Peter X

HOW MUCH ?? Just look at what that sort of money buys in that area: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/find.html?locationIdentifier=REGION%5E1030&insId=1&minPrice=170000&maxPrice=190000&minBedrooms=3&retirement=false&displayPropertyType=houses&oldDisplayPropertyType=houses&radius=5.0&googleAnalyticsChannel=buying Is there really such a huge premium for being next to a canal?

My thanks also go to NigelMoore for his epic post #4369, which raises all sorts of relevant and interesting material. My brain hurts trying to digest it all! Perhaps Emerald Fox’s person “on the floor at Stansted”, the modern equivalent of the man on the Clapham omnibus, would have the time to work it out. I’ve been on a lot of buses in Clapham and all over South London in my time, and I can tell you there’s plenty of time to think, they don’t move very quickly. I got off one in South Norwood and walked on Tuesday, and overtook three other buses in the next half mile.

Ah! I hadn't thought of that. I’ve had a quick skim through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_law and yes I can see that they could try it, and the judge would have to wrestle with some awkward questions. If the CRT try to exercise their powers under s43 to extract payment from the phoenix company for providing a NAA, to get around Mr Steadman's underhand tactic of liquidating QMP to extinguish their debt to CRT, is that grounds for review? I suppose Mr Steadman's best chance would be to rely on either "The powers used for the purpose different from the one envisaged by the law under which they were granted" or “taking irrelevant considerations into account”, and the CRT would argue that the Act did envisage collection of NAA fees, and that the shadow director’s history of non-payment of fees was relevant. I'd have to study a lot of case law before I could offer much of an opinion on that.

Can someone explain a couple of things please? I was wondering whether, if the boat had sunk anywhere near Peterborough, it could be wholly underwater, so I looked at the EA website http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/120735.aspx?stationId=6121 Today's "river level" shown at Little Bridge (Whittlesey), which I think is a little downstream of Peterborough(?) is 0.75m, and upstream at Wansford only 0.33m. This surely can't be the depth?? How deep is the Nene at Peterborough (in the middle of the river of course)? It baffles me how anyone could get away with stealing and selling a narrowboat; does that really ever happen? Even a large enough and well organised crew working shifts around the clock would surely need a good 24 hours just to reach Northampton? I'm conjuring up a bizarre picture of them with someone on the roof, leaning over the side during the night to do the paint job. More likely of course that they'd stop in some quiet spot, tape over the windows and use some spraying equipment. And wouldn't a boat moving all night get noticed? It's all starting to sound like one of those early 1960s crime caper movies.

Durrr ... not "both in Northampton", so please disregard some of the above! The boat went from Peterborough and the diesel spill was in Northampton, miles upstream. So for there to be a connection the boat would have go a long way up river, and to have been taken earlier (Tuesday night?) Sorry to have created some confusion here, but I suppose the idea is still possible? Can the owner inform us more exactly when the boat was last seen at its mooring? Just seen this. Let's discard the "group of drunks" idea as thoroughly disproven. Even if the boat went missing early enough to have reached Northampton then sunk, the thieves would have to have been a fairly determined bunch, so any connection between the two incidents seems unlikely.

I had the same thought independently a few minutes ago, then returned to see you'd posted it first. The timing fits well; the OP seems to place the disappearance of the boat on Wed or Thu, and the OP of the diesel spill topic saw the diesel at 6:30am Thursday. Both in Northampton, so not far apart (?) and plenty of time for a boat taken some time on Wednesday to go upstream and leak some diesel? It has struck me as mysterious that the boat hasn't yet been found, because if it wasn't taken with the intention to sell it, surely it would have turned up within a day or so, somewhat the worse for wear and not more than a few miles away? When boats have gone missing in the past, how often have they never been found? I would have thought it was very difficult to get away with selling one, what with the slow speed, limited escape routes, and the documentation required by the CRT, EA etc.? Ditching the distinctive pink wheelbarrow and doing a rough and ready paint job would have to be just the first part of the tea-leaf's plan. How about this idea? A group of drunks in Peterborough on Wednesday night decide to nick the boat and take it upstream. They're incompetent enough to somehow sink mid-stream, hence the diesel spill and not finding the boat. Is the Nene deep enough there for that to be possible? I don't know the Nene, so can people who do provide information which will support or disprove the idea?

No, technically you're wrong, not that it matters here. Until the liquidator finishes his work, which as far as I'm aware is still continuing, QMP still exists. The debts will indeed be dead, but only when he's finished. I never said that the debts transfer to another limited company, No 750 Leicester Ltd or anyone else. What I said was that CRT could ask the new company for money as a condition for granting a NAA, and defy them to do something about it.

You're simply choosing to misread what I have said and dodge the question. I grasp what you're saying, and I agree! All these things you say about Steadman are true, except for these unimportant details: Now he has the freehold, QMP's remaining debts (which are academic because QMP has no money) are not to him but to his company QMH and its subsidiary PLM CRT cannot directly demand that QMP or Steadman pays the debt, i.e. they cannot sue for it. BUT, and this is my point, CRT could make a payment, which mysteriously happens to be same amount as the vanished debt, a pre-condition of granting an NAA. Section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 gave BW power to decide who can have a NAA "as they see fit", without specifying any conditions as to how BW should exercise that power, and when CRT took over in 2012 it inherited BW's role. CRT could just say to Steadman "No money, no NAA. If you don't like it, you'll have to take us to court to make us grant a NAA. But how?" This is the situation you are not grasping. There might be some law they could use, but if so I don't know what it is; please tell me. If Steadman or his minions don't go to court, CRT don't get the money but Steadman doesn't get a NAA. Having said all that, it sounds as if CRT are not following quite such an adventurous approach, and I suppose that means their lawyers know something I don't. Not too surprising, they've done law degrees and I haven't.

Further to the above, it seems to me that in order to be "even handed", CRT must make Steadman pay up. Otherwise they've been treating all the marinas who have paid NAA fees unfairly!

It's nice to hear of CRT sounding determined that they won't let a debt pile up again, but unless the liquidator or the Insolvency Service go after PL, he'll have got away with his rip-off. Can you remember, did CRT elaborate as to why they "have to be even handed", why they "cannot" impose extra requirements for Steadman/PL/RR? I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question I posed weeks ago; the debt ceases to exist when the liquidator finishes his work, but if CRT simply arbitrarily refuse to grant an NAA for the site until £215,000 is forthcoming from someone, under what law can Steadman make them? Is there perhaps something about this in the wording of the rules CRT were given when set up in 2012?

Let's face it, the topic has gone quiet lately because no information of note has emerged since the much-expected news that the liquidator has disclaimed the freehold back to Mr Steadman. The improving weather probably means that those intent upon getting their boats out before April 14th will gradually do so, but that won't be much of an indicator really because anyone who likes the marina itself has little to lose by hanging on until the last weekend, and the CRT have said it'll be possible to get out (one way) up to the end of May. Of course a mini-rush could develop if some popular marina in the area gets down to its last few spare spaces. Both sides seem to be sticking to their position, and the CRT probably see no point in continually re-stating theirs when it hasn't changed. Meanwhile PL still seems to hope that boaters can be persuaded to blame CRT, and Mr Steadman is keeping a lower profile than Lord Lucan, not that I would see some dodgy accounting and an inability to choose a good marina manager as in any way comparable to murder/manslaughter. It's entirely possible that he's conducting off the record negotiations with CRT to try to reach a deal, I would if I were in his position, but I'm sure there is no deal agreed yet, because if there were it would be announced very quickly.

I don't know whether there would be enough demand for such a service, but if you have the technical ability to produce the same quality results as your competitors at a lower cost, a realistic business plan without too much risk, and most importantly you think you can market the service effectively, then why not go for it? If it were me I'd be looking for a way to dip my toe in the water first, maybe lining up some potential customers before investing too much money in machinery etc. or giving up a day job. As you're already making your top boxes I'm guessing you have a certain amount of tools and machinery already, and maybe it's possible to build up in stages to doing larger projects. Putting all the equipment and materials on a boat and doing it as a roving trader may sound like a Walter Mitty idea, but I can see some advantages to that provided that it fits your personal circumstances and you'd have enough space to fit yourself in too, plus Mrs Doodlebug if any, or someone else to assist you. It might be possible to get a government-subsidised apprentice even, if you can find some young person with the right blend of lunacy, some practical ability and sense of adventure. I don't know whether you have a boat already, but maybe you should start by buying a suitable used one and applying your skills to fit it out for the purpose? You'd have lower overheads than a land-based rival, and you can literally meet your customers halfway, just moor up next to them and measure up the boat yourself so you know it's been done properly and the units will fit.

In common with many people who've replied to this topic, I wouldn't want the CRT to spend any significant amount of money to make it easier for the elderly and infirm to continue boating, mainly because their central purpose should be the long term survival of the canal system, and they might face a major financial crisis in the coming years if the portion of CRT's income which comes from government funding gets cut back. That said, the CRT needs to maximise its income from licences, and as I've argued on another topic I think the sustainable way to do that is to try to increase the number of boats so that licence fees don't have to rise too much. So if there are easy things they can do to help people who find lock gates etc. difficult, to enable them to continue boating, why not? In my own limited experience, crewing occasionally on my brother's narrowboat, it seems to be the convention that people help single-handed boaters where possible, and the skipper doesn't mind a little delay while I wind an extra paddle or two for someone. I'm 58 but in good health and I like operating locks, but then I haven't yet done a long flight of them in the rain... certainly sometimes it's nice after an hour's gentle exercise along the towpath to get back aboard and make the teas. As I understand it, the CRT are steadily increasing the numbers of volunteers at locks, which is of course a cheap way to make it easier for the oldies to get around. Also, if I had a boat and was struggling to do a journey, I'd be looking to press-gang a friend or relative, or maybe even a total stranger, to come along for the necessary period. Do people generally find it difficult to get crew?

Further to the above, and at the risk of stating the obvious, the best form of defence is a legal attack, on as many fronts as are available to you. Banners are good, but stick carefully to the truth because that's a defence against libel. If they're breaking food hygiene regulations, report that too. But most of all, gather evidence that they're still trading despite an enforcement notice and press the council and police to prosecute. An independent witness of good standing who's willing to turn up in court is always good quality evidence. The relevant law for the council/police to use, which they should already know of course, is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 179, which provides for big fines: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/179 Fans of the Pillings Lock topic will know I do love to help the underdog as an amateur lawyer.

Wigan is a long way from South London, so it won't be me, but whoever can turn up on the day, I hope they use the old joke: May the 4th be with you.

Not silly at all, the answer to your question was there in my post, Transport Act 1962. In an earlier post #3761 I referred to, I explained how I relied upon section 43 of the Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/section/43 to argue that the CRT can impose virtually any condition they like for a new NAA. The non-existence of the debt is irrelevant! So then the new company would need to answer my question or pay up. Can you answer it?

Certainly the debt will no longer exist when the IP finishes his work, but as I discussed in posts #3761 and #3871, that should not prevent CRT from holding No. 750 Leicester Ltd to ransom using their powers under the Transport Act 1962. I repeat my question from the latter post, which I don't think you or anyone else has answered since: [adding on £30,00 for Apr-Dec 2013] under what law could that new owner compel CRT to grant a new NAA without payment of the £215,000?

Mike, I agree that the various attempts at answers you've had from myself and others have been unsatisfactory. So I've had a bit of a dig and the best I can find is this article in which the IP's trade association attempts to explain why they're worth paying lots of money for what they do: https://www.r3.org.uk/media/documents/policy/policy_papers/corporate_insolvency/R3_IPs_Fees_Paper_D3_.pdf This document doesn't fully answer your question, but my reading of it is that in the Pillings Lock case Mr Steadman will have to pay the bill as the secured creditor. It also asserts that sometimes an IP doesn't get paid. I just looked up the documentation from my last encounter with an IP in 2012, when my limited company was the second biggest (by a very long distance!) unsecured creditor of a software company which went into Creditor's Voluntary Liquidation. There was no secured creditor, and the biggest creditor was a very rich man who'd invested a few million into the business and lost it all. I got paid because a phoenix company wanted the database and the people who understood it, and I think they must have paid all the IP's fees. Just as well considering that the IP was PriceWaterhouseCoopers and their lowest hourly rate, for "Secretarial/other support staff", was £112 per hour. Yet when I turned up to the creditor's meeting at their extremely flashy office in London, the receptionist had great difficulty in directing me to the correct meeting room despite the fact that I had my invitation letter! Not a £112 per hour performance. The result was that several seriously expensive people were twiddling their thumbs for nearly 30 minutes before I appeared, because no other creditor was present and they told me by law such a meeting cannot start until either one turns up or some period of time has elapsed. Of course this was pwc in London, a different world, and Mr Nelson and his staff will come rather cheaper. Mr Nelson does indeed have a duty to examine the conduct of Paul Lillie and can opt to either go to court himself or pass his findings to the Insolvency Service (a government body) who may then choose to prosecute PL. See: https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification

Fair enough in that his used boat was already on the water and licenced. However, indirectly if enough new boaters come along, those with more money or a preference for a new boat will buy new, and others will soak up the available used boats, ultimately generating revenue. While I agree that It would be hopelessly optimistic of me to think that extra boaters can close the whole funding gap in the near future, I hope we can agree that CRT and other interested parties should be doing what they can to attract them, because it offers a way to reduce the gap and any harm to the canal network that a future cut in government funding would cause. Being optimistic again, perhaps all those rich people buying up prime London property can be persuaded to enjoy weekends on a nice shiny new narrowboat, just short enough to fit in all the locks, based in a marina up north? Somehow London's wealth needs to be spread out to create real jobs in the rest of the country, and paying someone in Stoke or wherever to build a boat is as good a way as any. Extra boats would indirectly create other employment too. The only figures I've seen for numbers of licenced boats were those I mentioned from the Pillings Lock topic, showing some increase for the period 2007-11, which included the crash (I'm guessing here that GFC=Global Financial Crash??). Does anyone know of other relevant statistics?

I'm no engineer, but was it all a cunning Nazi plan to waste British engineers' time and divert them from re-armament work?

The OP was only pointing out that, assuming the same numbers of boats, the licence would have to double in price to cover a withdrawal of the government subsidy. The post seemed to me to just put this notion out there without endorsing it, to ask what effect this would have and what could be done about the CRT's finances long term. It's reasonable to suppose that if the cost of a licence soared in the coming years, say by 20% above inflation for each of the next 4 years, a majority would pay but some would abandon boating as too costly. The number of boats up for sale would rise and the prices they fetch would fall, although some would move off to non-CRT waters. At best the number of boats paying licence fees to CRT would be static, and it might fall. It's quite plausible that the result would be a downward spiral of fewer boats paying higher fees, leading to the least used parts of the system being closed as too expensive to maintain. That's a pretty bleak picture, which leads me to the conclusion that getting more people boating is at least part of the answer. Public access to the towpath is a condition imposed by the government, and the CRT has no power to take it away. To abolish it would probably require an Act of Parliament, and simply won't happen and must not happen. Apart from depriving all those taxpayers of their enjoyment of a national asset, a ban would be very bad for boaters because the presence of the public on the towpath makes it safer. If Parliament were daft enough to ban the public, the criminals would ignore the ban and break into boats with impunity because the law-abiding people were not there to see them.

I'm not quite sure what "pragmatic solution" and "statement" you're referring to here, so I'll have to guess. In your post #4011 you seemed to mean by "pragmatic solution" that the CRT would end up having to write off the debt, hold their nose and let No. 750 Leicester Ltd have a new NAA. People shot this down because they feel the CRT cannot afford to set such a precedent. Just because Mr Steadman has been handed back the freehold by the IP and we are told that he intends to sell it to the new company, that doesn't mean the CRT have caved in, I'll believe that when I see it. It does suggest that Mr Steadman thinks a deal will be possible, but for all we know such a deal may involve someone coughing up the debt, or Mr Steadman may be mistaken. What else can the CRT do? They don't need to do much. As I and various others have said, while PLM's income slows to a trickle the CRT only have to wait, blockade the entrance as per their latest statement, then maybe wait a bit longer until the penny drops in Mr Steadman's mind and he caves in. He needs a NAA much more badly than the CRT need to grant it to him. Meanwhile press the IP to investigate PL, and perhaps Mr Steadman too, for trading while insolvent, and hopefully get PL barred as a company director. Lower deck lawyers? If a boat has more than one deck, how does it get under the low bridges? It wouldn't be able to use much of CRT's waters, but still more than Pillings Lock moorers in the near future.