Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

Im not saying thats Pauls opinion,he did state at the beginning that a new company would be formed....and yes i believe Dank said PL will stand down if thats what is required. But PL remains a director of the other two companies involved i believe,so he will be in the wings of a new company,even if not the figurehead....my apologies if i am wrong.

He may not be a director but would be taking the role of 'Shadow Director', in that case.

 

Linky to a PDF document

 

MtB

 

[RLWP]

Im not saying thats Pauls opinion,he did state at the beginning that a new company would be formed....and yes i believe Dank said PL will stand down if thats what is required. But PL remains a director of the other two companies involved i believe,so he will be in the wings of a new company,even if not the figurehead....my apologies if i am wrong.

I wasnt criticising your post, just warning haggis that she may be misreading what you had said

 

Your analysis of the situation looks right to me

 

Richard

[SoosieQ]

I wasnt criticising your post, just warning haggis that she may be misreading what you had said

Your analysis of the situation looks right to me

Richard

Sorry Richard,i misinterpreted your post....it is an infuriating situation

He may not be a director but would be taking the role of 'Shadow Director', in that case.Linky to a PDF document

 

MtB

 

Lets face it, PL loves the position of power he feels he has....i dont think he has any intention of stepping away from it...does anyone else?

[One sheet]

Sorry Richard,i misinterpreted your post....it is an infuriating situation

Lets face it, PL loves the position of power he feels he has....i dont think he has any intention of stepping away from it...does anyone else?

sounds like one foot in the grave to me

[cloggy]

probably somewhere in this thread but again cant be bothered to trawl back. has anyone got the rough figures for occupancy in years 1,2&3

[John Holden]

 

Yes. The CRT man at the creditors' meeting expressed exactly this fear.

 

Now can you do me the courtesy of answering the questions I have asked you, please. Thank you.

 

 

MtB

 

If youremind me I will, even though they were probably not relevant to the point I made

[NigelMoore]

The hard bit being proving embezzlement when the director involved would claim incompetence.

 

It's an unintended peripheral consequence of allowing companies to have only one director, too. If there are two as used to be the minimum (or to be picky a director and a company secretary), complicity is necessary. A lone director can do as s/he likes and is answerable only to the shareholders, who may not find out the bad news until too late.

 

In fairness, my first paragraphs laid the groundwork for a situation where misappropriation of funds could be established, such that the moorers had demonstrably paid for something that they could not continue to enjoy, by reason of their payments having been diverted from a specified end supplier [much as per the previous example of electricity supplier].

 

Incompetence could hardly be used to explain away such a situation when alleged fraud is under police investigation.

 

I have to disagree that 'complicity' with any others is required to establish a crime - conspiracy to commit fraud is not an essential component of a fraud charge. A lone director is answerable to the courts respecting criminal behaviour regardless.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/12

 

12. Liability of company officers for offences by company

.

"(1) Subsection (2) applies if an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate.

.

(2) If the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of—

.

( a ) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

.

( b ) a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

.

he (as well as the body corporate) is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

[George94]

 

Your complete resistance to understanding the world is a wonder to behold.

 

People start up in business all the time. Some make a go of it, and some fail. Those that fail do so, because either they didn't have a business plan, because their research that led to a business plan was flawed, or because their business plan was based on wishful thinking, rather than an objective view of the world.

 

Going into business comes with risks. Your business plan should explore how you will manage those risks. If it fails to do so, your business fails. If your business fails, then perhaps you shouldn't be running a business at all.

 

The last thing we need is for lame dog businesses to be run by people without a clue for a longer period, because their suppliers bend over backwards to keep them on life support.

 

Would you care to explain which part of my post you are disagreeing with?

 

By the way, Mr Mayall, much smarter people than you failed to see how bad the recent economic crisis was going to be, To pretend, as you are doing, that businessmen can foresee, and plan for, every sort of calamity is stupid in the extreme.

 

You really don't appear to be as bright as you want people to think you are.

 

Entrepreneurs are risk-takers. Their best laid schemes (sometimes through no fault of their own) gang aft agley. It happens to the best of them. It doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be running a business.

 

Lest anybody reading this is in any doubt, I am not here to support Paul Lilley. But I do believe the NAA is a flawed scheme.

 

And now, got any more of your anecdotes? I did so enjoy the last one.

[adam1uk]

Indeed, but it is not a fact that that allows plenty of time to become full. In good economic times, and for a marina close to lots of people, two years may be more than enough. In lean times, and for a marina based far from large population centres, it may well not be enough time.

But the owner of the marina chooses its location and how many berths it offers. So they can't blame anyone but themselves for those decisions.

[Skye]

Wow 106 pages of shite get a life and float

[mayalld]

 

 

Having a little flexibility in the system would probably be good for everyone involved. If a marina got off to a shaky start, it would allow CRT to be flexible about what percentage of occupancy they applied their fees to, making the fees closer to the reality of the occupancy. Having a set fee based on 100% occupancy really isn't a great plan from any respect. CRT should simply change the formula for how many moorings it abandons and change how it assesses the fees on marinas - 100% occupancy just isn't realistic.

 

 

 

The system doesn't assume 100% occupancy.

 

The system is just a formula for calculating a charge. It makes no assumption about what occupancy the marina will achieve. It simply sets a charge based upon capacity.

 

Would a charge of 13% based on 75% occupancy be fairer (if the marina achieves more that 75%, then the extra occupancy is a bonus).

[mayalld]

 

Would you care to explain which part of my post you are disagreeing with?

 

By the way, Mr Mayall, much smarter people than you failed to see how bad the recent economic crisis was going to be, To pretend, as you are doing, that businessmen can foresee, and plan for, every sort of calamity is stupid in the extreme.

 

You really don't appear to be as bright as you want people to think you are.

 

Entrepreneurs are risk-takers. Their best laid schemes (sometimes through no fault of their own) gang aft agley. It happens to the best of them. It doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be running a business.

 

Just about every part of every one of your posts is complete nonsense.

 

Certainly, predicting the depth of the economic downturn was difficult, but everybody is affected by it.

 

Other marinas are full to capacity, and paying their NAA fees. Why not PLM?

 

Basically, because instead of a sound business plan, which still works in the bad times (quality marina, with reasonable prices and friendly service), PL actually staked everything on the fripperies, and neglected to run the core business well.

 

The answer to a business not being viable is that the business ends. The answer is NOT that the problem is transferred to the supplier.

My point was made as PL is of the opinion that a new NAA will be made with his new company as he feels there is no reason why it shouldnt. My personal belief is that a new agreement would and should only come into play when the earlier debt has had at least a percentage of it paid....else this discussion will happen again in 2 years when he fails to hand over more money hes taken from unknowing innocent customers

 

Who do you imagine should pay the debt? The company that owed it is insolvent, and cannot pay.

 

Despite the links between the various entities, the bottom line is that Steadman put his money into the marina on the basis that BW would grant a NAA to the company operating it, and would not unreasonably withold such an agreement.

 

Due to the failure of the company, the marina reverts to Steadman as Mortgagee in possession, and he is entitled to a NAA. He has no personal liability for the debt, and it would be entirely improper to try to extort money from Steadman that he doesn't owe, by threatening to devalue his property if he doesn't pay up.

[alan_fincher]

You can get a free credit report from Experian: http://www.experian.co.uk/experianhome/?sc=701661&infinity=gaw~Brand~Experian~26311450030~experian~e

 

Richard

I haven't looked at the link, as I'm on a lousy phone, but don't most of these require you to sign up for an ongoing paid service, including payment details, which you then have to cancel within a free trial period.

 

(Aka the "Which" magazine method.........)

 

If so, be aware you may well get blitzed with propaganda to rejoin even after you have cancelled. I'm very wary of such "free"trials that try and suck you in for an expensive service you don't need.

[patty-ann]

Wow 106 pages of shite get a life and float

Its winter, nights are long, weather inclement come the sunny spring(??) all will fade away as new life blossoms and other topics take hold.

[carlt]

 

 

Lest anybody reading this is in any doubt, I am not here to support Paul Lilley.

I am truly amazed.

 

All of your posts, from your bizarre definition of "monopoly" to your strange notion that the NAA is "one size fits all" seem to fly in the face of logic and reason in order to blindly support PL and his actions.

I haven't looked at the link, as I'm on a lousy phone, but don't most of these require you to sign up for an ongoing paid service, including payment details, which you then have to cancel within a free trial period.

Not "Noddle" which is free forever (however long that may be) apart from them sending a couple of emails a week trying to persuade you to buy their "paid for" services.

 

Certainly a lot less spam than Experian send which, even if you tick "don't give my details to anybody" seems to coincide with dodgy spam from dodgy loan shark.

[bigcol]

One thing we all know

 

If it pilling starts again, different name, different company ,the old company now being liquidated.

 

There will be a meeting at CRT, they will realise their mistakes, heads will roll,with regards to letting the debt get out of control

Then their will be a power point presentation, on how long it would take to a percentage of licence fee increase,to make up the loss

Lets face it, we will make up the loss with increasing licences next time round.

We will all pay in the end

We've been reading, getting ourselves involved in 106 pages of workings of a company ran by a conman.

And it's us that will also be replacing the fees that CRT failed to get and owed from Paul Lillie

 

Col

[b0atman]

Greenie for you Bigcol

[matty40s]

It should be simple to enforce.

The NAA is paid quarterly in advance, as soon as a payment is one period overdue, the marina is blocked off until paid. This would be a clear message to boaters that their marina management was fulfilling its commitments or not.

Although it startdd badly and continues to be slow in its development, Barby Moorings got one thing right, only adding new pontoons as and when existing pontoons were filled, therefore only being charged for actual occupancy, not possible occupancy. It would also be interesting to find out if the rafted up £100 p month winter moorings are classed as single occupancy berths or a number of boats are on each berth to split the charge.

[Phantasm]

 

Just about every part of every one of your posts is complete nonsense.

 

Certainly, predicting the depth of the economic downturn was difficult, but everybody is affected by it.

 

Other marinas are full to capacity, and paying their NAA fees. Why not PLM?

 

Basically, because instead of a sound business plan, which still works in the bad times (quality marina, with reasonable prices and friendly service), PL actually staked everything on the fripperies, and neglected to run the core business well.

 

The answer to a business not being viable is that the business ends. The answer is NOT that the problem is transferred to the supplier.

 

Who do you imagine should pay the debt? The company that owed it is insolvent, and cannot pay.

 

Despite the links between the various entities, the bottom line is that Steadman put his money into the marina on the basis that BW would grant a NAA to the company operating it, and would not unreasonably withold such an agreement.

 

Due to the failure of the company, the marina reverts to Steadman as Mortgagee in possession, and he is entitled to a NAA. He has no personal liability for the debt, and it would be entirely improper to try to extort money from Steadman that he doesn't owe, by threatening to devalue his property if he doesn't pay up.

IMHO, and it's only my opinion before I get shot down and told that I can't assume anything, that Matt Steadman has been planning on the marina failing for some considerable time. He has been injecting more and more cash into this venture as it went further and further down the pan. I KNOW that several moorers tried to contact the Steadmans to warn them what was happening on the ground, and when I was mooring there I e-mailed them myself, but he never replied to these concerns. The Steadmans only visited the site a couple of times a year and were always kept well away from the boaters (bit like a royal visit).

 

The marina failing as spectacularly as it has is the only way that Matt Steadman could recoup his investment. I understand why he has done this, but he still retains the value of the land etc reverting to him while the reputation of the marina, which was not good before, has fallen through the floor and it will be very difficult to attract new moorers (if it continues). The leaseholders are going to find it pretty impossible to sell on their leases.

 

We can only hope that PL loses some of his arrogance and realises that he is not a businessman and he certainly is not a good advertisement for the marina. He says he will step down if his presence is a barrier to negotiations, but that is only between the company and CRT. What about the damage his presence will do to the marina and it's future, and the feelings of the moorers having to see him around every day knowing what he has done (as told to me over the last couple of days by several current moorers)

[SoosieQ]

 

Just about every part of every one of your posts is complete nonsense.

 

Certainly, predicting the depth of the economic downturn was difficult, but everybody is affected by it.

 

Other marinas are full to capacity, and paying their NAA fees. Why not PLM?

 

Basically, because instead of a sound business plan, which still works in the bad times (quality marina, with reasonable prices and friendly service), PL actually staked everything on the fripperies, and neglected to run the core business well.

 

The answer to a business not being viable is that the business ends. The answer is NOT that the problem is transferred to the supplier.

 

Who do you imagine should pay the debt? The company that owed it is insolvent, and cannot pay.

 

Despite the links between the various entities, the bottom line is that Steadman put his money into the marina on the basis that BW would grant a NAA to the company operating it, and would not unreasonably withold such an agreement.

 

Due to the failure of the company, the marina reverts to Steadman as Mortgagee in possession, and he is entitled to a NAA. He has no personal liability for the debt, and it would be entirely improper to try to extort money from Steadman that he doesn't owe, by threatening to devalue his property if he doesn't pay up.

But, lets be honest, we all know that its just paper shuffling. The companies all involve the same people. Its just a way of shafting CRT out of the money that has already been taken by the marina and clearly been spent on other things with the full knowledge that liquidation is the way forward. Give Mr Steadman his new NAA with a 180k downpayment!

[Alan de Enfield]

Just my view :-

 

But - are the moorers at PL really going to be worried, they pay their mooring fee, they get a mooring, they get access to the River / Canal, they get what they pay for.

 

As long as they get these will it be a case of 'who cares' what happens to the money ?

 

Are they really concerned if Mr Lillie is walking around, does it actually affect what they get for their money, if they dont like him they will just ignore him.

 

Going back over 100 pages it appears that most of the 'claimed moorers' at PL had no concerns or worries and it looks as if they may have been correct.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

But, lets be honest, we all know that its just paper shuffling. The companies all involve the same people. Its just a way of shafting CRT out of the money that has already been taken by the marina and clearly been spent on other things with the full knowledge that liquidation is the way forward. Give Mr Steadman his new NAA with a 180k downpayment!

 

Or to put it in commercial terms, a security deposit of £180k returnable on expiry/cancellation of the NAA, or in (say) in 20 years, whichever comes sooner.

 

Non interest bearing.

 

MtB

[Kwacker]

 

Just about every part of every one of your posts is complete nonsense.

 

Certainly, predicting the depth of the economic downturn was difficult, but everybody is affected by it.

 

Other marinas are full to capacity, and paying their NAA fees. Why not PLM?

 

Basically, because instead of a sound business plan, which still works in the bad times (quality marina, with reasonable prices and friendly service), PL actually staked everything on the fripperies, and neglected to run the core business well.

 

The answer to a business not being viable is that the business ends. The answer is NOT that the problem is transferred to the supplier.

 

Who do you imagine should pay the debt? The company that owed it is insolvent, and cannot pay.

 

Despite the links between the various entities, the bottom line is that Steadman put his money into the marina on the basis that BW would grant a NAA to the company operating it, and would not unreasonably withold such an agreement.

 

Due to the failure of the company, the marina reverts to Steadman as Mortgagee in possession, and he is entitled to a NAA. He has no personal liability for the debt, and it would be entirely improper to try to extort money from Steadman that he doesn't owe, by threatening to devalue his property if he doesn't pay up.

I keep seeing this popping up in various posts, where is the evidence please?

[Alanji]

Although it startdd badly and continues to be slow in its development, Barby Moorings got one thing right, only adding new pontoons as and when existing pontoons were filled, therefore only being charged for actual occupancy, not possible occupancy. It would also be interesting to find out if the rafted up £100 p month winter moorings are classed as single occupancy berths or a number of boats are on each berth to split the charge.

Nearly all the boats on the £100 winter mooring do not have access to a pontoon (even across other boats) so presumably not liable under the NAA?

 

Whether it was good planning or lack of funds which delayed installation of new pontoons, it does seem an extremely sensible business plan. More pontoons were being added at the end of last year and all existing pontoons were full.

[johnmck]

One thing we all know

 

If it pilling starts again, different name, different company ,the old company now being liquidated.

 

There will be a meeting at CRT, they will realise their mistakes, heads will roll,with regards to letting the debt get out of control

Then their will be a power point presentation, on how long it would take to a percentage of licence fee increase,to make up the loss

Lets face it, we will make up the loss with increasing licences next time round.

We will all pay in the end

We've been reading, getting ourselves involved in 106 pages of workings of a company ran by a conman.

And it's us that will also be replacing the fees that CRT failed to get and owed from Paul Lillie

 

Col

 

 

Well said that man.