Dispute at Pillings

[Alan de Enfield]

Redhill marina

 

OK you got me !!

[carpet wallah]

The ones who have paid he £1000's and leased the car park space / mooring look as if they will lose it after the liquidation is complete.

 

The IP has shown the Lease Holders as unsecured creditors, so when the compnay is wound up, the leases look as if they will be annulled and the 'lease-holders' will lose their money.

 

If thats the case then - YES they will lose their money.

The £444,000 odd paid by the poor long-lease holders is listed on the IP's creditors list as a "contingent liability". This means that is by no means certain whether it is a liability, because it is dependant on the outcome of a future event or events. Even if there is a slight risk that the leases will not be honoured, then the debts must be listed.

 

Obviously, the fate of PLMLtd, the marina itself, and the outcome of any legal action, in view of the fact that these folk apparently have their leases registered with Land Registry are all factors.

[peterboat]

I think the answer is if it looks to good to be true................

 

Peter

[johnlillie]

if the lessees are unsecured creditors, as stated in that document, then the new owner/operator of the marina would be under no obligation to honour the leases. If as it looks might happen, Steadman/PL retain ownership, then the lessees would be at the whim of these two gentlemen.

[Grace and Favour]

if the lessees are unsecured creditors, as stated in that document, then the new owner/operator of the marina would be under no obligation to honour the leases. If as it looks might happen, Steadman/PL retain ownership, then the lessees would be at the whim of these two gentlemen.

Is 'gentemen' the correct description I wonder?

 

Maybe 'people' would be a less emotive choice (than could be used)

[Phantasm]

I think the answer is if it looks to good to be true................

 

Peter

I think the words "salt" and "wounds" come to mind.....not helpful

 

The leaseholders took advantage of an offer that gave them a good financial return regarding their moorings. If the jack-ass that owns the place wasn't such a con artist and paid the fees and bills he should there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the leaseholders, or moorers, or CRT's fault, it is all down to Paul Lillie.

[johnlillie]

Is 'gentemen' the correct description I wonder?

 

Maybe 'people' would be a less emotive choice (than could be used)

I was going to put it in inverted commas, but I thought you might "mod" me!

I think the words "salt" and "wounds" come to mind.....not helpful

 

The leaseholders took advantage of an offer that gave them a good financial return regarding their moorings. If the jack-ass that owns the place wasn't such a con artist and paid the fees and bills he should there wouldn't be a problem. It's not the leaseholders, or moorers, or CRT's fault, it is all down to Paul Lillie.

It was never my intention for this situation to occur when I first mooted the idea, the instruction to the solicitor setting up the contract was, that the lessees should have the same security of anyone buying a leasehold flat, for instance.

[tupperware]

 

Being Devils Advocate I raised this question about 100 pages ago.

 

Whilst it may be 'assumed' that your mooring fee gave access to the waterway, unless the mooring agreement actually stated that the fee was for 'rights to moor your boat and have unfettered access to the waterway' it could be argued that PL could take any non-paying moorers to court for non- payment.

 

The question that would need to be answered in court is "what could reasonably be expected in return for paying for a mooring"

 

And no one would lose their home if they paid their C&RT licence & / or moved in accordance with any declaration they have made.

 

And no one would lose their home if they are not happy with the terms & condiions at the marina of their choice - untie the ropes and move on.

 

If one purchases a mooring in a marina connected to the national network it seems eminently reasonable to expect that access to and from the network to be a fundamental part of the contracted service whether the mooring agreement stipulates access or not. Whilst this would need to be tested in a court of law it is not improbable that a court would find that it was reasonable that a mooring agreement conferred such rights even were the agreement to explicitly exclude them. If CRT sever access in mid-April as they have stated is their intent then PLM will be unable to maintain such access and moorers would be well advised, either singly or jointly, to seek legal advice on whether, such circumstances, they would have a right of redress against PLM. I am, of course, assuming that their agreements are with PLM.

 

As you quite rightly point out, it all comes down to ""what could reasonably be expected in return for paying for a mooring". Moorers have hitherto enjoyed access exit and entry from the marina and if the marina operator can no longer provide that benefit then the contract has materially changed.

if the lessees are unsecured creditors, as stated in that document, then the new owner/operator of the marina would be under no obligation to honour the leases. If as it looks might happen, Steadman/PL retain ownership, then the lessees would be at the whim of these two gentlemen.

 

John

 

Is this true? I posted some pages back that a liquidator is under no obligation to honour a commercial lease issued by a company which then goes into liquidation. This was determined, as these things are in the UK, by a court ruling. In the absence of any subsequent case deciding otherwise this ruling becomes, in effect, the determinant of how an IP may act during a liquidation which involves commercial leases. I have been unable to find a similar case history in respect of private leases.

 

At this point in time, of course, the Steadmans do not own the site and whether they do end up having title granted to them will be determined by what the liquidator does in terms of disposal of that asset.

[Alan de Enfield]

tupperware, on 23 Feb 2014 - 9:09 PM, said:

 

If one purchases a mooring in a marina connected to the national network it seems eminently reasonable to expect that access to and from the network to be a fundamental part of the contracted service ......

 

Indeed, but when you have 'purchased' a 30 year lease on a car park space ( and as a 'gentlemans agreement' you can keep your boat there) there would appear to be no necessity to provide access to the waterway.

 

The paperwork we viewed did not specifically state the 'car parking spot lease' gave a free mooring, but maybe at actual signing of the contract time it would have done.

 

Any leaseholders out there that can demonstrate the "car park lease specifically included a mooring".

[Peter X]

Having waded through this entire topic, I think I can add another piece or two to the jigsaw, offer my theory as to what's going on behind the scenes, and thence offer some helpful advice to the moorers at Pillings Lock.

I'm neither an accountant or lawyer but I know a bit about both from long experience as a freelance computer analyst/programmer, and having represented myself successfully in court on a few occasions.

Like carpet wallah (#3152) I looked at Paul Lillie's statement to the liquidator. The amounts listed as owing to the 20 long term leaseholders are the "Contingent Liability"; I know this because I added them up in Excel and the total is exact.

I agree, a contingent liability is one which may arise depending on events, in this case the scenario that CaRT put in the stop planks on 14th April and either leave the marina blocked off, or only let boats out as some have suggested. QMP will then have a liability to refund the value of the remaining lease, because by failing to provide full access to the cut, an obligation which any buyer's solicitor would have insisted upon, QMP would be in breach of contract. However QMP's only asset appears to be the freehold, which according to PL is subject to a 2,750,000 mortgage debt to Mr Steadman. I don't know the terms of PLM's lease from QMP, but that lease will still exist and I imagine they would be entitled to stop making payments for so long as QMP owes PLM a debt. So the liquidator will just set off what QMP woud have received, and the £1.6m will slowly be reduced. My view is that the liquidator may only sell the freehold if he gets enough for Mr Steadman to be repaid in full, otherwise he must complete his paperwork without undue delay, then Mr Steadman pays the liquidator's fees and gets the freehold. Whoever ends up with the freehold, the leases would still exist but does the new owner inherit an obligation to provide access to the cut? I'm not sure. However, if and when a new NAA is granted to whoever, the CRT would surely expect that access to be restored without charge?

The boat repair business, a separate company, will probably have a lease from QMP, or just possibly a sub-lease from PLM. They would probably have a case for breach of contract against whichever it is, but may wish to negotiate a lower rent in return for not going to court, and then try to weather the dispute by doing whatever work they can get within the lake, diversifying into other premises or a man+van visiting repair service, laying off staff etc.

Reading between the lines of CaRT's limited statements, I think they intend to make an example out of PL, and for this I applaud them. As others have said, if he gets away with failing to pay for the NAA, a contract he has not challenged in court to my knowledge, it will undermine a significant chunk of CaRT's income and they'll have to make up this loss elsewhere. Hence the stop planks threat which made QMP insolvent, and the actual planks which will reduce the income of PLM. If I were CRT I would let boats out after 14th April, perhaps every Wednesday and Saturday morning as someone has suggested, in order (a) to be kind to innocent people who were unable to leave earlier or believed the reassurances given by PLM staff, and ( because any who stay inside until their paid-for annual lease ends won't be providing much income to PLM.

My hunch is that CRT intend that the loss of income to PLM will cost PL more than he ever gained from failing to pay them, and that they won't shed a tear if PLM goes bust and/or PL is disqualified from being a company director. It'll be a marina again one day, but without PL or any stooge of his.

So I think CRT are not bluffing and there will be a seige; what then should the moorers do, I hear you ask?

If your mooring expires before 14th April and your boat works or will do by then, it's a no-brainer; GO. No doubt as the date approaches and the weather warms up, many will. You could always return when the dispute is over.

As DeanS has said (#3135), if you've got some time to run on your agreement and are happy to hang about, that may be your best option. But do talk to CRT to guage their intentions for yourself if you want to be confident that you can get your boat out at some point.

If you are in the unhappy position that you have some time to run on your agreement but either you want to use your boat for weekend trips etc., or you believe that the CRT will blockade the entrance totally, do not despair. I suggest you either line up another mooring or become a CCer as you see fit (DeanS #3137; I hope the CRT take a lenient view), borrow a book about contract law out of the library, and plan to leave before 14th April. You don't have to be trapped inside to sue PLM. Anyone thinking of suing PLM for breach of contract (or PL himself for libel for his abusive letter published on facebook, see page 3 of this topic, or any other offence) would be well advised to form a group to swap knowledge. Self-representation is cheap and not as hard as lawyers would have you believe, but you must do your homework, gather evidence, weigh up your chances and the risk of costs if you lose, turn up at court and not upset the judge! One test case would open the flood gates, as it were.

Finally, sorry to everyone about the length of this post but I had a lot to get through.

[tupperware]

 

Apparently despite some moorers being charged Council Tax, there are no moorings with Planning Permission for residential use, and when a resident moorer asked the local Council about it the Council knew nothing about the moorings and no council tax was being charged or paid.

 

The long term leases (well the one we were going to buy last year) were not sold as 'residential' they are simply a cheap way of getting a guaranteed mooring at well below 'market rate' and a cash injection for the Marina.

 

The lease varies but around £30,000 for a 30 year lease for a car park space with a 60 foot mooring "free".

Where else can you get a 'serviced Marina mooring' for a 60 foot boat for £1000 per year.

 

If someone purchased a mooring and made it clear before purchase to PLM/QMP that it was for residential use and PLM/QMP agreed to sell them a mooring on this basis, the latter appear to have sold something to which they had no legal entitlement. What the attitude of the council would be I could not say but PLM/QMP might find themselves being pursued by both the council for contravention of the planning laws and by the moorer for misrepresentation. Conceivably, the council might require such a moorer to vacate the mooring they are occupying as it contravenes planning laws which may prove somewhat difficult if the marina becomes landlocked during April.

[Alan de Enfield]

Its a real bag of snakes - and but for a relatives medical problem which chaged our plans - we would be there.

[tupperware]

And PL will win again. All those moorers going presumably with no intention of returning. PL keeps the fees and frees up berths to rent out again? Can this man ever loose?

 

There is an interesting document at http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/repossession/repossession_by_a_landlords_lender which might provide some useful information to those affected by the current situation.

Not really.

 

They can stay where they are they just won't have access to the canal!

 

if CRT sever the connection then the marina becomes a lake. Whether the planning permission granted by the council some years ago permitting mooring for a marina would still be valid under this apparent change of use is an interesting question and might be material as to whether those moorers stuck onsite after the event have a right to remain or not.

They still have their moorings and still will have after the marina is sealed off.

 

Not entirely true. They will still have a berth which may, or may not, conform to the planning requirements granted at the time the site was originally developed as a marina. What they will not be able to enjoy is access to the national network which, I suspect, most courts would interpret as fundamental to a contract offering a mooring in a site which, at the time offered such access.

[Peter X]

A footnote to my epic inaugural post #3160:

I'm off to cook and eat my dinner now, but in case anyone has some questions about it (the post; my dinner would be off topic), which I anticipate since I've raised a few things, I'll be back later or tomorrow to endeavour to answer.

[Alan de Enfield]

The current advert on ABNB - note "Guaranteed Mooring Rights" and "Residential Mooring"

 

Pillings Lock Marina
in Leicestershire on the River Soar is a modern marina with easy road access via the A6 to Leicester city, Loughborough and Nottingham.

There are many marina facilities, including leasehold moorings - one of which is for sale - well we say leasehold moorings but because you cannot register a piece of water with the Land Registery, you actually lease a carpark space, in this case slot LH24, which has guaranteed Mooring Rights for one narrowbeam vessel up to 60 foot in length for the period of the Lease.

The Lease can be modified, at a cost, to enjoy mooring rights for a bigger vessel if so desired.

The lease period is until 14/06/2038 leaving approx 25 years remaining at a cost of just over £900 per annum.

There are some annual costs defined by the Lease Contract to be paid as with all leases.

The service charge was £150 in 2008 (plus VAT) & £164 in 2011 (plus VAT). It is expected to be about £174 in 2012 (plus VAT), the increase being limited by the Contract to not more than 3% over the All Items Index of Retail Prices rise.

The Ground Rent is £50 per annum (pa) to 2017, £100 pa 2018 to 2027, £150 pa 2028 to 2038 - plus VAT.

Electricity and water is available on each pontoon and electricity is charged as used.

Diesel & gas are also available on site.

This equates to a
total cost of around £1200
for the year 2012 for a
residential mooring.

[tupperware]

 

Indeed, but when you have 'purchased' a 30 year lease on a car park space ( and as a 'gentlemans agreement' you can keep your boat there) there would appear to be no necessity to provide access to the waterway.

 

The paperwork we viewed did not specifically state the 'car parking spot lease' gave a free mooring, but maybe at actual signing of the contract time it would have done.

 

Any leaseholders out there that can demonstrate the "car park lease specifically included a mooring".

 

If any of those who purchased such leases employed the services of a solicitor then I would be astonished if that solicitor did not bring to the purchaser's attention the fact that they were being offered nothing more than the right to park their car on a designated piece of land. I also doubt very much that the marina sold any leases which provided just that "benefit" (i.e.the parking space) without an accompanying mooring. Given this, whether the agreement explicitly states entitlement to a mooring spot or not may be academic and that such entitlement was part and parcel of the offer. This would, of course, need to be tested in a court of law but it does not seem unlikely that a court would view the entitlement as fundamental to both the product and to the manner in which it was sold.

[tupperware]

The current advert on ABNB - note "Guaranteed Mooring Rights" and "Residential Mooring"

 

Pillings Lock Marina

in Leicestershire on the River Soar is a modern marina with easy road access via the A6 to Leicester city, Loughborough and Nottingham.

There are many marina facilities, including leasehold moorings - one of which is for sale - well we say leasehold moorings but because you cannot register a piece of water with the Land Registery, you actually lease a carpark space, in this case slot LH24, which has guaranteed Mooring Rights for one narrowbeam vessel up to 60 foot in length for the period of the Lease.

The Lease can be modified, at a cost, to enjoy mooring rights for a bigger vessel if so desired.

The lease period is until 14/06/2038 leaving approx 25 years remaining at a cost of just over £900 per annum.

There are some annual costs defined by the Lease Contract to be paid as with all leases.

The service charge was £150 in 2008 (plus VAT) & £164 in 2011 (plus VAT). It is expected to be about £174 in 2012 (plus VAT), the increase being limited by the Contract to not more than 3% over the All Items Index of Retail Prices rise.

The Ground Rent is £50 per annum (pa) to 2017, £100 pa 2018 to 2027, £150 pa 2028 to 2038 - plus VAT.

Electricity and water is available on each pontoon and electricity is charged as used.

Diesel & gas are also available on site.

This equates to a

total cost of around £1200

for the year 2012 for a

residential mooring.

 

Alan, thanks for posting this and for highlighting the interesting wording. The advertisement does also use the term "marina" which in the context of the site and its location implies access to the national network. How this advertisement might differ in its wording from that used to achieves past sales may well be difficult to establish although it is not improbable that similar benefits were on offer.

 

As it appears that the site has not planning permission for residential boat occupancy then the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) might take the view that the advertisement misrepresents the product on offer. The advertisement does not, of course, mention the outstanding issue with CRT and this might also be of interest to the ASA.

 

I have just tried to visit the page on which the advertisement was posted and it no longer exists. Unless the advertisement was posted prior to the demise of QMP it is quite astonishing that ABNB ever presented it in the first place.

The current advert on ABNB - note "Guaranteed Mooring Rights" and "Residential Mooring"

 

Pillings Lock Marina

in Leicestershire on the River Soar is a modern marina with easy road access via the A6 to Leicester city, Loughborough and Nottingham.

There are many marina facilities, including leasehold moorings - one of which is for sale - well we say leasehold moorings but because you cannot register a piece of water with the Land Registery, you actually lease a carpark space, in this case slot LH24, which has guaranteed Mooring Rights for one narrowbeam vessel up to 60 foot in length for the period of the Lease.

The Lease can be modified, at a cost, to enjoy mooring rights for a bigger vessel if so desired.

The lease period is until 14/06/2038 leaving approx 25 years remaining at a cost of just over £900 per annum.

There are some annual costs defined by the Lease Contract to be paid as with all leases.

The service charge was £150 in 2008 (plus VAT) & £164 in 2011 (plus VAT). It is expected to be about £174 in 2012 (plus VAT), the increase being limited by the Contract to not more than 3% over the All Items Index of Retail Prices rise.

The Ground Rent is £50 per annum (pa) to 2017, £100 pa 2018 to 2027, £150 pa 2028 to 2038 - plus VAT.

Electricity and water is available on each pontoon and electricity is charged as used.

Diesel & gas are also available on site.

This equates to a

total cost of around £1200

for the year 2012 for a

residential mooring.

 

Sorry Alan but I was not quite right about the page disappearing. The link to it from elsewhere on the ABNB website fails to display it but Google still has a direct link to the page. I've looked at the code behind the page and there is no date visible which would indicate when the page was created.

[Alan de Enfield]

tupperware, on 23 Feb 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:tupperware, on 23 Feb 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

 

I have just tried to visit the page on which the advertisement was posted and it no longer exists. Unless the advertisement was posted prior to the demise of QMP it is quite astonishing that ABNB ever presented it in the first place.

 

Sorry Alan but I was not quite right about the page disappearing. The link to it from elsewhere on the ABNB website fails to display it but Google still has a direct link to the page. I've looked at the code behind the page and there is no date visible which would indicate when the page was created.

 

 

Dangerous to make assumptions but as the fees quoted are given as an example for 2012 I would guess its either a late 2011 or sometime during 2012 advert

 

Edit to add link

 

Try this one then

 

http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/12-year-lease-on-an-inland-marina-berth-PIL002

 

Or this one which is 2013

http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/25-year-leasehold-mooring-prestige-marina-PIL025

Edited February 23, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[tupperware]

 

 

Dangerous to make assumptions but as the fees quoted are given as an example for 2012 I would guess its either a late 2011 or sometime during 2012 advert

Quite so. The pictures were taken/edited in November 2011 so the advert. could have been up for some considerable time past and well before QMP's present difficulties. Whilst I quite agree that assumptions are dangerous, it does not seem likely that what was on offer, which was the sale of an existing lease (the advert refers to 25 years remaining) differed materially from previous sale offers. This would seem to provide at least some evidence that what purchasers were buying was a car park/mooring space.

 

Your highlighting of the advert's use of the term "residential mooring" is well made and even more so in that the advert contains these words in bold text for emphasis. If previous posts are correct and the marina has no planning permission for such moorings then the purchaser is offered a benefit which could not be satisfied. It is also interesting that the advert refers to "Pilings Lock Marina" and a prospective purchaser might well be unaware of the existence of QMP and would assume, not unnaturally, that the lease was being sold by the operators of the marina, PLM. Were they to have used a solicitor, one would expect that the "legal-eagle" would have made them aware that the lease was on offer from a company other than the marina operators and to draw their attention to the possible risk this might pose. If the solicitor failed to highlight this fact then the there may be grounds for such a leaseholder to go back to the solicitor and question them as to why this was not done.

[Phantasm]

 

If any of those who purchased such leases employed the services of a solicitor then I would be astonished if that solicitor did not bring to the purchaser's attention the fact that they were being offered nothing more than the right to park their car on a designated piece of land. I also doubt very much that the marina sold any leases which provided just that "benefit" (i.e.the parking space) without an accompanying mooring. Given this, whether the agreement explicitly states entitlement to a mooring spot or not may be academic and that such entitlement was part and parcel of the offer. This would, of course, need to be tested in a court of law but it does not seem unlikely that a court would view the entitlement as fundamental to both the product and to the manner in which it was sold.

I have been informed that many leaseholders used a firm of solicitors in Loughborough recommended by Paul Lillie

[tupperware]

 

 

Dangerous to make assumptions but as the fees quoted are given as an example for 2012 I would guess its either a late 2011 or sometime during 2012 advert

 

Edit to add link

 

Try this one then

 

http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/12-year-lease-on-an-inland-marina-berth-PIL002

 

Or this one which is 2013

http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/25-year-leasehold-mooring-prestige-marina-PIL025

 

Alan

 

The first link refers to " Your bearth will be situated in the Heart of the Waterways - based on a canal section of the River Soar Navigation".

 

I found another link on the same website at http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/widebeam-moorings-leisure-or-residential-PIL013 which refers to "very easy entry/exit to the canal & river" and also to "Leisure or Residential (PIL013)".

 

An yet another at http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/motor-boats-for-sale/canalnarrow-boats/canal-boat-moorings-available-PIL008 where claims "The Marina has a wonderful setting plus very easy entry/exit to the canal & river".

 

Again these advertisements do date back some time.

I have been informed that many leaseholders used a firm of solicitors in Loughborough recommended by Paul Lillie

 

When my wife and I purchased our first boat I asked at the marina which was offering the craft for sale whether they could suggest a local boat surveyor who could do the necessary. The marina manager pointed me in the direction of a list containing a number of such surveyors but was at pains to stress that he was unable to provide any recommendation whatsoever as to which, if any, I should choose for the survey. I could well understand why he made this caveat which seemed entirely professional.

 

Did the firm, if engaged by the prospective purchaser in the matter of a lease also act for the seller?

I have been informed that many leaseholders used a firm of solicitors in Loughborough recommended by Paul Lillie

 

Phantasm.

 

Sorry to bombard you but are you aware as to whether separate leases were offered to residential and non-residential purchasers or were they all of one type which claimed that, should the purchaser so decide, they could exercise any residential rights which the lease inferred?

 

As there seems to be some doubt as to whether offering a residential berth is possible under the terms of the planning permission granted for the site, any solicitor might be considered somewhat remiss if they failed to identify this discrepancy to their client prior to that client agreeing to buy.

[DeanS]

every time I come back to this thread, I find a new piece of shocking information.

I'm beginning to get a bad feeling about how things are going to progress, but for the sake of the boaters there, I do sincerely hope the Lone Ranger is going to come galloping over the horizon and fix it all.

[Phantasm]

 

Alan

 

The first link refers to " Your bearth will be situated in the Heart of the Waterways - based on a canal section of the River Soar Navigation".

 

I found another link on the same website at http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/boat-moorings/widebeam-moorings-leisure-or-residential-PIL013 which refers to "very easy entry/exit to the canal & river" and also to "Leisure or Residential (PIL013)".

 

An yet another at http://www.boatsandoutboards.co.uk/motor-boats-for-sale/canalnarrow-boats/canal-boat-moorings-available-PIL008 where claims "The Marina has a wonderful setting plus very easy entry/exit to the canal & river".

 

Again these advertisements do date back some time.

 

When my wife and I purchased our first boat I asked at the marina which was offering the craft for sale whether they could suggest a local boat surveyor who could do the necessary. The marina manager pointed me in the direction of a list containing a number of such surveyors but was at pains to stress that he was unable to provide any recommendation whatsoever as to which, if any, I should choose for the survey. I could well understand why he made this caveat which seemed entirely professional.

 

Did the firm, if engaged by the prospective purchaser in the matter of a lease also act for the seller?

 

Phantasm.

 

Sorry to bombard you but are you aware as to whether separate leases were offered to residential and non-residential purchasers or were they all of one type which claimed that, should the purchaser so decide, they could exercise any residential rights which the lease inferred?

 

As there seems to be some doubt as to whether offering a residential berth is possible under the terms of the planning permission granted for the site, any solicitor might be considered somewhat remiss if they failed to identify this discrepancy to their client prior to that client agreeing to buy.

I don't think there would have been different leases. IIRC there was no residential status officially available when I started to moor there. A few moorers started spending a lot of time on their boats and then a houseboat appeared. The residential fees came in a couple of years after the marina started.

[tupperware]

every time I come back to this thread, I find a new piece of shocking information.

I'm beginning to get a bad feeling about how things are going to progress, but for the sake of the boaters there, I do sincerely hope the Lone Ranger is going to come galloping over the horizon and fix it all.

 

Unlikely that the Lone Ranger would find himself entirely welcome onsite.

 

Whilst some of the recent information does suggest quite a labyrinthine web, it is often the case than people are rather less cute than they imagine themselves to be.

I don't think there would have been different leases. IIRC there was no residential status officially available when I started to moor there. A few moorers started spending a lot of time on their boats and then a houseboat appeared. The residential fees came in a couple of years after the marina started.

 

If I understand you correctly, the marina started to levy "residential fees" on liveaboard moorers some two years after opening. How were these charges described and were they payable to QMP or PLM?

 

Sorry about this but the more information that comes out the more questions it poses. My sympathies lie with those who could lose, potentially, tens of thousands of pounds and it is important that they can seek redress from as many parties as possible.

[Phantasm]

 

Unlikely that the Lone Ranger would find himself entirely welcome onsite.

 

Whilst some of the recent information does suggest quite a labyrinthine web, it is often the case than people are rather less cute than they imagine themselves to be.

 

If I understand you correctly, the marina started to levy "residential fees" on liveaboard moorers some two years after opening. How were these charges described and were they payable to QMP or PLM?

 

Sorry about this but the more information that comes out the more questions it poses. My sympathies lie with those who could lose, potentially, tens of thousands of pounds and it is important that they can seek redress from as many parties as possible.

Sorry I don't know who they were payable to. Again IIRC the moorers were told that those who spent a certain amount of time on the boat were classed as high users and had to pay, I think, £1 per day extra to cover the extra cost of providing for residents, eg extra cost of cesspit emptying etc.