How Do I Check Who Owns It/Is There Any Other Finance Interests

[Observer]

Have we concluded that for a UK boat, in the UK, you would be able to trace a mortgage?
Or have we concluded that you cant do that?
If yes, then we are concerned with some other finance where the loan is secured against the boat? Who offers such finance?

I am 99.99% sure that the major "Finance Houses" who require security for finance provided for boat purchase ALWAYS require Part I registration and ALWAYS register the mortgage granted. They do, in some cases, take an unregistered mortgage on a new vessel or one not already Part I registered (for example, if purchased outside the UK) but that's only a stop gap pending Part I registration.

It is theoretically possible (but rather far-fetched) that a small finance company may enter the market without having done its homework and take security against a loan and then (through ignorance) fail to register it or ensure the means (Part I registration) to register it. That risk is remote, imo. Why would any commercial lender who requires security fail to take available steps to protect their interest?

The more real possibility of an unregistered mortgage arises where a private lender (family member, friend or business associate) takes a mortgage on an unregistered vessel (which of course cannot be registered) or a second mortgage on a registered vessel, and fails to register that.

 

[Tranona]

ari

It seems your concern -quite rightly- is about unregistered charges which neither you, a solicitor or broker, or whoever could find.

Please read all the posts, particularly Observers and consider whether an unregistered charge is actually enforceable?

So the "risk" that you are identifying is not only very small (unregistered charges) but is probably of no consequence (unless of course you can cite cases where an unregistered charge is enforced when the boat has changed hands).

I fail to see how your "central register" would work. Mortgages can already be registered against the boat and as Observer points out if the charge is say on stock boats it has to be registered at Companies House if the asset belongs to a company. If lenders do not use mechanisms already open to them how are you going to force them to use a "new" register.

"Compensation" schemes whether run by associations or an insurance company have similar problems. How do you define the risk, particularly if you have no "history" and how do you devise an equitable way of sharing it by way of subscription or premium?

As many of us have said, the current system seems to work based on the constant stream of successful transactions. If you believe that there is a real risk that it is failing and a change is necessary then you have to produce your evidence. So far, every time this subject comes up, including this current thread, there is never any concrete evidence presented to illustrate that people have lost out. Therefore one can only conclude the concerns are in the mind!

I would be the first to support a change if there was a real problem. But at the moment all I see is (usually impractical) solutions searching for non-existent (or at best ill defined) problems. Not a good basis for change!

 

[jfm]

Anyway, why would finance companies (who, IIRC, were instrumental in setting up HPI) have the need to set up a marine equivalent when Part I registration is already available and is used by them to register and protect their interests?

I've been following this thread from a distance, not had time to dive in properly. Agree much of what many posters have said, and especially the above. Part 1 already does what HPI does, and what any other register would do

Even with the most perfect registry, and P1 is ok, 2nd hand buyer is left with the risk of criminal/fraudulent concealment by the seller of the boat's identity. A registered charge can be concealed by changing the boat name, removing the C+M plate, and SSR-ing it under a new name. That risk exists and always will, even with the engine serial number super-registry, and so the question is whose risk ought it to be? The finance house's? The taxpayer's? No, it is the buyer's, and sodding well should be. People need to grow up and take responsibility. There is perfectly good due diligence that will expose such fraud (99% of the time, not 100%) and if buyer chooses not to do it then that's his choice.

Of course if the broker/boatbuilder industry wants, commercially, to take on that risk to stimulate trade, a la HPI, then let them. But they dont, so they shouldn't be forced to.

The only law change I could see a small case for is to make it clear that no charges are enforceable unless entered onto the p1 register. The p1 register is so easy to use that it's no hardship on lenders to pass such a law, and it feels right and fair. This at a stroke removes most worries about 2nd charges from family members, new entrants to market not using part 1, etc.

Other than that, the status quo seems perfectly fine to me. Those who say it isn't seem to think that a risk that in equity belongs to them should really belong to someone else, just because, er, it should. If you want to remove risk, pay for that by buying insurance

 

[Observer]

jfm,

Do you think that as the law now stands, an unregistered mortage on a Part I registered vessel is ALWAYS valid against a subsequent purchaser in good faith? I can see circumstances where that would be a fair result (for example, a mortgage granted on an unregistered boat that subsequently became Part I registered). But (as you suggested), it is very unfair for a good faith purchaser (who may have carried out a Part I search, with negative result) to lose out as a result of a lender (especially a lender 'who ought to know better') negligently or wilfully failing to register his security.

I suppose it would need some type of estoppel doctrine to come into play but that works on a positive action (hmm?) not an omission.

In the corporate world, of course, the holder of an unregistered (at Companies House) mortgage would lose priority/recourse to a good faith purchaser.

p.s. Welcome to the discussion. I was hoping you would weigh in.

 

[gjgm]

I am 99.99% sure that the major "Finance Houses" who require security for finance provided for boat purchase ALWAYS require Part I registration and ALWAYS register the mortgage granted. They do, in some cases, take an unregistered mortgage on a new vessel or one not already Part I registered (for example, if purchased outside the UK) but that's only a stop gap pending Part I registration.

It is theoretically possible (but rather far-fetched) that a small finance company may enter the market without having done its homework and take security against a loan and then (through ignorance) fail to register it or ensure the means (Part I registration) to register it. That risk is remote, imo. Why would any commercial lender who requires security fail to take available steps to protect their interest?

The more real possibility of an unregistered mortgage arises where a private lender (family member, friend or business associate) takes a mortgage on an unregistered vessel (which of course cannot be registered) or a second mortgage on a registered vessel, and fails to register that.

Right.. this was the direction I had assumed we would head in ,and as JFM subsequently confirms, I think
Namely that any unregistered finance probably wouldnt be traceable, but then who or why or how often is anyone doing this? Presumably, since a boat can quite literally be sailed away, and lender is going to want some security since a large padlock and long chain isnt practical.. in the form of some documentation on the boat.
So the situation is that the seller has an unregistered charge on the boat; deliberately fails to disclose it or settle it on sale of the boat; we arent quite clear if the charge is then enforceable on the next owner;the next owner buys the boat without any supporting sanity checks;probably no documentation. You would have recourse to the seller, so the seller needs to be MIA, or have no assets; and as far as we know, this is extremely rare, if ever?
Is this what it boils down to ?

 

[Observer]

I see HPI actually gives a guarantee (capped at £30,000) of correct information in relation to motor vehicles. In order to do that, I assume they are very confident that ALL UK finance houses register vehicles in which they have an interest. However, there is a pool of 7 million finance agreements so the costs of registration and of liability under the guarantee scheme are spread very thinly. What would be the size of the pool of marine finance agreements? Certainly not large enough for the register operator to underwrite loss to any meaningful extent.

Ref. the HPI "guarantee", on closer reading, I see it applies where HPI has provided "incorrect information". If a finance company interest has not been registered, the response to an HPI search will be "Nothing registered". So if there was a finance company interest that had not (for whatever reason) been registered, the response would NOT be incorrect and the guarantee wouldn't bite. In other words, HPI is still very far from being "safe and effective".

 

[jfm]

Do you think that as the law now stands, an unregistered mortage on a Part I registered vessel is ALWAYS valid against a subsequent purchaser in good faith?

No, certianly not. There is a clear opening here for equitable relief (as opposed to estoppel, as you say, but the difference is academic) to be granted to the good-faith 2nd hand buyer. The good faith 2nd hand buyer would point the court to the fact that there is a very effective "tell the world about your mortgage" scheme run at the ship registry, and lender was too lazy to use it, and the foreseeable consequences of that laziness belong to the lender. The non disclosure by seller of the unregistered charge is a very foreseeable consequence, obviously. It would only take some mild combination of Lord Denning DNA in the genetic make up of the judge, and a poor old lady 2nd hand buyer, for the finance company to lose .

But take a different fact pattern. Say the charge was registered, but the boat seller changed the boat name and SSR-ed it. And then the buyer didn't do any diligence (eg buyer failed to see history of service/mooring records/ radio licences that would have showed the boat's previous name). Then I don't see much hope for equitable relief for the 2nd hand buyer, and I think the mortgage would stick

In the corporate world, of course, the holder of an unregistered (at Companies House) mortgage would lose priority/recourse to a good faith purchaser.

I'm getting out of my depth here but i dont think it's that simple. The (UK) Co House system was conceived to alert would-be creditors (and pre-existing creditors, but don't start me on that one!) of a company that they stand behind other creditors so far as recourse to the mortgaged assets is concerned. Thus, for the lender to stand ahead of other creditors in case the company goes insolvent it is essential that the mortgage is registered at Companies House.

But the system wasn't conceived to protect good-faith 2nd hand buyers of mortgaged assets from the company, which is a whole different kettle of fish. So if the lender (mortgagee) wants the mortgages to be upheld following a sale of the pledged assets to a good faith 3rd party, I don't believe he can merely rely on the Companies House register. He must also take other reasonable steps to alert the world to the existence of the mortgage, to minimise his risk that equitable relief will be granted to the 2nd hand buyer. Eg he must register land mortgages at the land reg, register boat mortgages at the ship registry, advertise plant/machinery pledges by attaching or engraving a a plate on the machine, and so on.

 

[ari]

Do you mean?

I remember an article by a broker in MBM (Secret Salesman I think) who suggested there should be a central finance register that records not just the (easily changed) name but hull number, engine serial numbers, gearbox serial numbers etc. He reckoned it should be a fully cross reference-able list that finance companies have to register their interest against in order to have a lien, with all the serial numbers. That way any buyer would be able to perform the equivalent of an HPI check.

In other words the marine equivalent of HPI? (Actually HPI can be used to register interest in boats, although I have no idea how widely it's used for that purpose.)

That needs no change of law. The motor vehicle HPI operates on a commercial basis. Also, it is not mandatory for finance companies to register an interest or ownership, so a marine equivalent would not be guaranteed "safe and effective". I see HPI actually gives a guarantee (capped at £30,000) of correct information in relation to motor vehicles. In order to do that, I assume they are very confident that ALL UK finance houses register vehicles in which they have an interest. However, there is a pool of 7 million finance agreements so the costs of registration and of liability under the guarantee scheme are spread very thinly. What would be the size of the pool of marine finance agreements? Certainly not large enough for the register operator to underwrite loss to any meaningful extent.

Anyway, why would finance companies (who, IIRC, were instrumental in setting up HPI) have the need to set up a marine equivalent when Part I registration is already available and is used by them to register and protect their interests?

It does require a change in the law. At the moment a charge against a boat follows the boat. What needs introducing is proper central finance register and a change in the law to say to finance companies "if you want to secure a loan against a boat then you have to put it on the register".

Currently You or I or anyone here could buy an unregistered boat with a loan against it, or even a registered boat with the name (very easily) changed with a loan against the Part One registry, and be none the wiser.

But still liable.

 

[ari]

I've been following this thread from a distance, not had time to dive in properly. Agree much of what many posters have said, and especially the above. Part 1 already does what HPI does, and what any other register would do

Even with the most perfect registry, and P1 is ok, 2nd hand buyer is left with the risk of criminal/fraudulent concealment by the seller of the boat's identity. A registered charge can be concealed by changing the boat name, removing the C+M plate, and SSR-ing it under a new name. That risk exists and always will, even with the engine serial number super-registry, and so the question is whose risk ought it to be? The finance house's? The taxpayer's? No, it is the buyer's, and sodding well should be. People need to grow up and take responsibility. There is perfectly good due diligence that will expose such fraud (99% of the time, not 100%) and if buyer chooses not to do it then that's his choice.

Of course if the broker/boatbuilder industry wants, commercially, to take on that risk to stimulate trade, a la HPI, then let them. But they dont, so they shouldn't be forced to.

The only law change I could see a small case for is to make it clear that no charges are enforceable unless entered onto the p1 register. The p1 register is so easy to use that it's no hardship on lenders to pass such a law, and it feels right and fair. This at a stroke removes most worries about 2nd charges from family members, new entrants to market not using part 1, etc.

Other than that, the status quo seems perfectly fine to me. Those who say it isn't seem to think that a risk that in equity belongs to them should really belong to someone else, just because, er, it should. If you want to remove risk, pay for that by buying insurance

I'm not saying that the "risk" should belong to someone else because "er, it should". All I'm saying is that there needs to be a proper central register (Part One is linked to a boat solely through the easily changed name and an easily removed plaque as you know) because at the moment there is no effective way of checking for an outstanding lien.

 

[ari]

ari

It seems your concern -quite rightly- is about unregistered charges which neither you, a solicitor or broker, or whoever could find.

Please read all the posts, particularly Observers and consider whether an unregistered charge is actually enforceable?

It is.

So the "risk" that you are identifying is not only very small (unregistered charges) but is probably of no consequence (unless of course you can cite cases where an unregistered charge is enforced when the boat has changed hands).

I fail to see how your "central register" would work. Mortgages can already be registered against the boat and as Observer points out if the charge is say on stock boats it has to be registered at Companies House if the asset belongs to a company.

Your faith in Part One and in everyone "playing cricket" is touching, but in reality it would be the easiest thing in the world to remove the name and the Carving and Marking notice. Hell, as JFM has confirmed, you could even re-register it Part Three with the new name you've given it if you wanted. At a stroke you've instantly removed any way of anyone finding a mortgage registered against Part One because suddenly you've no way of tying the P1 entry up with the boat.

If lenders do not use mechanisms already open to them how are you going to force them to use a "new" register.

Very easily indeed. Change the law to: "This is the new registry, it requires hull, engine, gearbox and (if applicable) sterndrive serial numbers as well as the boat name. If you, Mr. Finance Company, wishes to uphold a mortgage claim then you must register your charge against this new registry complete with serial numbers. Failure to do so means no claim on boat".

Suddenly a buyer has a way of feeding in all the info and bingo, if any of the serial numbers match it flags up.

"Compensation" schemes whether run by associations or an insurance company have similar problems. How do you define the risk, particularly if you have no "history" and how do you devise an equitable way of sharing it by way of subscription or premium?

It isn't about compensation, it's about having a genuine way of finding out if a loan exists.

As many of us have said, the current system seems to work based on the constant stream of successful transactions. If you believe that there is a real risk that it is failing and a change is necessary then you have to produce your evidence. So far, every time this subject comes up, including this current thread, there is never any concrete evidence presented to illustrate that people have lost out. Therefore one can only conclude the concerns are in the mind!

I would be the first to support a change if there was a real problem. But at the moment all I see is (usually impractical) solutions searching for non-existent (or at best ill defined) problems. Not a good basis for change!

You really feel that in the current climate, no one under pressure from a failing business or potential house repossession will be tempted to sell their mortgaged boat and keep the cash for saving house/propping up business rather than clearing the loan?

And no one is concerned that this could happen?

Well the person who asked the original question that started this thread was just for a kick off.

Point is, this is a ridiculous situation (that there is no reliable way of ensuring your half million pound purchase has no lien) and is easily resolvable.

So why not resolve it?

 

[gjgm]

All I'm saying is that there needs to be a proper central register
********
Got to challenge you here. Based on what evidence is this "need" ? Can you give some facts as to whether this fraud happens 100 times a year, or once a decade?
I m just curious to know the scale of the problem.

 

[David_Jersey]

To drive any changes probably requires someone to sell the same £250k boat 1/2 a dozen times to himself using differing cloned identities for both vessel and "buyers"........all funded by finance.

If it gets popular enuf I am sure the finance companies would soon band together for a simple law change..........

Not that of course I am trying to encourage anyone to do something naughty

 

[Tranona]

Sorry, ari

Don't want to get into a blow by blow riposte, but you really do not seem to be listening to what others, not just me but Observer and JFM in particular are saying.

Everybody agrees that there is always the possibility of the fraudulent behaviuor you describe, but the general view seems that it is very rare, and there is no confidence in your suggestions for eliminating such behaviour.

As I am tired of saying - show some evidence that the problem you imagine is real and specifically how your proposals will solve the problem then it might be worth discussing.

As to your proposed wording all that does is state what seems to be the case already - if the charge is not registered it is probably not enforceable if the boat changes hands in the normal way. (See JFM above who explains it much better than I do)

 

[DAKA]

To drive any changes probably requires someone to sell the same £250k boat 1/2 a dozen times to himself using differing cloned identities for both vessel and "buyers"........all funded by finance.

If it gets popular enuf I am sure the finance companies would soon band together for a simple law change..........

Not that of course I am trying to encourage anyone to do something naughty

There are fraudsters out there who will have a go, a house was Insured for £250k with 6 different Insurance companies and then it caught fire.

They were caught with in days as they chose a little sleepy village that only had two loss adjusters.

 

[ari]

Sorry, ari

Don't want to get into a blow by blow riposte, but you really do not seem to be listening to what others, not just me but Observer and JFM in particular are saying.

Everybody agrees that there is always the possibility of the fraudulent behaviuor you describe, but the general view seems that it is very rare, and there is no confidence in your suggestions for eliminating such behaviour.

As I am tired of saying - show some evidence that the problem you imagine is real and specifically how your proposals will solve the problem then it might be worth discussing.

As to your proposed wording all that does is state what seems to be the case already - if the charge is not registered it is probably not enforceable if the boat changes hands in the normal way. (See JFM above who explains it much better than I do)

Already happened.

There was a gentleman called Mr Haddock (a name that sticks in the mind as he owned a fish and chip shop) who bought a Fairline Corniche through a broker which turned out to have an unregistered loan on it.

This was fairly widely publicised at the time in the press.

Unfortunately no legal standing for the finance companies rights in this instance was forthcoming as, after months of wrangling (during which time the boat was arrested so Mr. Haddock could not use it, although he was of course liable for both his own mortgage payments plus all marina fees etc) it was eventually settled out of court with (if I recall correctly) the brokers indemnity insurer paying a third of the original charge, him paying a third, and the finance company "paying" a third (by accepting the two thirds as sufficient for them to remove the charge and writing off the rest).

I believe the outstanding loan was for £30K so they were all £10K down.

However, the point (as asked, yet again, in the original post) is, is there a reliable way of ensuring a boat has no outstanding lien that a new owner would become responsible for?

Answer: NO.

Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? Well, there you and I clearly differ in opinion...

 

[ari]

Amazing, the power of Google!

As you'll see by the dates, this is an issue that's lain unresolved for 20+ years!

MICHAEL AND Christine Haddock bought their second boat, Shizelle, in 1990 for pounds 61,000. The 31ft Fairline motor cruiser was moored at Ocean Village Marina, Southampton, and they envisaged many happy years of cruising around the Solent.

The couple registered the boat on the Small Ships Register after buying it. So they were horrified, early in 1992, when they received a letter from a finance company saying there was an undischarged mortgage of pounds 40,000 on the vessel. The Haddocks, it continued, would have to discharge this to get unencumbered title to the vessel.

Since then the boat has been 'arrested', and Mr Haddock has only been able to climb aboard for maintenance purposes, while the case goes through the courts.

Mr Haddock, who has run a fish-and-chip shop for 15 years, had no idea of this when he bought the boat in good faith from an established yacht broker. However, the previous owner had got into financial trouble and had sold the boat without first clearing the mortgage.

Mr Haddock's solicitor, Tim Reynolds of Dyer, Burdett & Co, explained: 'At present the legal position is that a bona fide purchaser of a vessel subject to an undisclosed marine mortgage is likely to be held liable for the outstanding mortgage, even though there is, at present, no system for publicly recording these in order to protect the innocent purchaser, save where the vessel is registered under Part I of the Merchant Shipping Act. This is rare because of the often disproportionately high expense of such registration for small pleasure vessels.'

The problem of pleasure-boat registration has been taxing a number of marine associations for some time. However, it seems that this year ideas are finally being floated in earnest in an attempt to rectify the situation.

The Royal Yachting Association (RYA) has had a number of members ring up for help on finding that a newly acquired boat already has a mortgage on it. The courts have usually found in favour of the finance company involved.

Gerry Eardley, legal secretary of the RYA, says: 'There is no problem in obtaining finance for purchasing a boat. Recently, finance companies have been so keen to lend money that they have not been sufficiently concerned with finding out whether the boat was free to be sold in the first place. I can recall half a dozen cases where new owners have been caught out and lost from pounds 20,000 to pounds 50,000.'

Edmund Wheelan, legal affairs manager for the RYA, says: 'We are not usually keen on encouraging something like registration, because it is more bureaucracy and incurs a further cost when buying a boat. But in this case we can see the need for setting up a simple, cheap but effective registration.

'We tried to start up a record of unregistered mortgages a few years ago. We had the hardware and the manpower, and we had a great deal of interest from the yacht brokers and the finance companies. However, it ran into apathy after 18 months, and none of the big four lenders would eventually sign up.'

Colin Sinclair of the yacht broker Michael Schmidt and Partners says: 'There is a registry of British ships, the Part I Registry, but this covers anything from the Queen Mary down to a 20ft yacht. It is laborious to fill in and costs anything from pounds 500 to do so.

'Many boats are registered and if they are, any existing mortgage will show up. When we sell a boat that is registered, we always get a transcript of the registry, regardless of what the owner tells us. But we sell many boats that are not registered. Probably about half our sales are not registered.'

Some years ago, French customs insisted that yachts sailing into their waters had to have identification papers. The RYA set up the Small Ships Registry, which, for a fee of pounds 10, gave you a piece of paper certifying your competence and ownership of the boat. 'It may be cheap and cheerful, but it is not worth the pounds 10. Anyone could apply and say they owned what they liked, without having to provide any evidence at all. The Part I Registry, on the other hand, is like trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer,' said Patrick Boyd, president of the Yacht Brokers, Designers and Surveyors Association.

Both the Part I Registry and the Small Ships Registry, which was administered by local registration officers around the country, have now been put under one central office in Cardiff - the DVLA, which also handles car licences.

'So even checking out the SSR will become slower and more difficult than it was when it only took a quick call by a broker to the local officer, but the SSR did not register outstanding debts,' Mr Boyd says.

He adds: 'When we prepare a bill of sale, we try to make clear to the seller that they are signing a piece of paper saying the boat is free from all encumbrances. But that doesn't deter a crook.'

Howard Pridding, secretary of the British Marine Industries Federation, said: 'We have traditionally been opposed to boat registration, for the same reasons as the RYA, but are coming round to the opinion that it is a good idea. We are working at present on a feasibility paper. It needs to be simple and cheap, but comprehensive.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ts-behind-lax-registration-rules-1400436.html

 

[ari]

Incidently, you'll notice that there was a two year gap between buying and the boat being arrested by the finance company. Presumably the seller carried on paying the mortgage for a while till he ran out of cash...

So, a question all you guys who've bought a second-hand boat in the last year or two sitting there thinking "well I know that I'm ok".

Feeling so confident now..?

Oh, and it was forty grand outstanding, unsecured, I was ten grand out (!!)

 

[David_Jersey]

There are fraudsters out there who will have a go, a house was Insured for £250k with 6 different Insurance companies and then it caught fire.

They were caught with in days as they chose a little sleepy village that only had two loss adjusters.

I suspect that I am not meant to smile at both the slight flaw in the plan, nor at the ambition - but.....................

 

[ari]

Sorry, ari

Don't want to get into a blow by blow riposte, but you really do not seem to be listening to what others, not just me but Observer and JFM in particular are saying.

Everybody agrees that there is always the possibility of the fraudulent behaviuor you describe, but the general view seems that it is very rare, and there is no confidence in your suggestions for eliminating such behaviour.

As I am tired of saying - show some evidence that the problem you imagine is real and specifically how your proposals will solve the problem then it might be worth discussing.

As to your proposed wording all that does is state what seems to be the case already - if the charge is not registered it is probably not enforceable if the boat changes hands in the normal way. (See JFM above who explains it much better than I do)

Now imagine there was a law that said all finance companies must register their interest on a central database complete with engine serial numbers, HIN (hull Identification Number), etc etc?

Mr. Haddock (or his broker) could have simply fed in the serial numbers and HIN and "ping", up would have come the outstanding finance. Easy.

Of course the seller could have ground off every serial number on the boat, but would you buy a boat with every number missing? (Remember, even one would flag up an issue on the database).

Does that now answer your questions (example and how it could have easily been avoided)..?

 

[Tranona]

Well, I guess the very interesting post of the 15 year old report rather proves the point that I and many are trying to make. Which is

1 Cases are rare - here we have one example 20 years ago, but insufficient detail to draw any conclusion. One example where again insufficient detail but resolved by agrrement - presumably because there was no clear legal issue and an unwilligness to go to court to gain a ruling. A couple of other anecdotal cases from a good source but no details.

2 Various attempts to establish some sort of "scheme" such as yours, but no takers among the interested parties

3 An admission that you will never be able to stop a determined crook.

One would think that given the explosion of credit funded purchases since 1994 if there was a problem it would have come to the attention of bodies such as the RYA ABYA BMIF etc - but does not seem to have done.

BTW the report is misleading about the purpose of the SSR. It was never intended to be a register of ownership, nor of competence. Merely a mechanism for identifying a yacht as being subject to the requirements of British registration. Vital if you want to visit foreign waters without being required to meet local registration requirements.