part 1 or part 3

I have made this point before on similar threads, which is that you can SSR an empty fag packet if you want as nothing is checked.

I met a guy in the Med with a catermaran a few years ago. He had three SSR Certificates - each with a different length of boat. He presented the appropriate Certificate to the Marina Office dpending on how far away he was from them and their general attitude. Cost him £30.00 for the three Certificates but saved him much more.

Totally illegal of course.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i believe it has been part 1 in the past

[/ QUOTE ]

If so then there will be a Reg'd number and also Tonnage cut into the boat somewhere.

I'm amazed at the poo-poo of the SSR or Pt3 as some term it. It does it's job of stating who is registered owner and that is all that's really needed. Nothing more.
As to this length of boat bit - the SSR instructions clearly show that LOA and NOT total overall length is the measurement requested - they even supply nice little drawings of how to measure it. LOA is often in our case same or similar to Pt 1 reg'd length.
As to using a shorter length to pay marina fees, well I know plenty of marinas who do random measure boats even after charging on first arrival !

I also know of a boat that left a marina after having his fees upped after he was measured - supidly left his anchor sitting over bow roller - tripped him into next fee bracket.

To the OP - pt 3 SSR is really good enough and considering you have a 23ft Pageant, a very fine pocket cruiser I may add, - how far are you intending to travel with it ? If only UK waters - then you don't even need to register.
 
<<< It does it's job of stating who is registered owner and that is all that's really needed. Nothing more. >>>

It doesn't even do that. Many years ago I bought a Dart catamaran from the Laser Centre. I was offered the option to have an SSR for it and agreed. The salesman brought me a bucket that was full of SSRs and invited me to take one, or more than one if I wanted. None had any relevance to the boat I had bought.

The truth is that the SSR was introduced simply to satisfy French requirements for some sort of documentation. Its scope may well have been increased now, but it's not a very valuable piece of paperwork. Having said that, when I bought mu current boat I was quite surprised to find that through the SSR that came with it I was able to find quite a bit of information about previous owners, useful when I upgraded to a Part 1 registration.
 
Vyv ... well the broker should be shot for that and you also know yourself that a SSR for a sold on boat is void anyway. So his bucket was worthless by default.
I think SSR authority would be interested in someone doing the bucket trick.

Anyway I differ with you - as the SSR does show ownership - check my photo above posted, second I have Latvian Authorities acceptance of it as proof - as SSR said to me when I queried this years ago (I originally called asking where the blue cover was on my new one !) SSR with Proof of Identit does prove ownership as long as ID agrees with box lower half of front page of SSR.

Can't dispute the posted piccie. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I differ with you - as the SSR does show ownership - check my photo above posted, second I have Latvian Authorities acceptance of it as proof - as SSR said to me when I queried this years ago (I originally called asking where the blue cover was on my new one !) SSR with Proof of Identit does prove ownership as long as ID agrees with box lower half of front page of SSR.

Can't dispute the posted piccie. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I dispute it.

What is says is 'DETAILS OF REGISTERED OWNER'

The reverse of my Part 1 says:

'THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP'

So are you saying that SSR (which checks nothing and has no power to check anything) IS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP and Part 1 (even though it checks the paper trail of Bills of Sale and has the authority to check marine mortgages) declares itself NOT to be proof of ownership?

If you are, you are wrong and - as I have said before, Part 1 and SSR only attest to you having Registered your vessel. Only when any outstanding mortgages and liens have been checked and agreed by the MCA may you DECLARE YOURSELF to be the owner. THE MCA takes no responsibility for this.

From the MCA website:

The Small Ships Register is a simple, cheap way of registering which proves the ship’s nationality. It does not register ‘Title’ and you cannot register a mortgage. This register is not for companies, fishing or submersible vessels or vessels 24 metres or over in length.

What the Latvians choose to accept is up to them but it does not affect the material fact.
 
i think i am going to register it prt 3 ssr, because after speaking to mca, it is alot of hard work to get it prt 1 registered with very little difference in the out come.
 
Just to expand on the hassle bit. When I came to change the Registered Owners name on my last boat the MCA Pt 1 bounced it as the address of the last owner was not the same as the address on the Bill of Sale. The broker then had to write to the previous owner (now in the far East) for a letter of explanation. Delayed the Registration by two months.
 
Interesting, I had the identical problem, chap had moved between registering the yacht, and about 10 years later selling it to me. Annoying but not ultimately a problem.

Worth checking with the vendor when you hand over the cash that he has not moved house, it would save time as you could get him then to write a formal letter to the MCA that you can send with the |Change of ownership papers.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway I differ with you - as the SSR does show ownership - check my photo above posted, second I have Latvian Authorities acceptance of it as proof - as SSR said to me when I queried this years ago (I originally called asking where the blue cover was on my new one !) SSR with Proof of Identit does prove ownership as long as ID agrees with box lower half of front page of SSR.

Can't dispute the posted piccie. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I dispute it.

What is says is 'DETAILS OF REGISTERED OWNER'

The reverse of my Part 1 says:

'THIS CERTIFICATE IS NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP'

So are you saying that SSR (which checks nothing and has no power to check anything) IS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP and Part 1 (even though it checks the paper trail of Bills of Sale and has the authority to check marine mortgages) declares itself NOT to be proof of ownership?

If you are, you are wrong and - as I have said before, Part 1 and SSR only attest to you having Registered your vessel. Only when any outstanding mortgages and liens have been checked and agreed by the MCA may you DECLARE YOURSELF to be the owner. THE MCA takes no responsibility for this.

From the MCA website:

The Small Ships Register is a simple, cheap way of registering which proves the ship’s nationality. It does not register ‘Title’ and you cannot register a mortgage. This register is not for companies, fishing or submersible vessels or vessels 24 metres or over in length.

What the Latvians choose to accept is up to them but it does not affect the material fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not even going to start on about Pt 1 as I have never had personal dealings with it other verifying Reg'y details are cut into a boats frame.

Please read carefully what I said - based on what SSR told me when I asked this matter.
The possession of the certificate SSR in itself is not prrof ownership. That is why it says so immediate under the title.
Showing the SSR and an accepted Proof of Identity that matches the name of the registered owner details is sufficient evidence that combination is owner of the named vessel in the SSR.

What you are saying about my post is not quite the same. I do not say the SSR on it's own is proof. It's one of those legal word puzzles as they said to avoid someone having the SSR in hand and claiming boat as their's.

If we take any object through our lives - it's actually extremely difficult to prove absolute ownership. Car's, Boat's etc.

The only matter I will say about Pt 1 is that it is necessary so that interest of Mortgage provider can be entered. SSR has no provision for it.

As regards Latvia - their interpretation falls into line with what SSR told me many moons ago. Latvian demanded copy of Registration AND Proof of my Identity together.

I'm sorry if you do not agree, but that is my information passed as given to me. Maybe SSR guy was wrong ? Please take it up with SSR /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
it was only the last owner that did not ask for bill of sale because he did not want to pay registration fees. now i have to prove that his widow was the legal owner and that he owned it before and a form of reciept Might be accepted. but still need to contact last registerd owner and get him to write a letter saying who he sold it to.
as you can see a nightmare to do, as last owner is not with us anymore and proberly the owner before, so not wanting to upset families i think ssr is the best way to go. You get little benefit from part 1, other than mortgage, i dont need that so think i have done the right thing
 
I think we are saying the same thing,

I can go on to the MCA website now and register SUPERANNE in my name. I can pay by credit card, get the Certificate and rock up to Latvia, present my passport, electricity bill or whatever to the authorities and sail away in your boat. Can't I? Don't see why not. There are no checks, no Bills of Sale required, not even a receipt from the previous owner.

My point is that the SSR is a pointless, utterly fantastic document which has no legal standing whatsoever. The fact that Latvia accepts it is fine but what worries me is that so many people seem to think that it works wonders. It is nothing more than paper umbrella - and they do not keep out the rain.

Neither Part I or Part III prove title. Part I merely makes the transer of Registered Owner a little more complicated. As you have said, proof of title of anything is often complex. SSR, IMO gives a false impression with statements like 'DETAILS OF REGISTERED OWNER' to the layman that means one thing - that you have title - which you do not!
 
no but apparently even my bill of sale is not ownership because there is no proof that the person i bought it from bought it from previous owner as there is know bill of sale between them just a reciept.
 
TBH - I think the issue has blown up out of all proportion. I've bought and sold boats privately and via brokers. I know lots of people having done similar and I cannot remember anyone having problems other than reports in magazines. Registration of the Boat - KISS principle IMHO - SSR (pt3) and that's it.

Why complicate matters ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

M
Which kettle?
2
Replies
23
Views
653
Refueler
Refueler
I
Mast refurb
2
Replies
27
Views
852
ducked
D
W
Diesel heater burner mat
Replies
6
Views
289
trialframe
T
S
Interior Sadler 29 terrible paint job?
Replies
19
Views
614
vyv_cox
vyv_cox
M
Change of Ownership Procedure
Replies
1
Views
143
jwilson
J

Share this page

Top