Tax not applicable...how can it be ??

[jakew009]

…
Perhaps he could contact his yacht broker who he keeps posting and ask for his views on these points, which were not covered in the article. …

My experience is most brokers don’t know their ass from their elbow on stuff like this, and some even less than that.

I had a ridiculous conversation with one broker who was selling a boat that had been smuggled in from abroad.

He was completely oblivious and dropped his client right in it (who it seems then decided to pay the vat as it was later advertised as vat paid with a certificate available).

I often wondered where you would stand if you purchased it from the previous owner in the UK who had smuggled it in. It definitely had no CE mark. Can it be confiscated?

I passed as I figured it was uninsurable.

 

[Tranona]

Wyatt is not really a broker but a substantial dealer and importer so most of what they write is correct and helpful apart from the bit about exemptions. However you are probably right about some brokers who are not in everyday contact with boats that have a complex history so have no need for the background knowledge on these sorts of issues.

To answer your question it is the importer's responsibility - clearly stated in the legislation on both VAT and Certification to comply with the law. A subsequent "good faith" buyer - that is somebody who carried out due diligence or accepted the broker had done so is not liable. However it is always possible that the boat could be impounded during any investigation. It may turn out to be a protracted process but likely that if it came to court it would find in favour of the good faith buyer. Unlikely though ever to get to that stage.

Surprisingly insurers rarely ask for this sort of detail when insuring although they could use it as a reason for refusing a claim if they can show you withheld information. Much would depend on the facts of the case and without any knowledge of precedent it is all a bit of guesswork. So perhaps wise to pass on anything that looks dodgy.

 

[ylop]

I passed as I figured it was uninsurable.

Surprisingly insurers rarely ask for this sort of detail when insuring although they could use it as a reason for refusing a claim if they can show you withheld information. Much would depend on the facts of the case and without any knowledge of precedent it is all a bit of guesswork. So perhaps wise to pass on anything that looks dodgy.

If an insurer asks and then offer the policy it removes an option to weasel out of it, but my policy does contain a clause:

10.d) Statutory and Regulatory Compliance
You must ensure that the Vessel and its use are in compliance with all statutory and local regulations and license conditions, and that the Vessel is not used for any unlawful purpose.

Which shifts the burden for ensuring compliance to me and a possible get out of jail clause to them if there was a big enough claim, and my paperwork was deficient. I’m not saying they would refuse any claim on any boat with a ropey import story but if you get a big claim someone will be assigned to see if they can avoid paying it - they may or may not spot an irregularity with CE marking / Import rules.

 

[Tranona]

I can't see anything like that in my GJW policy, hence my observation. Don't recall it in other policies that I have looked at, but admit never really looked for it.

 

[nevis768]

If an insurer asks and then offer the policy it removes an option to weasel out of it, but my policy does contain a clause:

10.d) Statutory and Regulatory Compliance
You must ensure that the Vessel and its use are in compliance with all statutory and local regulations and license conditions, and that the Vessel is not used for any unlawful purpose.

Which shifts the burden for ensuring compliance to me and a possible get out of jail clause to them if there was a big enough claim, and my paperwork was deficient. I’m not saying they would refuse any claim on any boat with a ropey import story but if you get a big claim someone will be assigned to see if they can avoid paying it - they may or may not spot an irregularity with CE marking / Import rules.

Planet fear from the industry relying on people notbuyingyachts abroad. There wont be an irregularity because of On 14 November 2022 the Government announced it would be extending the provisions for UKCA labelling and importer labelling until 31 December 2027. The Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1393) give effect to this.

 

[ylop]

Planet fear from the industry relying on people notbuyingyachts abroad.

Are you again alleging I work in the industry. Time to show your proof - you won’t find any because I don’t.

There wont be an irregularity because of On 14 November 2022 the Government announced it would be extending the provisions for UKCA labelling and importer labelling until 31 December 2027. The Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1393) give effect to this.

Why do you keep quoting that - it doesn’t affect the required standard, it basically affects which logo has to be on the certificate confirming compliance.

 

[st599]

Planet fear from the industry relying on people notbuyingyachts abroad. There wont be an irregularity because of On 14 November 2022 the Government announced it would be extending the provisions for UKCA labelling and importer labelling until 31 December 2027. The Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1393) give effect to this.

That SI ammended the RCR removing the requirements for UKCA marking. It didn't amend the requirements for CE marking using the RCD 2013.

 

[billskip]

That SI ammended the RCR removing the requirements for UKCA marking. It didn't amend the requirements for CE marking using the RCD 2013.

 

[nevis768]

Not sure there is anything about the legislation, nor the regulations that follow which requires interpretation as it is very clear. Where there is potential uncertainty it is applying the standards. Almost by definition standards set base rules that means they can be met in different ways as they are not generally prescriptive. Two good examples come up here regularly. First the requirement that seacocks should have a minimum service life of 5 years. It does not say what materials must be used, nor does it define when or what would be considered end of service life. There are at least 4 different materials that could be used to make seacocks which have different properties which affect their corrosion resistance, but all of them could meet that requirement in "normal" use. Second one is the new requirement to ground shorepower systems to water, something that had not been common practice. There are different ways of doing this such as using a bonding circuit or having a dedicated grounding point. Either meet the requirement and the different approaches can be seen on different boats.

With new boats these sorts of things are sorted out by the designer, builder and certifying body before the boat is signed off for building. In a Post Construction Assessment it is between the importer (and probably his surveyor) and the certifying body to resolve any issues. 20 odd years ago one of the the biggest problems were around measuring stability to meet the thresholds for higher categories, particularly B to A. You can see the impact on design of boats in the 9-11m range where high freeboard, bulbous coachroofs and bulbed keels became the norm to meet the more stringent AVS and downflooding angle requirements. This also impacted on older designs where stability was often poor and would not meet RCD requirements, or where the design stability data was not available and stability tests (as used for the higher standards of MCA coding) were required. I had some involvement in this at the time as one of my students did his project on helping a builder prepare the documentation to get CAT A for a boat that in its original design would not have met the stability requirements despite being a hugely successful ocean cruiser. Modifications to the original design were required to just get over the threshold.

Another common problem is a lack of information about the boat and its history. You can see it here when people pose questions such as "I am thinking of buying a boat which....... how do I stand on.." where there are more questions than answers. The phased introduction of the latest RCD is a typical example where the detail of the factory build might be needed to determine if it met "RCD2" in part or in whole. The Certificate of Conformity would tell you which it was certified to, but the actual boat may be certified to the earlier standard and have elements that meet the later one. Engines would be a good example as the current EU standards came in long before the latest RCD.

Complete garbage ^

What boats do not require UKCA or CE certification​

Not all boats need a UKCA or CE marking. For instance, those vessels that have operated in EU/EEA countries prior to June 1998, plus boats built for personal use only, are exempt. Other types of vessels include hydrofoils, traditional canoes, pedalos, kayaks, sailing surfboards, historical boats, racing boats and gondolas.
CE & UKCA Categories. A Brief Explanation for Boat Owners | Val Wyatt

 

[Tranona]

Complete garbage ^

What boats do not require UKCA or CE certification​

Not all boats need a UKCA or CE marking. For instance, those vessels that have operated in EU/EEA countries prior to June 1998, plus boats built for personal use only, are exempt. Other types of vessels include hydrofoils, traditional canoes, pedalos, kayaks, sailing surfboards, historical boats, racing boats and gondolas.
CE & UKCA Categories. A Brief Explanation for Boat Owners | Val Wyatt

While the list of exempt type of craft is correct, the bit about pre 1998 craft is incorrect. That was true until 31/12/2020 but the legislation of 1/1/2021 and subsequent regulations both of which ylop has kindly posted did not include that exemption.

Continually posting incorrect information from an unofficial source does not make it "true".

 

[nevis768]

While the list of exempt type of craft is correct, the bit about pre 1998 craft is incorrect. That was true until 31/12/2020 but the legislation of 1/1/2021 and subsequent regulations both of which ylop has kindly posted did not include that exemption.

Continually posting incorrect information from an unofficial source does not make it "true".

I don't think you or your mate YLPP are official sources, however the legislation Val Wyatt quotes from is THE source. Val Wyatt is a respected company, however, you are just a person with a pseudonym on the internet. I know who I believe, and it's not you or your mate.
Continually posting unsourced tripe does not make it true.
YLOP has continually posted absolute nonsense on this thread, posting pieces of legislation out of context and with no relevance to buying second hand yachts abroad for private use.

The UKCA marking came into effect on the 1st of January 2021. However, many British manufacturers had already taken the opportunity to sufficiently prepare by using the new marking in the lead-up to the switchover. A further announcement from the UK government in August 2021 confirmed an extension to the date ending recognition of the CE mark in Great Britain. As a result, CE marked goods may now continue to be placed on the GB market until 31st December 2024. (This has now been extended until 2027)

 

[doug748]

The UK Recreational Craft Regulations 2017, state that a CE mark has to be in accordance with the most recent RCD (2013)

If we could only see that statement in relation to used craft, certificated to a previous standard as a direct quote from the regulations, all would be well.



Ylop, we have been told this:

"While the list of exempt type of craft is correct, the bit about pre 1998 craft is incorrect. That was true until 31/12/2020 but the legislation of 1/1/2021 and subsequent regulations both of which ylop has kindly posted did not include that exemption."

I think I missed this post ylop, could you make it again, I think it would help a lot if we could see the actual list of exemptions in the earlier legislations and the specific omission in 2021 or later.

.

 

[Tranona]

The regulations are here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recreational-craft-regulations-2017/recreational-c which has been linked to several times already. The list of exempted types of craft is in section 3 and is broadly the same as the one in the Wyatt link. Of course it does not say anything about boats pre 1998. If you then follow the link to the 2017/2021 legislation you will find no mention of any exemptions on the basis of age. It is very clear that all imports require certification. The pre 1998 exemption effectively died when we left the EU, but it still seems to be in place in the EU. I expect the note in the Wyatt link is there because it was copied from an earlier version and not double checked against the legislation.

It is unclear why the exemption was not carried over - deliberate or oversight? but after 4 years it does not seem to have been raised as an issue where it counts - that is by the organisations involved in this aspect of boating except for some general concerns about the lack of clarity about how the rules will be applied. Even that has died down now the government has changed tack and accepted CE marking where the EU regulations are the same as the UK. This makes life much easier for that part of the trade which imports boats from the EU

 

[benjenbav]

In an effort to help (but please feel free to shoot me down in flames if you wish) there is a huge amount of common ground between all parties in understanding how everything relating to RCD works both in theory and practice.

But there is a schism and the daisychain downstream of that is indelibly affected by where one stands on the issue of schism.

All relevant legislation and many relevant commentaries have been posted and there’s no point in posting them again.

The schism revolves entirely around the question of what is an import and what is a private importer.

@nevis768 believes that an end user (you, me, any old Brit) who spots a nice old classic for sale in Alicante (or anywhere else in the EU) can bring the boat back to a permanent base in Portsmouth without being treated as an importer (for RCD compliance purposes - none of this relates to VAT) and without needing anything more than the CE Certificate issued when the boat was built in 2003 or, without any CE certificate if the boat was built in 1975.

Others believe that the individual acting as above is a private importer for the purpose of the law and that the effect of this is to mean that this boat - whether built in 1975, 2003 or 2024 - needs to comply with the requirements for CE marking in 2025. In other words - the 2024 boat, certified per 2017 regs, will be fine. The older boats will require a new assessment to be carried out to establish whether they comply with the 2017 standards.

That’s it really. The whole debate has reached a ‘tis/tisn’t’ dynamic now and there is a lot of entrenchment. I have a point of view but I’m not going to share it as I fail to see what else can usefully be said on this issue. Perhaps anchors would prove to be a less controversial subject.

 

[ylop]

I don't think you or your mate YLPP

Just for the record I have never met Tranona, he’s provided me with some helpful pointers over the years (on entirely different topics). We’ve also had discussions where we didn’t agree on some topics.

however the legislation Val Wyatt quotes from is THE source.

The legislation I quoted is irrefutably the law that applies in the United Kingdom. Someone else’s summary of that legislation is not the law. Ultimately only a court can interpret the law. However you’ve been pointed to the relevant sections of the regulations and never explained why they don’t apply.

Val Wyatt is a respected company,

Nobody is suggesting they are intentionally misleading. You on the other hand are.

Continually posting unsourced tripe does not make it true

In what way is the legislation.gov.uk site unsourced?

YLOP has continually posted absolute nonsense on this thread, posting pieces of legislation out of context and with no relevance to buying second hand yachts abroad for private use.

What else is s36 of the RCR Regulations for if it is not exactly this scenario?

As a result, CE marked goods may now continue to be placed on the GB market until 31st December 2024. (This has now been extended until 2027)

Actually the deadline has been permanently removed. I’ve provided you details of the statutory instrument which did that and shown you where to look in the regulations to see the deleted clauses.

You don’t believe the RYA
You don’t believe the Government Guidance Website
You don’t believe the Legislation itself

You are either an idiot or just doing this for fun. I don’t think you are an idiot. Let’s not forget this “argument” didn’t start because you wrote something a bit ambiguous which you’ve tried to defend, and got entrenched about as you were too afraid to admit a mistake. It started because you specifically called someone else’s contribution total nonsense (I didn’t realise you had already been through all this before and were looking for a fight). I don’t have time to argue with a vile narcissist with no evidence to back up his nonsese. My only interest here was ensuring that nobody would come across this thread in future, believe your diatribe and find themselves with a boat that was at risk of being impounded, potentially uninsured or going to be difficult to sell on.

I guess anyone who reads this thread now, and chooses to believe your bizzare non-fact-based interpretation of the law deserves to be exposed to the risk and suffer any resulting consequences.