Buying in Europe - Sale and Purchase agreement

[GTom]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Maybe things have changed in the near 25yrs since that article.. or maybe not.
But then the ball is always in the buyers court to prove a clean purchase.
Cars are the same.. many have come unstuck in the past when folks bought a car only to find out that it had an outstanding loan on it further down the line.
However new legislation and laws have cut deeply into this game.
The downside with boats is.. under marine law any debt travels with the boat.. not the person who originated the debt.

This one is more recent, hit the new owner in 2009.

As for privacy I don't know, but lawyers do offer an "HPI check" on boats. I don't need any deep details, just the fact if the boat has any liens on it and the seller is not honest with me. Maybe a private individual doesn't get this information but a lawyer does. However, I doubt that all finance companies can be checked.

Any ideas how many years shall pass until a debt on a boat expire? If I become the third owner e.g. 10 years after the previous owner change, is it possible that some hidden BS shows up from the first owner? On land AFAIK 6 years is the magic number.

[TonyBe]

Originally Posted by GTom

The UK has its risks as well, I recently learned, that it's almost impossible to 100% prove a clear title. (Ownership yes, if all bills of sale are available, hidden mortgages not)

What you say is correct if the yacht is either unregistered or only on Part 3.

However, it's not all doom and gloom.

The vast majority of cases (practically all I believe) where there is an outstanding marine mortgage on a yacht nowadays then the lender requires that yacht to be registered on Part 1 and so the mortgage will be shown.

I had a read of the article that you linked to and noted that the yacht was purchased in 1990. I do think that things were somewhat different back then.

In addition, if that same situation had arisen today and the yacht was either unregistered or only on Part 3 then if the buyer had used the latest version of the RYA Sales Agreement then, in the situation described in that article, he would have had a claim against the seller. Although he would probably have had to go to court to get his money back from the seller.

From the RYA Sales Agreement:-

3.3 By delivery of the documents specified in either case the Seller shall be deemed to have covenanted AND HEREBY COVENANTS that he is the [sole] legal and beneficial owner and has the right to transfer property in the boat and that the same is free from all encumbrances, mortgages, charges, liabilities for duties, taxes, debts, liens of any kind except those that are the responsibility of the Buyer under Clauses 5 and 7.2, or otherwise specifically stated in this Agreement.

[GTom]

My subsequent post shows a case where the boat was bought in 2006, lender showed up in 2009. Indeed, you can start a tedious fraud lawsuit but that leaves you with the risk the seller being insolvent/absent/dead.

I can imagine that after the 2008-9 crisis conditions for lending got stricter, reputable finance houses mandating Part 1. Still, no warranty that a no-one-knows end of the town lender doesn't care and accept an SSR boat as collateral.

If you use a broker, that gives some additional protection: in the Shizelle case the damage was shared equally by the new owner, broker and the finance company. Obviously if the previous owner can be sued for fraud, the new one goes free. Kind of, still loosing one or two sailing seasons...

[TonyBe]

I totally agree with you that it is a real pain in the arse to have to start a claim against the seller:-

that leaves you with the risk the seller being insolvent/absent/dead.

if the previous owner can be sued for fraud, the new one goes free. Kind of, still loosing one or two sailing seasons...

But I really do believe that most (all?) of the dodgy lenders are long gone.


Just on this point:-

I can imagine that after the 2008-9 crisis conditions for lending got stricter, reputable finance houses mandating Part 1.

I had a read of the second case you linked to and I note that the lender there was a British bank called Bank of Scotland. I used to work for the larger group, called HBOS, that Bank of Scotland was a part of, in the credit risk area (I left in 2007).

Believe me, Bank of Scotland were really as dodgy as f**k and they were just an accident waiting to happen.

[Note for moderators. Me saying this is not defamatory, have a read of these two reports from the UK government saying the same thing:-

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...bs/144/144.pdf
HBOS Group failure: independent review published - News from Parliament - UK Parliament
]


Just going back to that second case you linked to it turned out ok in the end:-

I've finally heard from my solicitor that the Bank's lawyers have been instructed not to pursue me for the defaulting borrower's debt. i just wanted to say thank you once again to everyone who commented and helped me with this.

It turned out that the loan was arguably covered by the Consumer Credit Act and not a marine mortgage and that:-

The 'Shizelle' ruling was the Bank's key weapon but fortunately dodgy loan paperwork trumps even Queen's Bench High Court judgements.

So it all ended well in that case.

[TonyBe]

GTom,

I just noticed that you posted on that other case a few days ago. The reason the boat wasn't taken was given by an earlier poster:-

2. For those who are asking about the boat, I think the answer is that the bank cannot now seize it as security, becuase it is a CCA loan

Note, "CCA" refers to the Consumer Credit Act