Proof of ownership.

[25931]

I suppose that this question must have been raised before. The ssr certificate says "details of registered ownership"
but it is a non-title registration.
Are many boats registered in a way to prove ownership ?
Is a simple, un-registered BoS sufficient ?

 

[maby]

The only thing that comes close to a proof of ownership is a Part 1 registration which has a similar significance to the Land Registry for houses - but few privately owned boats are Part 1 registered because it is not legally required and the application is a bit bureaucratic. It's only really boats that have been funded through a marine mortgage that have such registrations. SSR has no legal significance. I guess you might get some confidence if the seller can demonstrate a long history of SSR registrations in his/her name.

 

[Sandyman]

I suppose that this question must have been raised before. The ssr certificate says "details of registered ownership"
but it is a non-title registration.
Are many boats registered in a way to prove ownership ?
Is a simple, un-registered BoS sufficient ?

No, not to my knowledge. BoS simply states who sold the boat & who bought it etc.
SSR states who owns it & in what %age.

 

[Serin]

The only thing that comes close to a proof of ownership is a Part 1 registration

Comes close, possibly. But not quite there, I think. As I mentioned in another thread, the MCA website mentions "proof of ownership" as a reason to be in the Part 1 register, but the certificate of registration contradicts this, as it is stated on the back of the certificate "this is not proof of ownership".

 

[Appledore]

Comes close, possibly. But not quite there, I think. As I mentioned in another thread, the MCA website mentions "proof of ownership" as a reason to be in the Part 1 register, but the certificate of registration contradicts this, as it is stated on the back of the certificate "this is not proof of ownership".

When I bought my boat, which was Part 1 Registered, I had to submit a Customs and Excise Form C201 for the Registration. This is a Bill of Sale, but the form states as a Footnote Warning: "A purchaser of a registered British ship does not obtain a complete title until the Bill of Sale has been recorded at the port of registry of the ship". My BOS has this endorsement written on it by the Port of Registration.

 

[maby]

No, not to my knowledge. BoS simply states who sold the boat & who bought it etc.
SSR states who owns it & in what %age.

Comes close, possibly. But not quite there, I think. As I mentioned in another thread, the MCA website mentions "proof of ownership" as a reason to be in the Part 1 register, but the certificate of registration contradicts this, as it is stated on the back of the certificate "this is not proof of ownership".

The problem with both registers is that they are not compulsory unlike houses. The majority of boats are not funded through marine mortgages and, hence, were not required to be registered on first sale. You then get into a situation where subsequent registration does not provide proof of ownership because the MCA are not willing to do the searches and document verification necessary to find the evidence. You could wander round any marina, pick a boat that is not displaying an SSR number and register it in your name and the legal owner would be highly unlikely to ever find out. A Part 1 registration would be a bit more difficult - it requires a survey to verify the weight of the boat - but I suspect that you would get away with taking out a Part 1 registration on most currently unregistered boats in the marina.

 

[Tranona]

I suppose that this question must have been raised before. The ssr certificate says "details of registered ownership"
but it is a non-title registration.
Are many boats registered in a way to prove ownership ?
Is a simple, un-registered BoS sufficient ?

The Bill of Sale is the title to the boat. Title is not quite the same thing as ownership, but gives you the right to transfer title. The Part 1 register is a register of title, but merely records the title from the Bill of Sale. As registration is not compulsory, title can change hands without being registered. So the register could show a different person having title if the boat has changed hands with a legitimate Bill of Sale.

Suggest you read the material on the RYA website covering ownership which explains the legal position very well.

 

[Serin]

When I bought my boat, which was Part 1 Registered, I had to submit a Customs and Excise Form C201 for the Registration. This is a Bill of Sale, but the form states as a Footnote Warning: "A purchaser of a registered British ship does not obtain a complete title until the Bill of Sale has been recorded at the port of registry of the ship". My BOS has this endorsement written on it by the Port of Registration.

Thanks for this. When it comes to Bills of Sale, my situation is a little complicated. Given this information, I presume a bill of sale for the hull (which we fitted out from scratch to our own designs) may have been presented when she was first registered and, presumably, re-registered when ownership was made "joint" with my partner. However, all this all happened a long time ago. Possibly the statement on my certificate indicates not, although the registration has been accepted as proof ownership in practice.

I shall look into it.

 

[Tranona]

Thanks for this. When it comes to Bills of Sale, my situation is a little complicated. Given this information, I presume a bill of sale for the hull (which we fitted out from scratch to our own designs) may have been presented when she was first registered and, presumably, re-registered when ownership was made "joint" with my partner. However, all this all happened a long time ago. Possibly the statement on my certificate indicates not, although the registration has been accepted as proof ownership in practice.

I shall look into it.

You are correct that any change in title of a registered ship is not complete from the point of view of the register until the change is registered, but as there is no compulsion to register it is not essential. The Bill of Sale would trump the registration if properly executed. So you could have "sold" half your boat to your partner with a Bill of Sale without registering the change, but you could not then legally sell the boat to a third party without both agreeing, irrespective of what is on the register.

 

[rotrax]

Jonic of this forum recently-late May-sold our previous boat and did the conveyancing on the new one, The cost of the new one, although modest compared to some, was a lot of money for us.

As it was a private sale we used jonic's service.

This gave us a title and paperwork check covering all potential issues, a client A/C for the purchase price and at the end a proper Bill of Sale that will satisfy a potential purchaser in the future and customs or Government agencies.

The cost was modest for the peace of mind it gave us in dealing with a private seller and large sums of cash.

Tranona's point above re joint ownership is of course relevant, but the Bill of Sale shows joint owners and prudence should prevail in ensuring both parties were singing from the same hymn book if purchasing said vessel.

 

[Serin]

You are correct that any change in title of a registered ship is not complete from the point of view of the register until the change is registered, but as there is no compulsion to register it is not essential. The Bill of Sale would trump the registration if properly executed. So you could have "sold" half your boat to your partner with a Bill of Sale without registering the change, but you could not then legally sell the boat to a third party without both agreeing, irrespective of what is on the register.

No sale or "sale" to a partner involved in my case. The partner with whom my boat was jointly owned was my late husband. Sadly, I am now the sole owner. The boat will not be sold when I can no longer use her, but will be passed on to a family member. I shall look into the legalities involved in due course to make sure there is no problem with that.

We rarely disagreed about matters concerning the boat, but he did occasionally talk about fitting davits for a dinghy. I was agin the idea and used to tell him he could fit one davit on his side if he liked, but there would be no davit on my side. Silly idea. The stern is far to narrow.......

 

[Tranona]

No sale or "sale" to a partner involved in my case. The partner with whom my boat was jointly owned was my late husband. Sadly, I am now the sole owner. The boat will not be sold when I can no longer use her, but will be passed on to a family member. I shall look into the legalities involved in due course to make sure there is no problem with that.

We rarely disagreed about matters concerning the boat, but he did occasionally talk about fitting davits for a dinghy. I was agin the idea and used to tell him he could fit one davit on his side if he liked, but there would be no davit on my side. Silly idea. The stern is far to narrow.......

Unless the original purchase was in both names then any transfer of title of part of the boat should be evidenced by a Bill of Sale - even if no money changes hands. You can have either joint ownership (which we have on our boat) or common ownership where the parties separately own a defined share of the boat (which is normally in 64ths). With the latter, as with houses the shares can be sold (or bequeathed) independently whereas with joint they have to be sold together. You can of course convert joint to shared if for example you wanted to bequeath the boat to two different people.

There is a very good section in the RYA information on ownership issues on what to do when an owner dies. Too often in the past transfer of ownership was not properly documented causes problems for later owners, so it is a good idea to read that section on the website both to ensure that the documentation is correct before you go and that your executor(s) are clear about what to do when the time comes.

 

[25931]

The more I think about ssr the more I realize how ridiculous it is e.g. whilst a foreigner serving a sentence (drug smuggling perhaps ) would have no difficulty in proving residence and therefore registering on ssr. someone who works abroad for seven months is prohibited and in the case of a "four ownership" where said chap is one of the four the others are also prohibited and anyone sailing round the world had better make sure that he returns within 187 days.
I'm sure that the situation would be much better if the RYA were to set up a registration scheme which could include proof of ownwership and include the hull nº which ssr say they cannot include for a vessel built before 2000

 

[JumbleDuck]

... anyone sailing round the world had better make sure that he returns within 187 days.

Wouldn't anyone sailing round the world need Part I registration?

 

[macd]

1. a foreigner serving a sentence (drug smuggling perhaps ) would have no difficulty in proving residence...

2. someone who works abroad for seven months is prohibited [from registering on SSR)...

3. anyone sailing round the world had better make sure that he returns within 187 days.

1. Such a person may very well find difficulty in proving residence, particularly if he were marked for deportation on release.

2. The test applied for SSR is 'ordinarily resident'. This is a vague concept, undefined in law. However, it does not require residence for 183 days per year, although that may be a factor taken into account. In fact it is perfectly possible to be deemed ordinarily resident in more than one country. Family ties, possession of property, payment of utility bills and other similar issues add weight to it. Someone working overseas for seven months per year but returning for five (or less) to a home in the UK may very well qualify as ordinarily resident.

The NHS seem rather arbitrarily to apply a somewhat stricter test of ordinarily resident, no doubt because it saves them money. Yet even their in-house guidance on assessing ordinarily resident includes the following:
a person can be ordinarily resident from the first day they arrive in the UK if they have genuinely come to settle for the time being. A pattern of regular and significant stays over a number of years, or indication that such a pattern is likely to emerge, may indicate that the person is ordinarily resident.

3. Why (unless their SSR were to run out within those 187 days, which would suggest a lack of foresight)? And why '187', anyway?

 

[maby]

The more I think about ssr the more I realize how ridiculous it is e.g. whilst a foreigner serving a sentence (drug smuggling perhaps ) would have no difficulty in proving residence and therefore registering on ssr. someone who works abroad for seven months is prohibited and in the case of a "four ownership" where said chap is one of the four the others are also prohibited and anyone sailing round the world had better make sure that he returns within 187 days.
I'm sure that the situation would be much better if the RYA were to set up a registration scheme which could include proof of ownwership and include the hull nº which ssr say they cannot include for a vessel built before 2000

SSR really just exists to placate our European neighbours. Several EU countries require some sort of official documentation for a boat in their waters and SSR is set up to do the minimum necessary to keep them happy.

 

[jwilson]

Wouldn't anyone sailing round the world need Part I registration?

No, SSR is fine. SOME SORT of registration is a legal requirement if leaving UK waters. SSR was set up as a cheap simple way of doing that.

 

[JumbleDuck]

No, SSR is fine. SOME SORT of registration is a legal requirement if leaving UK waters. SSR was set up as a cheap simple way of doing that.

Ta. I remember SSR coming in as registration-lite when the Frogs started getting particular, but wasn't sure how far acceptance had spread.

 

[Tranona]

Ta. I remember SSR coming in as registration-lite when the Frogs started getting particular, but wasn't sure how far acceptance had spread.

Acceptance is pretty much universal, even though it was originally prompted by our French friends.

Part 1 is difficult and for some boats and people impossible, plus expensive for initial registration.

 

[Tranona]

The more I think about ssr the more I realize how ridiculous it is e.g. whilst a foreigner serving a sentence (drug smuggling perhaps ) would have no difficulty in proving residence and therefore registering on ssr. someone who works abroad for seven months is prohibited and in the case of a "four ownership" where said chap is one of the four the others are also prohibited and anyone sailing round the world had better make sure that he returns within 187 days.
I'm sure that the situation would be much better if the RYA were to set up a registration scheme which could include proof of ownwership and include the hull nº which ssr say they cannot include for a vessel built before 2000

It may sound simple to you, but think about it, if it were simple it would have been done long ago. The current system is as simple as you can get and satisfies most people. Whatever system you have there will always be some it does not satisfy.

You need also to recognise that private boats do not have any legal status and title rests with the person or persons who can prove it. Registration that is not compulsory really adds very little other than to record who had title on the date of registration

The two registers we have serve different but overlapping purposes. The SSR simply shows that the boat is a British ship. Part 1 does the same but also records title, although does not prove it. That is the purpose of the Bill of Sale which underpins the register.