FredDrift

Be reasonable... PL has had an unexpected bill for £30k to pay out.

How does CRT become the guilty party in respect of "misappropriation of money from moorers"?* *Technically of course, there has been no "misappropriation of money from moorers".

Why? That seems a touch churlish given that a share of a boat is perhaps the only way some boaters can take to the water. The boat isn't operated as a business and its licence permits it to be on the water for a full year. Your thinking sort of suggests a sliding scale of licence fee based on the length of time a boat is cruising / away from it's home mooring. By definition that would put CC'ers right up near the share and hire boats.

You just know though that if CRT found extra money to spend on maintenance & repairs then NBW would put it down to CRT grossly overcharging boaters and /or inept management.

Option 1 is something one might read in a Pratchett novel and options 2 and 3 are perhaps two elements of a single likelihood. Let's call it option 4... 4) PL stiffs the moorers to pay CRT and then fails to pay [CRT] again would be a reasonable prediction.

Sales of £70k doesn't seem that attractive as a business proposition. I imagine this sort of business is relatively cost intensive, largely seasonal and very much at the mercy of the weather. Good summer, 'good' sales, poor summer... After the cost of sales for food (outside caterer?) and bar stock, the wage costs and the other probably not insignificant operating costs including licences, moorings, insurances and fuel are taken out there probably wouldn't be much profit in it. Especially if the owner is also having to draw a salary. Nice looking boat though and nicely photographed.

So where do you fit into the hierarchy of the MS / PL / CSH /RR1 empire ... One of (or closely related to one of) the four or simply one of the staff? This Wiki article seems to sum you up quite succinctly if I may say so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Could be a good solution for the current crisis... An offer like that and PL will soon be ohm & dry, watt?

Why they wouldn't take licence renewal money from the moorers despite knowing of the future intention to blockade the marina. A licence would be required in the normal way right up to the time that marina is severed from the canal. For those who then choose to leave, the licence requirement remains extant and to those who choose to stay, a refund of the unused portion of the licence fee is given. Is there a currently available variable licence based on and sold for precisely the number of days for which it is required? (From renewal day to entrance closure day say). Did or could the moorers reasonably expect the licence fee to be waived for the period prior to access to the marina being closed off? If PLM was paying salarie/s and the associated on-costs and benefits such as employer NI, health insurance,pension contributions etc. on behalf of QMP then presumably there would be inter-company cross charges made giving rise over time to QMP having a significant liability (on paper) to PLM.

If whining was PL's core business I suspect that he would be very successful...

The image gives the impression that the raised cratch board might be the first point of contact in a misjudged entry into an empty lock or a bridge 'ole...

How old are you?

Whether or not CRT have a monopoly is not germane to anything is it. Paul Lillie and his cohorts, having had every opportunity in the world to a, choose a location on any one of a number of waterways and b. to fully understand the pricing structure of his selected waterway operator chose to set up on a CRT waterway. In making that choice one assumes that the terms and conditions applicable to his chosen location (regardless of whose waterway it might be) were acceptable in terms of the business plan. That must be the case as otherwise, PLM would be elsewhere. CRT are absolutely right to take whatever measures they deem necessary to recover and/or mitigate their losses through bad debt. They are not operating a 'PLM' charity.

Slightly off topic but HMRC is not, since 2003, a preferential creditor... 36A.61 HM Revenue and Customs not a preferential creditor Following the implementation of EA2002 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is not a preferential creditor and its debt(s) (irrespective of the nature of the tax owed), will rank with all other unsecured creditors http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/technicalmanual/Ch25-36/Chapter%2036A/Part%205/Part%205.htm

Clearly the business is struggling if it can't weather a persons wages for week in peak season.

Marina based boaters pay no more to use the canal - they buy a licence the same as (most) other boaters. Marina based boaters pay their chosena fee that will be made up of a proportion of the marina's operating costs plus a profit element. The fee paid for the mooring may or may not include some or all of the NAA charge but regardless of that, either the fee for the mooring, irrespective of how it was derived, is acceptable to the boater or it isn't. How the marina determine their fee is completely immaterial to the boater. The same applies to on-line moorers. Again, either the fee, however derived, is acceptable to the prospective moorer or it isn't. If my neighbour drives a model X car and pays 'tax', MoT, insurance, diesel etc (lets call it running costs) and additionally hires a lock up garage for overnight parking would you be paying more to drive your car on the public highway than me with exactly the same Model X car and running costs but no lock up garage? Of course not. We would pay exactly the same to use our respective cars on the road but his annual motoring costs will be higher than mine. Seems fair to me as he chose to incur the cost of the garage.

No doubt these two new employees will be fighting CRT off with beer mats and brooms. CRT are not planning to close the bar, just the marina entrance.

But anyone at the marina using a smartphone, tablet or 3G / cellular wifi dongle would have a unique and possibly dynamic IP address if the device is not permanently switched on.

Presumably, you are a member of his family working well to ensure the successful running of the business. The measurement of success seems unusual by normal standards but if having the core element of the business converted from a marina to a landlocked pond by a creditor of the business is such a measurement then clearly the running of the business has been very successful. Pillngs Lock Pond has a nice ring to it though.

Is that all of the moorers or just a handful? It seems exceedingly unlikely at this stage that licence fee refunds are at the top of most moorer's agenda unless of course, they all want to be permanently confined to the marina and they all expect / want the connection to remain permanently severed. Hopefully a solution will be found, beneficial to those moored there and to CaRT. Ideally such a solution will exclude entirely the person(s) responsible for bring about the whole situation through his/their dishonesty and sharp practise.

Such amazing repartee.... You can be nothing but a Paul Lillie Sock Puppet. Well done you.

Not sure that total reliance can be placed in brand names alone... even though I would do the same rather than buy cheap obscure brand smoke / CO detectors. Admittedly this article relates only two specific Fireangel smoke alarms rather than the entire brand range and does not include CO detectors but it illustrates, as the article goes on to say, that paying more is no guarantee of better quality. The advice earlier in the thread to fit two or more devices from different brands makes good sense.

Worth a response... The question to you was: "How do you know that the person [who decided to display the advertisement] doesn't have a clue?" In your customary arrogant and pointless posting style you have made a rather uninformed statement about somebody who, for all you know, may be very well informed in such things. I would suggest that if you cannot read the question then you have little prospect of understanding anything more complex such as what is being actually being offered to boat owners and others. Cheshire Rose... I agree with all you say but unfortunately there is a world of difference between the business of a third party advertising agency and the business of renting holiday accommodation on a very small scale.

Dear Mr Grace & Favour "We give you an a secure way... to accept payments." A good point but almost certainly there will be none of the clients cash lodged with Trip Advisor at any time. They are merely providing a channel of some sort through which the owner can be paid directly by the hirer. Window dressing to make it look as though they are adding value. They make mention of PayPal somewhere so it may be simply a completely free of charge tiny app that connects the owner / hirer to each other via a payment service. Financial intermediary is stretching this one. I can't go and get the full details as I won't give my details to them but my buy-to-let flat is entirely my responsibility despite having and paying through the nose for a letting agent. They market the flat, find tenants and technically 'introduce' them to me, (I try not to actually ever meet them of course). They also collect the rent but are not responsible for rent not paid (has to be insured or premium fees paid) and they pass my share to me and they check the condition of the flat and furnishings etc from time to time. End of. If I don't have a landlords gas certificate - my problem. If the kitchen cupboard falls off the wall and injures the tenant - also exclusively my problem (if I haven't insured against such risk). All made very clear in the terms and conditions of the service. Morally perhaps, if I am found wanting in legal or even best practise terms the agent should walk away from it and bin me but will they? Easy money from their point of view. (Not all leting agents I hasten to add are immoral but they are mostly estate agents ). Whichever way you look at it - they are not letting property and therefore have no responsibility for the property or for the letting or even for the payments of hire charges. They may 'give' an easy means for the owner to accept payment but it will not be channelled through them and they will not be responsible for payments made or not made. Not even if they offer an 'escrow' service will they be responsible for letting legalities although they would be intermediaries. Dear Ms SueB That is of course a really valid point regardless of the type of the accommodation and one would like to think that full compliance would be a condition of accepting an owner into their service. It is unlikely I suspect and again, almost certainly there will be a clause or two in the terms and condition that makes it very clear that the owner is entirely responsible etc. They are selling advertising space and that is the long and the short of it. The face-ache advert is designed to make it look 'oh so simple' to make some money and to Trip Adviser I'm sure boats are no different to holiday cottages, apartments or caravans. They probably need to sell space in these straitened times. In line with the general opinion on the hire of private boats - not something I would want to either for all of the reasons mentioned, any more than I would with our family home, touring caravan or cars. Right - I think that's probably my third post this year - don't want to be over-doing it now....

And you know this how? The Trip Adviser service is nothing more than that of an advertiser / introducer. They are selling nothing more than an advertising / introduction service. They are not involved in accommodation letting. If an owner has holiday accommodation to let and they opt to use the Trip Adviser service to advertise that accommodation then Trip Adviser will, for a fee or a commission, simply advertise the accommodation and introduce potential 'guests' to the owner. They don't make the bookings and they don't collect the hire charges and they will accept no responsibility for the actions or inactions of any introduced 'guest'. The owner has full and sole responsibility for all of it. So in respect of the perhaps ill considered statement; "I agree it's been put up by somebody who hasn't got a clue about what is actually required." , having a clue or otherwise, it is completely irrelevant to an advertising / introductions business.