The PPSR doesn’t understand Retention of Title!

On 23/07/2018 AFSA, the operators of the PPSR, issued a news briefing regarding how the PPSR could assist a building developer in “using the PPSR to secure its retention of title in the material it supplies”.

Given that it would be unusual for a building developer to be doing the ‘supplying’ when it comes to materials, I thought I’d get a copy of the information sheet AFSA were promoting.

Sure enough the PPSR Case Study 11/V1, started with:

“Scenario – building developer uses the PPSR to secure its retention of title in the materials it supplies ...”

The information sheet goes on to elaborate as follows:

“Developer Sceneview owns land on which it has permission to build a warehouse.

It contracts with Projex to build the warehouse. The contract provides that Projex sources the material needed for the build process.

Projex will submit invoices to Sceneview for works and materials, whether the materials are on-site or off-site.

Sceneview has a security interest, under the contract, in all building materials in the possession of Projex, to secure performance of Projex’s obligations under the warehouse contract.

Sceneview registers that security interest against Projex on the PPSR.”

I don’t know about you, but the first thing that struck me was that it was Projex, as the supplier, that was most likely to hold a Retention of Title over the goods they were supplying.  While Sceneview may be contractually granted a security interest over goods in the possession of one of their contractors, such a right would not be a Retention of Title right.

The information sheet then hints that it knows that what it is describing is not really a Retention of Title right, because it goes on to suggest that ‘Sceneview’s’ registration will only defeat a competing registration by a bank by virtue of having been lodged earlier.  If the registration concerned a true Retention of Title right it would have been eligible for PMSI treatment and the relative timing with a bank registration would have been irrelevant.

I wrote to AFSA drawing their attention to their description of an ROT interest, not actually being an ROT interest and, a couple of days later, got a phone call from quite a pleasant lady who explained that they already had concerns internally over the information sheet in question and had been reviewing it even while it was being actively promoted as part of an email campaign. 

As anyone who has had dealings with civil servants will appreciate, there was no admission that an error might have taken place, nor any explanation as to why a misleading information sheet not only remained as part of the PPSR’s help documents (it’s still there at the time of writing by the way) but was then selected for specific dissemination to a wider audience. They were gracious enough, however, to acknowledge that, I was ‘not necessarily wrong’ in the error I had pointed out. 

Bless them.