Dispute at Pillings

[tupperware]

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.

 

Phantasm. Thanks for your reply and I appreciate that this was some time ago.

 

Whilst a lot of the information that has come out is interesting, what is lacking is evidence from a moorer, ideally one who had purchased a "residential mooring" who would be willing to disclose, anonymously, of course, details of how that mooring was sold to them, whether they used a solicitor and if they did how they found that solicitor. It would also be of immense interest if they were also able to recall whether their solicitor was able to confirm or otherwise that their purchase met planning regulations and who acted for the vendor.

[MtB]

 

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.

 

When buying a house it is normal practise for the solicitor acting for the buyer to investigate planning permission exists for both the original building and any extensions or alterations. Consequently any solicitor acting for a buyer and failing to do this check might have failed in his duty to care to his client, although this is a moot point if the right to moor a boat is not written into the lease.

 

In addition, the main reason a boatyard gives a list of surveyors' names for a client to choose from is, I suspect, a (feeble) attempt to sidestep the agency laws. 20 years ago when I ran a home improvement firm, a business such as ours making a recommendation (a list of names still counts!) then the business is treated as acting as an agent for the recommended business and becomes jointly liable for the standard of work done by that recommended business. If PLM recommended a solicitor and that solicitor failed to act correctly, then not only might the leaseholder have a claim against the solicitor but against PLM too if this law still exists as it used to.

 

 

 

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.

 

Another reason for the ASA to slap ABNB for this advert is the price they state of "just over £900 per annum".

 

Subject to perhaps a missing headline price of £xxK, if a business advertises something as costing a sum per year, then the punter is entitled to expect to be able to pay for it at the rate described, i.e. just over £900 per year in this case. I'm reasonably certain anyone buying this lease will be required to stump up 'just over' £22,500 on completion of their purchase and not just over £900 a year for 25 years.

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

When buying a house it is normal practise for the solicitor acting for the buyer to investigate planning permission exists for both the original building and any extensions or alterations. Consequently any solicitor acting for a buyer and failing to do this check might have failed in his duty to care to his client, although this is a moot point if the right to moor a boat is not written into the lease.

 

In addition, the main reason a boatyard gives a list of surveyors' names for a client to choose from is, I suspect, a (feeble) attempt to sidestep the agency laws. 20 years ago when I ran a home improvement firm, a business such as ours making a recommendation (a list of names still counts!) then the business is treated as acting as an agent for the recommended business and becomes jointly liable for the standard of work done by that recommended business. If PLM recommended a solicitor and that solicitor failed to act correctly, then not only might the leaseholder have a claim against the solicitor but against PLM too if this law still exists as it used to.

 

 

 

Another reason for the ASA to slap ABNB for this advert is the price they state of "just over £900 per annum".

 

Subject to perhaps a missing headline price of £xxK, if a business advertises something as costing a sum per year, then the punter is entitled to expect to be able to pay for it at the rate described, i.e. just over £900 per year in this case. I'm reasonably certain anyone buying this lease will be required to stump up 'just over' £22,500 on completion of their purchase and not just over £900 a year for 25 years.

 

MtB

 

Thanks for the insight MtB.

 

Given that at least one site is still carrying an advert linking a car parking spot with a mooring and that at least one other site has carried such an advertisement in the past that the link would be firmly in the mind of any prospective purchaser. If other leases were available which did not include the right to a mooring spot then again a purchaser bought something with a material difference, to whit the right to a boat berth. Alternatively, if the "parking only" leases were not on offer then the lease implied a right to moor whether stated explicitly or not. You point regarding the conduct of any "legal-eagle" employed by a prospective purchaser is well made although I would not regard what you describe as a moot point as quite such a defence as you may be suggesting for the reasons I have already outlined.

 

A call to the ASA from an interested party might be worthwhile drawing their attention to the adverts still appearing on at least one website and posing some of the points you raise. The ASA might also be asked to investigate whether the product being offered is as described. After all, the ASA is not just about tackling the dubious claims of cosmetic manufacturers whose customers have been disappointed that the expensive lotions they have purchased, often containing ingredients unknown to science, have failed to restore their imagined resemblance to Johnny Depp.

[MtB]

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.

 

I think this introduces considerable confusion to the issue of who owns the site, and could do with some unpicking.

 

As I understand it, the owner of the freehold of a plot of land is free to grant a long term lease on this land, for which he might demand a considerable sum. The recipient or buyer of this lease then has the right to occupy the land and do as he sees fit with it, subject to the conditions in the lease. One of these conditions might allow the superior leaseholder to carve up the plot and grant sub-leases but these will always be subject to the terms of the superior lease, e.g. the term of a sub lease cannot exceed the term of the superior lease, not can it grant any right not contained in the superior lease.

 

This complicates things resulting in multi-level 'ownership' of the site roughly as follows, as I understand it:

 

1) Mr Steadman owns the shares in Quorn Marina Holdings, and QMH owns the freehold to the Pillings site.

 

2) QMH granted a long lease to QMP, which QMP paid for with a 100% mortgage granted by Mr Steadman personally.

 

3) QMP granted 30 sub-leases for car park spaces each with a free mooring.

 

So, I think Peter X is mistaken in saying QMP's only asset is the freehold. QMP's only asset is the leasehold, and this is encumbered by 30 subleases, hence a significant reduction in its value below what was paid for the superior lease and also encumbered by the mortgage debt to Mr Steadman. Now Mr Steadman damaged the value of his security by allowing those subleases to be written, and I'm wondering why.

 

Further, Peter X mentions PLM has a lease on the site from QMP. We've not seen any evidence of this yet but it might explain the £1.6m PLM owes QMP, if such a long lease exists.

 

Finally Peter X uses the term 'whoever ends up with the freehold'. I'd say the freehold will remain unaffected, and owned by QMH. The question is, what will become of the head leasehold, given it's value would appear to be substantially lower than the mortgage. This value could be approaching zero if there is, as Peter X implies, a long term lease granted to PLM in addition the long term car park leases.

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

I think this introduces considerable confusion to the issue of who owns the site, and could do with some unpicking.

 

As I understand it, the owner of the freehold of a plot of land is free to grant a long term lease on this land, for which he might demand a considerable sum. The recipient or buyer of this lease then has the right to occupy the land and do as he sees fit with it, subject to the conditions in the lease. One of these conditions might allow the superior leaseholder to carve up the plot and grant sub-leases but these will always be subject to the terms of the superior lease, e.g. the term of a sub lease cannot exceed the term of the superior lease, not can it grant any right not contained in the superior lease.

 

This complicates things resulting in multi-level 'ownership' of the site roughly as follows, as I understand it:

 

1) Mr Steadman owns the shares in Quorn Marina Holdings, and QMH owns the freehold to the Pillings site.

 

2) QMH granted a long lease to QMP, which QMP paid for with a 100% mortgage granted by Mr Steadman personally.

 

3) QMP granted 30 sub-leases for car park spaces each with a free mooring.

 

So, I think Peter X is mistaken in saying QMP's only asset is the freehold. QMP's only asset is the leasehold, and this is encumbered by 30 subleases, hence a significant reduction in its value below what was paid for the superior lease and also encumbered by the mortgage debt to Mr Steadman. Now Mr Steadman damaged the value of his security by allowing those subleases to be written, and I'm wondering why.

 

Further, Peter X mentions PLM has a lease on the site from QMP. We've not seen any evidence of this yet but it might explain the £1.6m PLM owes QMP, if such a long lease exists.

 

Finally Peter X uses the term 'whoever ends up with the freehold'. I'd say the freehold will remain unaffected, and owned by QMH. The question is, what will become of the head leasehold, given it's value would appear to be substantially lower than the mortgage. This value could be approaching zero if there is, as Peter X implies, a long term lease granted to PLM in addition the long term car park leases.

 

MtB

 

I'm getting a little confused here.

 

I thought that QMP owned the site having purchased this with a loan from the Steadmans against which the latter hold title to the site as security. If this is not correct then why does QMP show the site as an asset and why does it owe the Steadmans a considerable sum in respect of the original purchase?

 

Secondly, the £1.6million is shown in the list of creditors as being owed to PLM, not the other way around. If this sum were indeed owed to QMP and not by them then it is questionable where QMP are actually illiquid at all.

 

Finally, if PLM hold a commercial lease in respect of the site then the liquidator is under no obligation to continue that lease as a court ruling in another case makes quite clear.

[MtB]

 

I'm getting a little confused here.

 

I thought that QMP owned the site having purchased this with a loan from the Steadmans against which the latter hold title to the site as security. If this is not correct then why does QMP show the site as an asset and why does it owe the Steadmans a considerable sum in respect of the original purchase?

 

 

Not my understanding but you could be right. I thought QMP owned a long lease on the site, purchased with a loan from the Steadmans. The Steadmans happened to be the mortgage providers although it could have been a bank, probably as their lending criteria are slacker or cheaper given their other interest in the site.

 

If your understanding is correct, I don't understand the purpose and role of QMH in the triumvirate.

 

'nwership' of the site' is an ambiguous term. Ownership of the freehold is different from ownership of the long lease. The owner of the long lease gets the rights of occupation and all the 'value' in the site. Once the long lease has been granted, the value of the underlying freehold often plummets and is valued according to the rental income due under the lease, just like any other paper investment. Once a long lease expires, the right to occupy the site reverts to the freeholder. This is the whole point of granting a lease in the first place rather than selling the freehold, usually, and would appear to fit in with my assessment of the Steadmans' extra-long term planning.

 

MtB

[carpet wallah]

No, no, no. I thought we had sorted this out. Whatever else is true or false, QMP own the FREEHOLD. Apart, from anything else, it says so in the 2009 accounts, where the freehold was devalued from about £3.6 m from memory, to the value stated in the last accounts.

[Peter X]

Mike the Boilerman and tupperare, thank you for your comments, constructive as always. I apologise if I have introduced any unnecessary confusion, and assure you my motive in entering this topic is, like you, to help uncover the truth to help the mooring leaseholders. I might indeed be mistaken about the ownership of the freehold, when I said "However QMP's only asset appears to be the freehold" I was only relying on my memory, perhaps faulty, of something from the previous 3159 posts. But carpet wallah seems confident it's the freehold.

Similarly I think someone (was it John Lillie?) said PLM had a lease from QMP. I would be surprised if they didn't, as they are carrying on a business on the land. My legal knowledge doesn't extend to the liquidator's power to terminate a commercial lease, so I take tupperware's word for that, and find it very encouraging because...

Perhaps the liquidator can become the Lone Ranger? Once he's been over the books and established the true position, he kicks out PLM asap then sells QMP's freehold/lease or even operates a marina himself. Nothing to stop a liquidator doing that I think, because if it's in the interest of realising value for creditors he can embark on fresh activity. For example when Gretna FC in Scotland went bust a few years ago the liquidator raised some money by holding a weekly car boot sale on the land! Yes that's under Scottish law but I suppose it would be similar here. Of course QMP or whoever would still need a NAA but with Paul Lillie out of the picture, Roy Rollings and any other Paul Lillie fan given a P45, and sensible management with a sound business plan in place, CRT should be receptive to that. People seem to like the marina, and income from new mooring fees may be enough to cover Mr Steadman's rent/mortgage payments, the NAA, staff and other running costs. If the freehold/lease is sold and QMP is dissolved, the new owner/lessee wouldn't owe PLM that £1.6m? Bad news for the apparently innocent John Lillie if he still holds shares in PLM (except I suspect his son ensures there are no dividends!), but he could always be offered a job in QMP Mk2 if he needs it; his experience would be useful.

I'm not sure how the restaurant and "penthouse" flat fit into all this; are they operated by PLM and would they revert to QMP along with the rest of the site? Off topic!: Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner, but surely to be a penthouse flat you have to have quite a few others underneath you? In Leicestershire maybe just a restaurant suffices.

Indeed if PLM's lease were terminated, how much of the assets on site are the property of PLM and could be removed?

Sorry, I seem to have raised more questions than I answered again!

[scrunch]

^{This is exactly what I meant by help, some excellent advice for people that have paid a lease, and it does lead on to me saying that some people may not now be able to afford another mooring after paying for a boat then the lease, hindsight is a wonderful thing and if you could bottle it you would make a fortune, I must admit when I was looking for moorings I did look at Pillings Lock , but fortunately for me could not quite get my head round leasing a car park space bit but that's more to me being burnt in the past than my intelligence, So I really hope it works out for them and certain people get their comeuppance.}

[DeanS]

 

Perhaps the liquidator can become the Lone Ranger?

 

quick somebody! Get him a horse!

[leisureboatlady]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, there's a lot to keep up with. ABNB on p105 waterways world march issue are offering fof sale Envisage apartment wide beam. Is this PLM apartment hire boat?

[Phantasm]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, there's a lot to keep up with. ABNB on p105 waterways world march issue are offering fof sale Envisage apartment wide beam. Is this PLM apartment hire boat?

The PLM apartment is actually above the office and café bar and was Paul's parents home before they were forced out

[Phantasm]

 

I apologise if you have interpreted my request as "poking my nose in" but I was only trying to understand which company, QMP or PLM, raised the invoice for the mooring charges. Like most others here, I have the greatest sympathy for your predicament and am only trying to help where I can.

 

My reason for requesting the information is as follows:

 

1. QMP, have failed to pay CRT under the terms of the NAA agreement signed some years ago between QMP and BW/CRT.

 

2. CRT have obtained an order in the high court requiring QMP to pay the outstanding sum, including costs, of some £185,000 and if this is not paid, CRT have announced their intention of preventing access into the marine from mid-April 2014.

 

3. QMP without, seemingly the means to pay, have entered liquidation and an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to manage the winding-up of the company.

 

4. CRT are an unsecured creditor in the liquidation of QMP and there probable that the liquidator will have no funds with which to settle the outstanding £185,000 in which case it is almost certain that CRT will sever the marina from the national network as they have stated they intend to do.

 

5 If CRT carry out their stated intent then boats moorer in the marina will lose the right to exit and enter at will and anyone whose mooring fees extend for a period beyond that date will cease to enjoy the expected benefits for which they have paid.

 

6. If the mooring fee has been paid to PLM, a company which is still actively trading, and CRT blockade the marina from mid-April then PLM will be unable to service the legitimate expectation of the moorers that they will have access to the national network in which case, such moorers may be well-advised to seek legal advice as to whether this curtailment represents a breach of contract.

 

I trust that this explains my thought process and why I am interested in who billed the mooring fees you have paid. QMP may be in liquidation but PLM are still trading and if your contract is with the latter then financial redress may still be possible.

 

Many thanks and I'll look forward to reading it. Do you also, by any chance, have a similar statement for the preceding financial period?

Accs from Companies House (public domain) for 2012 and I'll sort the 2011 asap but have clients to see most of today unfortunately

apologies images not loading will try again

 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Phantasm

[MtB]

No, no, no. I thought we had sorted this out. Whatever else is true or false, QMP own the FREEHOLD. Apart, from anything else, it says so in the 2009 accounts, where the freehold was devalued from about £3.6 m from memory, to the value stated in the last accounts.

 

 

Looks like I'm the one introducing all the confusion then. My apologies!

 

So if QMP owns the freehold, what is the role of QMH in all this? Can someone explain please?

 

Maybe QMH has no role, but it definitely mentioned repeatedly in the earlier posts. I'll go back and see if I can find what was said.

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

[RLWP]

 

 

Richard

Edited March 1, 2014 by Tesla

[Phantasm]

[Abbreviated Accounts Image]

 

 

 

 

Richard

Thanks Richard, my computer keeps throwing a hissy fit - but funnily it's usually when I type PLM, PL or Paul Lillie

[RLWP]

No problem

 

I wonder what the significance of 'The ultimate parent company' is

 

Richard

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

So if QMP owns the freehold, what is the role of QMH in all this? Can someone explain please?

 

MtB

 

Join the club - I last posted this question ( I have not yet worked out where QMH fit into the Triumverate) in #3116 but also a number of times prior.

[MtB]

Ok, looking back I found where I got my information. Dave Mayall, in Post 144 speculates

 

"Looking at it, it appears that Quorn Marina Holdings is the only Company that actually OWNS anything.
Quorn Marina Properties presumably has a lease from QMH, and is the key trading entity that has sold
leases, and which presumably also leases the remaining spots (thate aren't leased to individuals) to
Pillings Lock Marina, which then takes income from moorers who aren't on a long term lease.."

 

So although Dave is not saying this is fact, it seems likely and no-one has contradicted him in the thread so far as I remember (and I've been on the lookout for it).

 

Further, Mike Tee did some digging and posted his results in post 103, the whole of which which I copy and paste to save you all the trouble of trawling back:

 

I quite enjoy a bit of a dig on the net, so after half an hour I've come up with very little (without spending money on searches) -

 

Pillings Lock Marina ltd and Quorn Marina Properties ltd are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Quorn Marina Holdings Ltd.

 

And Quorn Marina Holdings shares are held by Paul Lillie 25% and Matthew Steadman 75%

 

The financial info only goes up to 2012 but says -

Quorn Marina Properties Ltd has assets of £1.9m and debts of £1.9m !

Pillings Lock Marina Ltd has net assets of £390K (without seeing accounts this does not tell us if the BW/C&RT debt is recognised in these numbers)

Quorn Marina Holdings Ltd has net assets of £790k which presumably includes Pillings Lock Marina Ltd

 

There is a Quorn Property Ltd listed, but the names of the shareholders are not either of the above mentioned, so I've discounted them, also as the company seems to be dormant with zero assets

 

All of the above is in the public domain so don't think I've trodden on any toes. Of course, all the above may well have changed since publication.

 

 

So why do some here think QMP owns the freehold? Anyone got any evidence?

 

MtB

[johnlillie]

I don't understand what role

[RLWP]

 

 

 

Maybe QMH has no role,

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

 

QMH is the ultimate parent company

 

Richard

[johnlillie]

I don't understand what role QMH play in all this either, and I was there on the day (19 march2007) signing reams of paper that were thrust in front of me (and Carol, PL and Steadman) without any explanation or prior examination opportunity. And no, we no longer own any shares, they were "removed" from our possession when we left in June 2009.

[MtB]

P.S. I meant no-one contradicted Dave Mayall until the last few days, when people have started asserting QMP own the freehold.

 

What evidence is there to say who owns the freehold? Looks like I'll have to see what the Land Registry have to say about it, which will mean dipping my hand in my wallet to the tune of three quid IIRC! If the land is registered at all, that is.

 

 

MtB

[Phantasm]

P.S. I meant no-one contradicted Dave Mayall until the last few days, when people have started asserting QMP own the freehold.

 

What evidence is there to say who owns the freehold? Looks like I'll have to see what the Land Registry have to say about it, which will mean dipping my hand in my wallet to the tune of three quid IIRC! If the land is registered at all, that is.

 

 

MtB

I did have a look on the index but it seems information on PLM is not available. Don't know why.

[TruckDrivingMan]

In reply to Allan (nb Albert) post 3117, The statement of affairs lists floating charges NIL, assets subject to fixed charge:

 

Freehold property - book value £2.57m (estimated to realise £2m)

Matthew Steadman (£2.75m)

Deficiency c/d (£0.75m)

 

Also worth considering if anyone is considering surrendering their CRT licence - I have just checked my insurance renewal & it is a condition that my boat is licensed when ashore or afloat (location not specified so I would take this to mean anywhere).