Jump to content

Peter X

Member
  • Posts

    2,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Peter X

  1. While Mr Steadman's Plan A may well have been that John Lillie would build a marina and Paul Lillie would operate it successfully, yielding him a nice dividend income from his 75% of QMH on top of the mortgage interest, the dodgy triumvirate of companies shows that his plan B was to cover himself if the marina failed. It's unclear to me whether he planned from the start to elbow out John & Carol Lillie once the marina was open, but reasonable to think that Mr Steadman will have kept an eye on the accounts and approved the non-payment of the NAA fees. After Mr Steadman gets the freehold back from the liquidator, we may expect him to do the following in this order: Sack Paul Lillie as director of PLM, using his voting power as majority shareholder of QMH which owns 100% of PLM Suck out any money in PLM, by any route other than dividends to QMH so that it all goes to himself or friends. Cancel PLM's lease then liquidate it. Liquidate QMH which by then is just a shell; PL gets 25% of nothing. Bye bye Paul Lillie. Negotiate the best deal he can with the CRT to get a new NAA, because without one he'll never make much money out of the land; his chances of getting planning permission for housing seem remote, and anyway it's built as a marina. Has the first triumvirate really worked out all that well for him? Losing the NAA has been costly, or very soon will be. Then set up a new company to own and run the marina, or maybe another triumvirate instead if it makes sense. Having got a properly managed marina up and running, sell it as a going concern.
  2. An interesting question. As Grace & Favour says, it's legal but the ethics can be questionable. To be precise, part of the QMP liquidator's remit is to examine the conduct of Paul Lillie as a director of QMP, but not his conduct wearing his other hat as a director of PLM. A director is required among other things to act in the interests of the company, which he didn't do if he granted PLM a highly advantageous lease. Other directors who took part at the time (2007?) in making that decision (Mr Steadman perhaps?) would also share responsibility. Even though QMH owns all the shares in both QMP and PLM this still applies I think.
  3. Paul Lillie said (on another website): Do CaRT really not realise that it may have the legal and moral high ground, but customers here think they are the Devil Incarnate and are now plotting and scheming all sorts of plans to disrupt any action or works that CaRT may foolishly try to undertake to block us up. I doubt if anyone is contemplating such plans, but just in case here's a word in your lughole: CRT would be able to sue you for the cost of any damage or delay you cause under the tort of trespass. CRT would be able to refuse you a boating licence using their powers under the jolly old Transport Act 1962. Forget it.
  4. The second paragraph here is what costalot said in reply to me. This wasn't made clear in his post, but I accept that was not an attempt to mislead anyone I disagree with it. First, the debt has not quite gone. QMP cannot pay the debt, and it is very unlikely that the liquidator can sell the freehold to a third party while PLM holds a very advantageous lease (see my post #3565 for my reasons for believing PLM does). But if, as seems possible, Paul Lillie is found to have traded while insolvent and/or shown unfair preference to other creditors, my understanding of the relevant law is that the liquidator (or maybe CRT?) can then sue him personally for the debt. See http://www.iod.com/guidance/briefings/cgbis-directors-duties-and-responsibilities for this. While I am sure that CRT cannot sue an unconnected business for the debt, that's not what I meant. Under my suggested CRT policy, they would merely rely upon their powers under the Transport Act 1962 to add a new pre-condition to their guidance document for any marina seeking a new NAA. In the worst case, when the liquidator has finished checking the accounts and handed back the freehold to Mr Steadman, Mr Steadman could then shut down Pillings Lock Marina Ltd in such a way that he can sell the freehold unencumbered by anything except the stop planks, the QMP 20 and perhaps a harmless lease to the boat repair company. He sells that freehold to a new owner unconnected to the history of the site, but under what law could that new owner compel CRT to grant a new NAA without payment of the £215,000? I'm assuming of course that the CRT will have done everything possible to protect their position, by changing their guidance and publicising it widely before Mr Steadman sells the freehold. A suitable banner posted on the cut outside the entrance should alert any potential purchaser nicely too. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a marina/lake with no NAA without talking to the CRT about it.
  5. A lot of people know a lot of things, Andy, and have mostly been willing to share that knowledge. Joining up the dots has told us more, and I feel that I can now make an interesting guess as to how the dispute could end. CRT have stated their intention to make sure marina holders cough up the NAA fees; I'm paraphrasing but I think that accurately summarises their thinking. So what if CRT were to really grow a pair and announce, or maybe merely just put the word about, that nobody will be granted a new NAA for Pillings Lock, or any other marina in future, unless any outstanding debts to CRT from that site are paid in full, even if there's a genuinely new and unconnected owner who's bought it from a liquidator? I see no legal reason why they couldn't, because their guidance about NAAs here: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/266.pdf is flexible enough. The crucial words Roy Rollings and his new company seem to rely upon are that a NAA... Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed). But the NAA issued to QMP has been terminated. It is deceased. It is an ex-agreement. It cannot be transferred. And who is the arbiter of "unreasonably withheld or delayed" anyway? I think it's CRT. I've gone the extra mile and studied the law referred to in the above document, Section 43 Transport Act 1962 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/section/43 and my view is that it really gave the new British Waterways Board (now the CRT has inherited its powers) a total carte blanche to decide who may have a new NAA and to decide boat licencing rules and charges for their waters. Except that subsection (2) does say that "any local enactment" can prohibit charges; this may be how some older marinas are exempt? The effect of my suggested CRT policy would be that Steadman/Lillie, or anyone else who ends up with the freehold, would face a stark choice. They either just operate a lake+cafe with a few long term leaseholders paying nothing and maybe suing for compensation (see my earlier post #3625), or they cough up £185,000, plus another £30,000 or so to cover the last chunk of the NAA which ran April to December 2013, in order to get a new NAA which enables them to make a far greater amount back in new mooring fee income. Mr Steadman would surely quickly cave in once he knows the CRT are serious, and no marina would ever try to monkey with the CRT again. A very happy ending. Are you watching, CRT? Come to that, are you watching Andy the Hammer and what do you think of the show so far?
  6. And Alan de Enfield didn't check his sources. Dr Spock and Captain Kirk indeed, it was Mr Spock and Captain Kirk. Dr Spock was a paediatrician and if he thinks that's libellous I'll see him in court.
  7. Hey! Alan de Enfield! Do you really think no-one on this forum will see through your little scam? You took innocent couples, sucked them in and spat them out at random, and the CRT got paid nothing. You messed with the wrong guy, I mentioned in my first post I work in IT. I can sort data using Excel. Actually I can do some rather more elaborate things with computers too, but that's all I had to do here. Your list is full of duplicates, and you didn't even repeat the important people. I mean, 8 appearances by Ant and Dec for goodness sakes! If you want a group of three, go for Lepidus, Mark Antony and Octavian; now there's a real triumvirate. My apologies to the poor person at CRT who is said to be keeping any eye on this topic. I'll try to get this rabble organised and get back to posting dodgy interpretations of English law for you to have a laugh at. Possibly the greatest advert ever... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8CTscW3dpI
  8. The credibility of Chris Herbert (csh) is utterly destroyed by PaulG's post #3615 and tupperware's earlier post along the same lines, which prove based upon Paul Lillie's own figures that the total ever paid to BW/CRT is either zero or a figure very close to zero. This directly contradicts all the vague assurances from csh and Paul Lillie before him. The NAA terms sound very fair to me, based as they are upon the number of berths and the fees charged, because this is much more practical to enforce than dynamically counting boats. A big practical problem with the "Community Charge" introduced by Mrs Thatcher in the late 1980's, leaving aside the associated politics which would be very off topic, was that it was far more time-consuming to count people than it had been to assess property as had been done under the preceding system of "Rates". Going forward, it could be argued that although there is no excuse for the triumvirate's non-payment of NAA fees they'd signed up to, an alternative would be to include the charges in the licensing fees for boats kept in a marina, but that would constitute moving the goalposts for the older marinas who have an exemption, and those marinas might well challenge the effective removal of their exemption in court. So whoever runs Pillings Lock when the dust has settled will just have to accept that NAA fees have to be paid as all the other non-exempt marinas do. Of course there still has to be a NAA anyway because it's about water use and all the other interaction between the marina and CRT, not just the fees. If the CRT do indeed follow this topic, please I beg of you stick to your hard line and make an example out of Paul Lillie to deter others who may see you as a soft touch. As I've said before, it's BW who were the soft touch in the case of QMP; from when Richard Parry took over CRT in April 2013 it was only 8 months until the court judgement in December, which is reasonably quick for matters like this. I imagine the CRT's lawyers treating my efforts as a bit of lunch-break entertainment, along the lines of "This Peter X has some idea, but when's he going to spot the precedent of Smith v Jones from 1867?"
  9. tupperware and carpet wallah, thanks for your efforts to help me resolve the question of whether the QMP liquidator could disclaim PLM's lease on the marina. I'd seen a different article somewhere referring to the Willmott case in Australia but found your link http://www.allens.co...insol5dec13.htm explained that better. Although precedents from the US and Commonwealth countries whose legal systems are based upon English common law can I think be used sometimes in English courts, in general they probably won't carry much weight, especially against a decision in England or Wales. Also, the Willmott ruling was based upon a very specifically Australian Act, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), so I can't see it being useful to QMP. Unfortunately I have yet to find anything more relevant to a landlord being liquidated in England or to clarify our s178 Insolvency Act 1986, except to say that as there are definitely businesses here who pay up front for long leases, they must be confident that they won't lose out badly in the event of their landlord being liquidated. I'm only an amateur lawyer, and it would be a goldmine for the professionals but good for the CRT if I could be disproved, but meanwhile I'll restate the main conclusions of my post #3565 as a basis to argue with or build upon: We can be confident that PLM has a lease and that the lease is very advantageous to PLM. The lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed. A very cheap lease might just mean that PLM could survive with very low mooring income, IF the cafe and letting the flat makes enough money to cover other costs such as staff and litigation. Here I'm talking about the scenario that CRT blockade the marina, and Mr Steadman has recovered the freehold and compensated the QMP 20 (I think he'd have to) and is content for a while to have little or no income from the land. Does anyone know how well the cafe is doing recently? Is it the in place to visit for the high society of Leicestershire, or somewhat less busy? The reviews on Trip Advisor make it sound not too shabby.
  10. It's only 48hours since I last posted to this topic but it feels longer. Warning: Epic dry financial/legal stuff coming up, drier than a desert, anyone seeking entertainment from the misfortune of others should look away now. I've been looking back at the subject of PLM's lease from QMP and think it needs clarification. We can be confident that PLM has a lease because otherwise: Mr Steadman, whatever else he may be, would not be so stupid as to allow QMP to go into liquidation. The liquidator would then just decide that the plan to obtain best value for unsecured creditors was: Order Paul Lillie off the site Agree a deal with CRT under which profit would be used first for mortgage payments, then for a new NAA, and payments to QMH and PLM would only happen after CRT was fully paid. In return CRT would allow access to the network. This would be expected to enable the liquidator to attract enough new moorings to pay off CRT, which is why CRT would agree. He can give CRT this preferential treatment because without their NAA the plan wouldn't be possible, and with it the other unsecured creditors (QMH and PLM) eventually get something. The QMP 20 get to enjoy what they've paid for, so the contingent liability vanishes. We can be confident too that the lease is very advantageous to PLM, because QMH controlled both parties to the lease and the point of setting up the tangled triumvirate was to protect PLM in the event that QMP becaume insolvent. So PLM probably paid little or nothing to have the lease, it will be for a very long term, and yet there will be a very low rent (a "peppercorn" rent is the usual term). Hence QMP still owes PLM the £1.6m development cost after years of this lease, because the rent didn't reduce this. A very cheap lease might just mean that PLM could survive with very low mooring income, IF the cafe and letting the flat makes enough money to cover other costs such as staff and litigation. However: tupperware, on 24 Feb 2014 - 12:56 AM, said: Finally, if PLM hold a commercial lease in respect of the site then the liquidator is under no obligation to continue that lease as a court ruling in another case makes quite clear. I took this to mean that the liquidator of QMP could walk away from any commercial lease which QMP had issued to PLM (NB: I use PLM to mean Pillings Lock Marina Ltd, not the physical marina or the entire triumvirate), and went on to speculate that this would mean that the liquidator could chuck PLM off site then either sell the freehold to a new investor or run the marina himself, e.g. as detailed above. tupperware hasn't provided details of the court ruling (please do), but I've been surfing and I think he's referring to this law: http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:disclaiming-onerous-contracts&catid=77:insolvency-corporate-recovery&Itemid=599 describes how s178 Insolvency Act 1986 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/178 gives a liquidator some powers to "disclaim onerous property" in order to be able to conclude the liquidation. I can see that it's reasonable that a liquidator of a tenant can terminate a lease, e.g. if I begin a 10 year lease for a shop then find after 3 months that I can't get customers and go bust, the liquidator cannot pay 10 years of rent and can end the lease without the landlord suffering too badly. But can the liquidator of a landlord really do the same, it seems unjust? If a business pays a fair price to buy a long lease at a peppercorn rent, they shouldn't lose that money if the landlord goes bust. I suspect that the lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed. He may sell the freehold but the lease persists with the new owner. He may disclaim the freehold, which in the case of QMP means Mr Steadman gets it, or if there were no mortgage the Crown would get it, but either way again the lease persists.
  11. I don't know whether an actual cheque was sent or just a letter or e-mail, but if there was a cheque accompanied by such a letter as tony collins describes, my view of contract law is that this was an offer to modify a contract, worded so that if the CRT banked the cheque they would be deemed to have accepted the offer and given up their right to the rest of the money. Nice try Paul Lillie, but the CRT's lawyers would see straight through that. For a discussion of the case law see: http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/view-point/cheques-tendered-in-full-and-final-settlement
  12. Did these 4 leaseholders in the pub venture an opinion as to why they're not worried? The CRT have made it crystal clear that they intend to block access on 14th April, so do they not want to use the cut at some point? Otherwise they must know of a peace deal about to be made between Mr Steadman, the liquidator and the CRT which is acceptable to them? If so, do tell us because it would move this topic forward no end. I agree, but I'm struggling to reconcile this with what you said an hour earlier. You suspect there is no peace deal, so did you share these concerns with the leaseholders in the pub? By the way, for what it's worth, I don't think you are Paul Lillie. I can accept that some moorers may think he's a nice person, if that's the only side of him they've seen. They can't have seen his nasty rant at Dangerous Dave on page 3, or the unpleasant behaviour which various people have reported. I don't know PL, but I've seen enough evidence to know I don't want to, and to suspect that many moorers will be keeping their opinions to themselves so long as they stay, out of fear.
  13. Yes Dave, I didn't directly say so because I noticed the grammar is much better than the page 3 rant, though still not of a standard which would have impressed my old English teacher. I really don't want to become one of those people who dissects grammar and spelling in forums (OK then: the Latin plural is fora but I think forums is acceptable in English) as long as the intended meaning is clear, but it's relevant to try to identify whether Cliftoma=Paul Lillie. It's likely but not really proven. Separately from the above, the question of whether the liquidator really has the power to terminate any commercial lease held by PLM, or under what circumstances, troubles me. As with housing, it's fair enough to give notice to end a short-term rental, but It seems unjust that a business could buy a long lease from a landlord only to see it confiscated. Not so unjust if both are controlled by the same holding company! Can anyone point me to evidence about this, e.g. the relevant law or case?
  14. Having just seen the last few emails I'm not too worried by the concerns raised. tupperware (#3311): Having looked at the link you provided ... I rented several houses over the years, and my belief is that the 2 month minimum notice to a tenant is when the tenant is "holding over", i.e. any fixed rental period has expired and the tenant is just paying monthly, subject to a deposit against damage. Nothing in that article seems to say that where a lessee has paid in advance for a lease of whatever period someone repossessing or buying the property can disregard that lease. Certainly for example if the liquidator had no better offer and Mr Steadman repossessed the marina from QMP, he must have known by his ownership via QMH of QMP and PLM that QMP would be issuing leases to PLM and to the QMP 20, he can hardly argue ignorance, so it's more of a buy-to-let situation. Similarly if a liquidator or anyone else sells a freehold I think he he is legally bound to give details of any encumbering lease to any potential purchaser. Properties with long leases are sold at auction all the time, you can buy the freehold of some grand block of flats for peanuts if they're all sold on long leases with low ground rents, because there's no way to gain vacant possession except to negotiate it with the lessee. Typically such a freehold would go for about 10 times the total annual ground rent. The point I'm not quite sure of is how the leaseholder's rights to car parking, mooring and canal access (implied even if not explicitly stated I reckon) are enforced if the CRT won't grant the new owner a NAA. Wouldn't this contingent liability pass to the new owner, in which case any purchaser must either seek a "back-to-back" deal with the CRT before signing up, or risk having to compensate the leaseholders? DeanS (#3312): The CRT were very sniffy in their statement about the Roy Rollings phoenix company, No. 560 Leicester Ltd I think it's called. They've looked at its DNA and decided it's a no. 2. Anyone recommended by PL is unlikely to get a NAA. I say this because the CRT hinted that while they may never get the £180,000 back, they are determined not to let any marina owner run up a debt like that again. Realistically I suppose they would grant a NAA to anyone with no history of dishonesty if they're paid monthly in advance, but would be quick to wield the stop planks as soon as payments start bouncing. It was BW's fault, as it Richard Parry took over CRT in May and got the court order in December; quite nifty when you consider cases take time to prepare and go through the legal process.
  15. It may be helpful if I expand a bit on my earlier posts #3207 and #3229 to explain what I think is the position of the long term leaseholders, the individuals who appear most vulnerable in all this. PL's statement of affairs lists 20 of them as a contingent liability for QMP, which I take to mean that if they lose their access to CRT waters they can sue QMP for the value of the remainder of their leases. In practice they won't because QMP hasn't got the money to pay. MtB mentioned a figure of 30 long term leaseholders and someone else had been told by Roy Rollings that there were 24 of the "car park" leases and all those had been sold. Assuming PL's statement is true, and I believe he would be in some nasty legal trouble if he's found to have lied in it, then any long term leases which were sold other than those 20 would be with PLM, as indeed all the other annual or shorter mooring payments are. I think this is consistent with what John Lillie and some others have said on this question; there has been confusion as to which company issued leases because both did! If anyone out there has a long term lease issued by PLM, and isn't happy to spend the rest of its period with no access to the cut, then I suggest you read up on contract law so that as of 14th April you can quickly begin to sue PLM for breach of contract, pro-rata for the duration of the seige, whether your boat is inside or outside. It wouldn't matter that it's CRT who put the stop planks in, if PLM induced you to enter a contract with even an implied promise that you would have access that's misrepresentation. I'm only an amateur lawyer and not legally responsible for any advice I give, but I'm pretty confident you'd have a good case. The reason I say "quickly" is that if PLM is going to go bust as a result of its inevitable loss of income plus any litigation payouts and costs, those at the front of the queue are the most likely to get paid. There won't be much left of PLM if the liquidator can cancel their commercial lease. A relatively short term (e.g. annual) leaseholder has less to lose, but still an important sum, and can follow a similar path against PLM except that the amount is low enough for the small claims procedure which is simpler. If the QMP 20, as I feel they should be known, have not already got together to discuss what to do as a group then I suggest they do so pronto. QMP can't pay, but you can try to press the liquidator for information, or to find some nice millionaire who fancies running a marina properly under scenario 1 of my post #3229. Didn't Sir Richard Branson live on a narrowboat on the Regent's Canal for some years in the 1970s? As I think MtB explained many pages ago, running a marina is not a licence to print money, but my guess is that someone putting up £3m would make a small return in the first year and perhaps £150,000 a year after that if they can achieve a good occupancy rate. A return on investment of 5% is not a goldmine but it's better than a bank and the project would be great PR for someone. Or could crowdfunding raise the money? Anyone with something constructive to say is cordially invited to pick holes in my argument, I wouldn't want to be misleading anyone! Purely to satisfy my curiosity and RLWP's thirst for comedy, can anyone theorise as to why PL's statement might need to list five different addresses for HMRC as creditors with zero amounts?
  16. Since I came onto this forum a few days ago as a new member to add my thoughts to this topic, I like to think I've behaved as anyone on a forum should, and indeed as most people on canalworld do. Canals generally tend to attract the nicer people, I think Brian Blessed says something to that effect on CRT's website. (When is Flash Gordon 2 coming out please?). No-one's flamed me although perhaps Paul Lillie will when he gets back from his holiday, a few have disagreed with me on some points and corrected my mistakes but with good manners, and I feel generally welcome. Compare and contrast this with the new member cliftoma who sets out to insult all and sundry with his first post. It's full of loaded words and inaccuracies (just like Paul Lillie's letter on page 3), so let's pull a few apart: "John Lillie inflaming the discussion with his 'insider' viewpoint" - he's been pretty reasonable considering his ex-son's treachery. Why the quote marks, If he wasn't an insider who was? He may well feel very disappointed by how his son has turned out, but I know of no reason to blame him for Paul Lillie's personality, there's only so much a parent can do. To publish the Statement of Affairs is not an "outrageous misuse of a document". A liquidator is required to publish it, because it's in the public interest that the outgoing director must be made to summarise the finances for all to see and then defend what he has said. To publish it is the central purpose of the document, because it may help to expose any wrongdoing. It's like saying that buying goods in a shop is an outrageous misuse of cash. The Electoral Register is published too for good reasons, just go down to your local library and ask to see it if you don't believe me. People have used the word lake, but as far as I can remember only when referring to what it will be after the stop planks go in. If it looks like a lake it is a lake; for the time being at least it's a marina. I feel it's a good thing to occasionally treat a serious problem as entertainment if it's inbetween doing something to help; mockery directed at the right target can keep up the spirits of the downtrodden. I wonder... how many leaseholders are considering legal action against PLM or Paul Lillie to recover money obtained by misrepresentation? It would be helpful to know... all sorts of things about the finances of the triumvirate and the intentions of various parties to the dispute, so that the leaseholders can make their decisions based on facts rather than propaganda. Helpful to the moorers affected. The post contains lots of sarcasm, but appears to be genuine when saying: "we are all waiting for the network to be fully navigable before making a mass exodus from the marina", which seems to answer Bod's post #3288. Except that rather than a mass exodus which several others have suggested too, I suspect that those who go will do so spread out over the next 6 weeks or so, and so long as the system is navigable the congestion won't be too serious, even on the last weekend 12-13 April. Maybe the nearest moorings on the cut will be fully occupied at first, but I suppose a few CRT people will be around to help advise boaters?
  17. How about this approach? Only raise fees in line with inflation, but try to get a lot more boats paying fees. People like different aspects of boating for all sorts of reasons and CRT has to try to accommodate as many of them as possible. Currently I think I read there are about 33,000 boats on 2,000 miles of CRT waterway, less than 17 boats per mile. More like perhaps 10 per mile even at the busiest times if 7 are in marinas. Of course the distribution is very uneven, so enforcement has to be very much concentrated on the honeypot sites to stop them clogging up completely. Meanwhile, if someone wants to hang about for ages on a 14-day mooring in a lightly used area where there are always some free, let them! The consequence will be that some of the people boating on a low budget (all those who can) will gravitate to areas where they're left alone by CRT. Even within London maybe some places are not so packed? To raise income while not adding to congestion, the ideal new boaters to attract are anyone who prefers the peace of the countryside. Me for example: So far I just crew sometimes on my brother's boat, well up into the Midlands, but one day I might end up with my own boat, far from the madding crowd.
  18. Thank you to carpet wallah (see #3225) for answering a couple of my questions. Clearly in 2009 PL (or Mr Steadman) was indeed keen to write down the value of QMP's freehold, because even in the recession that impairment provision was excessive. I should have realised that the constant debt to Mr Steadman of £2,750,000 was because the mortgage is interest only, and yes £10,000 per year would make sense then. Oops. My guess is that any rent paid by PLM to QMP, the "rental income" which the 2009 accounts say was to be used to pay off the £1.6m owed to PLM, just went out again as a dividend to QMH, then on as a dividend into the QMH shareholder's pockets (75% to Steadman, 25% to Paul Lillie). CRT? Nah, we don't need to pay them. John Lillie thinks the £1.6m QMP owes PLM is the development cost; the original shareholders of PLM (Steadman, John Lillie, Paul Lillie) put up half that, PLM sold some leases to raise more, and some other income (sorry I've forgotten what!) made up the remainder. PLM spent that money converting the gravel pit into a marina and building the cafe+flat, and QMP as freeholder owes PLM £1.6m for the building work. So far it's just like having a builder put an extension on your house and quite legitimate. But PLM kindly agrees to wait ages for payment, and 6 years later hasn't been paid a penny of it; that doesn't sound like any builder I've ever met. Then, despite the marina work clearly enhancing the land, its value is wildly written down in 2008-09. Still trying to work out the endgame, but I feel like speculating. Steadman as the major creditor (via QMH and PLM) gets to choose the liquidator, but the liquidator must stay within a code of practice, and Steadman may not have anticipated that CRT would take a tough line. Without a NAA, PLM is probably unprofitable. Mooring fees slow to a trickle, some moorers start suing for breach of contract, the boat repair business can't pay, the cafe trade suffers as the appearance of the marina declines. The liquidator can't trade out of trouble, so he terminates PLM's lease and tries to sell the freehold unencumbered by Paul Lillie. Two scenarios here: 1. Someone pays just under £3m for it, Steadman's loan is paid off and the unsecured creditors get little or nothing. The new owner negotiates a NAA then tries to make his marina work, weighed down at first by having 20 long term leaseholders and some annual paid moorers who CRT might insist on protecting as a condition of the NAA. 2. If no-one wants it at that price, Steadman gets the site but it's not much good to him. He can't get permission for housing, and without a NAA it's just a cafe and flat and a few fed-up boaters. The CRT won't trust him with a NAA unless he coughs up the whole debt and pays in advance in future, and even then boaters are not keen on a marina with a bad reputation. Maybe he sells it off for £2m or so, but he has probably done OK out of it over the years.
  19. Thank you to RLWP for posting the QMP accounts for y/e 30/6/12 (see #3190). I assert these tell us that as at that date QMP was the freeholder and the freehold includes buildings worth about £300,000 and land worth £2,275,000. Zoopla tells me "No results found for property prices in Flesh Hovel Lane, Quorn, Loughborough LE12 8FE" so QMP appears to still have the freehold (but would Zoopla include commercial property?) My reasoning is that note 1.4 tells us Paul Lillie has applied 2% depreciation for freehold buildings and none for freehold land; if QMP only had a lease this would show the depreciation rate for the lease instead. Note 1.5 tells us the depreciation charge for the year (2011-12) is 6,111. As QMP probably owns little else that will depreciate, this 6,111 is 2% of the value of the freehold buildings. Intriguingly QMP's fixed assets suffered a total depreciation of 1,344,520 in the period from its incorporation up to June 2011; I doubt the land and buildings could have lost that much value, even though the land has a leisure use and there was a big recession. Was PL keen to write it down? If a magnificent uninsured building on the site had been destroyed I think someone would have mentioned it. Another point of some interest is that the debt to Mr Steadman seems to remain constant at 2,750,000 each year; it's an amount falling due after more than one year, i.e. QMP hasn't been required to make payments on the mortgage. It doesn't matter now that QMH is the parent company of QMP, because its directors no longer have power over QMP and the shares are worthless until all creditors are paid in full, which won't happen. But QMH can still tell PLM what to do.
  20. Mike the Boilerman and tupperare, thank you for your comments, constructive as always. I apologise if I have introduced any unnecessary confusion, and assure you my motive in entering this topic is, like you, to help uncover the truth to help the mooring leaseholders. I might indeed be mistaken about the ownership of the freehold, when I said "However QMP's only asset appears to be the freehold" I was only relying on my memory, perhaps faulty, of something from the previous 3159 posts. But carpet wallah seems confident it's the freehold. Similarly I think someone (was it John Lillie?) said PLM had a lease from QMP. I would be surprised if they didn't, as they are carrying on a business on the land. My legal knowledge doesn't extend to the liquidator's power to terminate a commercial lease, so I take tupperware's word for that, and find it very encouraging because... Perhaps the liquidator can become the Lone Ranger? Once he's been over the books and established the true position, he kicks out PLM asap then sells QMP's freehold/lease or even operates a marina himself. Nothing to stop a liquidator doing that I think, because if it's in the interest of realising value for creditors he can embark on fresh activity. For example when Gretna FC in Scotland went bust a few years ago the liquidator raised some money by holding a weekly car boot sale on the land! Yes that's under Scottish law but I suppose it would be similar here. Of course QMP or whoever would still need a NAA but with Paul Lillie out of the picture, Roy Rollings and any other Paul Lillie fan given a P45, and sensible management with a sound business plan in place, CRT should be receptive to that. People seem to like the marina, and income from new mooring fees may be enough to cover Mr Steadman's rent/mortgage payments, the NAA, staff and other running costs. If the freehold/lease is sold and QMP is dissolved, the new owner/lessee wouldn't owe PLM that £1.6m? Bad news for the apparently innocent John Lillie if he still holds shares in PLM (except I suspect his son ensures there are no dividends!), but he could always be offered a job in QMP Mk2 if he needs it; his experience would be useful. I'm not sure how the restaurant and "penthouse" flat fit into all this; are they operated by PLM and would they revert to QMP along with the rest of the site? Off topic!: Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner, but surely to be a penthouse flat you have to have quite a few others underneath you? In Leicestershire maybe just a restaurant suffices. Indeed if PLM's lease were terminated, how much of the assets on site are the property of PLM and could be removed? Sorry, I seem to have raised more questions than I answered again!
  21. A footnote to my epic inaugural post #3160: I'm off to cook and eat my dinner now, but in case anyone has some questions about it (the post; my dinner would be off topic), which I anticipate since I've raised a few things, I'll be back later or tomorrow to endeavour to answer.
  22. Having waded through this entire topic, I think I can add another piece or two to the jigsaw, offer my theory as to what's going on behind the scenes, and thence offer some helpful advice to the moorers at Pillings Lock. I'm neither an accountant or lawyer but I know a bit about both from long experience as a freelance computer analyst/programmer, and having represented myself successfully in court on a few occasions. Like carpet wallah (#3152) I looked at Paul Lillie's statement to the liquidator. The amounts listed as owing to the 20 long term leaseholders are the "Contingent Liability"; I know this because I added them up in Excel and the total is exact. I agree, a contingent liability is one which may arise depending on events, in this case the scenario that CaRT put in the stop planks on 14th April and either leave the marina blocked off, or only let boats out as some have suggested. QMP will then have a liability to refund the value of the remaining lease, because by failing to provide full access to the cut, an obligation which any buyer's solicitor would have insisted upon, QMP would be in breach of contract. However QMP's only asset appears to be the freehold, which according to PL is subject to a 2,750,000 mortgage debt to Mr Steadman. I don't know the terms of PLM's lease from QMP, but that lease will still exist and I imagine they would be entitled to stop making payments for so long as QMP owes PLM a debt. So the liquidator will just set off what QMP woud have received, and the £1.6m will slowly be reduced. My view is that the liquidator may only sell the freehold if he gets enough for Mr Steadman to be repaid in full, otherwise he must complete his paperwork without undue delay, then Mr Steadman pays the liquidator's fees and gets the freehold. Whoever ends up with the freehold, the leases would still exist but does the new owner inherit an obligation to provide access to the cut? I'm not sure. However, if and when a new NAA is granted to whoever, the CRT would surely expect that access to be restored without charge? The boat repair business, a separate company, will probably have a lease from QMP, or just possibly a sub-lease from PLM. They would probably have a case for breach of contract against whichever it is, but may wish to negotiate a lower rent in return for not going to court, and then try to weather the dispute by doing whatever work they can get within the lake, diversifying into other premises or a man+van visiting repair service, laying off staff etc. Reading between the lines of CaRT's limited statements, I think they intend to make an example out of PL, and for this I applaud them. As others have said, if he gets away with failing to pay for the NAA, a contract he has not challenged in court to my knowledge, it will undermine a significant chunk of CaRT's income and they'll have to make up this loss elsewhere. Hence the stop planks threat which made QMP insolvent, and the actual planks which will reduce the income of PLM. If I were CRT I would let boats out after 14th April, perhaps every Wednesday and Saturday morning as someone has suggested, in order (a) to be kind to innocent people who were unable to leave earlier or believed the reassurances given by PLM staff, and ( because any who stay inside until their paid-for annual lease ends won't be providing much income to PLM. My hunch is that CRT intend that the loss of income to PLM will cost PL more than he ever gained from failing to pay them, and that they won't shed a tear if PLM goes bust and/or PL is disqualified from being a company director. It'll be a marina again one day, but without PL or any stooge of his. So I think CRT are not bluffing and there will be a seige; what then should the moorers do, I hear you ask? If your mooring expires before 14th April and your boat works or will do by then, it's a no-brainer; GO. No doubt as the date approaches and the weather warms up, many will. You could always return when the dispute is over. As DeanS has said (#3135), if you've got some time to run on your agreement and are happy to hang about, that may be your best option. But do talk to CRT to guage their intentions for yourself if you want to be confident that you can get your boat out at some point. If you are in the unhappy position that you have some time to run on your agreement but either you want to use your boat for weekend trips etc., or you believe that the CRT will blockade the entrance totally, do not despair. I suggest you either line up another mooring or become a CCer as you see fit (DeanS #3137; I hope the CRT take a lenient view), borrow a book about contract law out of the library, and plan to leave before 14th April. You don't have to be trapped inside to sue PLM. Anyone thinking of suing PLM for breach of contract (or PL himself for libel for his abusive letter published on facebook, see page 3 of this topic, or any other offence) would be well advised to form a group to swap knowledge. Self-representation is cheap and not as hard as lawyers would have you believe, but you must do your homework, gather evidence, weigh up your chances and the risk of costs if you lose, turn up at court and not upset the judge! One test case would open the flood gates, as it were. Finally, sorry to everyone about the length of this post but I had a lot to get through.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.