Dispute at Pillings

[adam1uk]

Dear Forum, here is the response to our berth holders and I'm certain that matters will be resolved in the coming weeks;

 

Dear Berth Holders

 

As an update from yesterdays correspondence I would like to let you know that we have had legal advice on the letter sent to you by Phil Spencer on 16^th January 2014.

 

I can confirm that Para. 4 of Mr Spencers Letter stating that our agreements have been terminated , actually means there is no agreement in place. Therefore there is no requirement for Quorn Marina Properties Ltd to disconnect the access to the Canal.

 

I can assure you we will have any other matters resolved over the coming months and again apologise that you have been subjected to a letter that is partly inaccurate and from a very biased perspective. The letter does not detail that any new company stepping into the role of the prior company has the right to a connection to the waterway which cannot be unreasonably withheld, therefore we do not expect any of your services to be affected.

 

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me & if it is after office hours please do feel free to call me on my mobile – 07747 047740.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Paul Lillie

Managing Director

Pilling's Lock Marina Ltd

Flesh Hovel Lane - Quorn - Leicestershire - LE12 8FE

tel - 01509 620990 / fax - 084555 76587

 

Surely only a lawyer could argue that the absence of an access agreement means that access is fine.

[Tuscan]

I don't fully understand but if there is no agreement in place couldn't CRT just continue the towpath accross the entrance should they choose?

[Mike Tee]

 

I can confirm that Para. 4 of Mr Spencers Letter stating that our agreements have been terminated , actually means there is no agreement in place. Therefore there is no requirement for Quorn Marina Properties Ltd to disconnect the access to the Canal.

 

Paul Lillie

Managing Director

Pilling's Lock Marina Ltd

Flesh Hovel Lane - Quorn - Leicestershire - LE12 8FE

tel - 01509 620990 / fax - 084555 76587

I thought it was C&RT that was disconnecting access to the marina.

Perhaps Pillings Lock could answer the question on everybodys mind - have you paid C&RT the £180k that was the subject of the court case?

[Tom and Bex]

...

 

The letter does not detail that any new company stepping into the role of the prior company has the right to a connection to the waterway which cannot be unreasonably withheld, therefore we do not expect any of your services to be affected.

...

 

 

Does this indicate Pillings Lock Marina is planning bankruptcy and then start another company up to take over I wonder?

 

Tom

[Alan de Enfield]

Does this indicate Pillings Lock Marina is planning bankruptcy and then start another company up to take over I wonder?

 

Tom

 

Exactly my thoughts - another Phoenix company on the waterways !!!

Just to keep the debate going I wonder :-

 

Does the agreement between Pillings Lock Marina and the 'moorers' solely give them mooring rights, or, does it give them mooring rights, and, access rights to the 'waterways'?

 

I'm pretty sure our Marina / mooring contract doesnt say it allows access to the Waterways.

[pillingslock]

BWML's accounts are available online but it is unclear whether their marinas pay a connection charge. They do pay a Service Level Agreement charge of £72K whatever that is but thats only £3.6K per each of their 20 marina. They also don't seem to pay business rates so it is far from a level playing field!

Paul

Thanks for this Paul H.

 

One of the key factors of our disagreement with CRT has been spotted here. There is NOT a level playing field for all marinas and expecting one single new marina to pay £38k Plus VAT per year whilst they (BWML/CRT) have marinas in their own fold that do not pay this much, isn't fair to new businesses.

 

Of the 1,172 Berths within 12 miles of us, it is only the 315 berths at Pilling's Lock that are subject to an NAA. 857 berths have no requirement to pay anything as they are older marinas or situated on EA waters close by.

 

Judging by this figure spotted by Paul H, we are also expected to pay over 10 times what BWML Marinas pay, I'm not sure this is very fair either.

 

I can let everyone know that QMP Ltd has, since March 2008, paid a total of £41,101.01 inc. VAT to BW/CRT. This exceeds the £3,600 per marina per year that BWML pay. (Thats £6,850 per year from us if you haven't got a calculator handy).

 

It is very sad though that negotiations have broken down. I can also tell everyone that the regular monthly payment QMP Ltd was making to CRT was, in the latter months, returned to us as they refused to make any sort of compromise. We never paid nothing - we always tried to pay what we could afford and what we thought was reasonable in the circumstances.

 

It is our aim, now that CRT have revoked the Agreement with QMP Ltd, to start a new set of negotiations that recognise the current market as a whole. CRT, at this very point, unfortunately have more to lose than we do as we have such a huge proportion of Liveaboards & non-cruising boats that having no Agreement means that CRT could also waive goodbye to over £50k a year in Boat License Fees that were previously mandatory on all boats in the marina, but now are not due to the lack of any agreement.

 

Bear in mind last year the total Boat Licenses Paid on boats moored here exceeded an estimated £148k. If some owners, from this point forward, do not license and some only license for 3 or 6 months, CRT's plan of keeping revenues up seems on the face of this to have severely backfired.

 

With the River Soar flooding for many weeks of the year now it's a distinct probability that this happens with almost immediate effect.

 

This lack of Boat Licensing requirement only puts us in exactly the same position as all our neighbouring Marinas too - for many years we have developed our business despite the fact that it costs the Customer much more to keep a boat here. For this I am very grateful to all our customers - past and present - as they have been very supportive and it's like having a large, dependable extended family who are always there when you need them. I cannot thank our customers enough for their loyalty and understanding.

 

This now evident loss of Boat License Revenue is not withstanding the regular payments we were making each month and the fact that as business has been steadily increasing, we were offering to increase these payments as time progressed and shoudl CRT have been a little less hasty there would have come a point in time that the Agreement could have been met. But you cannot find £38k plus VAT in a year when you only make £7k profit (as we did in 2009) nor in a year when you make £22k. That is impossible and there have been a great many market forced affect the performance of marinas - new and old - whilst the CRT Agreement has no facility for variance.

 

Of the £185k judgement obtained by CRT on 6th December 2013, £24k of the sum is legal fees. Before CRT went to court we explained (in writing and face to face) it would probably be a pointless exercise for everyone except their rather pricey lawyers.

 

Suffice to say, between 2007 and 2012 there were over 5,567 new marina berths constructed. Over the same period 2,341 new boat licenses were sold, indicating that the market for moorings was severely thinning and things would become stretching. This figures are CRT figures by the way (from the March 2012 OLMR and the Boat Numbers report).

 

There is a significant move towards Continual Cruising for a great many boats and when this happens many thousands of pounds of sales leave the Marina Market and disappear. In the last two weeks two boats sold here are going off Continual Cruising - a loss of £3,372.75 per year in mooring fees to us - just on two boats!

 

With factors in the market like this significantly affecting the revenues that a marina can generate, any large, fixed costs that a Marina is subject to are going to be tricky to meet.

 

From my personal point of view, I have not fallen out with CRT. I really do want to work towards a solid relationship for the future but there have been difficult times behind us and there are challenging times ahead. There needs to be a firm understanding of what is realistic and unfortunately taking £209,550 plus VAT in the first 6 years, from a new company that is weathering everything I have discussed above, and a global recession, is a little unrealistic.

 

Sadly many waterway businesses have not made it. Some established names in boatbuilding have disappeared (some only temporarily we hope).

 

However, I have no doubt that we will carry on trading (almost) as usual here at Pilling's Lock Marina and, fingers crossed, a new company will be sitting down with CRT shortly to negotiate a new access agreement.

 

Paul Lillie

[Thorfast]

Does this indicate Pillings Lock Marina is planning bankruptcy and then start another company up to take over I wonder?

Tom

I too think this Is their plan.

So CART dont get their money, and the moorers ? .... will they have to pay again to a Phoenix company.

Cant see any winners here...except the company.

[GUMPY]

I don't fully understand but if there is no agreement in place couldn't CRT just continue the towpath accross the entrance should they choose?

Indeed they can and probably will.

There was no access agreement at Kingfisher and they piled that until an agreement was reached.

Glad I don't moor there!

[mayalld]

I don't fully understand but if there is no agreement in place couldn't CRT just continue the towpath accross the entrance should they choose?

 

I rather think that Pillings Lock have shown their hand here.

 

The key is that the whole thing is in the hands of two companies. One that holds everything of value, and one that operates a marina. It is true that both companies share directors and ownership, but legally they are distinct.

 

The property company that built and owns the marina will have an agreement with CRT that guarantees that an access agreement will be granted to them or their immediate tenant, provided that the tenant enters into an access agreement with CRT. It isn't open to CRT to refuse an access agreement to a new tenant, simply because the old tenant defaulted (clearly that would be unfair to a landlord, as it would destroy the value of his investment based on the actions of his tenant).

 

So, it appears likely that a new company will be formed to run the Marina, with a new NAA, and the arrears of NAA will be safely shunted off in the existing operating company (perhaps to be liquidated).

[pillingslock]

Does this indicate Pillings Lock Marina is planning bankruptcy and then start another company up to take over I wonder?

 

Tom

Tom,

 

The NAA was with Quorn Marina Properties Ltd NOT Pilling's Lock Marina Ltd and to answer your question directly, Yes QMP Ltd is going into Liquidation this week.

 

Regards

 

Paul

[dor]

If my boat was there I would be leaving as soon as I can. What a crook!

After pouring scorn on one of his customers and making digs about them not reading the conditions before signing on the dotted line, he is now trying to make a case that he didn't seem to be aware of the conditions he was signing up to. So what if another marina in the area doesn't have to pay a NAA; P Lillie knew what he was signing for. Anyone setting up a business should have a sound business model- if they haven't then they deserve to go broke. Regrettably they can then set up another company and continue their scam. And in this case it is C&RT and boaters that lose out in favour of this rather irksome little man.

[alan_fincher]

From my understanding, and please correct me if I've misunderstood; this marina was in agreement with C&RT to pay them for a right of way onto C&RT waters.

 

A connection agreement allows a marina operator to fill their marina with water supplied by CRT and allows boats to float in that CRT owned water. This needs to be satisfied, even if that boat never passes through the marina entrance onto CRT controlled waterways, so it is about more than "a right of way onto CRT waters".

 

The operator should of course be factoring what he has to pay to CRT into what they charge for the berths, and using that to pay CRT. The amount involved would have been quite clear when a decision was taken that it was a good economic proposition to build that marina.

 

Of course a problem then arises if you can't let enough berths for enough money to be able to meet these charges, and still break even.

 

Wouldn't it be great if every business in the country that felt it was going to be viable when it started up, but ended up finding it was not, was simply able to say to those with whom it jt had entered into a commercial agreement "sorry I thought I was going to be able to pay what we agreed, but I can't, so this is what I think it is reasonable I pay you instead". In that case there would be no failed businesses would there?

[Rod a mod from Tod]

Is it fair to point out that like the government the CRT has no money, it only has our money. So this outstanding money, if due and signed up to be paid, is our money is it not, in which case i wouldn't half mind it being paid.

[Alan de Enfield]

It just aint right !!!

So QMP goes bust owing C&RT £185k, and who knows how much to any other suppliers. They walk away, the debt is 'written off' and the same Directors under a different name - maybe "Pillings Lock Marina" walk in and automatically get the agreement, 2 or 3 years down the line they default on the payments because 'business is hard you know', & around we go again !!!!

 

Its quite a good business plan if you can get away with it.

[RLWP]

and automatically get the agreement,

 

And do they? Surely an agreement requires both sides to agree on something

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

 

And do they? Surely an agreement requires both sides to agree on something

 

Richard

 

I could be wrong (it has been known on several occasions) but when we looked into buying a Marina, the access agreement could not be 'unreasonably withheld'.

 

Now wether C&RT could claim that the 'new' company was purely a phoenix of the 'old' company & they could 'reasonably' withold the agreement (due to their experience of the Directors) is probably something a court would have to decide.

[john6767]

Tom,

 

The NAA was with Quorn Marina Properties Ltd NOT Pilling's Lock Marina Ltd and to answer your question directly, Yes QMP Ltd is going into Liquidation this week.

 

Regards

 

Paul

So at least that is clear then, QMP Ltd goes into liquidation and CRT does not get the money owed to it. Presumably the moorers have their mooring agreement with QMP Ltd, and that they have lost any money already paid for mooring rights, and will need to enter into a new agreement with the new operating company?

 

 

And do they? Surely an agreement requires both sides to agree on something

 

Richard

I think he is saying the the Pilings Lock company that actually own the marina have an agreement with CRT that the operating company will granted an access agreement, so CRT possibly would have difficultly in withholding that access agreement from the new operating company that they form.

 

So it seems to me as though CRT and the moorers loose out and the directors of the various companies are the winners here. Let's hope that CRT and it lawyers can stop that happening. Hopefully those moored there now will be leaving (as it seems anything the have paid upfront will be lost once QMP Ltd is liquidated anyway), and that the new operating company will not get any business.

 

If I have got this wrong, could you correct me Paul.

Edited January 20, 2014 by john6767

[Jerra]

One of the key factors of our disagreement with CRT has been spotted here. There is NOT a level playing field for all marinas and expecting one single new marina to pay £38k Plus VAT per year whilst they (BWML/CRT) have marinas in their own fold that do not pay this much, isn't fair to new businesses.

Surely if it was thought to be an unfair situation or unsustainable the sensible course would be to have not entered into the agreement. Then this situation would never have arisen.

 

Every business I have had anything to do with would have taken that action.

[mayalld]

So at least that is clear then, QMP Ltd goes into liquidation and CRT does not get the money owed to it. Presumably the moorers have their mooring agreement with QMP Ltd, and that they have lost any money already paid for mooring rights, and will need to enter into a new agreement with the new operating company?

 

I think he is saying the the Pilings Lock company that actually own the marina have an agreement with CRT that the operating company will granted an access agreement, so CRT possibly would have difficultly in withholding that access agreement from the new operating company that they form.

 

So it seems to me as though CRT and the moorers loose out and the directors of the various companies are the winners here. Let's hope that CRT and it lawyers can stop that happening. Hopefully those moored there now will be leaving (as it seems anything the have paid upfront will be lost once QMP Ltd is liquidated anyway), and that the new operating company will not get any business.

 

If I have got this wrong, could you correct me Paul.

 

Looking at it, it appears that Quorn Marina Holdings is the only Company that actually OWNS anything. Quorn Marina Properties presumably has a lease from QMH, and is the key trading entity that has sold leases, and which presumably also leases the remaining spots (thate aren't leased to individuals) to Pillings Lock Marina, which then takes income from moorers who aren't on a long term lease.

 

QMP has the NAA, and owes the money.

 

Now, as already noted, QMP has almost 2 million in assets (those assets will be the value of the lease that it has from QMH), but similar liabilities (being the value of the leases that it has granted to moorers and PLM).

 

When QMP liquidates, the liquidator will need to set a value on selling that lease to a new company, and QMH will need to sell at that price. The price will be low, because the liabilities that attach to the lease make it near worthless.

 

Effectively, QMP owns assets that are only useful to somebody who also owns QMH, so the only buyer would be QMP2

[frangar]

Well for once my thoughts about certain people were right….`I'm glad I'm not moored there…..dont think that little rant has won you many friends in what after all is a small world Mr Lillie!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[RLWP]

I think he is saying the the Pilings Lock company that actually own the marina have an agreement with CRT that the operating company will granted an access agreement, so CRT possibly would have difficultly in withholding that access agreement from the new operating company that they form.

 

So it seems to me as though CRT and the moorers loose out and the directors of the various companies are the winners here. Let's hope that CRT and it lawyers can stop that happening. Hopefully those moored there now will be leaving (as it seems anything the have paid upfront will be lost once QMP Ltd is liquidated anyway), and that the new operating company will not get any business.

 

If I have got this wrong, could you correct me Paul.

 

Being too idle to think this through myself, how does the existing arrangement of stanking off the marina work then? It implies taking something away from one company because another hasn't paid.

 

Richard

 

Looking at it, it appears that Quorn Marina Holdings is the only Company that actually OWNS anything. Quorn Marina Properties presumably has a lease from QMH, and is the key trading entity that has sold leases, and which presumably also leases the remaining spots (thate aren't leased to individuals) to Pillings Lock Marina, which then takes income from moorers who aren't on a long term lease.

 

QMP has the NAA, and owes the money.

 

Now, as already noted, QMP has almost 2 million in assets (those assets will be the value of the lease that it has from QMH), but similar liabilities (being the value of the leases that it has granted to moorers and PLM).

 

When QMP liquidates, the liquidator will need to set a value on selling that lease to a new company, and QMH will need to sell at that price. The price will be low, because the liabilities that attach to the lease make it near worthless.

 

Effectively, QMP owns assets that are only useful to somebody who also owns QMH, so the only buyer would be QMP2

 

If QMP has the NAA - how can the trust take it away by stanking off the marina because QMH owes them money?

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

Pillings Lock figures as of June 2012

 

£73,009 Cash

£389,231 Net Worth

£1,604,721 Assets

£1,210,235 Liabilities

Quorn Marina Properties

Business :- "Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis"

£0 Cash

£-2,084,480 Net Worth

£0 Assets

£1,909,909 Liabilities

Quorn Marina Holdings

Buisness :- "Letting and operating of own or leased real estate"

£0 Cash

£-2,500 Net Worth

£795,708 Assets

£10 Liabilities

Edited January 20, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[john6767]

 

Being too idle to think this through myself, how does the existing arrangement of stanking off the marina work then? It implies taking something away from one company because another hasn't paid.

 

Richard

How I was reading this is that the QMP operating company is the one with access agreement with CRT, and that has been revoked. The other company that actually owns the marina has a separate agreement with CRT that the company that operates the marina (their tenant) will be granted an access agreement.

 

So by a new tenant taking on the operation of the marina instead of the liquidated QMP, that new company would be granted a new access agreement with CRT. It is irrelevant that the new operating company has the same directors as the old one (QMP).

 

As I said I may be wrong, and I would hope that Paul (pillingslock) would correct me if I am.

[RLWP]

How I was reading this is that the QMP operating company is the one with access agreement with CRT, and that has been revoked. The other company that actually owns the marina has a separate agreement with CRT that the company that operates the marina (their tenant) will be granted an access agreement.

 

So by a new tenant taking on the operation of the marina instead of the liquidated QMP, that new company would be granted a new access agreement with CRT. It is irrelevant that the new operating company has the same directors as the old one (QMP).

 

As I said I may be wrong, and I would hope that Paul (pillingslock) would correct me if I am.

 

It's the paying for it bit that isn't clear. If I get an access agreement with CRT, and say that John6767 will pay for it, and you don't, surely the agreement is removed from me

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

RLWP, on 20 Jan 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

 

It's the paying for it bit that isn't clear. If I get an access agreement with CRT, and say that John6767 will pay for it, and you don't, surely the agreement is removed from me

 

Richard

If a tennant (in a house) doesnt pay the electricity bill, does the landlord have to pay it ? or is it the tennants responsibilty ?