Private sale put you off

[jonic]

Thank you; and that is my point. It is not quite 'fail safe'. What if the broker had not bothered to contact me on the day of the sale to advise me of the problem? I would have sailed off in blissful ignorance.

Even the most highly regarded, YBDSA and ABYA of Brokers omitted to carry out the most fundamental of checks with the Part I Registry. The title should have been established at the time deposit was made and confirmed WITH THE PART I REGISTRY.

The fact that I managed to secure the full title of the boat was more chance than good management - why? Because until I was granted Part I Registration, each one of the outstanding creditors could have seized the boat.

Why not just admit it: this guy was a complete ******.

This is something that happened overseas and you haven't told us who it was, so none of us know who you are referring to (do we even know when it happened?) so I don't know what you mean by admit it??

We have already agreed with you that he xxxxed up .

He should have assumed the owner may have been lying and should have obtained a transcript pre survey.

What disturbs me is how happy the owner of the boat was to not declare he had loans on the boat. He would have to had put that in writing too. So blatant fraud on his part.

Imagine if you had paid the money direct to him.

Not disagreeing with you though, the broker obtained the transcript at the wrong stage.

 

[nickf]

Not disagreeing with you though, the broker obtained the transcript at the wrong stage.

May be the point is if a buyer deals with the vendor direct he/she can check out these issues first hand. It does not need a broker to check out Part 1 - it is easy for any one to do it.. However if one uses a broker one may assume (in this case wrongly) that this has been done. To answer the OP I personally would be happier dealing with the vendor direct.

 

[jonic]

May be the point is if a buyer deals with the vendor direct he/she can check out these issues first hand. It does not need a broker to check out Part 1 - it is easy for any one to do it.. However if one uses a broker one may assume (in this case wrongly) that this has been done. To answer the OP I personally would be happier dealing with the vendor direct.

I suspect the brokers would prefer it if buyers dealt direct with fraudulent vendors not declaring loans too!

 

[nickf]

I suspect the brokers would prefer it if buyers dealt direct with fraudulent vendors not declaring loans too!

I am sure you are right but I suspect most buyers (in my opinion without foundation) believe that if they are dealing through a broker that the risk is minimised.

 

[jonic]

Don't worry I was being a bit tounge in cheek

But you are a right a good yacht broker will absolutely minimise that risk and keep good records of all the owner's declarations if needed at a later stage, and the vendor will have no access to any of the funds whilst any further checks are being made.

 

[Resolution]

Interesting stuff. Like many forumites I have bought and sold yachts privately, as well as through brokers. So far no problems, but I wonder how many private buyers do actually bother to check with all the marine mortgage lenders whether there are any outstanding mortgages on the boat in question? Or bother to check the Part One registry?

 

[jonic]

Interesting stuff. Like many forumites I have bought and sold yachts privately, as well as through brokers. So far no problems, but I wonder how many private buyers do actually bother to check with all the marine mortgage lenders whether there are any outstanding mortgages on the boat in question? Or bother to check the Part One registry?

It's worth noting that part 1 is not absolute proof of title either, although it is the best we have in terms of an agency reference.

What you really want is part 1 with all original paperwork including VAT, RCD, all Bills of Sale and the Builders Certificate and a cross ref check against the physical HIN along with the owners address and passport.

Here is a real world example of what can turn up:

I had a client ask me to sell his boat a few years ago. I knew of him through a previous client so had no reservations.

The boat was about 8 years old and on the SSR. It had had a couple of previous owners and I requested the usual documents, before listing the boat, along with the owners ID and address details. I also knew of his (large) well known business.

The listing agreement came back, duly signed with the boat being unencumbered. The documents came in and all was in order except some of the documents were copies.

I checked the physical HIN on the boat and queried the one or two copy documents.

I was told the originals were in a safe and the secretary had made a mistake and not to worry.

The title was almost correct, and what would have been missing if a bank was holding papers as security was not all missing.

So as it was on the SSR and the documents usually held by a bank were mostly present it did not point to a loan.

But something didn't feel right so I faxed around to the major lenders. This not easy as a lot of the big banks have closed their marine divisions so there is no a longer a direct department to contact. But many mortgages are still live.

To my surprise, and don't forget this is an SSR registered boat not part 1, a high street bank came back with 3 months of a marine mortgage still to run. The owner said he was genuinely unaware but it didn't even get on the books until all was rectified and I had confirmation of settlement from the bank.

 

[chinita]

This is something that happened overseas and you haven't told us who it was, so none of us know who you are referring to (do we even know when it happened?)

To clarify, and finish this off.

He was a British broker and YBDSA Member, the boat was UK registered, the vendor was British, the Bill of Sale was MCA. Date was 2003. Whether the transaction would fall under English or Spanish law is a moot point and one I cannot answer at this point.

He was operating in the Balearics and clearly targeting British/North European customers rather than the local (sparse) Spanish market.

I am not going to disclose his name as, although he retired some time ago, it is still being used by the current trading business.

Yes, it was very disturbing too me that the Bill of Sale had been falsified. My point to the broker that any (or all) of the creditors could claim a charge on the boat and that I was not the legal owner. Being finicky I could also have claimed that this invalidated my insurance and, as a consequence, I was in breach of the Terms and Conditions of my marina berth.

My concern about these points were dismissed as fripperies.

 

[jonic]

Chinita

Thanks for the PM and extra details.

It sounds like the boat owner was a serial defaulter, what a nightmare.

The part 1 registry transcript should have been done at the deposit stage, but I think your assumption why it wasn't is probably correct.

(We would do them twice if we were suspicious - once at deposit stage and just before completion as well, in case they have tried to take a mortgage in the interim but I should stress that would be very rare.

The difficulty with con-men or sellers in trouble, when they are sweet talking the broker or the buyer regarding their financial situation, they are always very believable.

To those reading this we should be clear that it was not the broker who falsified anything but the seller who was conning the broker.

But the broker should have turned this up at an earlier stage.

He at least did finally turn it up and did protect your money, but he was very very late and it's not the way to do it at all.

As an aside I spent a very happy winter berthed at the RCN :encouragement:

It's a fantastic location and the staff were brilliant.