which broker

[andrusve]

I bought my last boat (used) from Parkstone. Service was super, exactly as you expect from professional broker.
Since I bougt this boat , without seeing it, the forum positive feedback was important. Hello to Tom (Nautibusiness)

 

[Pennpromo]

As a part time broker: (OK I am a Partner in Grange International, amongst other things), I think the choice of broker is really down to 3 things:
1). Location; obviously important, a local broker will be far more pro-active in viewings etc.
2). Type of boat: try to find one that specializes in your sort of boat as they will be better informed on the state of the market for your boat and will be more likely to have similar enquiries which they may switch to your boat if its eminently sellable and good value.
3). Personal recommendations; are always very valuable, you also should have a good personable relationship with your broker.
The market is undeniably tough at the moment, the only sales seem to be either boats in exceptional condition or bargains. If you are selling try to be realistic on your expected return and do something to your boat to make it stand out above other similar models. A valet is always a very worthwhile investment prior to sale. Also do try to keep the boat tidy, stow everything away prior to viewings: its like a house sale don't forget !

 

[Nautibusiness]

+1 for Parkstone Bay - aka Nautibusiness.

I have no financial connection - at least not yet !

+ another for Parkstone Bay.

Oh, erm that's me isn't it.

;-)

 

[Nautibusiness]

As a part time broker: (OK I am a Partner in Grange International, amongst other things), I think the choice of broker is really down to 3 things:
1). Location; obviously important, a local broker will be far more pro-active in viewings etc.
2). Type of boat: try to find one that specializes in your sort of boat as they will be better informed on the state of the market for your boat and will be more likely to have similar enquiries which they may switch to your boat if its eminently sellable and good value.
3). Personal recommendations; are always very valuable, you also should have a good personable relationship with your broker.
The market is undeniably tough at the moment, the only sales seem to be either boats in exceptional condition or bargains. If you are selling try to be realistic on your expected return and do something to your boat to make it stand out above other similar models. A valet is always a very worthwhile investment prior to sale. Also do try to keep the boat tidy, stow everything away prior to viewings: its like a house sale don't forget !

All very good advice!
Seconded.

 

[superheat6k]

actually, Peter Watt pleaded guilty amonth or so ago at Portsmouth crown court for dipping into the client account (for a substantial amount). He was jailed for 2 years -suspended

I spoke with Peter Watt today, and sad as it is there is definitely another side to this story - one of being thoroughly stitched up, poor legal advice, and no it wasn't theft.

Threatened with a possible prison sentence he pleaded to a lesser charge, that had he not pleaded would likely have been thrown out.

Now I appreciate this is his side of the story, and yes he did plead guilty, to mis appropriating deposits, which were to pay for in his view legitimate costs incurred during a sale subsequently reneged upon by a would be buyer, and in his view legitimately allowed by the contract. The poor legal advice was to plead guilty and once he had done this the Judge was obliged to issue a sentence.

Now I know Peter, and I shall speak up for him. Should he choose to re-enter the boat brokerage business in the future he will certainly have my custom again.

 

[beejay190]

I spoke with Peter Watt today, and sad as it is there is definitely another side to this story - one of being thoroughly stitched up, poor legal advice, and no it wasn't theft.

Threatened with a possible prison sentence he pleaded to a lesser charge, that had he not pleaded would likely have been thrown out.

Now I appreciate this is his side of the story, and yes he did plead guilty, to mis appropriating deposits, which were to pay for in his view legitimate costs incurred during a sale subsequently reneged upon by a would be buyer, and in his view legitimately allowed by the contract. The poor legal advice was to plead guilty and once he had done this the Judge was obliged to issue a sentence.

Now I know Peter, and I shall speak up for him. Should he choose to re-enter the boat brokerage business in the future he will certainly have my custom again.

All very sad, but has been said on this Forum before there is no reason why client funds have to pass through the brokers account. A buyer can make
two payments- commission direct to the broker, net sale proceeds direct to the seller. It is not a case of mistrusting the broker - just plain common sense.

 

[Dux Duckett]

I spoke with Peter Watt today, and sad as it is there is definitely another side to this story - one of being thoroughly stitched up, poor legal advice, and no it wasn't theft.

I'm not surprised there are two sides to this story and would be interested to know what he meant by being 'thoroughly stitched up' - though I could hazard a guess.

Despite much of the broker bashing on this forum, the overwhelming majority of us are honest, hardworking people who are motivated to provide a good service. The concept of the client account offers a level of safety and security for both buyer and seller - in exactly the same way it does when a Solicitor holds funds in a property transaction. We don't make anything out of it - in fact, we often end up funding the wire charges. Yes, there will always be rogue brokers, just as there will always be rogue Solicitors, but the case for the broker holding funds as the middle man should always be a compelling one.

 

[beejay190]

I'm not surprised there are two sides to this story and would be interested to know what he meant by being 'thoroughly stitched up' - though I could hazard a guess.

Despite much of the broker bashing on this forum, the overwhelming majority of us are honest, hardworking people who are motivated to provide a good service. The concept of the client account offers a level of safety and security for both buyer and seller - in exactly the same way it does when a Solicitor holds funds in a property transaction. We don't make anything out of it - in fact, we often end up funding the wire charges. Yes, there will always be rogue brokers, just as there will always be rogue Solicitors, but the case for the broker holding funds as the middle man should always be a compelling one.

I do of course accept everything you say in your second sentence.

I agree it is OK for the broker to hold the deposit as middle man, but I see no need to hold the final net sale proceeds. Being a retired chartered accountant, I am well aware of the rules, regulations , statutory audit requirements and penalties which apply to the legal profession . I am not aware that the same apply to brokers, but please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[SC500]

Bought my Princess through James Dickens, well respected, produces good honest promotional material including video walks, reaching a wide potential custmer base. I found him extremely helpfull, genuine and will certainly use his services should I sell the her. His pretty hands on and IMO worth a chat.

 

[Tranona]

I do of course accept everything you say in your second sentence.

I agree it is OK for the broker to hold the deposit as middle man, but I see no need to hold the final net sale proceeds. Being a retired chartered accountant, I am well aware of the rules, regulations , statutory audit requirements and penalties which apply to the legal profession . I am not aware that the same apply to brokers, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You are correct, there is no need to make the final payment through the broker. However, it would go through the client account which, if properly set up as required by ABYA and BMF is a trust account so the broker cannot legally use the funds for his own purposes.

 

[DAKA]

the Yacht broker cannot legally use the funds for his own purposes.

Seeing as there is not a legal requirement for a Yacht Broker to have a clients account I am somewhat intrigued by your comment that a Yacht Broker can not legally borrow a clients funds.

In a similar way to BA Peters for example where

client paid say £100 000 on a Thursday , by close of business Friday at least £90 000 was credited against the Yacht Brokers ? £5m ? overdraft.


As long as at the time the Yacht Broker borrows the money he intends to pay it back then he hasn't technically broken any current law ( BA Peters didn't get prosecuted even though the judge quoted the practice in his summing up).

I expect if a ABYA / BMF regulated Yacht Broker borrows a clients funds (and gets caught) he risks a stiff letter from the 'club' or possibly expulsion if he repeats it several times but he will not loose his liberty or even his ability to trade.


But as I say I am somewhat intrigued as you dont usually make mistakes, what law do you think he could be prosecuted under ?

 

[DAKA]

I spoke with Peter Watt today, and sad as it is there is definitely another side to this story - one of being thoroughly stitched up, poor legal advice, and no it wasn't theft.

Threatened with a possible prison sentence he pleaded to a lesser charge, that had he not pleaded would likely have been thrown out.

What a dummy !
Admitted stealing the clients funds, thats illegal.


He just had to say that at the time of taking the money he intended to pay it back and it would have been a simple case of borrowing more than he could afford and he would have to pay it back at 50 pence a week.


Poor chap !



edit
last bit tongue in cheek, Yacht Brokers should be regulated and have a legal duty to operate a clients account.

 

[Spi D]

Bought my Princess through James Dickens, well respected, produces good honest promotional material including video walks, reaching a wide potential custmer base. I found him extremely helpfull, genuine and will certainly use his services should I sell the her. His pretty hands on and IMO worth a chat.

+1

James was chosen by the seller, I as a buyer was happy he did. Would be my first point if ever in the market again.
http://www.jamesdickensmarine.com/

 

[Tranona]

But as I say I am somewhat intrigued as you dont usually make mistakes, what law do you think he could be prosecuted under ?

Pete. Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. If he takes money that belongs to somebody else it sounds like theft to me - which in the world I live in is illegal.

One of these days you will understand what a client trust account is and you won't keep imagining it is something that it is not.

BTW, from the partial accounts about Watts case it seems he did not take any money for himself, but the dispute was about how he used the funds in relation to the transaction where he was the signatory on the trust account. Would be interesting to know the details.

You really also need to read up on the recommended structure of client accounts to see that what appeared to have happened in BA Peters cannot happen if that structure is used. The terms of the trust specifically exclude the use of client funds for other uses and the bank holding the account specifically agree not to use those funds as security against any other account. So your fears are unfounded. Think this is about the tenth time I have pointed this out to you, and you never know, it might sink in one day! In just the same way as I pointed out that the practice at Peters had no effect on the availability of funds to meet demands in the client account. Nobody whose funds were correctly deposited in the account lost. The losses were related to transactions where the funds were NOT correctly deposited. All in the report you have a copy of. If it is too difficult for you to follow there is a summary (saying the same thing) in the July 2009 issue of Yachting Monthly.

 

[DAKA]

Pete. Sometimes I wonder what world you live in. If he takes money that belongs to somebody else it sounds like theft to me - which in the world I live in is illegal.

One of these days you will understand what a client trust account is and you won't keep imagining it is something that it is not.

BTW, from the partial accounts about Watts case it seems he did not take any money for himself, but the dispute was about how he used the funds in relation to the transaction where he was the signatory on the trust account. Would be interesting to know the details.

You really also need to read up on the recommended structure of client accounts to see that what appeared to have happened in BA Peters cannot happen if that structure is used. The terms of the trust specifically exclude the use of client funds for other uses and the bank holding the account specifically agree not to use those funds as security against any other account. So your fears are unfounded. Think this is about the tenth time I have pointed this out to you, and you never know, it might sink in one day! In just the same way as I pointed out that the practice at Peters had no effect on the availability of funds to meet demands in the client account. Nobody whose funds were correctly deposited in the account lost. The losses were related to transactions where the funds were NOT correctly deposited. All in the report you have a copy of. If it is too difficult for you to follow there is a summary (saying the same thing) in the July 2009 issue of Yachting Monthly.

Unfortunately you haven't understood the issues.
If you are basing your understanding on Yachting Monthly or the local paper I understand why your problem is.

You NEED to read the judges summing up in order to be able to start to grasp the problem.
THEN you need to read up on Insurance Brokers who legged it with the cash (PRIOR to their Industry been forced into legal regulation).

You will then appreciate why the BA Peters case is so significant.

BA Peters were using clients funds to reduce their overdraft.

BA Peters stopped this practice a month or three before Auditors would have found it anyway.

Technically at the time when BA Peters went bust they had stopped putting clients money to credit their overdraft.

The case notes make it clear that this was going on 4 months prior to them going bust.

No one has yet been prosecuted (edit from BA Peters or Barclays))for 'borrowing' from the clients funds.

If you read up on trust accounts you will learn (case history is very specific) that you can not borrow £1 from a trust and replace the £1 as the trust protection has vanished, the replaced £1 is just a £1 , no longer a £1 under trust.

I did not suggest that the ABYA had not proposed a Trust account that does not protect a clients money ( it is wholey inadequate but that is a separate argument).

As the Yacht Broker isn't under any legal duty to use the ABYA clients account he is legally free to place the money in any account he chooses , if he pays it into an account either not under a trust or in an account with a bodged up trust then he hasnt acted ***illegally **** and the money isnt protected.


***** I was intrigued to hear if you had anything to add that made it a legal requirement for a yacht broker to use a clients account,( as you suggested above) that was the only reason I got involved in this thread*******

You really need to research this in greater depth than Yachting monthly .

 

[Tranona]

Unfortunately you haven't understood the issues.
If you are basing your understanding on Yachting Monthly or the local paper I understand why your problem is.

You NEED to read the judges summing up in order to be able to start to grasp the problem.
THEN you need to read up on Insurance Brokers who legged it with the cash (PRIOR to their Industry been forced into legal regulation).

You will then appreciate why the BA Peters case is so significant.

BA Peters were using clients funds to reduce their overdraft.

BA Peters stopped this practice a month or three before Auditors would have found it anyway.

Technically at the time when BA Peters went bust they had stopped putting clients money to credit their overdraft.

The case notes make it clear that this was going on 4 months prior to them going bust.

No one has yet been prosecuted for 'borrowing' from the clients funds.

If you read up on trust accounts you will learn (case history is very specific) that you can not borrow £1 from a trust and replace the £1 as the trust protection has vanished, the replaced £1 is just a £1 , no longer a £1 under trust.

I did not suggest that the ABYA had not proposed a Trust account that does not protect a clients money ( it is wholey inadequate but that is a separate argument).

As the Yacht Broker isn't under any legal duty to use the ABYA clients account he is legally free to place the money in any account he chooses , if he pays it into an account either not under a trust or in an account with a bodged up trust then he hasnt acted ***illegally **** and the money isnt protected.


***** I was intrigued to hear if you had anything to add that made it a legal requirement for a yacht broker to use a clients account,( as you suggested above) that was the only reason I got involved in this thread*******

You really need to research this in greater depth than Yachting monthly .

All you are doing is restating what you have said in the past. I FULLY UNDERSTAND what it says.

What it does not say is that there was no suggestion in the case that the practice of offsetting funds against the overdraft had any effect on the client account ability to meet its obligations. I understand that this could have resulted in the failure of the trust, but unless I have missed it, this point was not made in court. So it seems that no clients lost as a result of that practice. Anyway that is all in the past as a consequence of that case the format of brokers client accounts has been changed to make that practice impossible. When is this going to sink in with you? Why do you always have to talk about things that might have happened in the past, but do not happen now, nor were they central to the case.

I recommend that you read the layman's guide in YM because you seem to have a problem understanding the judgement in the case that clearly states that the loss was the result of the failure of people in the company to deposit clients' deposits correctly in the account so that the trust was created. This is the key point of the case and the reason why some of the plaintiffs lost. Once again this has been dealt with in the new guidelines that funds should be paid direct into the designated client account and the client should receive confirmation of the deposits. That removes the problem that was evident in the Peters case.

The legal obligation not to steal from client accounts has always been there, so does not need to be "added".

So there was no need for you to raise the question again. I know you want to hang onto the idea that bad practice exists and that somehow crooks can steal money without breaking the law because it somehow seems to suit your way of thinking, but you really are WRONG.

This does not, however mean that disputes may not occur in the future in transactions involving the sale and purchase of boats through brokers as this latest case illustrates, but if the guidelines are followed they will not be of the type that resulted in the Peters case.

As to whether there is a case for making it a legal requirement for intermediaries to use the recommended account, not sure that there is any need for this. You would have to show that there is a compelling case for a prescriptive law, but given that there is little evidence of abuse that is not covered by existing laws, can't see that there would be much support. Don't think that I have ever seen any suggestion that such a law is needed (other than from you). As has been stated many times, the range of current laws seem to be effective, so no need for new ones.

If you really want to do something useful in campaigning for new laws, how about making it illegal to take deposits for goods to be delivered in the future without placing such deposits into a secure client account - and make it applicable to all goods, not just boats. Make sure you also include gift vouchers in your new law. Now that really would deal with a big problem and save millions of people from losses.

 

[DAKA]

All you are doing is restating what you have said in the past. I FULLY UNDERSTAND what it says.

What it does not say is that there was no suggestion in the case that the practice of offsetting funds against the overdraft had any effect on the client account ability to meet its obligations. I understand that this could have resulted in the failure of the trust, but unless I have missed it, this point was not made in court. So it seems that no clients lost as a result of that practice. Anyway that is all in the past as a consequence of that case the format of brokers client accounts has been changed to make that practice impossible. When is this going to sink in with you? Why do you always have to talk about things that might have happened in the past, but do not happen now, nor were they central to the case.

I recommend that you read the layman's guide in YM because you seem to have a problem understanding the judgement in the case that clearly states that the loss was the result of the failure of people in the company to deposit clients' deposits correctly in the account so that the trust was created. This is the key point of the case and the reason why some of the plaintiffs lost. Once again this has been dealt with in the new guidelines that funds should be paid direct into the designated client account and the client should receive confirmation of the deposits. That removes the problem that was evident in the Peters case.

The legal obligation not to steal from client accounts has always been there, so does not need to be "added".

So there was no need for you to raise the question again. I know you want to hang onto the idea that bad practice exists and that somehow crooks can steal money without breaking the law because it somehow seems to suit your way of thinking, but you really are WRONG.

This does not, however mean that disputes may not occur in the future in transactions involving the sale and purchase of boats through brokers as this latest case illustrates, but if the guidelines are followed they will not be of the type that resulted in the Peters case.

As to whether there is a case for making it a legal requirement for intermediaries to use the recommended account, not sure that there is any need for this. You would have to show that there is a compelling case for a prescriptive law, but given that there is little evidence of abuse that is not covered by existing laws, can't see that there would be much support. Don't think that I have ever seen any suggestion that such a law is needed (other than from you). As has been stated many times, the range of current laws seem to be effective, so no need for new ones.

If you really want to do something useful in campaigning for new laws, how about making it illegal to take deposits for goods to be delivered in the future without placing such deposits into a secure client account - and make it applicable to all goods, not just boats. Make sure you also include gift vouchers in your new law. Now that really would deal with a big problem and save millions of people from losses.

From a laymens point of view , you appear to be getting mixed up with a clubs guidance/recommendation/regulation and a legal requirement.


I agree that once a Yacht Broker pays a clients funds into a legally binding clients account it is illegal for him to steel it.

I agree that a ABYA Yacht Broker is under a 'club/association' rule to place the clients money into a clients account.

I asked you a very simple question which you have chosen to complicate.

What new or old law makes it a legal requirement for the Yacht Broker to pay the money into a correctly formatted clients trust account ?

Because in the absence of such a legal requirement the yacht Broker isnt acting illegally to place the clients cheque into any account he so chooses.

 

[talltim]

I bought my current boat through Simon at Harbour Yachts in Davis Boatyard, Poole and was very impressed

No connection other than being a satisfied customer