Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

At a cost.....

 

So Pillings Lake Marina moorers could still remove their boats then, by hiring a crane and paying the crane pad fees?

 

So either carry on paying £3k a year indefinitely, or stump up £2k to escape. Hobson's choice!

 

 

MtB

[b0atman]

most marinas if not all marinas have the right to move boats at any time

[MtB]

most marinas if not all marinas have the right to move boats at any time

 

I have yet to sign a moorings agreement that doesn't contain a clause allowing the marina to move my boat if they see fit and without notice.

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

It is considerations such as these that lead me to be concerned about whether Mr Nelson, the appointed IP, is in the thrall of the Steadmans.

 

If he is, he will have no inclination to explore the avenues tupperware points out in posts such as this and previous posts, and will be keen to wrap it all up with the minimum of questions asked.

 

How does one find out if an IP has done a good and thorough job, or a quick cut 'n' shut?

 

MtB

 

Insolvency Practitioners have, of course, a statutory duty to operate within the rules laid down the Insolvency Act and it is within the power of any creditor who feels that the IP is failing in their duties by regarding the interests of one creditor as of paramount importance to refer the matter to the appropriate authority. The appropriate acts do provide for creditor involvement in order to guard against possible misconduct by the IP in this regard. This is why the moorers at the marina would be well advised to seek legal advice as to how they can participate in the process whereby the IP winds up the company. It would be far easier to identify any malpractice during the process than to come back afterwards and try and substantiate such a claim.

[matty40s]

So Pillings Lake Marina moorers could still remove their boats then, by hiring a crane and paying the crane pad fees?

 

So either carry on paying £3k a year indefinitely, or stump up £2k to escape. Hobson's choice!

 

 

MtB

Pillings Pond have their own launch trailer which has to be used for a fee. Then you have to pay a fee to allow your crane on site.

[lampini]

IIRC, CRT have stated that once cut off from the canal, moorers would be able to exit but not re-enter the marina - no need for a crane..

 

 

So Pillings Lake Marina moorers could still remove their boats then, by hiring a crane and paying the crane pad fees?

 

So either carry on paying £3k a year indefinitely, or stump up £2k to escape. Hobson's choice!

 

 

MtB

 

IIRC, CRT stated that once cut off, moorers would still be able to exit but not re-enter the marina - no need for a crane..

Edited February 14, 2014 by lampini

[tupperware]

 

Mamma mia! The same material as a Ferrari? Dear boy, the only road-going Ferraris constructed from that Devil's Spawn, aka fibreglass, were early versions of the 308GTB, a model introduced nearly 40 years ago. All other road Ferraris are tin.

 

Rest assured that, as someone who is unlikely to ever possess the wealth to afford such a prestigious vehicle whether it be manufactured from recycled LPs or recycled oil drums, I am never going to need concern myself as to its material content.

[MtB]

IIRC, CRT have stated that once cut off from the canal, moorers would be able to exit but not re-enter the marina - no need for a crane..

 

 

IIRC, CRT stated that once cut off, moorers would still be able to exit but not re-enter the marina - no need for a crane..

 

Did they commit to that indefinitely? If long term stalemate is reached, I can imagine CRT piling across the access. This might yet fit in with the Steadman's long term plans for the site.

 

One further thought, could a case be made to demonstrate the Steadmans are acting as shadow directors?

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

From the guide:

 

This guide summarises the functions and powers of a private sector insolvency practitioner who

is appointed as:

• trustee of a bankrupt; or

• liquidator of a company in compulsory liquidation.

 

Given QMP is in voluntary liquidation I imagine there would be a similar document, but with significant differences, covering that!

 

Interesting document though as you say. Thanks.

 

MtB

 

Whoops, wrong link which does, as you quite rightly say, refer to Compulsory Liquidations.

 

An alternative might be

 

http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-502-2748?service=dispute

 

although Googling will throw up lots of interesting documents about the duties and responsibilities of an IP in a CVL.

[johnlillie]

couple of points raised in the last few posts. 1. cutting through to the river to avoid an NAA would involve two fields, at least one of which is owned by Leics county council. The idea was mooted at the outset but was deemed a non starter on costs alone.2. I have been boating on the soar for 45 years, and the only maintenance boats I have ever seen, canal or river, were bw boats.3. As mentioned before, PLM dealt with all aspects of mooring and service payments, I cannot remember any funds going into a QMP account.

[Swallowman]

 

Did they commit to that indefinitely? If long term stalemate is reached, I can imagine CRT piling across the access. This might yet fit in with the Steadman's long term plans for the site.

 

One further thought, could a case be made to demonstrate the Steadmans are acting as shadow directors?

 

MtB

 

Do we actually know what the Steadmans intend for the site long term or are we jumping to a conclusion that it might be for housing development?

[MtB]

As mentioned before, PLM dealt with all aspects of mooring and service payments, I cannot remember any funds going into a QMP account.

 

Interesting. Mr Nelson might have quite a lot to unwind there then.

 

If he does his job properly and discovers QMP have failed to collect mooring fees from PLM as you imply, this might mean PLM going to the wall too (assuming they don't have a huge cash pile in reserve).

 

MtB

 

Do we actually know what the Steadmans intend for the site long term or are we jumping to a conclusion that it might be for housing development?

 

No we don't. It is pure speculation, I though I made this clear earlier in the thread. It would explain their lack of interest in the competent, day-to-day management of the marina though.

 

MtB

[lampini]

 

Did they commit to that indefinitely? If long term stalemate is reached, I can imagine CRT piling across the access. This might yet fit in with the Steadman's long term plans for the site.

 

One further thought, could a case be made to demonstrate the Steadmans are acting as shadow directors?

 

MtB

 

Good point, but i recon the marina would at least empty out by 70% over the summer in a "non-return valve" type blockade!

[tupperware]

 

 

 

Point of order here.

 

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that if CRT blocks off the entrance, boats in the marina will no longer need a licence. This is not quite the case. Boats in the marina no longer need a licence NOW even though access to the cut still exists.

 

As one of the terms of the NAA is that boats inside the marina must be licensed evem though not on the canal, CRT's revocation of the NAA means this condition no longer applies and boaters are entitled to a backdated refund.

 

And moorers, by the way, have stated on here they pay their mooring fees to PLM.

 

 

MtB

 

Well they would certainly seem entitled to apply to CRT for reimbursement of the unused portion although whether this is tactically sound rather depends on whether they regard the possibility of their pride and joy possibly ending up on a mudflat with equanimity or not.

 

Interesting that they paid the fees to PLM not QMP. As PLM are still trading they can, presumably, still continue to levy a charge for providing a mooring space for a boat which, at some future date, might well become landlocked, a "service" which a court might well be consider unworthy of being described as a suitable mooring for a canal boat. As many of the moorers affected may well have some months or years to run on the contract into which they entered into with PLM then it seem quite possible that they have grounds to pursue a claim for breach of contract and compensation against the marina operators were the latter unable to satisfy the legitimate expectations of national network access, something which is material importance when choosing a mooring for one's craft. For those moorers who have paid at least £100 of their mooring fees by credit card, assuming this was possible, then they also have a claim against the card issuer under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for reimbursement of the sums involved. I assume that if a moorer pursued this avenue then the card issuer may well seek to recover their costs from the company which failed to provide the contracted service particularly as that company continues to trade. which would not, of course, enhance the viability of PLM. Furthermore, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the card issuer might consider it inappropriate to continue the authority granted to that company to take payments via credit card.

[Swallowman]

IIRC, the moorings at Pillings were an adjunct to the lease being taken on a car parking space so Tupperware's mention of a "contracted for" service I don't think is relevant, sadly. The contracted for service is that car park space which doesn't need access to anywhere, not even a road.

[tupperware]

 

Interesting. Mr Nelson might have quite a lot to unwind there then.

 

If he does his job properly and discovers QMP have failed to collect mooring fees from PLM as you imply, this might mean PLM going to the wall too (assuming they don't have a huge cash pile in reserve).

 

MtB

 

No we don't. It is pure speculation, I though I made this clear earlier in the thread. It would explain their lack of interest in the competent, day-to-day management of the marina though.

 

MtB

 

 

As you say MTB, very interesting. It poses a couple of questions:

 

1.. If QMP have not invoiced PLM in respect of the mooring fees then how were QMP ever going to be able to meet the access charges to be levied by CRT? Unless some kind of agreement existed between QMP and PLM where the latter committed to pay some other kind of fee, for example rental of the site, to cover the debt to CRT then what income did QMP actually receive and what was its source? It accounts showed a short-term liability of £650,000 payable within the twelve month period after, I believe, June 2012, and one can but wonder how this liability was going to be met. The CRT element, if indeed it was included, has obviously not been but what about the other £500,00 or so?

 

2. PLM appear to have contracted to provide a service, have taken payment for that service, and it seems quite possible that their ability to continue to provide that service will cease in the near future. Only a court could decide as to whether this represents a breach of contract or not but I would not be at all surprised if any marina which had advertised network access, attracted customers on that basis and then failed to maintain that access were judged to be unable to fulfil the expectations which a customer might legitimately claim are an essential characteristic of the purchaser of such a mooring. This does, of course, rather ignore the question of just where the tens of thousands of pounds of mooring charges levied by PLM have actually gone if not to QMP.

[tupperware]

IIRC, the moorings at Pillings were an adjunct to the lease being taken on a car parking space so Tupperware's mention of a "contracted for" service I don't think is relevant, sadly. The contracted for service is that car park space which doesn't need access to anywhere, not even a road.

 

It is quite clear that a potential customer, in search of a mooring, is not going to purchase a patch of ground merely to park his car and it seems fair to assume that the availability of a mooring, with network access, would be material to the decision of most potential customers to purchase. Quite why this device was chosen as the basis to levy fees I could not say although I very much doubt that the marina had any customers buying such a space who did not also moor a boat at the site.

 

A court might be unimpressed were an attempt made by any marina operator to argue that such a device absolves them from the implied terms of the contract into which they entered.

[tupperware]

 

What would the legal status be if marina staff boarded a boat to move it without the owners consent?

I suppose a court injunction would be needed?

 

In "our" marina I have given consent for the staff to move our boat should it either be in danger itself or a danger to other marina moorers.

Not to move it for the purpose of taking it out of the water. Could they argue taking it out of the water was for safety reasons?

 

I would have considerable doubts as to the intelligence of any marina operator who took such action which would do nothing but inflame a dispute. Were my boat involved I would have no hesitation in seeking redress.

[MtB]

IIRC, the moorings at Pillings were an adjunct to the lease being taken on a car parking space so Tupperware's mention of a "contracted for" service I don't think is relevant, sadly. The contracted for service is that car park space which doesn't need access to anywhere, not even a road.

 

As I understand it this is the basis of only about 30 of the mooring spaces.

 

The remaining 270 spaces are made available for rent conventionally on a short term basis i.e. by the week, month, quarter or year.

 

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

Good point, but i recon the marina would at least empty out by 70% over the summer in a "non-return valve" type blockade!

 

The point about shadow directors is an interesting one and I am sure that the IP will adopt a professional approach in respect of his obligation to investigate any possibility of unfair preference.

[MtB]

 

For those moorers who have paid at least £100 of their mooring fees by credit card, assuming this was possible, then they also have a claim against the card issuer under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for reimbursement of the sums involved. I assume that if a moorer pursued this avenue then the card issuer may well seek to recover their costs from the company which failed to provide the contracted service particularly as that company continues to trade. which would not, of course, enhance the viability of PLM. Furthermore, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the card issuer might consider it inappropriate to continue the authority granted to that company to take payments via credit card.

 

 

I can shed some light on this as I am a card merchant account holder myself.

 

As I understand it, should a customer raise a dispute the first thing that happens is my card services provider reverses the transaction, refunds the punter then leaves me to make all the running in getting the reversal reinstated. This has never happened to me but it's what my T&Cs seem to say will happen, and I can see it making a lot of sense.

 

The other thing that happens is that if I make a habit of upsetting the punters the transaction charges I pay will be revised upwards, and yes ultimately if I'm still costing them money they'll withdraw my facility.

 

Withdrawal of the card merchant account from PLM would really mess up their restaurant business!

 

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

As I understand it this is the basis of only about 30 of the mooring spaces.

 

The remaining 270 spaces are made available for rent conventionally on a short term basis i.e. by the week, month, quarter or year.

 

 

MtB

 

Spot on MTB. Having visited the site a couple of times, even someone of my compromised cognitive abilities should have noticed the absence of the multi storey car park which the number of boats would have demanded to accommodate one vehicle per moorer.

 

Given your timely observation, the argument that PLM might find themselves unable to satisfy the bulk of the mooring contracts into which they have entered seems to have at least validity. You did, however, mention previously that moorers contracted with PLM not with QMP and, at this point in time, PLM are still trading normally and, at least for the next few weeks, moorers are free to exercise their rights to network access. It does occur, therefore, that these moorers may not, therefore, be creditors of QMP having passed the monies to PLM. This should, though, perhaps act as a wake-up call to them to seek whatever advice they might judge appropriate should CRT blockade the marina as they have clearly stated as their intent.

 

 

I can shed some light on this as I am a card merchant account holder myself.

 

As I understand it, should a customer raise a dispute the first thing that happens is my card services provider reverses the transaction, refunds the punter then leaves me to make all the running in getting the reversal reinstated. This has never happened to me but it's what my T&Cs seem to say will happen, and I can see it making a lot of sense.

 

The other thing that happens is that if I make a habit of upsetting the punters the transaction charges I pay will be revised upwards, and yes ultimately if I'm still costing them money they'll withdraw my facility.

 

Withdrawal of the card merchant account from PLM would really mess up their restaurant business!

 

 

MtB

 

Thanks for the information. If I understand you correctly, the card issuer will refund the money to the Claimant under section 75 and will then levy a charge equal to the sum reimbursed against the merchant who levied the disputed payment and previously received this sum, less commission, from the card issuer. If the merchant feels that the chargeback is unfair then it is up to the merchant to make representations as to why they feel this to be the case. Given the comparative size and clout of the card issuers and the marina operator it does not seem too difficult to imagine the probable outcome of such a dispute.

[MtB]

It does occur, therefore, that these moorers may not, therefore, be creditors of QMP having passed the monies to PLM. This should, though, perhaps act as a wake-up call to them to seek whatever advice they might judge appropriate should CRT blockade the marina as they have clearly stated as their intent.

 

 

Aha, well spotted. The moorers are customers of PLM, so aren't creditors of QMP and have no business getting involved, so far!

 

This would explain why few moorers seem to have attended the QMP creditor meeting rather than moorers 'en masse'. In fact I'm puzzled now how ANY of the moorers managed to get in unless it was on some other basis e.g. they are owed wages. Even the car park leaseholders had no right to be there as their leases are unaffected and they are therefore not creditors.

 

Only if/when the muck hits the fan will the moorers have any legal dispute, and then it will be with PLM not QMP, as I see things.

 

MtB

[b0atman]

Would posters please note we are now a charity and not a government run disaster so we need funds to maintain run and improve the canals and rivers so that we can use them . Suggesting ways and means to avoid paying licence fees and claiming back same fees would shorten the life of these waterways .

[Tuscan]

If I wasa moorer I would keep my boat licenced to enable me to exit after the blockage if needed, I would also only pay my mooring monthly on any renewal. If I had a lease I think I would by now have obtained legal advice although it might take a while for a solicitor to unravel.