Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

 

In light of what John wrote above, does this mean that the leases were not properly registered or not properly written or what? MTB was talking like registering the lease would be pro-forma in transactions like these. So, how did it slip past 20 people and a good number of solicitors that something wasn't right here? Seriously, when the boilerman knows that a lease should be registered, dontcha think your solicitor should too?

 

I seem to remember at least one long term leaseholder piping up when I first started pointing this out, supporting what I said, saying he had used a solicitor and that his car park space was registered with the LR. Can't remember who it was though.

 

Nothing stopping a buyer doing his own conveyancing though provided no mortgage is involved, and provided he has the stamina to learn the complexities and confidence to interpret and register the lease correctly. There are books to explain what to do but they are quite fat!

 

MtB

[station tug]

i lost the will to keep reading the thread as it kept going wildly off topic................

 

have crt blocked the marina yet??

are they going to??

if not why not??

 

[b0atman]

Station tug Its a common failing that people go off topic I think close date is april 6 if no money paid hope they do get all money .

[Stilllearning]

It is interesting to do searches on t'interweb for "dispute at pillings lock". Back in october 2013 a user called Pillingslock, seemingly identified as Paul Lillie, was blocked indefinitely from having a page on Wikipedia.

[Graham Davis]

have crt blocked the marina yet?? NO

are they going to?? PROBABLY

if not why not?? DON'T KNOW

 

[RLWP]

 

have crt blocked the marina yet?? NO

are they going to?? PROBABLY

if not why not?? DON'T KNOW

 

 

Why not? Because the deadline is in April, as they said in the letter to moorers that Station Tug would have read if he could be bothered

 

Richard

[Ssscrudddy]

It is interesting to do searches on t'interweb for "dispute at pillings lock". Back in october 2013 a user called Pillingslock, seemingly identified as Paul Lillie, was blocked indefinitely from having a page on Wikipedia.

 

How do you get yourself blocked from there! I went to 'war' with them once, kept editing articles on purpose cuz they peed me off, I still didnt get blocked, all I got was a temporary ban on editing stuff!

 

 

I sincerely hope that he is not using a serving police officer to find information. Even though Roy is embroiled in all of this his father can’t be that silly as to jeopardise his job.

 

Interestingly enough, when that guy was the top copper there, there was a big scandal about exactly that sort of thing going on

[Stilllearning]

This may link to the page about Pillings Lock.

Look for point 1.10

HMMM , so now I have no idea why the link wasn't included in that post

It's the help desk archives entry for 23rd October 2013

Edited February 20, 2014 by Stilllearning

[Emerald Fox]

Has anybody printed this all out yet? Could make a good book-for-bedtime! 150 pages!

[Ssscrudddy]

I was at Pillings Lock earlier this week, there are plenty of boats still there.

I wonder when/if the mass exodus will begin.

Well I found this on the web

http://livingonanarrowboat.co.uk/forum/introduce-yourself/new-widebeam-liveaboard/page-2/

 

Thanks for your concern. I don't think now is the time to panic. I think now is the time that all Pilling's Lock berth holders should stick together and challenge the CaRT.

 

As I understand it, a fee of £44,000 per annum is charged to Pilling's Lock and this is based on the capacity of the marina. This cost would have to be passed on the the boat owners and if the marina is not full, the charge per berth holder increases. If people leave because the berth costs are no longer competitive, then the costs per remaining berth holder will increase even more. And so on, until the marina goes bust.

 

Is it fair to charge £44,000 per year purely so the marina can access the canal? There are no ongoing costs associated with accessing the canal so the fee is not justified. A one-off fee when the hole is opened originally may be fair, but not an ongoing cost. Basically, it's the same as making the licence fee for anyone at Pilling's several hundred pounds a year more expensive than those mooring at neighbouring marinas. If the boats leave the marina and moor on the towpath, the towpath will be full for miles and CaRT will move everyone on after 14 days.

 

My boat will stay in the marina as long as the marina is viable. And I encourage all Pilling's customers to do the same.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Ssscrudddy

[b0atman]

This was an agreement that Pillings agreed to .They as part of the breakdown of your mooring fee took the money from yourselves but did not pass it over to BW or as now CaRT.

This NAA is one of the ways that as a charity CaRT get income to maintain and improve the Canals, Rivers and facilities that they are responsible for.

If you are so happy that your money has been appropriated in this way then stay where you are .But remember if you encourage others to stay then you are responsible for the consequences .

[carlt]

Well I found this on the web

http://livingonanarrowboat.co.uk/forum/introduce-yourself/new-widebeam-liveaboard/page-2/

 

 

Is it fair to charge £44,000 per year purely so every boat in the marina can access the canal?

Considering what every boat on an online CRT mooring and every boat on an EOG mooring pays I believe 9% of the mooring fee is more than fair.

[Ssscrudddy]

Just to be clear, that wasnt me saying the stuff in italics, I was just quoting it cuz the peep thought they should all stick together & stay in the marina & challenge CaRT

(I'm in an EA marina)

Edited February 20, 2014 by Ssscrudddy

[carlt]

Just to be clear, that wasnt me saying the stuff in italics, I was just quoting it...

I knew that but, to make sure nobody misunderstands you can highlight the text then click on the speech bubble "quote" button which will enclose the paragraph.

 

 

Like this

 

[Phantasm]

These links may work

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_October_23

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pillingslock

[tupperware]

Well I found this on the web

http://livingonanarrowboat.co.uk/forum/introduce-yourself/new-widebeam-liveaboard/page-2/

 

Thanks for your concern. I don't think now is the time to panic. I think now is the time that all Pilling's Lock berth holders should stick together and challenge the CaRT.

 

As I understand it, a fee of £44,000 per annum is charged to Pilling's Lock and this is based on the capacity of the marina. This cost would have to be passed on the the boat owners and if the marina is not full, the charge per berth holder increases. If people leave because the berth costs are no longer competitive, then the costs per remaining berth holder will increase even more. And so on, until the marina goes bust.

 

Is it fair to charge £44,000 per year purely so the marina can access the canal? There are no ongoing costs associated with accessing the canal so the fee is not justified. A one-off fee when the hole is opened originally may be fair, but not an ongoing cost. Basically, it's the same as making the licence fee for anyone at Pilling's several hundred pounds a year more expensive than those mooring at neighbouring marinas. If the boats leave the marina and moor on the towpath, the towpath will be full for miles and CaRT will move everyone on after 14 days.

 

My boat will stay in the marina as long as the marina is viable. And I encourage all Pilling's customers to do the same.

 

So this moorer has paid the marina operator a mooring fee in which is embodied an element meant to reimburse CRT under the terms of the NAA. Rather than pass that element onto CRT, the marina operator has chosen to expend it in other ways. The result is that the terms of the NAA have not been met and CRT then announce their intention to sever connection to the national network. This moorer, rather than challenging the marina for levying upon them a charge which has not been used for its stated purpose, then proposes that CRT are actually the ones at fault and appeals to his fellow moorers to likewise ignore the fact that they have also paid over monies which have failed to reach their appropriate destination and to join with him in challenging a legal contract to which they are not a party.

 

 

A masterclass in incoherence.

Out of interest, are other forum members looking at things like Companies House information, certain people's public facebook pages, etc?

As far as can be ascertained ATM, PL still seems to be listed as Director of PLM.

 

Did not the gentleman concerned resign as the sole director of QMP not PLM?

just seen a copy of the accounts etc from the liquidators, and all the leaseholders are listed as unsecured creditors, so at first glance, it looks as though they have all been well and truly shafted. I do feel really very sorry for those that I was involved with, it was not meant to end like this at all. I can only say that the solicitor involved with drawing up the leases did not do a particularly thorough job, as I for one, thought that the leaseholders would be "bomb proof" in such an event.

 

John,

 

I assume that the list of creditors includes this mysterious sum of £1.6million "owed" to PLM by QMP? Do the accounts you have received indicate when this debt was incurred?

[Stilllearning]

These links may work

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2013_October_23

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pillingslock

Thanks for helping me out !

 

So this moorer has paid the marina operator a mooring fee in which is embodied an element meant to reimburse CRT under the terms of the NAA. Rather than pass that element onto CRT, the marina operator has chosen to expend it in other ways. The result is that the terms of the NAA have not been met and CRT then announce their intention to sever connection to the national network. This moorer, rather than challenging the marina for levying upon them a charge which has not been used for its stated purpose, then proposes that CRT are actually the ones at fault and appeals to his fellow moorers to likewise ignore the fact that they have also paid over monies which have failed to reach their appropriate destination and to join with him in challenging a legal contract to which they are not a party.

 

 

A masterclass in incoherence.

 

Did not the gentleman concerned resign as the sole director of QMP not PLM?

 

John,

 

I assume that the list of creditors includes this mysterious sum of £1.6million "owed" to PLM by QMP? Do the accounts you have received indicate when this debt was incurred?

Companies House, today, still has PL listed as sole Director of all 3 companies.

[leisureboatlady]

Ref escaping from plm does anyone know if zouch flood lock is passable

[tupperware]

Thanks for helping me out !

Companies House, today, still has PL listed as sole Director of all 3 companies.

 

Perhaps he has not yet got around to accepting his own resignation?

[boathunter]

Soooooooo.........

 

Anybody else fancy buying a marina?

 

When I sell my house shortly to buy a boat, I was going to buy a house to rent out, but this seems a better and more interesting prospect and a free mooring to boot.

 

If it can be had for £2M and due dilligence shows it's a goer (I'd be nice to moorers) I could be in for 5%.

 

[EDIT] 5% to 7.5%

Edited February 20, 2014 by boathunter

[johnlillie]

 

So this moorer has paid the marina operator a mooring fee in which is embodied an element meant to reimburse CRT under the terms of the NAA. Rather than pass that element onto CRT, the marina operator has chosen to expend it in other ways. The result is that the terms of the NAA have not been met and CRT then announce their intention to sever connection to the national network. This moorer, rather than challenging the marina for levying upon them a charge which has not been used for its stated purpose, then proposes that CRT are actually the ones at fault and appeals to his fellow moorers to likewise ignore the fact that they have also paid over monies which have failed to reach their appropriate destination and to join with him in challenging a legal contract to which they are not a party.

 

 

A masterclass in incoherence.

 

Did not the gentleman concerned resign as the sole director of QMP not PLM?

 

John,

 

I assume that the list of creditors includes this mysterious sum of £1.6million "owed" to PLM by QMP? Do the accounts you have received indicate when this debt was incurred?

it's there but no further details

it's there but no further details I intend ringing the liquidators tomorrow to see if we can put this info in the public domain

[MtB]

Ssscrudddy quoted:

Is it fair to charge £44,000 per year purely so the marina can access the canal? There are no ongoing costs associated with accessing the canal so the fee is not justified. A one-off fee when the hole is opened originally may be fair, but not an ongoing cost.

 

Actually it IS an ongoing cost.

 

The marinas complained BW were competing with them by offering on-line moorings, so as a part of the NAA, BW agreed to remove one online mooring for every ten new marina moorings. This obviously costs BW the income from those moorings, so the NAA annual charge was partly intended to compensate BW for the resulting loss of income.

 

The alternative, which marinas collectively rejected, would have been to keep all the online moorings and have a lower NAA charge.

 

All as I understand it from very old threads I read here long ago.

 

MtB

Thanks for helping me out !

Companies House, today, still has PL listed as sole Director of all 3 companies.

 

Companies House records tend to take a year or two to get updated, or used to.

 

MtB

Soooooooo.........

 

Anybody else fancy buying a marina?

 

No thanks. I once considered it but I couldn't make the figures add up. Not even on the back of an envelope and missing out quite a few of the less obvious costs (e.g. the NAA!)

 

Marinas are like petrol stations I reckon. A basic marina barely breaks even. The profit comes from flogging high margin extra stuff like crisps and sandwiches to the punters already on your site. Marinas do it from flogging gas, chandlery and brokerage services.

 

 

 

If it can be had for £2M and due dilligence shows it's a goer (I'd be nice to moorers) I could be in for 5%.

 

 

I'll be astonished if the Steadmans would let it go for £2m. It's worth far more to them than that, in my opinion.

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

Actually it IS an ongoing cost.

 

The marinas complained BW were competing with them by offering on-line moorings, so as a part of the NAA, BW agreed to remove one online mooring for every ten new marina moorings. This obviously costs BW the income from those moorings, so the NAA annual charge was partly intended to compensate BW for the resulting loss of income.

 

The alternative, which marinas collectively rejected, would have been to keep all the online moorings and have a lower NAA charge.

 

All as I understand it from very old threads I read here long ago.

 

MtB

 

Companies House records tend to take a year or two to get updated, or used to.

 

MtB

 

No thanks. I once considered it but I couldn't make the figures add up. Not even on the back of an envelope and missing out quite a few of the less obvious costs (e.g. the NAA!)

 

Marinas are like petrol stations I reckon. A basic marina barely breaks even. The profit comes from flogging high margin extra stuff like crisps and sandwiches to the punters already on your site. Marinas do it from flogging gas, chandlery and brokerage services.

 

 

 

 

I'll be astonished if the Steadmans would let it go for £2m. It's worth far more to them than that, in my opinion.

 

MtB

 

Well, while the Steadmans can claim title to the marina property as security against their loan they do not, of course, own the site. If the IP can find a buyer who is willing to offer more than the outstanding debt to the Steadmans then he/she would be failing in their duty were they not to dispose of the asset and reimburse the Steadmans for the sum owed to them as a secured creditor.

 

If the IP can arrange such a sale then what the Steadmans might and might not like would be irrelevant.

[boathunter]

 

Well, while the Steadmans can claim title to the marina property as security against their loan they do not, of course, own the site. If the IP can find a buyer who is willing to offer more than the outstanding debt to the Steadmans then he/she would be failing in their duty were they not to dispose of the asset and reimburse the Steadmans for the sum owed to them as a secured creditor.

 

If the IP can arrange such a sale then what the Steadmans might and might not like would be irrelevant.

That was my understanding. And would this also mean someone in this mess (the bad guys) would have to pay up the £180k owed to CaRT?

If all that each £100K investor got out of it was a free mooring, that's a better return than all most ISA's on offer.

Edited February 20, 2014 by boathunter

[MtB]

have crt blocked the marina yet??

are they going to??

if not why not??

 

Station Tug,

 

They have said they are going to block it because they have revoked the NAA.

 

They have set a date some time in the future to give the moorers a chance to find somewhere else to moor and get out first, hence the date of April 13th 2014 for the sealing off to be carried out. Boaters there seem to have mainly decided to bury their heads and accept marina staff assurances it won't happen.

 

Since announcing this date, CRT seem to have slipped on their commitment to seal off the marina and changed it into installing a 'one way valve' style of gate where boaters can leave after April 13th but won't be let back in. (Now they've compromised their initial threat to permanently block off access on 13/04/14, I don't see why they don't install the 'one-way valve' gate right now.)

 

In the meantime, there is a window of opportunity for a new company to be set up to run the marina and have a new NAA should it be acceptably creditworthy. This currently look unlikely but once the one-way gate is installed and boaters gradually drift away, the marina will slowly die should CRT stick to their guns. (If this actually happens I predict Mr Steadman will dip his hand in his pocket once again and bail the business out.)

 

I see it as a game of brinksmanship. Mr Steadman is waiting to see if CRT will crumple and leave the access open despite their threat. They've already caved in slightly by changing their commitment to sever the access into having the 'one-way gate'. My guess is Mr Steadman is expecting them to capitulate to media and boater pressure and leave the access open on the day. Or something along those lines.

 

This is my reading of how it might play out.

 

CRT are being scrupulously fair to the boaters in there, hence the delay.

 

 

MtB