SSR-I can't renew

[Tranona]

Could some one justify this nonsense?

Not a justification - just an explanation. Part 1 is intended for commercial vessels and tonnage (that is volume) is required to be verified as port charges and light dues are based on tonnage. As others have suggested the survey is also required to confirm the vessel exists as being on the register gives a boat legal status.

Of course, little of this applies to leisure yachts as they have been exempted from light dues and tonnage based port fees, but the need for verification still exists.

At the time the SSR was introduced (to fulfill the more limited requirement of confirmation of nationality of the boat) it was considered that a residence based register would satisfy the majority of yachtsmen who wanted to go abroad.

Of course things have moved on then with more UK citizens ceasing to be eligible for the simple register and more non citizens becoming eligible.

Not satisfactory for those in the first category, but guess the option is always open to lobby their MPs (which they now don't have!) to change things. Don't hold your breath, though!

 

[BrianH]

There's what appears to be a loophole at the end.

4) What does ordinarily resident mean?
For the purposes of registering a ship it means living and sleeping in the UK for a significant part of the year. A person may be considered to be ordinarily resident in the country in which they live for a period of, or periods, which collectively amount to 185 days or more in a twelve month period. If you are resident in the UK for tax purposes, you will generally be regarded as resident for the purpose of registration.

This was, in fact, an addendum at quite a later date to the original requirements. I does, at least, mean that service and diplomatic staff, employees sent abroad by their companies but still paying UK tax, were exempted from the original blanket proscription of non-residence.

However, when I was first sent abroad by my company I was exempt from UK tax, so even when this rider was added, it didn't help me personally.

Until the Part I stringent demands of ownership proof were relaxed, I and many other British subjects with the right of abode in the UK had to perpetrate a fraud by using a UK address or find a flag of convenience. I was able to legitimately register in Austria.

 

[Sybarite]

I'am not objecting to being forced onto Part 1 with its higher tax, I object to a pointless , expensive, survey.

Register in Belgium. Solves a lot of problems.

Fly an ensign from the port cross- trees.

 

[GrahamM376]

It's not just the Part 3 which is a problem for many of us. Although we have a UK house, are on the electoral role and pay UK tax, we've had car & travel insurance refused and banks refusing to open accounts when I've been honest (in the past) and informed them we're out of the country for more than 6 months. If time is spent equally between say 3 (even EC) countries, one can't meet residence requirements anywhere!

Not allowed to have an ISA as well.

 

[KellysEye]

> shall leave it to Mr T to tell you that Part 1 does not prove ownership.

Well he has and if you look on the back of the certificate it shows the name(s) of who owns the shares in the boat and you or anybody who has a copy of or seen the certificate, a prospective owner for example, can call the registrar to check if there is a mortgage. If you sell the boat the new owner has to apply to renew the Part One. It has nothing to do being compulsory, with beneficial ownership or anything else MrT mentioned.

 

[Tranona]

> shall leave it to Mr T to tell you that Part 1 does not prove ownership.

Well he has and if you look on the back of the certificate it shows the name(s) of who owns the shares in the boat and you or anybody who has a copy of or seen the certificate, a prospective owner for example, can call the registrar to check if there is a mortgage. If you sell the boat the new owner has to apply to renew the Part One. It has nothing to do being compulsory, with beneficial ownership or anything else MrT mentioned.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. It does indeed tell you the name of the owners and all that - BUT only at the time that the registrar was notified.

There is no compulsion to notify the registrar of any change in ownership. It is the Bill of Sale that is the title to the boat - the register only records the Bill of Sale. If the boat was sold the new owner has title with a properly executed Bill of Sale, irrespective of what the certificate of registration says.

Of course in most cases the Certificate does tell you who the owner is, but as I pointed out ownership can change without notifying or getting approval from the registrar.

A potential buyer can look on the certificate as some evidence of ownership, and particularly as a record of any recorded charges against the boat, but the purchase contract he signs will clearly state that ownership is transferred by a Bill of Sale, and that is what you get when you pay. It is then optional to register your title on the Part I register. The status of the Part I certificate is similar to that of a V5 for a car. It records the persons responsible for the boat (or car) but does not prove title.

So it has everything to do with the nature of the register and whether registration of title is compulsory. As I pointed out other registers, for example, Greece, Spain and Portugal, title has to be registered to be legal, so the registration document is the legal title.

Hope it is clear now, and you can see why your statement is incorrect.

 

[prv]

Well he has and if you look on the back of the certificate it shows the name(s) of who owns the shares in the boat

My SSR certificate also lists the owners, but that doesn't mean it's proof of ownership.

Pete

 

[macd]

Well he has and if you look on the back of the certificate it shows the name(s) of who owns the shares in the boat.

That'll be on the same page, then, as the legend "not proof of ownership".
And, yes, I grant you that on the face of it, that is pretty contradictory.

 

[KellysEye]

>It does indeed tell you the name of the owners and all that - BUT only at the time that the registrar was notified.

The certificate has to be renewed every five years plus you can get the contact details of the owners on the certificate from the registrar if you want to check they still own the boat.

 

[Tranona]

>It does indeed tell you the name of the owners and all that - BUT only at the time that the registrar was notified.

The certificate has to be renewed every five years plus you can get the contact details of the owners on the certificate from the registrar if you want to check they still own the boat.

There is no COMPULSION to renew so the certificate only shows the owners at the time the certificate was issued. Renewal requires a declaration that the details are correct, but there is no further check.

In the event of a dispute over ownership the Bill of Sale is the document that establishes title, not the registration certificate.

Hope it is clear to you now!

 

[prv]

you can get the contact details of the owners on the certificate from the registrar if you want to check they still own the boat.

But it doesn't show they still own the boat. It shows that the registry think they still own the boat. What if they sold the boat two years ago and didn't update the registration?

Pete

 

[vyv_cox]

But it doesn't show they still own the boat. It shows that the registry think they still own the boat. What if they sold the boat two years ago and didn't update the registration?

Pete

Exactly. When I bought Straitshooter the registration showed it belonged to the previous owner but one, because the guy I bought it from, who had owned it for 3-4 years, had never updated it.

 

[theoldsalt]

Tranona,

I for one, and I'm sure many others, have, for years, been led to believe that Part 1 registration proved title to a vessel.

It is now blatently clear, at least to me, that this is not true.

Thank you for so clearly explaining the reasons.

I have also learnt from this thread that the evidence required when initially registering have been relaxed. When I bought my first Part 1 registered boat back in the 60s it was extremely difficult unless registered from new. In those days to Part 1 register a boat with many previous owners it could be almost impossible as traceability was usually unavailable.

 

[prv]

Exactly. When I bought Straitshooter the registration showed it belonged to the previous owner but one, because the guy I bought it from, who had owned it for 3-4 years, had never updated it.

What's the betting on Kelly'sEye finally accepting this?

Pete

 

[Tranona]

What's the betting on Kelly'sEye finally accepting this?

Pete

Its a hard slog, but you never know.

 

[Tranona]

Tranona,

I for one, and I'm sure many others, have, for years, been led to believe that Part 1 registration proved title to a vessel.

It is now blatently clear, at least to me, that this is not true.

Thank you for so clearly explaining the reasons.

I have also learnt from this thread that the evidence required when initially registering have been relaxed. When I bought my first Part 1 registered boat back in the 60s it was extremely difficult unless registered from new. In those days to Part 1 register a boat with many previous owners it could be almost impossible as traceability was usually unavailable.

Pleasure! Part 1 has become very much easier despite the oddity of needing a survey, which is a big negative when the boat is not located in the UK.

However, rather that than the bureaucratic nature of the process in other countries. Still smarting a bit from the 800 Euros bill I got from the lawyer in Greece for de registering my boat from their register and notarlising the Bill of Sale. The latter required a trip to the Port Police for both myself and my wife to have it recorded and stamped. If we had not been able to do it in Greece it would have required a trip to the Greek embassy here. At least I have lots of stamps and certificates confirming our legal title.

 

[BrianH]

Pleasure! Part 1 has become very much easier despite the oddity of needing a survey, which is a big negative when the boat is not located in the UK.

Actually, unlike the OP, I did not find it such an oddity to require a recognised surveyor to confirm that a ship exists and what the actual dimensions are, rather than accept the applicant's statement before entering it into a legal, official register. What was an oddity was the price here in Italy, where such services are a relic from earlier days of protectionism of professional institutions. It would have been cheaper to use a Croatian surveyor but fortunately I could take advantage of a visit of a UK surveyor on local business, without the travel and accommodation expenses overhead.

Other countries also have obligatory surveys for their formal registers. Switzerland only accepts their own Swiss surveyor with no recognition of local surveyors, so more costly with travel and accommodation expenses from Basel added.

 

[Tranona]

It is not the requirement to confirm the vessel exists, it is the individual calculation of tonnage that is the oddity on a production yacht. The tonnage has no purpose, and I expect that although the measurement is supposed to be standardised, surveyors may well come up with different figures for otherwise identical boats. For example how do you standardise chart space or apprentice accommodation allowances? The owner is spending several hundred pounds for somebody to take some dodgy measurements to end up with a useless figure to fill a box on a form.

 

[BrianH]

The net tonnage figure is indeed an anachronism but is just one number on the certificate, which includes other dimensions such as length, breadth and depth. If these are to be formally registered the owner is not always the most reliable of informants.

 

[Tranona]

The net tonnage figure is indeed an anachronism but is just one number on the certificate, which includes other dimensions such as length, breadth and depth. If these are to be formally registered the owner is not always the most reliable of informants.

But apart from length which is used as a charging (and sometimes licencing) base the figures are of no use. (Actually I think the length in the old blue Book was LBP). Indeed there is an advantage for having a self declared length dimension (for the SSR) on my Bavaria 37 is 11.55m as in the technical data from the builder, 11.38m if you convert from 37' but 11.10m (36'1") on the Greek register.

Fortunately my club berth has a maximum of 38' so I have no problems, but if I boated in a place where there was a break of 11m, guess what I would have put on the SSR!