Dispute at Pillings

[kevinl]

It'd be a cold day in hell before I did any business with a phoenix company that had taken me for £180K and I wouldn't blame cart if they refused to either, these phoenix receivership schemes stink, however, I do think cart should never have let it get this far and owes some duty of care to its licence paying customers not to put them in this position with very little notice specially as you might normally expect to be frozen in at this time of the year.

It could work quite well for cart as when the boats all move to other marinas cart will start getting the money in for a change and all the surrounding marinas will win to as they fill up. If there is as has been said an oversupply of marina places in that area culling one out might be a strategic move.

K

[Athy]

Mod edit to remove references to quoted post.

Edited January 20, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[The Lockie]

Think Cart have missed a trick here, they should have got a winding up order on the holding co for the outstanding debt and then applied to liquidate it to fulfill the debt, simples(ish,OK big ish)

[Paul G2]

I don't really know how your criminal statutes are written, but I think a good case could be made for criminal fraud on the part of Paul Lillie by anyone who loses any money they prepaid to him for long-term leases.

 

At some point in time, apparently some years back, Mr. Lillie made a decision to default on his obligations to CRT. Mr. Lillie knew full well what the ultimate ramifications of him defaulting on those payments would be - closure of access.

 

Mr. Lillie sold boaters 20 - 30 years of access to the marina, knowing full well that, because of his decision to never pay the access fees, he only actually had 2-3 years worth of access to sell. That is criminal fraud.

 

If criminal fraud is proved, the injured parties could sue Lillie personally and, when they won, take away from him the LLC's that own the marina. The burden of proof is even less in a civil action, and Mr. Lillie stands to lose everything even if criminal fraud is not charged or proved. Courts and juries frown on criminal fraud and often award large judgments against those who commit it.

 

The long-term leases that some people bought will be wiped out the bankruptcy. You know darn good and well that, if his Phoenix scam goes through, Paul Lillie is going to look those boaters in the eye and not only tell them that their leasehold is no more, but try to sell them at the same time. A person like him deserves to be in prison. I sincerely hope those boaters who were/will be burned by him go after him with a vengeance.

 

edited for spelling

Edited January 20, 2014 by Paul G.

[adam1uk]

Essentially what I am saying is that the moored boats owe money to Pillings for rent and Pillings owes money to CRT for access fees. An assignment of rents would allow CRT to bypass Pillings and collect the rents directly from the boaters until the fees are paid. Who owns what doesn't really enter in the equation. Keep in mind, without canal/river access that marina is just a stopover for migratory water fowl.

But the moored boats don't owe money to Pillings for rent -- because Pillimgs, like every other marina I've ever come across, requires payment in advance.

 

Why should moorers be targeted for something they have, in effect, already paid? And why would CRT want to deeply annoy boaters who've paid all their bills, and are also CRT licence customers? It wouldn't exactly endear CRT to any marina moorer anywhere in the country.

[Paul G2]

But the moored boats don't owe money to Pillings for rent -- because Pillimgs, like every other marina I've ever come across, requires payment in advance.

 

Why should moorers be targeted for something they have, in effect, already paid? And why would CRT want to deeply annoy boaters who've paid all their bills, and are also CRT licence customers? It wouldn't exactly endear CRT to any marina moorer anywhere in the country.

 

Huh?

 

CRT would not be asking/demanding that any moorer pay even a shilling more than they contractually owe. Do you seriously think that in 2009 all of the moorers in Pillings were paid up until 2014? That's just plain silly.

 

With an assignment of rents CRT would collect the rents as they became due, merely bypassing Lillie until his fees were paid in full. The moorers would be unaffected financially by this, they would merely pay their rent to CRT instead of Lillie. Payment of the rent to CRT would be deemed payment in full of that same rent to Lillie. I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.

[johnlillie]

_{When my wife and me were directors of all three pillings lock associated companies, so were the steadmans, some one earlier stated that only paul Lillie is a direct of quorn properties, what happend to the steadmans, is he (paul) being set up as the fall guy?}

[Tam & Di]

But the moored boats don't owe money to Pillings for rent -- because Pillimgs, like every other marina I've ever come across, requires payment in advance.

 

 

I suspect too that the moorers are not paying "rent" - it is more likely to be a licence fee for mooring space (especially as they are not paying for one unique position but can be moved to another spot), or perhaps a lease for those on a long-term agreement. They are not the same in UK law.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Tam & Di

[Mike Tee]

_{When my wife and me were directors of all three pillings lock associated companies, so were the steadmans, some one earlier stated that only paul Lillie is a direct of quorn properties, what happend to the steadmans, is he (paul) being set up as the fall guy?}

According to the info I gleaned from the net, although dated 2012, Matthew Steadman is listed as a 75% shareholder in the holding company. He is not listed as a director anywhere else. Paul is named as the only director in all three.

It could well be that your son has a target on his back.

[adam1uk]

Huh?

 

CRT would not be asking/demanding that any moorer pay even a shilling more than they contractually owe. Do you seriously think that in 2009 all of the moorers in Pillings were paid up until 2014? That's just plain silly.

 

With an assignment of rents CRT would collect the rents as they became due, merely bypassing Lillie until his fees were paid in full. The moorers would be unaffected financially by this, they would merely pay their rent to CRT instead of Lillie. Payment of the rent to CRT would be deemed payment in full of that same rent to Lillie. I don't know how to explain it any simpler than that.

Oh, I see what you mean now. So CRT would get all the mooring fees in the future until the debt is paid.

 

Sounds like a good idea. How does the marina pay all it's staff and other suppliers while it has no income?

[matty40s]

According to the info I gleaned from the net, although dated 2012, Matthew Steadman is listed as a 75% shareholder in the holding company. He is not listed as a director anywhere else. Paul is named as the only director in all three.

It could well be that your son has a target on his back.

Why target on his back - he is fully aware of what a scam he is about to pull and has clearly told us all on here.

[Paul G2]

Oh, I see what you mean now. So CRT would get all the mooring fees in the future until the debt is paid.

 

Sounds like a good idea. How does the marina pay all it's staff and other suppliers while it has no income?

 

Good question. The owners either get the money from their personal assets, sell the business to someone with some business sense or go under, I guess.

 

As we are discussing this, it occurs to me that asking a court to appoint a Receiver would probably be a better option for CRT. It would still keep the rents from the owners, but operating expenses and suppliers could still be paid. I would posit, though, that CRT would be in a much better position to ask for (and be granted) an involuntary receivership if they had an assignment of rents they could point to and say, "We are going to take the rents, with or without a receiver."

[Grace and Favour]

If CRT were to be nervous of any Newco Marina company, particularly if it were to contain directors/directors relatives of a company that may have traded in the same location just weeks previously, there would be nothing to stop them insisting upon personal guarantees from all the directors involved as a condition of new agreements.

[Liam]

It appears that the directors closest relatives have been stung already, I doubt any others will entertain him.

[Mike Tee]

Why target on his back - he is fully aware of what a scam he is about to pull and has clearly told us all on here.

Maybe if Lillie was out of the picture, C&RT would talk to the major shareholder, who owns 75% to Lillie's 25%. He obviously thinks that he's clever and will get away with it. There's always somebody cleverer.

All supposition though, we'll have to wait and see. No doubt C&RT are working to an agenda that will suit them above all else - lets hope it suits the poor owners in the middle of this with boats at Pillings.

[RichardH]

Out of curiosity, what were the reasons? I thought UK holidays had increased in popularity in the downturn?

 

It started with the press reporting that due to low rainfall the canals would all be closing - if you remember the south was officially in drought by March.

 

Then we had the Golden jubilee, football and the Olympics (in the second Olympic week every single one of our boats was tied up)

 

But the single biggest factor was the weather. It seemed to start raining in April and not stop til October. Pardon the pun but it is an incredible barometer of the holiday industry.

 

The hire industry is concerned that the family market has dramatically reduced when, in real terms, most of the prices have fallen. Is it the squeeze on finances, growth of venues such as Center Parcs or cheap foreign destinations.

 

There are around 900 hire boats on the UK canals at present, my guess is that this will reduce to around 750 in the next 5 years.

Edited January 20, 2014 by RichardH

[Ssscrudddy]

So, if I've got this right, at the start of this thread CaRT were the bad guys, but now everyone is rooting for them cuz now they are the good guys?

[kris88]

i get the feeling this is all going according to plan, this eventuality has been in this companies bussiness model from the beginning.

On the plus side i might try the same argument when my liscence is up for renewal it seems to be working for this individual

Edited January 21, 2014 by kris88

[Captain Fizz]

It's a great scam isn't it? Set up a dodgy operations company, tear the arse out of it for three years, then go to the wall and start again.

I guess that sooner or later this foul individual will upset the wrong person.........

[jelunga]

Sawley has only around 70% occupancy, plenty of room there.....if you want to stick with that kind of management.

Thought it was less than that at the moment.

[furnessvale]

It's a great scam isn't it? Set up a dodgy operations company, tear the arse out of it for three years, then go to the wall and start again.

I guess that sooner or later this foul individual will upset the wrong person.........

Such a scam is being worked in the haulage industry and it is called "pre pack administration".

 

Quite simply, run up a load of debt and at the right moment go into administration. The administrators sell all the assets at a knock down price to a new company you have set up, leaving all the debt with the old company. All done in a couple of hours. All the business contacts and goodwill (that's a laugh) go to the new company and existing customers don't even notice, unlike the creditors who don't get paid.

 

Sounds almost criminal to me but it is legal. It worries the Road Haulage Association so much they refuse to register the new company.

 

It cannot be done if your major creditor has the ability to stop you dead, maybe by sheet piling across a marina entrance?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Swallowman]

It's a great scam isn't it? Set up a dodgy operations company, tear the arse out of it for three years, then go to the wall and start again.

I guess that sooner or later this foul individual will upset the wrong person.........

 

LOL!

[Jerra]

It cannot be done if your major creditor has the ability to stop you dead, maybe by sheet piling across a marina entrance?

As well as piling across the entrance it was mentioned earlier in the thread that CRT could not withhold unreasonably an access agreement with a new operator. Surely it isn't unreasonable to withhold the agreement if the new operator is mainly run by the same people as were running the business which didn't pay you.

[PaulG]

 

Not trying to argue with you, we just aren't communicating well - my fault no doubt.

 

I think you need to dispossess yourself of any thought of "ownership" for the moment. Actual ownership doesn't matter much in this case because Pillings has separated ownership and management vis-a-vis the various LLC's.

 

Essentially what I am saying is that the moored boats owe money to Pillings for rent and Pillings owes money to CRT for access fees. An assignment of rents would allow CRT to bypass Pillings and collect the rents directly from the boaters until the fees are paid. Who owns what doesn't really enter in the equation. Keep in mind, without canal/river access that marina is just a stopover for migratory water fowl.

 

There is also a big flaw in Paul Lillie's scam plan. There is a clause in these contracts that Mr. Lillie is relying upon heavily to carry forth his scam. That clause says that access to the marina cannot be "unreasonably withheld". The credit worthiness and character of the new marina operator could certainly be used by CRT to determine what would constitute "reasonably withholding" access. Since a new LLC would have absolutely no credit history, CRT could simply refuse to deal with them. Paul Lillie would be in no position to guarantee anything to CRT, having just burned them for £180k, so the owner of Pillings would have to find an operator acceptable to CRT before their pond could be turned back into a marina with canal access.

 

Of course, the people who are hurt the most in this are the boaters. If there were an assignment of rents, the marina could be kept open and the boaters remain mostly unaffected while the behind-the-scenes legal machinations were going on.

I understand your argument, but in the UK an assigment of rent is typically used by an organisation that has lent money to purchase a property as a way of protecting their interest payments. As far as I know, BW / C&RT had no role in financing the marina, so the situation is different. I'm not saying that it could not be done, but it would be unusual.

 

I suspect that C&RT would not have too much trouble in persuading a court of law that it is not "unreasonable" for them to withhold acess to a marina to a company that is managed by an individual with a track record of defaulting on payments.

[furnessvale]

As well as piling across the entrance it was mentioned earlier in the thread that CRT could not withhold unreasonably an access agreement with a new operator. Surely it isn't unreasonable to withhold the agreement if the new operator is mainly run by the same people as were running the business which didn't pay you.

Exactly my point. Under "pre pack" it is exactly the same organisation and directors, sometimes the same name with a year added,

 

e.g. xxxxxx Transport(2014) Ltd.

 

George ex nb Alton retired