Pen n Ink

Wow! Unusual event warning! (Fanfare) Greenie for Mayalld! At last the cogent argument on the subject, and quite rightly as you say the surface of the minefield is merely scratched.

Ergo: Original argument rigorously tested by opposing theory and rejected! I love this stuff! Should get double discount then!

OK I'll go for that. The easy system - costs less to administer and is fair (to a test of reasonableness) to all users. CCers happy to contribute their effort to the maintenance, CMMers (Marina types) effectively pay a financial contribution in lieu. Either way, the answer to the OP is a resounding NO - Marina moorers should not get a discount.

The validity of ones argument should always be tested by constructive debate and analysis… which is the entire basis of forum discussion and the freedoms of expression embodied therein. [ETA - Now my signature to remind me what it's all about!]

Or they're moored on the water points not going anywhere

Umm. No, actually!

How about boats that only move infrequently pay double the licence of continuous cruisers because the entire waterways system is being maintained (at cost) for the benefit of all, but the boats which don't go anywhere aren't contributing their part of keeping on top of weed control, keeping lock mechanisms free and functioning etc etc? Therefore the CCers are both paying for and contributing work to the effort of maintenance...

[sNIP] You will see I have copied the man who wrote to you on the 16th January 2014 - Phil Spencer - into this email so he will now be aware that matters are certainly progressing to a commercially sensible conclusion and to an outcome that puts your best interests as boat owners to the forefront importance. [/sNIP] This is the bit I liked best… clearly admitting that what he's been doing up to now has NOT been in the best interests of the boaters - otherwise he would surely have KEPT them not PUT them?

Botheration! Missed it!

Just no stamina or backbone, some people!!!!!

Well that was a short lived post ! But probably right to remove it... ETA - Explanation in the next post! Thanks G&F!

Unless of course there is a clause in the lease which precludes that in the case of the lessee becoming insolvent… which in English law is quite likely. If so it is probably written that the lease simply reverts back to the freeholder.

Pre-sakkly! An argument if there ever was one for the current owners to sell outright to a new, uninvolved third party to start all over again!

No - the alternative is for CRT to refuse to deal with (grant access to) anyone who had been previously involved, and to hold out until the marina has been sold to some new party who they feel that they CAN deal with confidently...

Interesting point. The obvious answer would seem to be "immediately" - if there is no access to a marina which effectively has ceased to exist as far as CRT are concerned then the licensee can't moor there! ETA - Blimey you have to be quick round here! Crossed with two above!

Just a minor detail I know, but let's not forget that at this stage CRT have required the marina to sever its own access with immediate effect, and only if they don't do it by April will CRT do it for them… CRT have in fact been reasonable enough and magnanimous enough to allow a significant window for the boaters to extricate themselves before the cutoff... Clearly at this stage I don't suppose CRT would care WHO pays the debt, but I'm not sure why anyone else other than the Marina operator / owner would want to do so.

I'm very proud to announce that I, too, have been visited. I have absolutely nothing to hide; this in contrast to PL, judging by his Facebook PM ploy mentioned above, who appears to be trying very hard to hide things. Who from exactly? Is he really naive enough to think that that sort of message will deter others from commenting on a situation which is at least in part of his making and which is causing great consternation to many other people both directly affected as his customers, and in the wider boating community who are being affected by his failure to pay his dues to CRT meaning that they don't have that money to spend on the system for all of our benefit? Sorry if the structure is complex here; my thoughts tend to ramble incessantly together... Edited to correct auto-spellcheck tipping errors...

I don't think that's right - I think it's the directors who do that - who ever that may be...

This is the important point here. Liquidators sole responsibility is to maximise the return ( or chances of a return) to the creditors by doing whatever they can. In this case I would suggest that the liquidators might well see getting or keeping CRT on side as a simple way of maximising returns, therefore I would have thought the likelihood of them blocking the access is very high indeed.

Is it just me (again) or if the liquidator DID decide to comply and block off the entrance pretty much immediately would that not leave the poor in-the-middle boat owners stuck and unable to leave even if they wanted to and were licensed to do so?

The situation as I see it in crude business terms is this:- I, as a business, contract with my suppliers to purchase their goods/services and sell them to my customers. I have made some incorrect assumptions about sales, with the result that my overheads are greater than they should be in percentage terms. Rather than try to pass on the increase in my costs to my customers, I will try to blame the suppliers and get them to reduce their costs. At the same time I will try to use my customers as "emotional blackmail" against my suppliers to get them to agree to reduced prices for me. My suppliers won't play ball, so I try the new technique of going bust and starting over. I try to encourage my customers to transfer their allegiance to Newco and just hope that the suppliers will play ball. At the end of the day I'm not really bothered because I haven't really lost anything by trying it on. Speaking as myself now, I'm personally very sorry indeed for any innocent moorers who are caught up in this, but as has been said elsewhere the way the world works there is always a strong case of Caveat Emptor in any transaction like this. IF the marina are effectively subsidising their costs by a plan to go bust and keep their prices down to retain custom then that stinks, both from the point of view of CRT, the rest of us, AND the moorers involved. The question of whether this marina would have to charge double the price of any other to stay solvent is unfortunately totally irrelevant - that is simply business today. Edited for spelling error!

Sorry - I hadn't seen the word Dam used anywhere… blocking off with pilings wouldn't achieve the same thing. Of course this was partly tongue in cheek (where is that icon) but Jerra has got my point correct that a marina with water is still a marina even when not connected to anything; a marina without water isn't.

Just another of my random middle-of-the-night thoughts.. From what I've read, the water is CRT's. That being the case, what is to stop them putting a dam across the entrance, and simply pumping their water back into their system? If they wanted to avoid any controversy over access and ownership they would simply build the dam a foot out into the canal, and put the suction hoses in the dead space behind. That way there wouldn't be a marina from which to "withhold access" and the boot would be firmly on their own foot, newco or no newco. Of course, I'm assuming that all boaters with any intentions of actually wanting to use their boats in the foreseeable future are going to get the hell out of there in the very near future!

Not exactly off-topic, but is there not a risk of the opposite - the insurance company arguing that by doing nothing the situation has been compounded, so reducing or rejecting the claim?