Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

 

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

Yes agreed but it is QMP, the operating company not the marina owner that has the access agreement with CRT, so that agreement with them is revoked, and the access with be closed. The other company that actually owns the marina never had an access agreement because they do not need one, they just own some property they do not operate a marina. The owners still have their agreement with CRT in place that says that their tenant company that operates the marina will be granted an access agreement. So a new operating company should be able to step in and negotiate a new access agreement with CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Regardless of the legalese, dor has summed it up. Morality does not seem to matter in law, but morally this 'irksome man' is as straight as a 9 bob note.

Anybody who has dealings with him in the future is a fool - this includes C&RT. I feel for the people ripped off who are still in the marina, but for those who can, get out. He's done it once, he'll do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

That depends on who has the contract with the electricity supply company. If it is the tenant, it is analogous to the access agreement being discussed here I think, in that the electricity supply company will cut off the electricity for non payment and pursue the tenant for payment. If a new tenant moves in there is not reason that they would be denied supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are arguments that support the Trust being unable to stank off the marina. And yet that's what they are going to do

 

There is some subtlety that we haven't uncovered yet that allows the Trust to do this.

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on who has the contract with the electricity supply company. If it is the tenant, it is analogous to the access agreement being discussed here I think, in that the electricity supply company will cut off the electricity for non payment and pursue the tenant for payment. If a new tenant moves in there is not reason that they would be denied supply.

 

That was my point (but fair comment about depends who holds the contract)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are arguments that support the Trust being unable to stank off the marina. And yet that's what they are going to do

 

There is some subtlety that we haven't uncovered yet that allows the Trust to do this.

 

Richard

Not sure why they can not do that, the owner of the access agreement has defaulted on payment for that access, so the access is removed, just like cutting off supply for non payment of an electricity bill. Of course a new operating company can apply for a new access agreement with CRT and once that is in place the access will be opened up again. At this point this is what I would think that they will try to do, except that they would hope to get that new agreement in place before the deadline when CRT will block it off, so in reality the access will not ever get blocked off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope CRT negotiates the new agreement at a price that also recovers monies owed. What the marina owner forgets is it's our money.

 

I struggle to believe anyone would have built a marina without first understanding the business model and understanding the costs as well as the market price being charged by my competitors. This talk of boat licences being withheld in my mind is bluff, does their model work if they are just a boat park of course not. I wonder what level of planning permission and security they have for their residential boaters.

 

If I moored there I would vote with my feet (or boat).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope CRT negotiates the new agreement at a price that also recovers monies owed. What the marina owner forgets is it's our money.

 

 

 

I dont think that C&RT have any leeway in the agreement terms / prices. As far as I could see its fixed at 9% of the mooring fee based on 100% occupancy.

 

Maybe there is some room (I really dont know, the contract I loooked at was 9%) to make the 9% variable, a bit like you can negotiate terms with an estate agent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the rationale Mr Lillie makes regarding the agreed repayment (which he would have been aware of before signing) I wonder how flexible or reasonable he would be if a moorer who had signed a mooring agreement said they were unable to pay the mooring fee agreed as due to "market forces" they weren't able to pay the full amount but could pay a reduced amount. Looking at the FB post earlier on I guess I know the answer......

 

When I looked for a mooring Pillings was on my short list but after meeting with him, the things he said just didn't add up. Luckily I chose

Mercia which was slightly more expensive but with a management team that put boaters first IMO. Reading his comments on here have confirmed my decision.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 the time to argue that a contract is unfair is BEFORE you sign it, not four years after the event!

 

The marina entered into a contract with C&RT to pay the fees, so it is quite reasonable that C&RT should "expect" the marina to pay.

 

It seems that the court agreed, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the time to argue that a contract is unfair is BEFORE you sign it, not four years after the event!

 

The marina entered into a contract with C&RT to pay the fees, so it is quite reasonable that C&RT should "expect" the marina to pay.

 

It seems that the court agreed, too.

 

Indeed -- not least because none of the things he complains about have changed in the intervening four years. The long standing marinas were already there, so were ones on EA waters. It's not as if someone has come in with a better deal and undercut him. In fact, you'd think the marinas in existance before PL might have more cause to complain about competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejecting substantial cheques which the marina sent to them, and then moaning that the marina owes them £180,000, does not sound like good or honest business practice on the part of Cart (and presumably BW before them). If they'd have banked those cheques, then the marina would now owe them less than that. In business, any payment is better than no payment and should be accepted on account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejecting substantial cheques which the marina sent to them, and then moaning that the marina owes them £180,000, does not sound like good or honest business practice on the part of Cart (and presumably BW before them). If they'd have banked those cheques, then the marina would now owe them less than that. In business, any payment is better than no payment and should be accepted on account.

We don't know the details, I am sure they were sent with conditions attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejecting substantial cheques which the marina sent to them, and then moaning that the marina owes them £180,000, does not sound like good or honest business practice on the part of Cart (and presumably BW before them). If they'd have banked those cheques, then the marina would now owe them less than that. In business, any payment is better than no payment and should be accepted on account.

I have no knowledge of these things but wouldn't accepting less mean they could end up permanently having to accept less. This would/could open the door to other marinas presumably.

 

As I say I have no knowledge but I would think that might be a plausible explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejecting substantial cheques which the marina sent to them, and then moaning that the marina owes them £180,000, does not sound like good or honest business practice on the part of Cart (and presumably BW before them). If they'd have banked those cheques, then the marina would now owe them less than that. In business, any payment is better than no payment and should be accepted on account.

 

It depends on the implied conditions attached. For example, if a cheque was sent with an explanation that they couldn't/didn't want to pay any more, and that accepting and paying in the cheque implied acceptance of the reduced payment amount, then I could see why they'd choose not to pay it in yet pursue full costs. Remove the implied conditions so it can be interpreted as part payment with an amount outstanding, and its a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope CRT negotiates the new agreement at a price that also recovers monies owed.

 

If the company that owes CRT the money doesn't have the money to pay, then regardless of whether it would have had the money if better run, there is nothing that CRT can do to recover its money.

 

Even if the same people are behind the new company, that new company is legally a new entity and has no liability for the monies that its predecesor owed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a crook!

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.

Couldn't have put it better myself dor :)

 

 

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? laugh.png

My sediments exactly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no knowledge of these things but wouldn't accepting less mean they could end up permanently having to accept less. This would/could open the door to other marinas presumably.

 

As I say I have no knowledge but I would think that might be a plausible explanation.

 

I doubt it. In my business, Conditions of Supply almost always take precedence over Conditions of Purchase.

 

In this analogy, Pillings might try saying that acceptance of a lower payment "in full and final settlement" demonstrates that the supplier is willing to accept that lower payment "in full and final settlement!. Nonsense of course - that is why most businesses operating credit accounts (as in this case) send regular statements of an account showing debits and credits to that account and an overall balance remaining outstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the same people are behind the new company, that new company is legally a new entity and has no liability for the monies that its predecesor owed.

But CRT can make sure that the terms offered for the access agreement are at least the same if not more draconian in the hope of not having to deal with the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine CRT aren't as daft as to not take into account in their budgeting that occasionally marinas don't get the business they thought they would, and are sufficiently financially fragile that they'll go into liquidation, resulting in the access agreement payment not paid. So they'll not worry too much about relentlessly pursuing the lost money, that after all never existed in the first place (not enough moorers --> not enough income --> not enough to pay the access agreement etc).

 

Hopefully instead of permanently sealing the entrance, they'll put a gate across it with the means to let out unlucky moorers who for whatever reason, have not gotten their boat out the marina by April but may on request want to get back onto CRT's canal system etc. But it won't be for the day-to-day ins and outs of the marina, it could be a one time departure.

 

If the above is possible, then the existing moorers don't need to be worried too much about being sealed off in a bankrupt lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rejecting substantial cheques which the marina sent to them, and then moaning that the marina owes them £180,000, does not sound like good or honest business practice on the part of Cart (and presumably BW before them). If they'd have banked those cheques, then the marina would now owe them less than that. In business, any payment is better than no payment and should be accepted on account.

From past experience of dispute situations, had C&RT accepted the cheque, it would very likely be deemed to be an acceptance of the Marina's side of the argument.

When seeking to avoid payment, it's a common tactic to send a lesser amount to see if the other side is naieve enough to accept it, and thus damage their case.

I am not suggesting that that is what happened in this case, of course.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.