New boat: what documents do I *need*

[icarusbop]

Hello:

I recently bought a yacht built in 1981. She came from Portsmouth which is a long way away from her new home.
The broker assured me I didn't need to go back down the entire length of the country to complete the purchase, and that the relevant ownership documents would be onboard when she came to me on a lorry.
They weren't.
A long list of emails and phone calls has ensued....

I currently have the Part 1 cert (in the old owners name).
I have received today a scanned copy of a copy of the original purchase invoice showing VAt paid. The copy the scan was made from is in the post - will this suffice? I have contacted the original broker (Ancata Beneteau) listed on the document asking if they can certify the copy and am still waiting for a reply.

The Bill of sale is missing, the broker has made a new one and it is currently on it's way to the previous owner for signing off, then back in the post to me.


The boat builders certificate is currently missing and being searched for - how important is it?

Thanks.

 

[prv]

If she was formerly Part 1 registered in the old owner's name, and the bill of sale shows he sold her to you, then I'd have thought that was satisfactory proof that you now own her.

Is she still registered? If so, shouldn't you have sent the bill of sale to the MCA to get the register updated?

I'd have thought the copy of the original invoice will suffice for VAT questions; it's largely a red herring anyway.

Pete

 

[icarusbop]

I have the part 1, but currently not the bill of sale. They are getting a new one signed off by the vendor tomorrow (it has gone by post today).
Until I have that I cannot get the Part 1 updated.

I didn't think the builders certificate would be a big issue, but it would be nice to have it.

 

[prv]

Ah, well, if she's going to continue to be Part 1 registered then there's no issue. As far as I know, Part 1 is a proof-of-ownership registry, like the Land Registry. If the register says you own the boat, you own the boat.

Can't see the builder's certificate being necessary for anything. He certifies that the boat was built - if anybody ever doubts that, invite them to come and stand on it! We didn't have a builder's certificate for KS. The new boat came with one, framed on the saloon bulkhead, but I don't know why anybody would want to look at bureaucracy for decoration (I'm getting together pictures of past family boats to put up instead) so I'll be taking it down and putting it in the depths of some file.

Pete

 

[Chaffers]

What about boats bought on Ebay?

Should you ask for documentation to prove in the future that you own them?

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Not quite! To be absolutely sure you need to ask if any mortgages are registered with the Registrar of Shipping. For this you have to pay a fee.

Ah, well, if she's going to continue to be Part 1 registered then there's no issue. As far as I know, Part 1 is a proof-of-ownership registry, like the Land Registry. If the register says you own the boat, you own the boat.

Can't see the builder's certificate being necessary for anything. He certifies that the boat was built - if anybody ever doubts that, invite them to come and stand on it! We didn't have a builder's certificate for KS. The new boat came with one, framed on the saloon bulkhead, but I don't know why anybody would want to look at bureaucracy for decoration (I'm getting together pictures of past family boats to put up instead) so I'll be taking it down and putting it in the depths of some file.

Pete

 

[vyv_cox]

A 1981 boat is assumed VAT paid. Info from the RYA website says you need the following evidence:

That the boat was in use as a pleasure craft on 1st January 1985, documentary evidence in support of this is required, evidence in support may take the form of :
 Part I Registration;
 Marine Survey;
 Builder’s Certificate; or
 insurance documents.

And:
That the boat was moored in the EU on 31st December 1992, again documentary evidence in support of this is required in the form of:
 receipt for mooring;
 dry dock records;
 boatyard repair invoice; or
 receipt for harbour dues.

 

[Tranona]

Yes, the VAT invoice is irrelevant but nice to have.

Sounds like the broker needs a kick up the pants for not doing his job properly. It is his job to ensure that the title is transferred to you correctly, and he does not seem to have not done that. You should see the Bill of Sale that the current owner had when he bought it as this is title. The Part 1 registration is not the title, although it is evidence. However it could be sold without registering the sale - just as it appears to be to you. Did you have a contract for the purchase? That should have laid out what each party should do.

I hope you have not paid for the boat yet as until you have confirmation that there are no charges outstanding (unlikely on an oldish boat, but still need to check) and got a Bill of Sale transferring clear title from the current owner to you, you do not own the boat. The broker should also have offered to do the re-registration for you, although that is not compulsory.

 

[icarusbop]

Hello:

After much wrangling and waiting, and liasing with the Brokers, I finally have the VAT invoice and a bill of sale (previous bill of sale 'going missing in the post' twice!)
I have an couple of questions re the BOS though.
In section 2 it advises that the vessal was transferred in condiferation of the sum of "One pound and other considerations" - I did not buy the boat for One pound, this is reflected on the contract which was signed by both parties, and wondered if this is normal, will it affect my resale value or if it invalidates the BOS completely.
Also: In section 4 signed for and witnessed section, the BOS is not dated but has the words "Do Not Date" written in the date area - again does this invalidate the BOS?

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 36384]

This may not be relevant to your situation. Some brokers buy boats from owners in order to sell them in a marina that has a contract demanding a boat is sold through a named broker.

 

[colind3782]

"One pound and other considerations"

Perfectly normal.

 

[macd]

Ah, well, if she's going to continue to be Part 1 registered then there's no issue. As far as I know, Part 1 is a proof-of-ownership registry, like the Land Registry.

To amplify Kurrawong_Kid's observations:
it says this on the back of a Part 1 cert:
A Certificate of Registry is not proof of ownership

 

[icarusbop]

I've been in touch with the broker - he advises the One pound thing is normal which aligns with other google results and what everyone is saying here.
The BOS I have is currently an emailed scanned copy - the original is in the post (Special delivery)
Since 2 x BOS have already been lost, the broekr wrote on the document 'Do Not date' in pencil, the new BOS was then driven to the vendors house for him to sign then driven back to the broker - he then scanned it and sent me the copy.
After that he rubbed out the pencil 'Do Not date' and put in the original date of the sale and put it in the post. He did this so the vendor did not put the wrong (i.e. Wednesdays) date on when he was signing the document.
So in conclusion - the original document I have in the post is dated correctly and the "one pound" thing os norrmal practice.

 

[NickRobinson]

The 'one pound and other considerations' is to keep the price private, I think to avoid insurance companies paying more than the sale price in a total loss?

A counsel of perfection, now the deal is done, but the paperwork should be seen first not last, certainly seen before paying.

I've walked from viewing really good cars because the V5 etc, promised to be present and in the correct name on the phone turned out to be 'at me Mum's house' or otherwise unavailable. I saw little point in viewing a great item if I couldn't have good title.
(not suggesting anything improper in your seller's case, I guess that now seller and broker have been paid, it's no longer a priority for them)
Nick

 

[prv]

"One pound and other considerations"

I think the point of that is to hide the price that you paid from anyone who might look at the bill of sale in future. The "other considerations" are all the other pounds that you paid

Bit of a silly lawyers' trick; I think I read somewhere that it's common for house sales too in the US. We can't get away with that here as the government wants the price written down so it can extract Stamp Duty.

Pete

 

[vyv_cox]

I think the point of that is to hide the price that you paid from anyone who might look at the bill of sale in future. The "other considerations" are all the other pounds that you paid

Pete

Not always. A previous bill of sale with my boat says the same. I bought the boat from a car dealer who was perfectly used to part exchanges: in fact I 'traded in' my previous boat for it. The 'other considerations' in this case was a Mercedes car.