tupperware

I recall an article some time ago in which Mr Lillie junior was quoted as accepting that CRT occupied the legal and moral high ground but that certain of the moorers at the marina regarded CRT as the "devil incarnate" and were contemplating some kind of action to prevent the marina being closed off. I can no longer find this article and wonder if there has been some historical revisionism going on in the waterway press.

Playing their latest hit no doubt - the A my Pond theme from Doctor Who.

Whilst full accounts are not available in the public domain, they will still have needed to be filed with HMRC in respect of all three companies in the group. These full accounts, together with the underlying financial records, will be available to the IP, a fact of which CRT will be well aware. In addition CRT, as a significant organisation, are likely to have a professional relationship with HMRC. This, together with the high court order they obtained, might provide an avenue not available to the average creditor of a liquidated company. It is not likely that the former owners and management of QMP are going to be invited in for a cosy chat with the head of the tax authorities to smooth over past difficulties as has been reported publicly in the press in recent times regarding certain companies. It has been announced that the IP has returned title of the site to Mr Steadman, an essential prerequisite to PLT negotiating a new NAA. I do wonder if this action on the part of the IP is quite the "done deal" it appears.

Quite so NigelMoore. The IP will, of course have access to the financial records from which the full accounts deposited with HMRC will have been prepared rather than the abbreviated accounts, available in the public domain, submitted to Companies House. Your point regarding disclosure is an important one. If someone in a senior position within an organisation fails to disclose material facts regarding that organisation's trading position either to an external auditor or in self-certified accounts, they can be subject to all manner of legal sanction including disqualification and personal financial liability. I suspect, from one or two remarks made by Mr Spencer in his public statements, that CRT may not be quite as naïve as might appear. Well, I would have expected that the lease sales would have been invoiced by QMP as owners of the site although I have asked here on more than one occasion, without success, if anyone is able to confirm this. Furthermore, as JL's post makes clear, the majority of this debt seems to post-date the development itself. Lastly, is it usual for the tenants (PLM) of a site to recharge investment in the site to their landlord (QMP)?

Well, as there has been no announcement of wholesale redundancies by the IP of the workforce at the site then it is safe to assume that the employees are contracted to PLM who would, of course, be responsible for tax, insurance and other matters. You may be correct that these costs were then invoiced to QMP although it would be difficult to argue that QMP needed any workforce whatsoever as its role was mostly to hold title to the site. If, however, the intercompany charges you describe were a significant contributor to the large debt owed by QMP to PLM, then, given the extremely limited income stream which QMP were likely to have had, the question as to at what point QMP became insolvent does occur. The abbreviated accounts, dated I believe Jun 2012 and posted many pages back, contain a qualification to the effect that Mr Steadman intends to continue to support the company financially until such time as it moves into profit. That intention, which was central to the continued existence of QMP and fundamental to those accounts being a "true and fair" reflection of its financial position, had clearly ceased by early 2014 after which QMP entered liquidation in pretty short order. JohnLillie. Are you aware of the VAT arrangements across the three companies and particularly were they registered as part of the same VAT group for intercompany invoicing?

I understand that in the case of the current liquidation, a CVL, there is absolutely no choice as to whether the an IP is engaged or not. His/her costs will, of course, be dependent on the work involved and one or two remarks in Mr Spencer's statements suggest that CRT are, not surprisingly, taking quite a detailed interest in how the IP is discharging his/her duties. Some pages back I raised the question of HMRC's likely view of any VAT relief claimed by QMP in respect of outgoings which were never paid. HMRC do not appear to be listed, according to the Creditor Statement, as a creditor of QMP which did surprise me a little unless HMRC write-off any reliefs claimed for VAT purposes after a company enters liquidation.

Well, of course the (ex)director who is responsible for paying the IP is not the same individual as the director of the new company which has acquired title to the site. In addition, whilst a cursory liquidation might be of benefit to a few, the IP does have clearly defined duties and responsibilities to the creditors. These include, of course, the right of an IP to seek reimbursement of any payments in respect of other debts over quite a long period prior to the liquidation where such payments show unfair preference. The IP has the right to seek reimbursement from anyone who has held the position of director or has been involved in activities as a shadow director. Any IP who fails to consider such possibilities can, I understand, be subject to a complaint to his/her professional body.

I trust that the IP is taking his/her duty seriously in considering whether unfair preference in terms of income disposal has taken place prior to the liquidation. If there has been any such behaviour on the part of QMP then I'm a little unclear how this reflects on BW/CRT other than in the length of time they took to bring the matter to a head. I have previously asked whether anyone is aware of the IP's profession - accountancy or legal - do you know? Well, at the risk of ruffling some feathers, my view is that industry seems rather full of those who, lacking the wit to understand the difference between management and leadership, imagine that organising things is the same as earning the respect of those looking to them for direction. It is interesting that the psychological profiles of managers and (military) leaders are markedly different. I would have expected someone claiming such strong leadership and advocacy abilities to have been visible as the major spokesperson in respect of the new company given that he is its sole director. Shades of General Melchett perhaps?

Whilst both of us seem in full agreement regarding the latest bright idea from Mr Lillie junior regarding the possibility of injunctions, I do not understand your point regarding the IP being able to try and keep the marina open by, perhaps, having a quiet word with CRT to maintain network access on the basis that any profit would be paid to the latter to clear the debt. My point is that QMP seems to have had a very limited income stream, derived largely from the long-term leases. Whatever arrangements QMP may have had with PLM did not, it would seem, deliver much in the way of other income given that QMP was able to become indebted to PLM to the tune of some £1.6 million. Furthermore, whether the secured creditor, Mr Steadman, would have permitted the IP to retain ownership of any income derived from the site given that ownership of that site reverted to him is a moot point. I think it most improbable that a significant portion of Mr Lillie junior's income, salary and/or dividends, could have derived from QMP. It is far more likely that the bulk of his remuneration has been, and continues to be paid by PLM. If this is indeed the case then his resignation as a director of QMP would make little material difference to any sums the IP had available for disposal. NigelMoore - I understood that the arrangement under which QMP entered liquidation was a CVL - in such a situation are the directors not responsible for paying the IP? Is anyone aware as to whether the IP is an accountant or a solicitor?

Whilst I have no doubt that he is all you claim, as the sole director of the new outfit owning the site, an outfit whose existence rather depends on concluding a new NAA, one would have expected the gentleman concerned to have taken the role of a spokesman for the new company rather than Mr Lillie junior, the ex-director of its financially-moribund predecessor. This is even before one considers that Mr Lillie junior's frequent public pronouncements can hardly be described as conciliatory toward CRT, the organisation on whose good offices RoyR's future position depends. Could it be that a young high-flying law student might be finding it somewhat difficult to convince Mr Lillie junior that silence is golden?

The article claiming that a new NAA agreement is well in hand following RoyR's little chat with Tammy at CRT is still misleading visitors to the site. With the benefit of Mr Spencer's latest statement there would seem to be substantial reason to at least change the headline but no, "The Voice of the Waterways (Telling it like it is)" seems somewhat tardy in correcting its mistakes. Credibility - zero. That of Managing Director if the article is accurate in describing him as such, which I very much doubt. There seems little reason to conclude that Mr Herbert's claim that his would post details of the QMP payments to CRT under the NAA was little more than "smoke and mirrors" although quite what he hoped this would achieve is anyone's guess.

I seem to recall a quote from Mr Lillie junior in NBW that claimed a workforce of over 20 although whether this included part-time cleaners and those working for the engineering company based onsite was unclear. It does seem a remarkably large number for a marina which does not host a hire fleet. Even at minimum wage, the monthly salary bill including employer's ERC must come to a fairly hefty whack. These employees will, of course, be employed by PLM, not QMP so quite what this has to do with the wheel falling off QMP must be considered something of a mystery to all except, perhaps, Mr Lillie junior.

Indeed so, particularly as Mr Lillie junior is quoted by NBW as not having defended the CRT action on grounds including that CRT's case was watertight. Furthermore, as NBW has also reported Mr Lillie junior as having resigned his directorship of QMP around the time the wheel fell off it and QMP is now in the hands of the IP, one does wonder on what authority the gentleman concerned imagines he might be acting? We now seem to be travelling in fantasy land which might demonstrate that the end-game is fast approaching. Quite so MtB and I am puzzled as to what capacity Mr Lillie imagines he might represent a company in liquidation from whose management he reportedly resigned. The expenses of mounting such a case (which formed part of the decision of QMP not to contest the action brought by CRT according to quotes in NBW) would certainly not be small and may, I suspect, even were it to come to court be struck down as vexatious.

That he did and, as I recall, more than once. I was puzzled at the time as to his motives for offering to publish such information which, according to some calculations I posted would suggest that any such sums were likely to be very small. Quite how this gentleman concluded that the credibility of the marina company, in which he appears to hold no formal position, was enhanced by his making a commitment and then failing to deliver on it is something of a mystery. We appear to be deep into the land of make-believe when quotes about injunctions start flying around.

I seem to recall that Mr Lillie junior was quoted in some article as conceding that "CRT hold the legal and moral high ground". I can not now trace this quote but the NBW article at http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6669-pillings-marina-debacle does quote the gentleman concerned about QMP's non-dense of the CRT action thus: "QMP Ltd told CaRT in November 2013 that it would not contest their High Court action—we did not even submit a defence. There was no point as the NAA contract was so watertight that trying to defend it would have just escalated everyone's legal costs by another £100k and CaRT had already won the minute they got me to sign it in March 2007." Perhaps the quote I recall was included in this article but has been edited out? Whichever is the case, it does seem remarkable to hear that the ex-senior management of a failed company is now considering some kind of legal action having not taken the opportunity to defend the case central to his claim of unfairness. Quite where the money would come from to fund such a vexatious action is anyone's guess and on quite what authority Mr Lillie junior might imagine he is acting, a deep mystery.

I quite agree. The longer Mr Lillie junior continues his sniping at CRT the less inclined CRT may be to expedite matters in respect of a new NAA. It is reassuring that Mr Spencer's statement makes clear that significant evidence is required to ensure that CRT are not left facing another financial loss in the future and quite how the young RoyR is going to provide this reassurance without committing some fairly hefty money upfront is questionable. Mr Spencer's statement also makes clear that NBW's latest article is about as disconnected with the reality of the new NAA as it would be possible to be. I will await, without much confidence, their publishing a retraction and apologising for misleading their readers.

We do indeed tend to suspect that a dispute is the result of faceless officialdom. It is a matter of regret, however, that NBW, whose credibility is certainly not enhanced by recent "articles" on the matter does not see fit to visit this forum and learn that there are many who do not automatically assume that their position represents the facts. Perhaps someone might like to suggest to their editorial team that journalism consists of rather more than listening to the loudest voice?

If so then let us hope that some have had the foresight to use a credit card to pay their fees.

And in other articles... "Lancaster Bomber found submerged in Hatton Flight" "Phil Spencer ate my hamster"

Sorry but I can not agree that this is a good strategy. At the end of the day, CRT still hold the aces in terms of access to the network and a new NAA agreement. Mr Lillie junior can sound off all he likes and NBW can continue publishing the nonsense referred to previously but I do not foresee rioting in the streets as a result of CRT's "intransigence". Those misinformed by NBW and other media will continue to be misinformed whilst those here who regard paying one's bills as of rather greater importance than paying oneself will not be mislead into believing tosh about "David and Goliath". I assume that Mr Steadman still wishes to secure another NAA to enhance the value of his investment. If so, then Mr Lillie junior's continued whines about the evils of CRT are not going to help achieve that end.

Perhaps he is the Finance Director of 750Leicester? Were I a moorer at the marina, which thankfully I am not, the first thing I would do would be to invite DD on board my boat for a pleasant evening of discussion lubricated by the odd tonic water to demonstrate to my landlord that he has absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate to me those with whom I am entitled to engage. Like Baldrick's poem, "it started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle and the less said about the end the better — but apart from that it was excellent." Tosh masquerading as journalism and hardly in keeping with the masthead "The voice of the waterways - telling it like it is". Jon Pilger can sleep soundly tonight.

Rest assured that I would in no way expect you to dishonour a binding agreement. I can, just about, swallow that PLM, in a disagreement with one of its former customers, might wish to make clear to that customer that he/she is unwelcome onsite and that contact with employees of the company will be disallowed. What I find risible is that PLM seem to believe that they have some kind of right to prevent persons unconnected with the organisation from engaging with whom they wish. As a matter of interest, given that contact between you and the small subset of humanity who berth their boats at PL is proscribed by divine edict, how do you recognise a member of this circle in order that you are able to take the appropriate avoiding action and, more to the point, how do you make your classification as an "untouchable" clear to current PLM moorers - is there some kind of badge? Actually, thinking about it, risible is not really appropriate. Certifiable seems rather nearer the mark.

An interested bystander but a valid point nonetheless. Perhaps the young Mr RoyR would be the individual expected to engage with CRT given that he is the sole director of 750Leicester although quite who is qualified to advise this gentleman on tactics is something of a moot point.

Trouble with all this is that the background is so opaque and hence the interpretation becomes so difficult. On the face of it, yet another company, particularly one whose title includes the word "trading" does seem somewhat suggestive of a successor to PLM. I believe that some pages back, the recently published accounts of PLM were cited with, apparently, the £1.6million owed by QMP to PLM written-off. Do these accounts provide any further evidence that PLM's future is in doubt? In a previous post I had suggested that those moorers forced to remain at a severed marina might be wise to seek advice as to whether they had a case for breach of contract against PLM. If your assumption is correct and PLT take over from a defunct PLM then that avenue will close.

There is a fifth category consisting of those moorers who are forced to leave their boats at Pillings Lock because they lack an alternative mooring site. These will, of course, have entered into a mooring contract with, one presumes, PLM, who, come mid-April may be unable to deliver network access. As such access is implicit in a mooring agreement the moorers would be sensible in seeking advice as to whether they have a case for breach of contract against PLM and might be able to recover a portion of their mooring fee and, if the marina is still severed when CRT's deadline to leave expires, compensation for consequential loss.