Buying a boat in the US

[Baggywrinkle]

My pal who bought his boat in Greece and flagged in the UK never got asked once about the boat as he sailed it out of Greece to the Caribbean.
Brits have a habit of wanting to obey every law to the nth degree. The French treat laws as suggestions

Of course they didn't ask him about the boat, it was being exported so compliance was someone elses problem as it wasn't being put into service in Greece. I guess he wasn't stupid enough to just leave without checking out, but the only thing the authorities would want to check is possible theft or outstanding warrants for arrest. There are two border crossing checks operated by the two countries neighbouring countries on almost every border crossing on land. The country you are leaving is only interested in you leaving without any stolen goods or outstanding warrants, the country you are entering is interested in what you are importing and if you are wanted for anything, as they generally don't want to let in potential criminals. Obviously on boats, these two checks can be hundreds of miles apart so leaving is usually a very simple process.

Then there are certain bits of paperwork and markings that, when present, mean the authorities are probably wasting their time actually looking at the certification paperwork - a HIN on a registration document can only get there if it was referenced in the sales contract - just looking at my companionway confirms CE marking - they would only check the paper trail if they thought it was forged. A HIN on the starboard quarter and a visible CE marking are very unlikely to warrant a papertrail check - they work on suspicion, observation, probability and gathered intelligence - but it doesn't mean stuff goes un-noticed by a long shot.

Anecdotal stories of people walzing in and out of countries without getting checked is like assuming that when you walk through the airport "nothing to declare" gate no-one is watching you and no-one has had a look through the passenger manifest. With these things, everything is fine and unobtrusive, until it isn't.

It costs nothing and is very little effort to check your paperwork when you buy the boat, and keep it up to date and valid, Why anyone would deliberately risk a run-in with authorities in a foreign country is beyond me, but some are more than willing to test the water for the rest of us. Long may it continue

 

[Frogmogman]

The French treat laws as suggestions

I have lived and run businesses in France for for 36 years, and can assure you that this is NOT true in my experience.

 

[Beneteau381]

I agree! Plus there are a couple of other issues.

A philosophical point that there is a social contract that we citizens accept the rule of law in return for the benefits of society. I can think of several laws that I don’t like but I’m broadly happy to observe them in return for the benefit I get from the societal provisions that I do like. For instance, I don’t especially like paying tax but I do like the availability of healthcare free from charge at the point of supply in the UK.

Separately, it’s widely believed that boats are used to bring undocumented individuals into all sorts of countries that have a coastline. Without straying into current affairs to consider the reasons behind this, we - as boat users - should hardly be surprised that border control officials will increasingly want to keep tabs on leisure vessels.

The social contract is one thing but the CE stuff or the UK equivalent is a beaurocratic pile of manure. Devised imho as a manufacturer protectionist device pure and simple. It distorts market forces. Do you really believe that diesel engines fitted in the states to boats are not fit for purpose because they come across the altlantic? Really? That boats built for the most litigous market in the world are not fit for purpose here?

 

[geem]

I have lived and run businesses in France for for 36 years, and can assure you that this is NOT true in my experience.

Maybe it's just the ones we meet who sail over from Guadeloupe to Antigua that never clear in and stay at Green island to kite and wingfoil then sail back. Dozens of them over the season.

 

[geem]

Neither would he as it was either an EU status boat or non VAT paid which made it eligible for TA if it stopped in the EU - the flag has nothing to do with that. Not an example that is in any way comparable to importing a boat from outside into either the EU or the UK

It was an American registered and flagged boat built in Costa Rica and sold in Greece. He bought it from a deceased estate and just sailed off having UK register it

 

[benjenbav]

The social contract is one thing but the CE stuff or the UK equivalent is a beaurocratic pile of manure. Devised imho as a manufacturer protectionist device pure and simple. It distorts market forces. Do you really believe that diesel engines fitted in the states to boats are not fit for purpose because they come across the altlantic? Really? That boats built for the most litigous market in the world are not fit for purpose here?

The social contract is why we don’t get to pick which of our laws we obey and which we don’t have to and mentioned as a counter to the proposition that one will probably get away with non-observance of something because observance might be thought to be rarely checked.

Questions of free trade and protectionism are, quite possibly, out of scope for this forum.

 

[Tranona]

It was an American registered and flagged boat built in Costa Rica and sold in Greece. He bought it from a deceased estate and just sailed off having UK register it

None of that is relevant to its VAT status. If it is EU VAT paid then there are no restrictions. if it is non VAT paid then it is entitled to visit the EU for up to 18 months.

How many morew3 times to I have to say the problems arise when a resident tries to import a boat from outside the customs area in which s/he is resident.

So you can waffle on all you like about situations like this one but it is meaningless in relation to the question the OP asked.

 

[Tranona]

Maybe it's just the ones we meet who sail over from Guadeloupe to Antigua that never clear in and stay at Green island to kite and wingfoil then sail back. Dozens of them over the season.

What French law are they breaking in doing that?

 

[Tranona]

Questions of free trade and protectionism are, quite possibly, out of scope for this forum.

Indeed. What is worth sharing is how they affect us in relation to our boating interests and then ways in which we can enjoy our boats keeping within the laws we have.

 

[geem]

None of that is relevant to its VAT status. If it is EU VAT paid then there are no restrictions. if it is non VAT paid then it is entitled to visit the EU for up to 18 months.

How many morew3 times to I have to say the problems arise when a resident tries to import a boat from outside the customs area in which s/he is resident.

So you can waffle on all you like about situations like this one but it is meaningless in relation to the question the OP asked.

The OP was discussing not bringing the boat back to the UK so it is very relevant to the post. Take a chill pill

 

[Baggywrinkle]

The responsibility for ensuring the boat has a Certificate of Conformity lies with the person or entity who first places the boat on the market NOT the owner if different. It is not an offence to either own such a boat, nor to sell it. However if the offence occurred at import or first sale Trading Standards have the option to seize the boat if it does not comply. That is the concern of subsequent buyers that in the absence of a certificate there is an outside chance that the boat might be seized. In reality I doubt this ever happens (in the UK) because Trading Standards do not routinely check anything after the boat has first entered the market.

The law states "putting into service" not "putting on the market" and there are specific obligations on private individual importing boats for their own use. I simply assume that at some point they may well want to sell them, which is where the sale of a non compliant boat comes into play.

If a private individual brings a non-compliant boat into the UK and doesn't tell any of the authorities about it, they are still the importer (as well as committing an offence), and I am not aware of any time limit or statute of limitations that causes the liability to disappear when they eventually put it on the market for sale (time limits would be difficult to prove if there was no record of it entering the country anyway)

When the individual attempts to eventually sell the boat, they are the owner, the importer, and the seller - therefore liable for selling a non-compliant boat. The buyer will find this out if he asks a surveyor to survey the boat, and the seller will find this out if he asks a broker to market it.

Recreational Craft Regulations 2017: Great Britain

8. Obligations of private importers​

A private importer is any natural or legal person (e.g. a company) established in the UK who imports in the course of a non-commercial activity a product from a country outside the UK with the intention of putting it into service for their own use.

The obligations of private importers include:

• If a private importer imports a product that has not previously been placed on the GB market, where the manufacturer has not carried out the relevant conformity assessment procedure, the private importer will have to carry out a post construction assessment to demonstrate conformity with the Regulations, as set out in Schedule 5.
• The private importer must ensure before putting recreational craft into service that it has been designed and manufactured in accordance with the essential requirements.
• The private importer must ensure that the obligations for manufacturer covering technical documentation; declaration of conformity; relevant marking; instructions and safety information; provision of information and cooperation have been met or carried out.
• Where technical documentation is not available from the manufacturer, the private importer must have this drawn up using the appropriate expertise.
• The private importer must ensure that the name and postal address of the approved body that carried out the relevant conformity assessment procedure in relation to the product is marked on the craft.

I disagree totally about insurance - again in the UK- there is no requirement to demonstrate compliance as a condition of insurance. They are only interested in risk and as far as condition of the boat is concerned will normally rely on a survey or other evidence of seaworthiness. I know this is not the same as in some EU states with a more anal interest in bits of paper. Probably the majority of boats in thee UK do not comply with the RCD. It has little to do with safety. It is trading law brought in to provide first consistency of standards in the single market and then through the categories guidance for consumers as to the suitability of a particular boat for their needs. Never intended as an alternative to a marine survey to assess the condition of an individual boat.

There has always been centification to show seaworthiness (LLoyds certification etc.) before the RCD and CE marking, older boats were built to these regulations or had an independent survey to determine fitness for purpose. As the number of these boats drops and the claim size for the majority of claims is negligible the insurance companies accept the risk - if the boats have been in service for 30+ years without incident then the risk is most probably low.

I disagree with the statement however in relation to newer boats, built when the RCD was mandated. A survey of condition today does not say anything about the boat being "fit for purpose" (most surveyors make the assumption that if the boat is CE certified then the fundamental design is OK if unmodified) - there are no checks done in a survey which would cover the design requirements to meet either RCD or RCR on a boat in original condition. The law does state however that to put a pleasure craft into service, it must comply. Therefore the insurance company has a get-out on any boat without compliance - the owner should have told the insurance company that the boat was not compliant, stating whatever "fit for purpose" proof they did have. No RCR compliance is putting a boat into service illegally - this is a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurance company. Secondly, if the reason for the claim can be linked to a design or build feature covered by the RCD/RCR regulations then the insurance company has another route for refusing the claim. Just because an insurance company takes the money and issues a certificate does not mean the insurance is valid - that only gets tested when a claim is made - and you cover yourself by disclosing all the material facts that you think may be relevent. If the insurance company still issues a certificate, you are covered - lack of RCR/RCD compliance is a material fact I would disclose and once disclosed, I'm pretty sure it would have an effect on the premium or willingness to offer cover.

The case you quote was one of several at that time and earlier when the sale of incomplete boats was still common. The original post is a clear description of what should have happened - the hull builder certifies up to the point at which he sells it and the completer finishes the boat to spec then issues the Certificate of Conformity. If the completer was the first owner and completes for his own use then there was no need to certify if he keeps the boat for at least 5 years before he sells it. This was all well publicised amongst builders at the time and the RYA actually became a certifying body to deal with these low volume or one offs as well as private imports but closed it because of lack of demand. Now just a little historical footnote as almost nobody builds in this way and those that do will do it properly.

I think the buyer thought he was buying a completed boat that he could put into service, and I guess the courts found for the buyer.

 

[Baggywrinkle]

The social contract is one thing but the CE stuff or the UK equivalent is a beaurocratic pile of manure. Devised imho as a manufacturer protectionist device pure and simple. It distorts market forces. Do you really believe that diesel engines fitted in the states to boats are not fit for purpose because they come across the altlantic? Really? That boats built for the most litigous market in the world are not fit for purpose here?

The standards are different - not necessarily better or worse, just different which is no statement on fitness for purpose - and every country has a law stating that a certain standard needs to be complied with to sell products in their home market. Fair enough, no?

27 EU countries agreeed to the RCD (including emissions standards for engines) - removing all the protectionism that existed before and making the internal market more competitive. The US won't accept EU standards in their entirety, and the EU wont accept US standards entirety ... that is the current situation, like it or not, it really has way more to do with local laws and preferences than the actual content of the RCD and a boat being fit for purpose.

It used to be even worse 30 years ago - every individual country had it's own standards (yellow headlights in France anyone?) ... the holy grail is globally accepted standards but we still have a long way to go.

One example of differences from my day job is airbags - airbags for the US market have to be larger and more powerful than their rest of world equivalents. Why? ...... freedom in the US to drive without using a seatbelt - so US Airbags are designed to cope with unrestrained occupants with no seatbelts or pre-tensioners. The political implications of changing US law to enable a global standard means the chances of it happening are pretty much zero, we just have to live with it.

No one here understands all the differences between different markets and why their requirements are the way they are - but there will be a reason somewhere, and it is very rarely due to protectionism - like the airbag example above.

 

[Koeketiene]

My pal who bought his boat in Greece and flagged in the UK never got asked once about the boat as he sailed it out of Greece to the Caribbean.
Brits have a habit of wanting to obey every law to the nth degree. The French treat laws as suggestions

And who's the happier of the two?

 

[Koeketiene]

I have lived and run businesses in France for for 36 years, and can assure you that this is NOT true in my experience.

I have no experience of running a business in France but have lived here for nigh on a decade French officialdom (mostly tax office and douane) has always been helpful and friendly (mostly). Though not always fast.

Quite often they offered advice as to how to circumvent/avoid paying tax. In the 25 years I called the UK 'home' that has NEVER happened.

 

[dunedin]

The OP was discussing not bringing the boat back to the UK so it is very relevant to the post. Take a chill

Wrong. Reread post #1 - and many from the OP thereafter. He has been considering a boat to bring back to the UK as the primary option.

He ALSO added an ALTERNATIVE of not bringing back to UK / EU - in which case it has been made very clear the options are massively simpler.

 

[Tranona]

The OP was discussing not bringing the boat back to the UK so it is very relevant to the post. Take a chill pill

Still nothing to do with buying a boat in Greece and sailing away. He is intending buying in the US or the Caribbean.

 

[Tranona]

The law states "putting into service" not "putting on the market" and there are specific obligations on private individual importing boats for their own use. I simply assume that at some point they may well want to sell them, which is where the sale of a non compliant boat comes into play.

If a private individual brings a non-compliant boat into the UK and doesn't tell any of the authorities about it, they are still the importer (as well as committing an offence), and I am not aware of any time limit or statute of limitations that causes the liability to disappear when they eventually put it on the market for sale (time limits would be difficult to prove if there was no record of it entering the country anyway)

When the individual attempts to eventually sell the boat, they are the owner, the importer, and the seller - therefore liable for selling a non-compliant boat. The buyer will find this out if he asks a surveyor to survey the boat, and the seller will find this out if he asks a broker to market it.

Recreational Craft Regulations 2017: Great Britain






There has always been centification to show seaworthiness (LLoyds certification etc.) before the RCD and CE marking, older boats were built to these regulations or had an independent survey to determine fitness for purpose. As the number of these boats drops and the claim size for the majority of claims is negligible the insurance companies accept the risk - if the boats have been in service for 30+ years without incident then the risk is most probably low.

I disagree with the statement however in relation to newer boats, built when the RCD was mandated. A survey of condition today does not say anything about the boat being "fit for purpose" (most surveyors make the assumption that if the boat is CE certified then the fundamental design is OK if unmodified) - there are no checks done in a survey which would cover the design requirements to meet either RCD or RCR on a boat in original condition. The law does state however that to put a pleasure craft into service, it must comply. Therefore the insurance company has a get-out on any boat without compliance - the owner should have told the insurance company that the boat was not compliant, stating whatever "fit for purpose" proof they did have. No RCR compliance is putting a boat into service illegally - this is a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurance company. Secondly, if the reason for the claim can be linked to a design or build feature covered by the RCD/RCR regulations then the insurance company has another route for refusing the claim. Just because an insurance company takes the money and issues a certificate does not mean the insurance is valid - that only gets tested when a claim is made - and you cover yourself by disclosing all the material facts that you think may be relevent. If the insurance company still issues a certificate, you are covered - lack of RCR/RCD compliance is a material fact I would disclose and once disclosed, I'm pretty sure it would have an effect on the premium or willingness to offer cover.



I think the buyer thought he was buying a completed boat that he could put into service, and I guess the courts found for the buyer.

When I bought my new boat from Clipper it was them that had the obligation to ensure it complied in the UK. once i bought it I was under no legal obligation to show that, just as there is no legal obligation to show that a light bulb complies. I would only have that obligation if I had bought the boat direct from Bavaria and imported it into the UK myself, using documentation supplied by Bavaria. There is no subsequent obligation to ensure that it continues to comply except a loosely worded section in the RCD about recertification after major modifications. Almost all boats deviate from the original certification as owners make changes and replace equipment. No there no checks as many others have pointed out. CE marking is only relevant at the point initial introduction into the market.

There is no obligation to ensure a boat complies when it changes ownership, and while brokers may insist on always having the original certificate this has no legal backing. the only reason is to assure the buyer that there is no likelihood of the boat being involved in a case of illegal importation. Even then as your last example shows the courts are likely to find in favour of a good faith buyer.

Lloyds certification was not about fitness for purpose, nor safety, it was a construction standard now replaced by a range of standards that are permitted in the RCD. Lloyds was optional and most production boats were not designed or built to that standard, although many like mine had hulls moulded to Lloyds scantlings and in an approved moulding shop. Before the RCD states had their own "standards" and the purpose of the RCD was to replace those with one certification to encourage single market trade. The RCD was largely developed in the UK so obviously drew on many UK standards, but also US and German.

Despite what you say there is NO requirement for insurance in the UK to show that the boat is RCD/RCR compliant, nor even that it was when it was new. The RCD was never intended to replace a marine survey on an individual boat which the insurer uses as a base for determining whether the boat is seaworthy. This is of course different in some EU states which have local (not EU) laws that use RCD certification and categorisation as a basis for registration and permitted use (and probably insurance, but I don't know for sure) but that is not so in the UK where as you know there are essentially no restrictions or control over the way boats are used.

 

[Sea Change]

Wrong. Reread post #1 - and many from the OP thereafter. He has been considering a boat to bring back to the UK as the primary option.

He ALSO added an ALTERNATIVE of not bringing back to UK / EU - in which case it has been made very clear the options are massively simpler.

At this point I'm considering various options.

Buying in the Caribbean is the first preference, with the US as a possible second. We'd prefer to have the option of bringing the boat back to the UK and subsequently selling there, but it may not be a deal breaker.

I'm still thinking that there's a good chance that we could arrive in Ireland, then head back in to the UK for a while with no questions asked. So long as we didn't turn try to sell the boat.

Funnily enough there aren't many people putting their heads above the parapet saying that they've done this, because, well, why would you?

 

[westernman]

At this point I'm considering various options.

Buying in the Caribbean is the first preference, with the US as a possible second. We'd prefer to have the option of bringing the boat back to the UK and subsequently selling there, but it may not be a deal breaker.

I'm still thinking that there's a good chance that we could arrive in Ireland, then head back in to the UK for a while with no questions asked. So long as we didn't turn try to sell the boat.

Funnily enough there aren't many people putting their heads above the parapet saying that they've done this, because, well, why would you?

Do not underestimate the amount of tracking customs do on boats. Particularly on small boats.
They will know.

(e.g. Irish Navy find record drugs haul on 65ft Yacht)
Which had sailed from the Caribbean!

Whether they can be arsed to do anything is questionable. They are more interested in illegal importation of drugs rather than decrepit old sailing boats.
And decrepit old sailing boats is one of the major importation methods.

 

[geem]

I'm still thinking that there's a good chance that we could arrive in Ireland, then head back in to the UK for a while with no questions asked. So long as we didn't turn try to sell the boat.

This is what my friend does. He leaves the boat there then visits the UK by ferry