Boatyard won’t release boat

[JumbleDuck]

Have you the Bill of Sale at hand to read it ?

Either of us could be right - depends on the wording. It could be signed with a clause of needing full monies paid before taking force ...

I think the OP said they used the RYA standard Bill of Sale, so I attach Google's first guess. Doesn't say the full amount has to be paid, just that it has been. I imagine (IANAL and my imagination could be hopelessly wrong) that one could have a contract saying "buy my boat and even after it's yours I'll pay the yard fees for x months" in a sort of "cash-back" way.

Isn't there a saying about verbal contracts and the paper they're printed on?

 

[Caraway]

There are none so blind........................................amen!

You're an optician?

 

[Caraway]

This is almost as good as a Collision Regs thread. Loads of people talking about different things that they don't even know is connected, in any way, to the OP.

 

[Poignard]

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

 

[Mark-1]

I thought ownership was transferred when the Bill of Sale was signed.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

30 seconds after buying a boat/house/pair of rollerskates and signing to say that happened I can give them away/sell it back to the original owner or to a third party with no documentation at all. It's now theirs, no longer mine.

Until recently I assumed the land registry was a canonical record of land ownership. Then a local planning dispute occured. The owner on the land registry said he'd given the land away and it was impossible to gainsay. The process continued with owner unknown. (Gonna take years because of this.)

Not important in this case since it's hard to imagine there's any dispute over ownership, the seller wants the boat sold and has 90pc of the cash, the buyer has already handed over 90pc of the cash. (If there *was* a dispute over ownership it might be a bit messy, though!) In this case the sale can be deemed to have taken place whenever the buyer and seller claim it took place which will be when the 9k was handed over/transferred. Neither party have any incentive to mislead about the date of the sale.

(People quoting law here, can you link to the specific section of text you're referring to and quote it, rather than a summary.)

 

[Mark-1]

A verbal contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

With regard to ownership? Small Claims court is pretty much common sense process, more adjudication in tone. The OP has paid ~9k, presumably by transfer. The yard have been involved to a degree. It's going to be very hard for the seller to claim the sale didn't happen and convince anyone on balance of probability. And why would he want to?

 

[penfold]

Until recently I assumed the land registry was a canonical record of land ownership. Then a local planning dispute occured. The owner on the land registry said he'd given the land away and it was impossible to gainsay. The process continued with owner unknown. (Gonna take years because of this.)

Planning has no connection to ownership. Any tom, dick or harry can apply for planning permission anywhere they like, you could apply to build a folly on the lawn at Buck House if you wanted and it would be be passed or refused according to whether it met planning criteria; Brenda might oppose you actually building it if it passed though.

 

[Mark-1]

Planning has no connection to ownership. Any tom, dick or harry can apply for planning permission anywhere they like, you could apply to build a folly on the lawn at Buck House if you wanted and it would be be passed or refused according to whether it met planning criteria; Brenda might oppose you actually building it if it passed though.

In terms of applications true. In terms of enforcement, not true. If something is built on your land without planning (that requires it) the process is carried out against the owner and if the owner can't be identified there's a different process.

Not that it matters to my point. My point was land registry does not prove ownership, I can give property away and I don't need to tell the land registry. How I discovered that doesn't really matter.

 

[Bru]

Not that it matters to my point. My point was land registry does not prove ownership, I can give property away and I don't need to tell the land registry. How I discovered that doesn't really matter.

Incorrect on both counts

Giving property away is a change of ownership and the Land Registry must be informed of any change of ownership, by whatever means or mechanism, by law

Furthermore, once registered with the Registry that registration *is* proof of ownership. It is the register of title. Title deeds are no longer automatically eturned on first registration* and for registered property are no longer legally valid

(As executors of my mother's estate my brother and i are currently embroiled in some fairly complex property registration issues which has involved a specialist registration solicitor and learning a lot more than i ever wanted to know about the subject!)

* you can pay to get the deeds back but they are no longer legal documents. We want the deeds concerned back as they contain primary source information of relevance to our family history. On our solicitors advice we made copies first though as the LR apparently has a history of failing to return deeds even when requested

 

[penfold]

If you're the registered owner the council will pursue you(with regard to the planning breach); if you claim to not own it I suspect the onus would be on you to prove it, rather than the council proving the reverse.

 

[Mark-1]

Incorrect on both counts

Giving property away is a change of ownership and the Land Registry must be informed of any change of ownership, by whatever means or mechanism, by law

Furthermore, once registered with the Registry that registration *is* proof of ownership. It is the register of title. Title deeds are no longer automatically eturned on first registration* and for registered property are no longer legally valid

(As executors of my mother's estate my brother and i are currently embroiled in some fairly complex property registration issues which has involved a specialist registration solicitor and learning a lot more than i ever wanted to know about the subject!)

* you can pay to get the deeds back but they are no longer legal documents. We want the deeds concerned back as they contain primary source information of relevance to our family history. On our solicitors advice we made copies first though as the LR apparently has a history of failing to return deeds even when requested

Ok, I'm saying I'm aware of a planning situation where enforcement is being delayed by years because the guy on the registry isn't the owner. (He sold the land to an un-named person, or says he did.)

If you're saying otherwise then I don't have the evidence to win that argument, so Hitchen's law applies and I'll concede. It was one example. My overall point holds true. A bill of sale doesn't prove ownership. (But will certainly help a lot in proving ownership!)

 

[Mark-1]

If you're the registered owner the council will pursue you(with regard to the planning breach); if you claim to not own it I suspect the onus would be on you to prove it, rather than the council proving the reverse.

I've no idea, but if you're right then being on the land registry isn't proof of ownership, there's clearly an alternative way to prove ownership that trumps it although the onus is on you to prove it using that method.

...but we don't need to argue about this, my point is you give stuff away without documentation, so a Bill of Sale proves nothing. (But may help a lot.)

We can agree to disagree on one example - it makes no odds.

In fact, ownership isn't in dispute here so it's doubly irrelevant.

 

[Bru]

Ok, I'm saying I'm aware of a planning situation where enforcement is being delayed by years because the guy on the registry isn't the owner. (He sold the land to an un-named person, or says he did.)

If you're saying otherwise then I don't have the evidence to win that argument, so Hitchen's law applies and I'll concede. It was one example. My overall point holds true. A bill of sale doesn't prove ownership. (But will certainly help a lot in proving ownership!)

That one could get legally very messy!

What i posted is correct but what the legal position would be on your scenario is beyond what I've learnt about the subject. Based on what i do know i suspect the courts would have to decide on the ownership but my understanding is that the default position would be that the person with the registered title would be deemed to be the owner (and if the courts upheld the transfer to somebody else, the failure to register the transfer would potentially result in action)

Regardless, none of this is at all relevant to the matter at hand

With regard to boats, every bill of sale I've seen has, at the point of signing by both parties, transferred ownership from the seller to the buyer. That is explicitly stated in the wording.

A bill of sale isn't necessary to transfer ownership but where one exists a standard legal form Bill of Sale is normally considered proof of ownership

I've been involved in quite a few boat transactions over the years, both private sales and via brokers, and I've never ever heard of or seen a bill of sale that was conditional, the signing and handing over of the bill of sale is normally the final stage of the process

However, all of the legal issues are a moot point or points because when it comes right down to it, unless the buyer goes legal the marina has control of the boat

If the OP has a standard unmodified RYA form Bill of Sale, if i was in his shoes I'd present that to the marina manager and state categorically "this boat is now mine, you have no legal claim against the boat or me and i want my property. Any claim you have is against the previous owner" and see what happens

Stage 2 would be to inform them of the above in writing adding "If you obstruct arrangements to remove my property i will instruct my solicitor to take the appropriate action".

Otherwise from what we've heard so far i suspect this will drag on and on and then on some more because i have my doubts about the seller's intentions.

 

[JumbleDuck]

In fact, ownership isn't in dispute here so it's doubly irrelevant.

It might be. This whole thing started because the boatyard and the OP seem to have different ideas about who owns the boat.

 

[Bru]

A little bit of research into the Land Registry thing (irrelevant but my interest was piqued)

Vis the scenario that puzzled me above, per the Land Registration Act 2002 " If the requirement of registration is not complied with, the transfer, grant or creation becomes void as regards the transfer, grant or creation of a legal estate"

So the guy claiming he sold the property, because the transfer was not registered, on the face of it still owns it.

 

[Bru]

It might be. This whole thing started because the boatyard and the OP seem to have different ideas about who owns the boat.

I think who owns the boat is critically important. If the OP owns the boat then the marina has no claim on either him or the boat and no legal right to obstruct his removal of his property

If he doesn't, he's out of pocket to the tune of 90% of the boats value and unless a settlement can be negotiated it's likely that his only recourse will be the small claims court

 

[Mark-1]

It might be.

It isn't.

Neither party have said they wish to back out of the sale, (Yet.)

 

[Mark-1]

I think who owns the boat is critically important. If the OP owns the boat then the marina has no claim on either him or the boat and no legal right to obstruct his removal of his property

Pretty sure they have no legal right to detain the boat anyway. The OP hasn't mentioned a lein or any other legal justification - they're just physically not letting it go. (Well, we don't even know that, nobody's tried yet.)

If they want to seize property to the value of £4k then the easiest way to do that is to send bailiff's to the guys house and take portable stuff that's fast to dispose of. A boat is as much a liability as an asset could take weeks or months to sell. Especially since the ownership of the boat has changed. Why would the bailiffs get into that legal quagmire when they can just take stuff from his house?

 

[Mark-1]

A little bit of research into the Land Registry thing (irrelevant but my interest was piqued)

Vis the scenario that puzzled me above, per the Land Registration Act 2002 " If the requirement of registration is not complied with, the transfer, grant or creation becomes void as regards the transfer, grant or creation of a legal estate"

So the guy claiming he sold the property, because the transfer was not registered, on the face of it still owns it.

Can't explain that, maybe someone with domain knowledge can square the circle. I'm Chairman of the Parish Council where this situation is ongoing so although not directly involved in the process I've been getting this first hand in real time from District Council Officers who are dealing with it - it's not just.gossip.

Anyway, I've already conceded the point for the purposes of internet debate, it was an irrelevant point about an irrelevant point.

 

[Bru]

it was an irrelevant point about an irrelevant point.

Indeed but an interesting irrelevant point none the less

(If you find out the answer, my cat is dead!)