Dispute at Pillings

[Grace and Favour]

 

I think you can (well certainly a 1 week licence) as I did this in November.

I bought a boat from a non-NAA marina, and to save losing 3 weeks 'worth' of licence, and the prompt payment discount I took a 1 week licence and a 1 year licence starting from the 1st of the following month.

One Month, One Week And One Day Licences

CRT linky

[JerryP]

Why would you not get the prompt payment discount. Surely this is no different to being in a marina where you don't need a license.

 

I am sure you have. As come April there will be a lot of boats moving out if it gets blocked off. I am pretty sure once it get to mid march there will be some movement at Pillings but the general attitude is why move now the weather is crap, may as we'll wait!

If the entrance gets blocked off in April ,how are the boats going to move out ?.....are they just going to levitate over the blockade ?....the CRT guys I've been talking to say it'll be blocked off using "stop planks" , there's not going to be someone there 24-7 just to let people out as and when they feel like it

Edited February 18, 2014 by JerryP

[magnetman]

I think the idea is they go before the 14th

In fact wasn't it said that CRT would allow traffic out buy not in?

[Alan de Enfield]

I think the idea is they go before the 14th

In fact wasn't it said that CRT would allow traffic out buy not in?

 

So any C&RT 'doormen' will be in an ideal posiion to check if the boat is licenced, and, refuse an exit if it isnt.

[RLWP]

 

Richard I proposed they go out on the cut unlicensed for the fortnight. You questioned this, hence my reply taking your question at face value. My last comment about CRT's slack enforcement was meant to be evidence that the boaters would be fine doing this as CRT would not even notice.

 

 

MtB

 

Apologies Mike, I got confused in the multi stranded arguments in this thread.

 

Richard

[JerryP]

I got talking to a couple last Sunday who had come out of Pillings for the day and moored behind me ,when I jokingly asked if they were making the most of their freedom whilst they still could , the reply was that they'd been told by a certain member of Pillings staff that......... "everything has now been sorted and that it was all a big misunderstanding and the entrance will remain open".

Edited February 18, 2014 by JerryP

[matty40s]

£180k is a BIG misunderstanding.......

[tupperware]

I think that a company once set up, will always exist, but "in liquidation" shows on records. A company I was once a director of, went into liquidation many years ago due to a bad debt tgat an employee had taken on in an unauthorised manner. The company still shows as existing but in liquidation" maybe thus is so it can be unliquidated later?

Not sure on that one thiugh

 

I've been thinking about this "phoenix" company which a number here seen to regard as natural successors to QMP and I do entertain some question as to how this could happen. QMP own the site and this asset is pledged to the Steadmans as security against the original load made to QMP by them to set up the enterprise. As QMP are no more, either that title goes back to the Steadmans if the liquidator finds himself unable to sell the property for more than the outstanding debt or else the property is sold to some other third party for more than that outstanding debt which is then liquidated from the proceeds of the sale. In either event, it is unclear how the "phoenix" can acquire ownership of the site once held by QMP unless it can secure the means to purchase from some source or other. The normal sources of such finance would, I suspect, regard the notion of lending a substantial sum to an organisation whose sole director was a 20-year old law student with considerable disfavour. It is not inconceivable that the Steadmans, having been granted ownership of the site as a secured creditor might grant a new loan to the "phoenix" to allow the latter to purchase the site from them. It is not unlikely, however, that CRT would require rather more security from new company than they sought from the old particularly as they have already been burned for over £180,000.

[magnetman]

If BWML bought it would they pay NAA to CRT

 

?

[Alan de Enfield]

It never cease to amaze me how some people are so desperate to believe that what they want to happen, will happen, that they are just so gullible to blindly follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

 

It may just all fall into place but as time goes by it is looking more and more remote - being prepared for the 'worst' is no bad thing

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[tupperware]

I got talking to a couple last Sunday who had come out of Pillings for the day and moored behind me ,when I jokingly asked if they were making the most of their freedom whilst they still could , the reply was that they'd been told by a certain member of Pillings staff that......... "everything has now been sorted and that it was all a big misunderstanding and the entrance will remain open".

 

Any ideas to the identify of the "certahn members of Pillings staff"?

 

So any C&RT 'doormen' will be in an ideal posiion to check if the boat is licenced, and, refuse an exit if it isnt.

 

I'm not sure whether CRT can refuse passage or whether they would have to allow a craft to exit and then pursue the owners for operating without a current licence.

If the entrance gets blocked off in April ,how are the boats going to move out ?.....are they just going to levitate over the blockade ?....the CRT guys I've been talking to say it'll be blocked off using "stop planks" , there's not going to be someone there 24-7 just to let people out as and when they feel like it

 

Quite so and if the impossible happened and some unauthorised individual took it upon themselves to remove the stop planks then CRT might effect some more permanent obstruction.

NO POINT PAYING CART WHEN YOU DONT NEED TO followed by smile , who else thought exactly along those lines ?[/

 

Well it's true why? If your licence has run out and you are not planning on going out on the boat. Let's face it the weather is pretty grim at the moment . You may as we'll not re knew until you know you need to. I am sure there are hundreds of boaters that do the same in this country.

 

Whilst there may be hundred of boaters that do the same, if their boat is in a marine connected to the national network then they are liable to pay the licence fee irrespective of whether they are using their boat to cruise or not.

[JerryP]

Tupperware.....pm sent

[tupperware]

It never cease to amaze me how some people are so desperate to believe that what they want to happen, will happen, that they are just so gullible to blindly follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

 

It may just all fall into place but as time goes by it is looking more and more remote - being prepared for the 'worst' is no bad thing

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

Exactly. Were I in their unfortunate position I look for rather more concrete evidence than "it was all a misunderstanding" to reassure me that my pride and joy was not destined for life on a mudflat.

[JerryP]

 

Exactly. Were I in their unfortunate position I look for rather more concrete evidence than "it was all a misunderstanding" to reassure me that my pride and joy was not destined for life on a mudflat.

 

 

From what I can gather from talking to some people I know who moor there ,very few seem to be taking the situation seriously.

 

Unless everyone's being told that its all sorted out ??

Edited February 18, 2014 by JerryP

[tupperware]

 

I'm not sure that is much of a disincentive to a dishonest trader... :-/

 

 

MtB

 

For a sole trader I would agree. Nonetheless, for limited liability companies, given that the financial records need to be rather more comprehensive and need to be filed annually, then hiding such a malpractice would be more difficult. Furthermore, for a company registered for VAT, a return must be filed quarterly to cover the ingoings/outgoings for the previous three months and any sum due remitted to HMRC within about a month of the quarter-end. Failure to comply will result in the usual red letters and, after a suitable period, proceedings will be instituted which includes the right for HMRC to examine the financial records to determine the reasons for non-compliance and what sum plus interest and charges, if any, is due.

From what I can gather from talking to some people I know who moor there ,very few seem to be taking the situation seriously.

 

Unless everyone's being told that its all sorted out ??

 

Well, I like many others here have a great deal of sympathy for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in this position. In my own case, however, that sympathy is not likely to be proof against a tendency for people to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everything will be all right on the night. It is most improbable that such individuals have sought reassurance from CRT whose own position and intent seems crystal clear.

[LoneWolf]

 

For a sole trader I would agree. Nonetheless, for limited liability companies, given that the financial records need to be rather more comprehensive and need to be filed annually, then hiding such a malpractice would be more difficult. Furthermore, for a company registered for VAT, a return must be filed quarterly to cover the ingoings/outgoings for the previous three months and any sum due remitted to HMRC within about a month of the quarter-end. Failure to comply will result in the usual red letters and, after a suitable period, proceedings will be instituted which includes the right for HMRC to examine the financial records to determine the reasons for non-compliance and what sum plus interest and charges, if any, is due.

 

lol - mike does his own VAT returns

 

I think the reason the VAT number has to go on the invoice is because it is up the the purchaser to check that it is a real one if they claim the input tax back on their return. If it isn't a real one they suffer the 'loss'

 

eta: I misunderstood your first para - i dont think Ltd Co financial records need to be more comprehensive than a Sole traders when it comes to VAT - the same regs apply i think

Edited February 18, 2014 by LoneWolf

[tupperware]

 

lol - mike does his own VAT returns

 

I think the reason the VAT number has to go on the invoice is because it is up the the purchaser to check that it is a real one if they claim the input tax back on their return. If it isn't a real one they suffer the 'loss'

 

eta: I misunderstood your first para - i dont think Ltd Co financial records need to be more comprehensive than a Sole traders when it comes to VAT - the same regs apply i think

 

Not so. The fundamental difference with a limited company as opposed to a sole trader is that the former must file audited accounts at Companies House each financial year an those and must also submit Corporation Tax returns and, where appropriate, payroll details in respective of any remunerated employees including directors and details of any dividends paid to the shareholders. The audited accounts must be signed off as representing a "true and fair" view of the business.

 

Not so. The fundamental difference with a limited company as opposed to a sole trader is that the former must file audited accounts at Companies House each financial year an those and must also submit Corporation Tax returns and, where appropriate, payroll details in respective of any remunerated employees including directors and details of any dividends paid to the shareholders. The audited accounts must be signed off as representing a "true and fair" view of the business.

 

Many apologies - I have reread your post and it is clear that your were referring only to VAT record keeping being little different between sole traders and limited liability companies. Sorry for the mistake.

[LoneWolf]

 

Not so. The fundamental difference with a limited company as opposed to a sole trader is that the former must file audited accounts at Companies House each financial year an those and must also submit Corporation Tax returns and, where appropriate, payroll details in respective of any remunerated employees including directors and details of any dividends paid to the shareholders. The audited accounts must be signed off as representing a "true and fair" view of the business.

 

Many apologies - I have reread your post and it is clear that your were referring only to VAT record keeping being little different between sole traders and limited liability companies. Sorry for the mistake.

 

oh phew! i wont have to get all heavy on yer ass then.

 

btw,

1. 'small' companies don't have to have an audit

2. Non incorporated employers have the same payroll burden as Ltds - the wonderful world of RTI (real time information) now

3. you are teaching your grannie to suck eggs - i used to work in chartered accountancy practice and I run my own Ltd now & do all the accounts/vat/tax etc myself

[tupperware]

 

lol - mike does his own VAT returns

 

I think the reason the VAT number has to go on the invoice is because it is up the the purchaser to check that it is a real one if they claim the input tax back on their return. If it isn't a real one they suffer the 'loss'

 

eta: I misunderstood your first para - i dont think Ltd Co financial records need to be more comprehensive than a Sole traders when it comes to VAT - the same regs apply i think

 

 

It is easy to check whether a VAT number is registered to a company by using the checker at

 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vatRequest.html

 

If a business charges VAT although not registered for VAT then it is guilty of committing a fraud. and, interestingly, it would seem that under such circumstances the amount of VAT shown on an invoice is still due to HMRC even though the business was not VAT registered.

[LoneWolf]

 

 

It is easy to check whether a VAT number is registered to a company by using the checker at

 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/vatRequest.html

 

If a business charges VAT although not registered for VAT then it is guilty of committing a fraud. and, interestingly, it would seem that under such circumstances the amount of VAT shown on an invoice is still due to HMRC even though the business was not VAT registered.

 

yes, it is easy now. the point being that it forces the claiming business to check it.

 

In the old days (when i started in the biz) there was no internet

[tupperware]

 

oh phew! i wont have to get all heavy on yer ass then.

 

btw,

1. 'small' companies don't have to have an audit

2. Non incorporated employers have the same payroll burden as Ltds - the wonderful world of RTI (real time information) now

3. you are teaching your grannie to suck eggs - i used to work in chartered accountancy practice and I run my own Ltd now & do all the accounts/vat/tax etc myself

 

Whew, that was a close call!

 

No intention to lecture someone far more qualified than I and I apologise if I was guilty of so doing.

 

Your point re the audit is accepted in that external auditors do not need to b used. I would, however, be a little surprised id QMP did not employ the services of an accountant given the business relationships with QMH and PLM. The accounts still, of course, need to be signed-off by the director(s) as representing a "true and fair view".

 

As you have an accountancy background would you be willing to speculate as to what goods or services QMP, as site owners, could have purchased from PLM in order to rack up a £1.6million debt?

[LoneWolf]

 

Whew, that was a close call!

 

No intention to lecture someone far more qualified than I and I apologise if I was guilty of so doing.

 

Your point re the audit is accepted in that external auditors do not need to b used. I would, however, be a little surprised id QMP did not employ the services of an accountant given the business relationships with QMH and PLM. The accounts still, of course, need to be signed-off by the director(s) as representing a "true and fair view".

 

As you have an accountancy background would you be willing to speculate as to what goods or services QMP, as site owners, could have purchased from PLM in order to rack up a £1.6million debt?

 

Ah, i was talking generally about the diffs between Sole traders & Ltds - didnt realise we'd gone back to QMP etc

 

Yes, i would expect QMP to have an accountant. Sometimes investors or lenders insist on an audit even though a company may be small. They did have an audit -

I think someone posted details of the Audit report from some QMP accounts earlier which were qualified on the Going Concern basis and relied on continued support from the Steadmans

 

I must admit i havent been following all the who owns what stuff - How do we know that they owe that much to PLM for goods or services?

[tupperware]

 

Ah, i was talking generally about the diffs between Sole traders & Ltds - didnt realise we'd gone back to QMP etc

 

Yes, i would expect QMP to have an accountant. Sometimes investors or lenders insist on an audit even though a company may be small. They did have an audit -

I think someone posted details of the Audit report from some QMP accounts earlier which were qualified on the Going Concern basis and relied on continued support from the Steadmans

 

I must admit i havent been following all the who owns what stuff - How do we know that they owe that much to PLM for goods or services?

 

 

Some pages back some figures were posted from a creditor statement as follows:

 

Mathew Steadman - £750,000 1

Contingent Liabilities - £444,000 2

CaRT - £185,000 3

QMH - £400,000 4

PLM £1,628,000 5

 

So toing and froing then went on regarding the lack of a minus sign against the PLM entry but it transpired that this was an error and that the £1.6 million was owed by QMP to PLM. As you quite rightly say, previous accounts have identified that QMP was reliant on long-term support from the Steadmans.

 

I am at puzzled as to how PLM could be a creditor of QMP to the extent of the sum mentioned. Whilst PLM do manage the marina on a day-to-day basis and their employees might provide some management services to QMP, that would not account for anything like the sum involved. Furthermore, I would expect that PLM would be paying QMP for use of the site.

 

Any thoughts your might have would be welcome.

[LoneWolf]

 

 

Some pages back some figures were posted from a creditor statement as follows:

 

Mathew Steadman - £750,000 1

Contingent Liabilities - £444,000 2

CaRT - £185,000 3

QMH - £400,000 4

PLM £1,628,000 5

 

So toing and froing then went on regarding the lack of a minus sign against the PLM entry but it transpired that this was an error and that the £1.6 million was owed by QMP to PLM. As you quite rightly say, previous accounts have identified that QMP was reliant on long-term support from the Steadmans.

 

I am at puzzled as to how PLM could be a creditor of QMP to the extent of the sum mentioned. Whilst PLM do manage the marina on a day-to-day basis and their employees might provide some management services to QMP, that would not account for anything like the sum involved. Furthermore, I would expect that PLM would be paying QMP for use of the site.

 

Any thoughts your might have would be welcome.

 

Your guess is as good as mine - a loan or a recharge of something that's never been paid and left to mount up. groups of companies can put all manner of inter company stuff through & have a good go at justifying it. Mostly it doesnt get challenged by HMRC because it makes little difference overall if all comapnies are based here & not overseas

[johnlillie]

QMP/PLM certainly did have accountants, although they were not immune from "errors". They made a right mess of my wife's tax liability on her paye when we worked there, resulting in her having to pay over £1000 in arrears at the end of the financial year!