Hands up those who have been fined for not having a registration document

[al.carpenter]

Whouaoooo

this is not getting sillier by the day... it is getting sillier by the minute... and hilarious too. What are you running on? Martinique Rhum??? or Scotch stuff???

 

[timbartlett]

Read the law as it is.

The offence is:-
Dt 60-799 du 2.8.1960 - Art 2.

I've read the "law as it is" (as referenced by Michael Chapman). It says:-

Ne sont pas soumis aux dispositions du présent décret :

1° Les navires de mer circulant ou stationnant entre la limite transversale de la mer et, en amont, le premier obstacle à la navigation de ces navires déterminé en application du décret-loi du 17 juin 1938 susvisé ;

Which part of "Ne sont pas" don't you understand?

I'm not a fluent french speaker (or reader) so the first time I looked at this, I got to the bit that says it doesn't apply, and stopped there. Having now read it through more carefully, I am not at all convinced that "un titre de navigation maritime" actually means "registration certificate", anyway! In the context of this particular loi, it appears to refer to a CE inland waters safety certificate.

 

[mike_bryon]

This tread is not entitled ‘refer me to the French legislation that requires British vessels to carry registration documents in France’

What I mean by relying on some ridiculous nationalist generalisations is for example Tim’s remark about “What … makes us so bl00dy submissive?”

“Italians !” Why the exclamation Tim if not some ridiculous nationalist generalisation?

 

[timbartlett]

This tread is not entitled ‘refer me to the French legislation that requires British vessels to carry registration documents in France’

No, it is not. But the very first post does say "If you can tell us what was the alleged offence and which law you were supposed to have infringed, better still. And if you can find a link to the actual legislation, that would be perfect." So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I was hoping to be given a clue about where to find this elusive law.

What I mean by relying on some ridiculous nationalist generalisations is for example Tim’s remark about “What … makes us so bl00dy submissive?”

Well the majority opinion on this thread seems to be that if an official says "You've broken the law, pay me X Euros", you should immediately pay the X Euros, without asking what law you are supposed to have broken or getting a receipt. And this is far from unusual: there have been plenty of other threads (particularly in the Lounge) in which a significant proportion of opinions seem to be that when an official says jump, you should not as why. You shouldn't even ask "how high": you should just jump and keep on rising until you are given permission to come down. If you are not of that opinion, then I am pleased. If only there were more of us.

“Italians !” Why the exclamation Tim if not some ridiculous nationalist generalisation?

The exclamation mark came at the end of a sentence, not a single word. And as I have already explained, the sentence expressed surprise is that only one nationality appears to have questioned the legality of these penalties. If it had been the americans, or spanish, or polynesians, instead of the italians, I would have said so. And I would still have used an exclamation mark to express surprise that they were the only ones to do so. There is nothing racists or "national stereotypical" about it.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

So, back to my original advice. Read the law as it is.

Good advice. The problem is none of the people who say they have seen it and can link to it can't say what/where it is. (Possibly because it doesn't exist.)

 

[Tranona]

Good advice. The problem is none of the people who say they have seen it and can link to it can't say what/where it is. (Possibly because it doesn't exist.)

Once and for all, Toad, look at the laws that are quoted in BLOC. Read every one of them. Tell us what they say (or don't say) then we will all know you have actually looked - rather than claiming you have.

I simply cannot understand your warped logic that underpins your non-existent argument in the face of the evidence, nor why, if you are so concerned about it you do not seek professional advice.

You have had so many goes at trying to cajole people to do or say something you want with absolutely no success, while ignoring the obvious solution to your problem..

As so many people have said - If you believe the law does not exist then provide your evidence - absolutely none so far against all the evidence and advice that it does.

Of course, you may be right, but simply saying you are right convinces nobody. Just based on the responses to these threads, only two other people have joined your "side". That might be telling you something!

 

[timbartlett]

I simply cannot understand your warped logic that underpins your non-existent argument in the face of the evidence,

What "evidence" is that?

Which part of "Ne sont pas" don't you understand?

.

 

[jimbaerselman]

2. If a vessel does not carry a registration document, it must be able to prove that it belongs to a class of vessel and country that does not require registration.

Where does it say that in French law? Seems far more plausable to me that the onus would be for the local plod to prove it's a French Boat, not for the boat owner to prove that it's a British Boat. Either way, the direction of the onus will be stated in the legislation itself once it's presented.

I was making a logical argument, not quoting laws.

I was referring to ALL countries which require their national boats to be registered. I think it is safe to assume that laws requiring registration of certain classes of vessels exist in most countries, without having to take the trouble of identifying the specific laws for each country.

The logical argument is then that you then have to prove your vessel is NOT owned/registered in the country you are visiting if you do not carry a certificate.

The only universally acceptable proof is a foreign certificate.

Tim has pointed out the possibility of carrying a paper trail. Douane are unlikely to accept this, since there are more issues than just the owner's nationality and where the boat was purchased which determine whether or not the boat should have been locally registered. One such is whether you (the person) qualify as a local tax resident - through having spent more than 183 days in a year in the country. And Douane are entitled to assume you are a tax resident unless you prove otherwise. A number of IW waterway residents have been caught in this trap.

Working your way through this proof will take time and money - usually more than any threatened fine.

As a matter of interest, many French nationals who are also tax residents of France find it more convenient to register their vessels in Belgium or on the SSR.

 

[Tranona]

What "evidence" is that?.

You have seen it yourself in the form of a receipt for a penalty - or did you just invent that?

All you and Toad do is repeat your "belief" and ignore anything that does not fit with your belief, often to the extent of making up spurious reasonings why you should not accept what people tell you.

I do not understand how you can dismiss such overwhelming evidence just because you believe something different - but then hanging onto beliefs is nothing new.

It would be nice to have an authoritative statement that you are right, which is why I suggest you look for one. I would be the first to congratulate you for your efforts.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I was making a logical argument, not quoting laws.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd like to know what the law says. To be honest, if there *is* an onus on each boat owner to prove his boat is a British Flagged vessel then everyone's ****ed since an SSR doesn't prove that at all. There are countless examples of people who fraudulently obtain an SSR by claiming to be British resident or failing to give up their SSR when they cease to be British Resident. The French must know there are no checks on applicants at all.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

All you and Toad do is repeat your "belief".

I can't speak for Tim but I don't have a "belief". I merely have a question I don't have the answer to. Nothing more than that.

If you show me the legislation I'll tell you whether I "believe" it or not.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Rightly or wrongly, I'd like to know what the law says. To be honest, if there *is* an onus on each boat owner to prove his boat is a British Flagged vessel then everyone's ****ed since an SSR doesn't prove that at all. There are countless examples of people who fraudulently obtain an SSR by claiming to be British resident or failing to give up their SSR when they cease to be British Resident. The French must know there are no checks on applicants at all.

There is no onus to prove a vessel is flagged in any specific country. There is an onus to prove it is not due to be registered in the country you are visiting. That means you have to prove it belongs somewhere else.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

There is no onus to prove a vessel is flagged in any specific country. There is an onus to prove it is not due to be registered in the country you are visiting. That means you have to prove it belongs somewhere else.

The problem with that theory is that nobody has found any legislation to say that the onus works that way round.

It's seems highly likely to me that the onus would work the other way round. - In order to prosecute you as a French Boat they need to prove you are a French boat.

It seems almost laughable to me that a French court could sit there and pretend that 4 blokes from Liverpool in a boat kept in Haslar and bought in Ipswich were on a French Vessel. Especially since if those blokes, having been convicted as a French boat, *tried* to register their boat in France they wouldn't be allowed to! In fact I'd be willing to bet it's never happened.

 

[BrianH]

Just based on the responses to these threads, only two other people have joined your "side". That might be telling you something!

I suppose I may be classed as one of the people – but I haven't exactly joined any “side” as I am not really competent to contribute, never having cruised French waters. My only contribution was to object to the vilification of Toad, whom I think has been tolerant and restrained in the face of exchanges that have been more typical to the Lounge.

For me, Jim has expressed the most cogent explanation with his Catch 22 situation but Toad, Tim and Al have a point in their assumption that fines have been levied unlawfully when proof of ship's origin could be supplied by owner's domicile and/or nationality with passport or other identification in the absence of MCA Part I or Part III registration. Of course, for the pragmatists among us, it is madness to set sail from one's home waters without at least a SSR – but that is not the point at issue.

The agreement reached by French authorities with Italian sub-ten metre boats is interesting. As a parallel, in Croatia, which clearly publicises the requirement for registration amongst its mandatory entry documentation, all Italian leisure craft have an official engine (not ship) registration – even a small outboard I bought came with this document – and this seems to suffice for the Croatian entry port authorities as the days seem long gone for the purists who cruise solely under sail.

 

[al.carpenter]

Why not try?

I suggest you do the following... You look in "Pages Jaunes" (Yellow Pages) for DOUANES FRANCAISES or GENDARMERIE MARITIME (Brigade Maritime Cherbourg tel 02 33 92 55 29) and dial the number then you say

-PUIS JE PARLER A UNE PERSONNE PARLANT L'ANGLAIS S'IL VOUS PLAIT?

if the answer is NON you say

- BONJOUR, JE SUIS ANGLAIS ET NE PARLE PAS TROP LE FRANCAIS ALORS S'IL VOUS PLAIT PARLEZ DOUCEMENT. JE DOIS VOYAGER DANS LES EAUX TERRITORIALES FRANCAISES AVEC MON VOILIER QUI EST SOUS PAVILLON BRITANNIQUE. DOIS-JE LEGALEMENT PRODUIRE UN CERTIFICAT DU SSR ETANT DONNE QUE LA LOI DE MON PAYS NE M'IMPOSE PAS CE DOCUMENT. OUI? NON? MERCI. AU REVOIR.-

you do not have to go into long palabres, just keep an ear open for oui or non...

cost of a normal phone call so, cheap enough and fast...
easy as that, and then you let us all have the answer...
and we do not have to read such stupid things such as the code Napoleon and guilty until proven innocent when the "présomption d'innocence" is exactly the contrary, or to think that a fine docket (hence a law form...) stating a 1960 law article is legal when there has been at least three code maritime restructures since...(someone has found on Vlex that there has been a 1999 date on the fines and I believe there has been a 2007 edition of the code...) is not a con...

Timbarlett and Toad oftoadhall are 100% right and without any shadow of a doubt. The others are are just wrong and I challenge any one to prove the contrary... I am not denying others have been fined but am affraid to say that they have been victims of unlawful fines. If this thread could, by the number of readers make future potential victims aware of their rights, then it will have served its purpose... fair winds.

 

[Tranona]

There is no onus to prove a vessel is flagged in any specific country. There is an onus to prove it is not due to be registered in the country you are visiting. That means you have to prove it belongs somewhere else.

Whilst in general that is true under the UN convention. However, I think the argument is different in France. It is about the need to be able to produce a registration document on demand, just as in being able to produce your car registration documents. Registration from the perspective of the UN convention only applies in coastal waters, whereas registration also seems to be required in French inland waters

From all the advice given to motorists, French police can (and do) apply a penalty if you do not have your car registration document. This as you know is not the case in UK, but it would be a foolish person who did not take their documents with them - just as it is foolish not to take your documents with your boat.

The argument is whether French authorities can legitmately impose the requirement on UK owned boats (or cars) under legislation that seems to apply to French owned boats (and cars). Nobody here is qualified to have a definitive opinion, but authoritative bodies charged with giving advice to yachtsmen seem to think the legislation applies. The Douanes do because they penalise British Yachtsmen for not having the required documentation.

This is nothing new - it dates back nearly 30 years when the Convention came in and the SSR was introduced to meet registration requirements. In all that time the majority of people have complied and as far as I know the requirement has never been formally challenged.

Now we have a person or two that think it is wrong - not because they have been penalised and wish to challenge the penalty in a court of law - but just it seems because they think it is wrong. So, rather than finding out through the conventional way, they ask for views from lay people on this forum - and unsurprisingly they get lots of responses confirming (in the poster's view or direct experience) that penalties are applied. Only one, a report of a conversation with a French Gendarme seems to cast any doubt. He provided a source through which his view might be confirmed - but the "doubters" have not bothered to do so.

So, rather pointless continuing well rehearsed arguments when the resolution lies elsewhere - but the dissenters don't seem to want to go there.

 

[timbartlett]

You have seen it yourself in the form of a receipt for a penalty - or did you just invent that?

If you look at what I actually said, you will see that it is you who are doing the inventing, not I:-

Or better still ask your mates at the RYA for their advice

I just did. And I spoke with someone who had been done for E150 on the spot penalty. But the receipt did not identify the legislation involved.

I said I "spoke with someone"-- not that I had seen the receipt. The existence of a receipt merely proves that a penalty has been collected -- not that it was legitimate.

All you and Toad do is repeat your "belief" and ignore anything that does not fit with your belief,

I came into this discussion with no preconceived belief. As the discussion has gone on, however, I have become more and more convinced that registration is not compulsory for UK vessels visiting France. The complete failure of you and your supporters to offer any evidence has been a major contributory factor!

It is almost certainly true that registration smooths your passage, but that is not the point.

Having a bank card makes life a lot easier -- but it is not compulsory!

 

[Tranona]

I said I "spoke with someone"-- not that I had seen the receipt. The existence of a receipt merely proves that a penalty has been collected -- not that it was legitimate.
I came into this discussion with no preconceived belief. As the discussion has gone on, however, I have become more and more convinced that registration is not compulsory for UK vessels visiting France. The complete failure of you and your supporters to offer any evidence has been a major contributory factor!

[ QUOTE]

That is the whole point. Fines are being levied - you cannot deny that, there are too many examples. I absolutely agree that is not evidence on its own that they are legitimate, because nobody seems to have challenged their legitimacy. So, until someone does you must consider them legitimate because they are facts not beliefs.

For myself - I can't speak for my "supporters" they are quite capable of speaking for themselves, I have viewed the totality of the "evidence" from a whole range of sources and have come to a conclusion that in the absence of a denial from an official source the penalties are legitimate.

Just what is it that convinces you? I have seen nothing, except al Carpenters conversation with a gendarme that gives any suggestion that the fines are not legitimate. He offers you the opportunity to check out what he reports with the Douanes. Have you done this? If so please report what you found out.

 

[timbartlett]

Fines are being levied - you cannot deny that, there are too many examples. I absolutely agree that is not evidence on its own that they are legitimate, because nobody seems to have challenged their legitimacy. So, until someone does you must consider them legitimate because they are facts not beliefs.

The fixed penalties are facts. I don't think anyone has denied that. But there is no evidence at all to suggest that they are legitimate.
It is possible that they are deliberate fraud, and it is at least as likely that they are genuine mistakes. Why is it so difficult to believe that some low-grade officials are not familiar with the minutiae of a foreign country's legislation? (i.e. that some french waterborne traffic warden can't quote chapter and verse of the UK's 1995 Merchant Shipping Act (or whatever it is).

I have viewed the totality of the "evidence" from a whole range of sources and have come to a conclusion that in the absence of a denial from an official source the penalties are legitimate.

Are you coming round to accepting that there is no positive evidence that the penalties are legitimate?

Just what is it that convinces you? I have seen nothing, except al Carpenters conversation with a gendarme that gives any suggestion that the fines are not legitimate. He offers you the opportunity to check out what he reports with the Douanes. Have you done this? If so please report what you found out.

Well, he portrays it as a bit more than a casual conversation with the desk sergeant at the local cop shop. And as I have no problem accepting what he says, I see no reason to go checking it. He has invited you to verify it -- but I take it that you haven't bothered.

The only piece of actual legislation that anyone has offered (with enormous confidence, I might add) turned out to be something that only applied to Inland waters and even then only to pleasure vessels significantly larger than the average yacht. And which might not have been referring to registration documents as such, but to Declarations of Conformity.

The total lack of any evidence to support the legitimacy of these penalties is what I find most convincing.

Now, can we please stop going round and round.
When you've got some evidence, just let us know.

 

[al.carpenter]

Hi

just in case anyone thinks I am telling lies about the contel with the Cherbourg Gendarmerie Maritime and the substance of it, I invite you to call them and add that, when he confirmed a fine for not producing a SSR reg document was definitely not possible/legal in french waters by any of the french law agencies, you guess that, before reporting on the forum I asked him many times if I could give this assertion on an international forum since I realise that puting something in writing for everyone to see on line does engage my responsability somehow and would not have posted his answer if he had not assured me of being right. He was not just a pen pusher at the switchboard... first the person answering me put me through the specific GENDARMERIE MARITIME then the second person I talked to after aknowledging the nature of my enquiry put me through to the person in charge of the actual seabourne brigade whom name I cannot remember but he was not unsure or hesitant in his answer. I repeat, on a british yacht, only british law can be applied and the only fine you can incure is a speeding, mooring/sailing where it is prohibited, drink-sailing. Point. No need for a SSR. But I am not stupid enough not to recommend having one... just stand up for your rights if this situation arises again in the future...