bill is 4x this amount.

Ouch! I wish you lots of luck in sorting it out.

Not good looking on first appearances. On the other hand, assuming the 90% of the value of the boat is within the small claims court limit the 'seller' is not in such strong position at all. He can do a runner from the yard bill, but if that happened the prospective purchaser should have an easy time getting the small claims court to determine in his favour for the whole of the amount paid (plus any costs). The seller would then owe the whole of the 90% the prospective purchaser has paid, plus the 40% owed to the boatyard, plus the yard fees racking up still further as time passes, plus he will have an unsold boat he doesn't want deteriorating in the yard. So he would be risking maybe 150% or more of the boat's previous sale price to save 40%.

So I doubt, and very much hope, that it will not come to that.

Neither the buyer nor the seller is in a strong position here, and it will likely be in everyone's best interest to overcome the apparent recent breakdown in communication, fulfil the obligations of the Bill of Sale, and complete the sale.

I hope WayneP is happily sailing his new purchase very soon.

 

[RichardS]

Except he's already spent it on a racing yacht. I would have gone for a 10% deposit/90% balance but here's hoping all goes well.

Whether he's spent the money or not, he will have to cough up eventually or the CC Enforcement Officers will seize goods to the value .... and that could well include both the sale yacht and the racing yacht.

Richard

 

[Fanny Haddock]

This does not involve a lien, and I wonder why more marinas don't use it to get rid of more abandoned boats when they outstay their welcome.

Possibly because it only applies to ... "marinas that were created by special Acts of Parliament and are therefore usually commercial or fishing ports."

I don't know but that's the obvious reading. Most clubs, marinas & yards weren't, hence the hassles they have?

Sometimes they are in the wrong, I'll accept, but mostly it's irresponsible owners. I wonder if some kind of insurance fix/bond could be applied? Or is it just cheaper to pay one of the lads to get to work with a chainsaw?

 

[JumbleDuck]

You are making it too complicated.

And by conflating multiple clauses you are making it too simple. This is not the purchase of a new boat from a mass manufacturer.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I held back some money until the yacht is in the water. We completed a bill of sale.

I’ve asked the boatyard to move the boat onto a lorry in the next few weeks.

How long after the boat has been put on a lorry will it be until it goes in the water? Is the seller committed to paying yard fees at the destination and before launch? Who is paying for loading, unloading and, eventually, launching?

 

[JumbleDuck]

Are to they being paid or accruing to cause another problem later?

We simply don't know, although some of us claim to ...

 

[Caraway]

How long after the boat has been put on a lorry will it be until it goes in the water? Is the seller committed to paying yard fees at the destination and before launch? Who is paying for loading, unloading and, eventually, launching?

Once it has left the yard it is surely the new owner's responsibility.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Once it has left the yard it is surely the new owner's responsibility.

One would like to think so, but we have been told that the seller will pay bills until launch and that the buyer will withhold money until sea trials, which seems to me to make the situation where the boat simply vanishes on a lorry potentially complicated. But I am assured that its all very simple, which is nice.

 

[Tranona]

And by conflating multiple clauses you are making it too simple. This is not the purchase of a new boat from a mass manufacturer.

Indeed, no, it is much simpler as this is just a transaction between 2 private persons with a very simple verbal contract. The contract is the key - the BoS is a side issue and its only importance is as a record of the completed contract - that is when all the conditions of the contract are complete. That has not happened yet. It is almost identical to the contract that covered the sale of Tranona except the buyer paid the full price before I handed over the boat even though the final bits of work were not complete (last minute hitch with the propeller) and therefore the boat was not launched and all bills paid until 3 days later

 

[Tranona]

One would like to think so, but we have been told that the seller will pay bills until launch and that the buyer will withhold money until sea trials, which seems to me to make the situation where the boat simply vanishes on a lorry potentially complicated. But I am assured that its all very simple, which is nice.

The OP has been contradictory on this point - or rather has not explained why the boat is being moved rather than launched at the yard.

 

[Mark-1]

I can understand why both parties would be a bit jumpy but there really is no reason to think this will blow up in either's face.

We all buy/sell stuff on eBay - that could go wrong yet it usually works fine. I've bought stuff/sold stuff on forums that have involved me trusting a stranger with a few hundred quid and vice versa.

Most people are basically honest. In this case I'm pretty sure both parties have the other's address.

Sooner or later we'll all get stung, but most likely this time won't be the OP's turn. Apart from anything else the Seller has every motive to pay the yard fees - if he doesn't his boat is going to be unsold and he'll have someone chasing him through the courts.

(Having said all that the whole idea of 10pc of the value of the boat being determined after the sale seems almost designed to create a "It needs this job done" "No it doesn't " argument. Would have been much simpler to share the risk and knock 5pc off the price.)

 

[penberth3]

I can understand why both parties would be a bit jumpy but there really is no reason to think this will blow up in either's face.......

On the information given, there's every reason to think the seller has a casual attitude towards money and settling debts.

 

[Refueler]

TBH ... I now only read odd posts here as it seems to have lost the plot.

Guy has a problem .. he's talked to the other parties .... he's changed conditions of final action from launch onsite to trucking away ...

So as I see it all the barrack room stuff is out the window ....

I wait for OP to updeate us with final action / result ...

 

[Mark-1]

On the information given, there's every reason to think the seller has a casual attitude towards money and settling debts.

Is there? He doesn't know what the storage fees are until the day the boat is put on the lorry on an unspecified date.

....and what's his motivation to refuse to pay his outstanding fees on time? Does he secretly not want to sell his boat and want the yard to refuse to let it go? If he's trying to steal 90pc of the value of the boat from the OP he's not chosen a very subtle method.

I'd agree this arrangement could go wrong but so far there's no indication that it will. I'd expect him to pay the fees shortly before leaving when he's given a fixed date for the collection of the boat.

I see the main risk here is that there's a problem the OP identifies that the seller doesn't regard as a problem, but I suspect they'll both be reasonable about that.

I understand the OP's unease, I'd be feeling a bit jumpy too, but most likely this will be fine. (And perhaps a lesson learned for the future!)

 

[JumbleDuck]

Indeed, no, it is much simpler as this is just a transaction between 2 private persons with a very simple verbal contract.

I understood the contract to be in writing. Perhaps we have very different ideas of "very simple" - two separate conditional clauses based on launching and performance for a boat which is not imminently to be launched seems a bit tricky to me.

 

[JumbleDuck]

TBH ... I now only read odd posts here as it seems to have lost the plot.

Guy has a problem .. he's talked to the other parties .... he's changed conditions of final action from launch onsite to trucking away ...

One condition (paying for storage) was based on launch. Another (retention of payment) was based on a sea trial. How does a unilateral change to trucking away change either? I don't think we can tell without knowing what's in the contract, and if it is - as has now been suggested - a purely verbal one, that could get tricky.

 

[Caraway]

The two charges are unrelated. The vendor needs to pay his costs to the yard (he does need to anyway, whatever transpires).
Until he does he cannot conduct the sea trail, and get the remaining 10% of his money.
So it is incumbent on him to set the ball rolling by paying the yard.
Whether he gets the other 10% is not an issue with regard to the yard costs.. That is to do with the boat being as good as he says it is.

So, having spent the 90% on another boat and having gone racing in that already, does he have the money to pay the yard? Is he stringing it out until he does?

Having said this I sold a competition car to someone from down south. He insisted on paying about a third deposit.
He didn't rush to pay the balance and when I spoke to him it seemed he was having difficulty persuading his other half it was a good idea. So he gave backword on the deal , but insisted I kept the deposit. I thought that very honourable.