Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

I would say 25 is about right perhaps a bit less.

 

Thinks it's says the ground rent and service starts at 275 a year. There are 2 ads there one for a 12 year lease and one for a 25 year lease

 

I thought so. In which case these are leases and payment of a premium does not make the leaseholders creditors as the validity of leases remain unaffected by any change of ownership of the freehold or insolvency of the landlord. The new owner simply steps into the shoes of the old, in just the same way as if the landlord (QMP in this case)decided to sell their interest in the land.

 

All this is subject to the doubts raised by Tupperware in post 2724. If the car park leases are found to be classed as commercial leases, then yes they can be cancelled. This seems unlikely to me though as johnlillie says they are registered at the Land Registry, and I don't think commercial leases would be. But I have no particular knowledge of commercial property law.

 

MtB

[Pillingsmoorer]

I thought so. In which case these are leases and payment of a premium does not make the leaseholders creditors as the validity of leases remain unaffected by any change of ownership of the freehold or insolvency of the landlord. The new owner simply steps into the shoes of the old, in just the same way as if the landlord (QMP in this case)decided to sell their interest in the land.

 

All this is subject to the doubts raised by Tupperware in post 2724. If the car park leases are found to be classed as commercial leases, then yes they can be cancelled. This seems unlikely to me though as johnlillie says they are registered at the Land Registry, and I don't think commercial leases would be. But I have no particular knowledge of commercial property law.

 

MtB

I know nothing about the leases here. I don't actually know who has them at Pillings. Wouldn't want one myself happy to pay a monthly mooring.

[MtB]

I know nothing about the leases here. I don't actually know who has them at Pillings. Wouldn't want one myself happy to pay a monthly mooring.

 

We were debating George94's assertion that the leaseholders must be creditors because they had 'paid in advance', weren't we?

 

MtB

[Pillingsmoorer]

We were debating George94's assertion that the leaseholders must be creditors because they had 'paid in advance', weren't we?

 

MtB

you maybe debating that all I was doing was replying to a comment. My last comment was not meant to be rude. I was just saying what I knew.

[MtB]

I didn't take your comment as rude. My apologies if that's how my reply came across! I was just trying to maintain focus on the somewhat complex point under discussion.

 

MtB

[Phantasm]

Not sure what the point of checking the wording is for!!

 

The workshop is a separate company and as far as I am aware Paul Lillie has no involvement in this apart from probably renting it to them. They are very good in the workshop.

I'm sure they are very good in the workshop, that wasn't my point. Maybe I didn't put it clearly, but if the workshop is a separate company the PL cannot class their workers on his wages bill

[Tuscan]

Not an expert about this area, Arent they just guaranteed a lease on some land, but not a mooring or indeed access to the canal system. Am I wrong?

[boathunter]

I'm a cynic. I'll stick my hand up and admit it was me who first cast aspertions on the liquidators willingness to do a thorough job.

 

It's become the the way to do things that you employ 3 people part time to cover a 1 person week. They all stay under 15 hours a week and the employer pays no employers NI. That's partly why there are so many people stuck with a bunch of part time jobs.

 

So 25 employees could be 1 full time and 24 part timers or any combination. This also make egotists able to brag that they employ X amount of people giving the impression that their operation is 3x the size it really is. Shops, hotels, pubs etc have jumped at this opportunity that was devised primarily to give the impression that the government (Labour possibly started this wheeze?) is running the country well and there aren't so many people "out of work".

[MtB]

Not an expert about this area, Arent they just guaranteed a lease on some land, but not a mooring or indeed access to the canal system. Am I wrong?

 

This seems to be the case, yes.

 

Anybody buying a lease on a car parking space with a free mooring needs their bumps felt in my opinion, because should the 'free mooring' go tits up (as it looks like doing), they have lost nothing in the eyes of the court. The mooring was given free so how can they be out of pocket? (The argument would go.)

 

What they actually ought to have insisted on buying was a mooring space with free parking, but sadly they didn't. Far too trusting and probably been had over ruthlessly.

 

MtB

[Dangerous Dave]

 

I think I read somewhere back a 'few 100' pages that they have 35 employees - thats some wage bill to be found

 

 

It was 25 as mentioned in one of his funny turns towards the local authority( Highways Dept) and as broadcast to East Midlands TV..

 

At the time of my leaving he sacked the only maintenance man for the marina..Now only a couple of guys working part time.

The rest are office (1?) and Cafe of various times/shifts!!

All in all a lot of flannel for the cameras/media!

[Dangerous Dave]

If the director of my company I work for was to pose almost naked he would be sacked

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUMk6wHMZ4A

 

Lovely background music though...

 

Gobby T**t aren't I Andy and Debs

 

 

I believe this was the edited version!!

 

The original (?) i found offensive.. I blocked every email from my address from the PLM office after this.

At one time i was getting invites from homosexual sites..May have been coincidence though!..

That included the offensive emails he sent me..

[SoosieQ]

It was 25 as mentioned in one of his funny turns towards the local authority( Highways Dept) and as broadcast to East Midlands TV..

 

At the time of my leaving he sacked the only maintenance man for the marina..Now only a couple of guys working part time.

The rest are office (1?) and Cafe of various times/shifts!!

All in all a lot of flannel for the cameras/media!

And now one of those 25 employees is the new company director!

[MtB]

So if I have all this correct then QMP is just a firewall to protect the investors (QMH). Its debits exceed any assets and it has gone into voluntary liquidation. The directors of all three companies (QMH, QMP, PLM) are the same people. QMH has an agreement with CRT that QMP (Mk1, Mk2, Mk3?) will not be unreasonable withheld a NAA. CRT is owed £180,000 by QMP (Mk1).

 

The questions I have are:

1. Can QMP (Mk2) be established and negotiate a NAS with CRT before 14 April?
2. Will the same directors be involved in QMP (Mk2). I imagine Steadman will because he will want to protect his investment in QMH?
3. Would CRT be unreasonable in withholding a NAA if all or some of the original directors are involved with QMP (Mk2)?

 

I think you have it about right in your first paragraph.

 

Regarding your questions:

 

1) I can think of no technical reason for this not to happen as QMP MkII has already been created. It all depends on the terms CRT have the balls to impose, or not. If they have any commercial sense at all they'll demand a charge on enough unencumbered assets to cover the new NAA debt. I doubt the new youngster director will be in any position to offer this, and I doubt anyone else involved will be willing to so its a mexican stand-off.

 

2) No. A different director has been appointed. One of the office boys I understand, a law student. Baptism of fire I reckon! Mr Steadman will remain a shadow director as before, controlling it's affairs from the wings.

 

3) Who is the arbiter of 'reasonableness' in this case? Common sense says no it would not be unreasonable to withhold an NAA, but we don't know if or how 'reasonable' is determined in 'not to be unreasonably withheld'.

 

MtB

[Jerra]

Could somebody who knows about these things answer this one for me. How will a 25 year lease on a car parking space effect possible use of the land other than as a marina. Say as a housing estate.

[Pillingsmoorer]

I believe this was the edited version!!

 

The original (?) i found offensive.. I blocked every email from my address from the PLM office after this.

At one time i was getting invites from homosexual sites..May have been coincidence though!..

That included the offensive emails he sent me..

I can't open that link what is it of?

[Alan de Enfield]

I can't open that link what is it of?

 

Just a thought - Could it be because you are on PLM 'web address' and 'blocked'

[johnlillie]

Could somebody who knows about these things answer this one for me. How will a 25 year lease on a car parking space effect possible use of the land other than as a marina. Say as a housing estate.

Charnwood BC have frequently blocked applications for further development on the site, so I would think change of use highly unlikely.

[MtB]

Could somebody who knows about these things answer this one for me. How will a 25 year lease on a car parking space effect possible use of the land other than as a marina. Say as a housing estate.

 

Not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if it will help with change of use or are you asking if it will hinder it?

 

Either way the only effect of the leases will be to make any future developers of the site wait until they have expired, or force them to make the leaseholders 'an offer they can't refuse' to give up their leases should Charnwood change their mind about planning permission. (Stranger things have happened when big developments are proposed).

 

MtB

[Pillingsmoorer]

Just a thought - Could it be because you are on PLM 'web address' and 'blocked'

no I am on my own 3G internet not the marinas.

[Jerra]

 

Not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if it will help with change of use or are you asking if it will hinder it?

 

Either way the only effect of the leases will be to make any future developers of the site wait until they have expired, or force them to make the leaseholders 'an offer they can't refuse' to give up their leases should Charnwood change their mind about planning permission. (Stranger things have happened when big developments are proposed).

 

MtB

Thanks MtB I was merely asking which it would be positive or negative effect from the owner of the land's point of view.

[Midnight Rider]

Could I just put the facts straight about these leases.

 

The leases are on 'a car parking space with associated mooring rights' ---- so not a free mooring.

There is indeed ground rent payable.

The car parking space is registered with the Land Registry.

The accountants that hosted the creditor's meeting seem to think that the leaseholders are indeed creditors.

[tupperware]

They are if they have paid up-front.

 

I did say that I would not respond to your post further but, rather than agree to disagree, you seem determined to fan the flames still more.

 

In my 60-odd years on this planet I have come across many types of individuals and, to my regret, your attitude is not unknown in those whose self belief in their own intellectual superiority is completely without foundation. You seem so very keen to hurl abuse at those who might express the slightest disagreement whilst being equally quick to play the victim card when those whom you judge your inferiors have the impertinence to defend themselves. At no point, it seems, does anyone else here have the slightest interest in doing other than misrepresent your views or, in my own case, in behaving "dishonestly".

 

I am at a total loss as to what possible satisfaction you could get out of such behaviour.

 

I thought so. In which case these are leases and payment of a premium does not make the leaseholders creditors as the validity of leases remain unaffected by any change of ownership of the freehold or insolvency of the landlord. The new owner simply steps into the shoes of the old, in just the same way as if the landlord (QMP in this case)decided to sell their interest in the land.

 

All this is subject to the doubts raised by Tupperware in post 2724. If the car park leases are found to be classed as commercial leases, then yes they can be cancelled. This seems unlikely to me though as johnlillie says they are registered at the Land Registry, and I don't think commercial leases would be. But I have no particular knowledge of commercial property law.

 

MtB

 

MTB. My post to which you refer only really addressed the commercial tenants on the site rather than any of the car park space leases. My reason for bringing up the matter was merely to point out that there is exists a high court ruling that absolves the liquidator of any obligation to continue those commercial leases and this could mean that, theoretically at least, PLM could lose their premises at the site together with any other third-parties which may include the engineering company. This would., of course, open the way for a competitor to PLM to take over management of the marina business.

Unfortunately, not every Manager has the ability to manage people effecively, not every Accountant is honest, and not every businessman has the ability to treat his customers as he demands to be treated.

 

It is quite interesting that the psychological profile of a manager and that of a leader are poles apart.

[tupperware]

If the marina is valued at £2m and someone else came forward with a bigger offer (say BWML), would the liquidators not need to consider it ????

 

Yes they would as the primary duty of the IP is to secure as much in the way of funds to disburse to the creditors, secured and unsecured, as possible. The Steadmans currently hold the site as security against the original loan which will have an amount outstanding. If the site could be sold for more than that amount the liquidator would then be in a position to redeem the loan which, once redeemed, would cease to entitle the Steadmans to hold any claim to the site.

[JerryP]

What happens if a number of boats leave before the 14th April and moor up outside pillings ,and CRT then block the entrance ,do those boats then have to abide by the 14 day mooring rule ?

[tupperware]

Could I just put the facts straight about these leases.

 

The leases are on 'a car parking space with associated mooring rights' ---- so not a free mooring.

There is indeed ground rent payable.

The car parking space is registered with the Land Registry.

The accountants that hosted the creditor's meeting seem to think that the leaseholders are indeed creditors.

 

I'm not au fait with leases and ground rent but HMRC seems to list a service, "Parking - grant, or licence, to occupy land on which incidental parking takes place", which closely resembles the parking spaces under discussion here. This type of service is VAT exempt which, of course, a mooring is not.

 

If anyone has one of these leases, it would be most interesting to learn how the invoiced amounts were dealt with in VAT terms.