- Action: To Do List item A0002 – Apply for USCG Certificate of Documentation.
- Completed: In Progress
- Cost: $685.89
On 12 September 2015, sent email to NVDC requesting status as our priority request had no answer.
On 14 September 2015, the NVDC Webmaster responded stating paperwork is in pending status but a supervisor does have this case.
On 14 September 2015, the NVDC Webmaster responded to the emails sent on 1, 2, 3, and 4 September and provided a copy of the deficiency letter already received in rejection package of 9 September.
On 7 October 2015 received notice from USCG NVDC that application for COD was rejected again, this time by a supervisor. It was very evident again from the response that they still could not comprehend the paperwork submitted.
It was very evident that the crux of my difficulties was the NVDC was incorrectly basing their judgment and decisions on the year 2009 Australian Registration Certificate which did identified both Mr. and Mrs. Jesson as current owners. Why is it incorrect? The Australian Registration Certificate, just like a USCG Certificate of Documentation, states it is not a title document and should not be used as the basis for determinations of ownership or title - see picture below, Important Notes, item 2; also read the fine print on any USCG Certificate of Documentation. The Australian Registration Certificate, just like a USCG Certificate of Documentation, on the instant of transfer of ownership, is no longer a valid or legal document.
The Australian Registry, just like the records on file at NVDC, are the legal and current source for ownership and title decisions. The Australian Registry records were provided to the NVDC after they were certified and Apostille, but for whatever reason, the NVDC could not comprehend this simple fact. The Certified and Apostille Australian Registry records, the Australian Certificate of Deletion, and the Australian Bill of Sale had the full force of legality in the United States as a result of being Apostille, but the NVDC could not comprehend this. One can only assume, that this incorrect practice of using the Australian Registration Certificate as the basis for title decisions is also in effect for USCG Certificate of Documentation, even though both documents expressly denounce and prohibit this practice.
This NVDC rejection letter added another new request to be provided with paperwork showing the death of Mr. Jesson and transfer of sole ownership to Mrs. Jesson. I was extremely upset at this request as the NVDC had already been furnished with the certified and Apostille Australian Registry per 46 CFR 67.61 (b) requirements reflecting sole ownership to Mrs. Jesson, but they cold not comprehend or recognize that indisputable fact. However, I had no choice but to pursue the paperwork for this additional request.
Immediately sent email to AMSA Shipping Registration Office with a copy of the USCG rejection notice identifying the need for additional paperwork on transfer of ownership due to death of Mr. Jesson. In less than an hour had a response back. In the email the Australian SRO identified that they could not furnish the information requested due to Privacy Act concerns. This email was sent the same day to the USCG NVDC personnel with the Australian SRO cc'ed on the email in the hope that NVDC personnel could liaise with the Australian SRO and become educated on what documents they had already been furnished. I suspected this would not be the case as NVDC egos were involved and the Australian SRO email clearly emphasized they had provided correct, complete, and legal documents already.
