Leaderboard

I cannot imagine a scenario where someone would coax me into paying a huge sum of money for a car parking space disguised as a mooring without me thinking at some stage "What could possibly go wrong?" or "If it looks like a scam, swims like a scam and quacks like a scam..."

Gordon Bennett, I had to push my seat backwards by about 2 feet to read that.

Do you feel better for venting? No, I'm not being a complete arsehole. I never said that YOU mentioned class actions, merely commenting that another poster was starting to import US legal concepts into a case that is not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts. Bringing your name into it is just one way of saying that, and of no particular consequence. The Jingoism bit is a little rich, particularly as my Father holds dual UK/US nationality. I take no issue with your nationality, simply with your (and that is your singular, I don't tar all your fellow citizens with the same brush) assumption that everybody in the world does (or ought to do) things the same way that your country does. As you are not (so far as I know) a moderator here, I will accord your instructions the respect which their intemperacy and lack of official sanction affords them, and in the spirit of transatlantic goodwill express the hope that you "have a nice day"

I think I'd be looking to form a 'User Group' to stand up for your position whether that's against or for any of the multitude of Pillings Lock companies or CRT. £5:00 in each and nip off and get some legal advice quickly but certainly in time for the creditor's meeting next week and someone with a knowledge of the law to represent all of you. If you do it individually anyone can divide and rule; to do it through a 'solicitor' you will be getting professional advice and someone to speak on your behalf who doesn't have any emotional attachment. Even if it eventually costs you £30 each you will know that, even if the outcome is not in your favour, you have done your best. Whilst full of admiration for all the comments on here there's nowt quite as good as an unemotional professional opinion from someone you are retaining for that purpose.

Am I missing something? As I understand it other marinas (OK not all) are being successful with NAA fees to pay. If CRT had given in to pressure and allowed this marina to"get away" with lower fees what do you suppose would stop all other marinas asking for the same. Following that how would CRT have made up the short fall (ever increasing as more marinas backed out of agreements) in their income? I don't think they had much choice really.

Buy a cast iron cooking pot instead and use it as a Dutch oven on the stove top. Just as good and far cheaper than the Chilli Penguin product, Looks far better as well.

Annie May looks very nice and with a 4 year BSS. The catalytic heater is not a good idea as they give of HUGE amounts of condensation. 1 Vote for Annie May Edit as you posted whilst I was writing. Why wait till Easter - whats going to happen then ? A lot can happen in the next month - if shes as good as she looks she is not over expensive at the asking price, someone could come in this weekend and make an 'asking price offer'. If its the one you want - make your offer and get it 'off the market'

It was only 24 hours ago but several pages back. UK planning law was pretty much totally re-written in 1947 to accomodate changes in housing and industrial requirements after the war, this legislation (the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act) has been amended a number of times Later revisions of the Act were legislated in 1962, 1971 and 1990. The act was re-written (again) in 1990 and whilst the 1990 Act is the current legislation, this Act has been substantially amended and added to, especially in 1991, 2004, 2008 and 2011. It now bears absolutely no resemblance to any planning policy of 'a few 100 years ago'. I have recently been involved in a case that was resolved under Sectionn 55 of the T&C Planning Act 1990 where it states that any land or building thereon can be used as agricultural land without the need for planning permission. It took an MP and QC to finally convice the Planning Authorities I was correct. As an extreme example of what this means - the owner of a building in the middle of a city can change the use to agricultural (can store Tractors or fertiliser in it, could knock it down and plant trees, or clear the ground and keep sheep) without the need for planning permission, or even the need to inform the Local Authority Planning Department of their intentions. Court Case : North Warwickshire Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) JPL 434, found the the rights afforded by the sub-section also extended to any building occupied together with agricultural land. The Encyclopaedia notes that: "Thus an intensive agricultural use may be introduced to an existing building in an urban area without need of planning permission (though subject to public health and nuisance controls)" I'd be surprised if that appears in the USA Planning Regulations - it did not appear in the UK regulations until post WW2

I like Wikipedia as wiki is a good source for obtaining a broad brush stoke definition. Wiki says: A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry). Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge high prices. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market). When not legally obliged to do otherwise, monopolies typically maximize their profit by producing fewer goods and selling them at higher prices than would be the case for perfect competition. Monopolies can be established by a government, form naturally, or form by integration. In many jurisdictions, competition laws restrict monopolies. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when a business is dominant. Adam, I believe that CaRT is in a dominant position and by definition a monopoly. When it comes to supplying a service (waterways access point) to Pillings Marina. Who is the alternative supplier capable of providing a waterways access point to CaRT Waterways other than CaRT itself? To the best of my knowledge there isn't one. Therefore in this instance there is no competition. Now, I am all for CaRT making and maximising profits through providing a quality value added service. But the monopoly becomes lazy when it has no competition and the service is then only offered (as I believe the access agreement is) on a - take it or leave it basis. I wonder if there is an option available to marinas where they can turn down the 'removal' of linear moorings and have the access point installed without charge. A marina could take that option then be in competition over moorings going head to head with CaRT. I think that getting this sort of competition going could be beneficial to boaters.

Is it possible to keep the "discussion" a) on topic and non personal ? This has been a long but very interesting discussion to follow up until now

Now you're just being a complete arsehole, Dave. I didn't mention anything about "class action" and there is no reason other than your jingoism to drag my name into it. It's now time to invoke one of my primary forum rules - "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." Please, take your small mind and your pettiness elsewhere.

CRT is doing no such thing, the canal is there and if you have a licence you have a choice to get your boat out of the marina soon, or lorry it out somewhere else afterwards.

The originating legislature in most cases denies the right to charge for the construction of boat mooring facilities, whether in or alongside and connected to the Cut, and the modern legislature confirms that where such express prohibition is in place, the successors have no powers to charge. But, as others have correctly pointed out, the NAA agreements are 'outwith' statutory powers, being merely civil contracts, on mutually agreed terms. Regardless of whether there exists any statutory underpinning basis therefore, the contracts are in place, having validity in their own right. This being so, it is entirely within the power of the authority to voluntarily revisit the 'workability' of the existing contracts with a view to amendment, or even [in order to achieve a level playing field], to harmonise the situation by abandoning all charges that are not applicable to all. The reverse situation suggested, however - imposing a uniform set of charges on all - would indeed require legislation to expressly abolish all pertinent existing rights. BW had attempted exactly that, in their 1990 Bill [that became the 1995 Act]. In fact, the example of people building marinas without BW being able to get a cut of the profits was precisely the example they gave to Parliament when attempting to justify such a decree. That clause was the single greatest stumbling block in the whole Bill, due to very public outrage and determined opposition, such that BW were eventually compelled to withdraw the clause. "Good luck in trying to persuade the Government to find space in the legislative schedule for that"? Yes indeed.

I do wish people would look at the wider picture here instead of making totally false claims about what is or is not a monopoly. And please bear in mind that I am talking in general terms here. The point here is that the NAA is a flawed system for CART to get its hands on a share of the profits of a marina, which is what it's all about. It was devised by people who were unable to conceive of a marina having less than full, or nearly full, occupancy. There is no way out for the marina when the projections (let us not forget that BW was involved in them too) prove to be optimistic. CART should see the relationship between itself and marinas as a partnership, not as a "bleed 'em dry" Rachmanesque rent arrangement, to be enforced at the point of a gun (or a JCB). Both sides need each other. Coming back to the current farce, we now have the appalling spectacle of CART readying itself to cause great loss and stress to licence-holders who through no fault of their own are caught up in Mr Spencer's machismo antics. Back off, Spencer, and come up with an intelligent solution that can cope with different economic scenarios, not just the pie-in-the-sky, always-full, nonsense that you peddled in order to persuade prospective marina-owners to invest in what has proved to be a much less lucrative scheme than you suggested. It's a pity for Mr Lillie that he has behaved so stupidly, and alienated the support of everybody here. Otherwise, people might take a more balanced view of things. Just because Lilley has behaved badly doesn't mean that CART is blameless, and it should now take the initiative to sort it out in a way that minimises losses for all concerned, and which results in a sustainable arrangement for the future.

Is there, I wonder, a picture of France from the 30s? The tumblehome on the present day France is very different from that of most other joshers of that period. I can't believe that there wasn't a great deal of research before deciding to rebuild France with the straight sides. eta: the degree of tumblehome is determined by the shape of the cabin frames. I wonder if these are the original ones, or whether they too have been replaced.

Paul you are wasting your time, honestly what you are suggesting is like saying "I'm staying indoors in case I get hit on the head by falling meteor"Phil

I know that this is going to cause me a lot of grief but, marvellous boat and workmanship, but is not the cabin 'wrong'.especially for that money. Before anyone says anything, yes Chertsey's is 'wrong' as well.

Quite. I think most other Marinas in the area ARE oversubscribed, mainly because they're full of ex-Pillings Lock boaters.

Paul, a sensible and rational post setting out your position, thanks. Clearly the NAA is a little one-sided, but on the other hand that is what you signed up to. If CRT have breached their side of the NAA I'm sure that would be good grounds for a bit of a "get-out". That you haven't managed to do this suggests to me that CRT haven't breached the agreement in any way. Whether the NAA is "fair" or not is not that relevant at this stage. It is what you agreed to. In your post you mention a need to get more customers in the future. There is plenty of choice of marinas these days so you need to have something attractive to offer, since you probably can't afford to undercut nearby marinas on price. I can't speak for everyone but for us and many others, we are less interested in the glitzy restaurants etc and primarily interests in reasonable facilities, but most of all, in a pleasant atmosphere. I have never met you but it seems your reputation precedes you. In order to improve your customer numbers can I suggest that the most important thing you need to do is to keep "nasty Paul" under wraps and never let him out in public. Yes, folk can be irritating but you are there to just put up with it. Go and scream in an empty field where no-one can hear you! You have a potentially nice marina spoilt by tangible aggro, and really you should be most ashamed at your public rant at the two ex-moorers that has been quoted on here. To say that was most unprofessional would be an understatement. So in your business plan for the future, add an anger management course. It will pay for itself many times over!

Ah yes, the "default expression" it's sometimes called. I'm constantly accused of looking worried, some people look quite angry, but the thing about anglers is it doesn't explain why they behave as though they are miserable as well.

It's Sunday, I don't think you'll get a delivery today.

I know, I've done the 21 many times. You do sometimes see some slightly dodgy looking characters but we've never had any trouble. However that has always been with us 2 blokes. I suppose I am just a bit insecure about doing it solo, having to leave the boat to prepare the next lock etc. but as you say, I'm sure it will be fine...

yes but he has a poor command of English remember. It is fairly obvious in the context of the letter that he was referring to the mooring that the person to whom the letter was written had just left To hold it up as evidence that he had a plan to close the marina 4 years later is just silly