Dispute at Pillings

[Phantasm]

 

QMH is the ultimate parent company

 

Richard

So if QMH is the parent company and Steadman owns 75% of the shares then ultimately it is Steadman who must be controlling the show as "A parent company is a company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors; the second company being deemed as a subsidiary of the parent company".

 

So maybe Steadman needs to sack PL, one problem solved!

[MtB]

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).

 

Well THAT seems to indicative that QMP owns the freehold and is the direct landlord to the car park leaseholders.

 

Changes my understanding of things.

 

Thanks.

 

MtB

[Nightwatch]

He may? have already done so. Garden leave and all that.

 

I still have this nagging in my head that the long term plan is a housing development.

 

I would be so pleased to be proved incorrect. It would nt take much to pay off all the lease holders and fill the hole.

 

Martyn

[Allan(nb Albert)]

No problem

 

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

 

Richard

As I understand it a company must declare if it is wholly owned by another company.

 

However, sometimes a company is owned by another (its parent) which in turn is owned by a third (its grandparent).

 

The ultimate parent company is the one at the top of the chain be it parent, grandparent or great grandparent etc.

 

Unless anyone knows different!

Edited February 24, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

QMP is 100% owned by QMH ( 2 shares at £1)

 

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06002831/QUORN-MARINA-PROPERTIES-LIMITED/group-structure#structure-tab

 

Shareholding structure of QMH

 

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06002830/QUORN-MARINA-HOLDINGS-LIMITED/group-structure

 

Shareholding structure of PLM (Pillings Lock Marina)

 

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05850548/PILLINGS-LOCK-MARINA-LTD/group-structure

 

So QMH 'own' QMP and QMH 'own' PLM

QMP own nothing apart from the freehold of the marina

Edited February 24, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[mayalld]

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

 

Actually, Carpet Wallah contradicted me, and whilst we have seen no documents, it appears that QMP owns the freehold. QMH owns QMP.

 

In terms of the function of QMH, it has no real function in the operation. It may have a function in managing tax liabilities.

 

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).

 

If no licence is required to be there, a boat thaty has no licence IS fully licenced.

 

Alternatively, if the insurer requires a licence, you could licence with whoever does the cheapest licences, rather than CRT.

[Peter X]

Thank you to RLWP for posting the QMP accounts for y/e 30/6/12 (see #3190). I assert these tell us that as at that date QMP was the freeholder and the freehold includes buildings worth about £300,000 and land worth £2,275,000. Zoopla tells me "No results found for property prices in Flesh Hovel Lane, Quorn, Loughborough LE12 8FE" so QMP appears to still have the freehold (but would Zoopla include commercial property?)

My reasoning is that note 1.4 tells us Paul Lillie has applied 2% depreciation for freehold buildings and none for freehold land; if QMP only had a lease this would show the depreciation rate for the lease instead. Note 1.5 tells us the depreciation charge for the year (2011-12) is 6,111. As QMP probably owns little else that will depreciate, this 6,111 is 2% of the value of the freehold buildings. Intriguingly QMP's fixed assets suffered a total depreciation of 1,344,520 in the period from its incorporation up to June 2011; I doubt the land and buildings could have lost that much value, even though the land has a leisure use and there was a big recession. Was PL keen to write it down? If a magnificent uninsured building on the site had been destroyed I think someone would have mentioned it.

Another point of some interest is that the debt to Mr Steadman seems to remain constant at 2,750,000 each year; it's an amount falling due after more than one year, i.e. QMP hasn't been required to make payments on the mortgage.

It doesn't matter now that QMH is the parent company of QMP, because its directors no longer have power over QMP and the shares are worthless until all creditors are paid in full, which won't happen. But QMH can still tell PLM what to do.

[David Mack]

 

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.

 

The page you linked to shows the last update time as now, which means it is dynamically generated by the website server, so we can't tell when the content was written. But is does say the service charge "is expected to be about £174 in 2012", which suggests the text was written late 2011/early 2012.

 

A bit more googling produces this page (http://www.abnb.co.uk/submenupages/with-mooring.html), which was last updated 30 January 2013 at 11.43. Note that the price is coming down - from £24,250 on the page below to £18,000 on the current version at http://www.abnb.co.uk/boat_pages/2336web/2336abnb.php?BoatID=2336 .

Edited February 24, 2014 by David Mack

[Dangerous Dave]

Welcome on here Peter X..Your comments are in a way that i can understand.

 

I was a leaseholder ,in fact one of the guys he was having a funny turn at on page 3..

 

Also i rented a workshop(but no longer do) next door at Quorn Fields Farm ..This was recently marketed with Mathie Jamie for a price of £1.2 m but i understand has been reduced to £650.000.

 

Why this hasn't been snapped up is a mystery..As much a mystery why Steadmans have had Paul Lillie in place of running PLM..

 

In fact LE12 8FE has been described as the village of the damned. So there may be some connection(?).

 

You may have picked up that myself and another leaseholder had a campaign against PLM for overcharging electricity.

Its a long story but as the 2 years of conflict went on i was delving into the actual lease agreement and found a few bells ringing and brought this up with the management..This included service charge and a term .made by PL of "compounded interest".

Nothing in the lease about this!

 

I queried this which led to PL taking ME to court over not paying a £20 fine he imposed on me for late payment..

It was amazing during the 2 years of court appearances he moved the goalposts and was relying on super law student R.R to carry on the BS.as we refused to deal with him because of his provoking and antaganistic attitude.

 

While this was going on a much bigger conflict ..unknown to all was going in the way of B.W and now C&RT..

 

Last year (June 2013) to resolve our dispute he paid us off with a sum of money to cover the electric overcharging and the pro rota of the lease period.

i e surrender of the lease.

We had the notion that he was a desperate man(?) and really wanted us out of the way because of our findings.

 

The following week after being narked by junior shy**** in a way of being escorted off the premises we found that our service charge and ground rent rein bursement hadn't been included in the settlement

 

I therefore wrote to Paul Lillie for permission to come on site to collect the monies owed..

 

The result of this is the rant email on page 3 here.

 

This led to another small claims court application brought on by ourselves which for once his solicitor had outwitted us..The claim was struck out and we have to pay costs of a large sum .

 

We listed our claim against OMP & PLM...Since then QMP are no more so we have written to the liquidator for direction..

Paul Lillie's solicitor says we have to pay PLM as it was one of the defendants we put down on the claim..

Our lease however as pointed out many times by RR was with QMP and as PLM are merely a operating company of QMP.. A company that doesn't exist anymore.

Our feeling is that if PLM can attempt to take money in relation to our lease or what was a lease held by us then it can be held responsible for its creditors of QMP.

I have the impression that C&RT are in on this relation between the two companies as well..

 

What i do not understand is why when all the non payment of NAA fees were owing and the big court order made against them. Why pay us out to the tune of £50000+ when he could have let things carry on and shaft us (allegedly) as well considering we were unsecured leaseholders(?)!!

 

May be he is a slut for older(?! and deep down he thinks so much of us

[johnlillie]

Thank you to RLWP for posting the QMP accounts for y/e 30/6/12 (see #3190). I assert these tell us that as at that date QMP was the freeholder and the freehold includes buildings worth about £300,000 and land worth £2,275,000. Zoopla tells me "No results found for property prices in Flesh Hovel Lane, Quorn, Loughborough LE12 8FE" so QMP appears to still have the freehold (but would Zoopla include commercial property?)

My reasoning is that note 1.4 tells us Paul Lillie has applied 2% depreciation for freehold buildings and none for freehold land; if QMP only had a lease this would show the depreciation rate for the lease instead. Note 1.5 tells us the depreciation charge for the year (2011-12) is 6,111. As QMP probably owns little else that will depreciate, this 6,111 is 2% of the value of the freehold buildings. Intriguingly QMP's fixed assets suffered a total depreciation of 1,344,520 in the period from its incorporation up to June 2011; I doubt the land and buildings could have lost that much value, even though the land has a leisure use and there was a big recession. Was PL keen to write it down? If a magnificent uninsured building on the site had been destroyed I think someone would have mentioned it.

Another point of some interest is that the debt to Mr Steadman seems to remain constant at 2,750,000 each year; it's an amount falling due after more than one year, i.e. QMP hasn't been required to make payments on the mortgage.

It doesn't matter now that QMH is the parent company of QMP, because its directors no longer have power over QMP and the shares are worthless until all creditors are paid in full, which won't happen. But QMH can still tell PLM what to do.

the main building cost over £600k and the workshop over £80k to build, I always thought that buildings increased in value, as assets

[Dangerous Dave]

 

The page you linked to shows the last update time as now, which means it is dynamically generated by the website server, so we can't tell when the content was written. But is does say the service charge "is expected to be about £174 in 2012", which suggests the text was written late 2011/early 2012.

 

A bit more googling produces this page (http://www.abnb.co.uk/submenupages/with-mooring.html), which was last updated 30 January 2013 at 11.43. Note that the price is coming down - from £24,250 on the page below to £18,000 on the current version at http://www.abnb.co.uk/boat_pages/2336web/2336abnb.php?BoatID=2336 .

 

 

During a discussion with the junior management now director i asked him are all the batch of leases sold..I mentioned i had not seen some car park spaces occupied (apart from the public imposing on them) in the 5 years i was there.

Roy & Jayne's reply that all 24 leases were held and that some people had purchased the leases for their retirement as an INVESTMENT!!!

 

So in that frame you pay £28000 for a leasehold on mooring rights , then 5 years time thanks to the antics of PL it will not sell at £18000.

If things are correct then during the next few weeks or so that £28000 has gone up the wall!

 

Some investment!

I'd like to know what the 24 hour security was /is!!

[leisureboatlady]

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

Sorry my wording may have been confusing. PLM advertise "envisage" luxury floating apartment rental as well as "luxury penthouse" rental. Looks like they are advertising the boat for sale.

[RLWP]

Sorry my wording may have been confusing. PLM advertise "envisage" luxury floating apartment rental as well as "luxury penthouse" rental. Looks like they are advertising the boat for sale.

Is it clear who is selling it? If it is an asset of PLM, it may be the liquidator

 

Richard

[leisureboatlady]

Is it clear who is selling it? If it is an asset of PLM, it may be the liquidator

Richard

No its not clear its just advertised by ABNB as being for sale with location as river soar leics.

[Dangerous Dave]

Sorry my wording may have been confusing. PLM advertise "envisage" luxury floating apartment rental as well as "luxury penthouse" rental. Looks like they are advertising the boat for sale.

 

From my understanding it wasn't / isn't PLM's boat it belongs to some lady who was persuaded into an investment!

[Paul G2]

the main building cost over £600k and the workshop over £80k to build, I always thought that buildings increased in value, as assets

 

Hi John,

 

One of the most basic principles of appraising is that cost has absolutely nothing to do with value. Just because you spend £600K building something doesn't necessarily mean it is worth £600K when you are done.

 

Real estate always goes up in value, in the long term. The value of a building is best stated in terms of what the land it sits on would be worth with and without said building. A building that represents the highest and best use for any particular property is going to add more to the overall value of the property than if the same building were built somewhere that it was not the highest and best use.

 

That being said, buildings "wear out" over time and the "wearing out" has to be accounted for in a bookkeeping procedure, depreciation, which results in the "book value" of the property decreasing as time goes by. But this is strictly an accounting procedure, it has nothing to do with the actual value of a building when it is put on the market.

[johnlillie]

I understand what you say, but that said, I can't think of many buildings that are worth less than the building costs 7 years later, provided they are still in good condition and fit for purpose.

[SoosieQ]

Please be aware for anyone wishing to travel out of Pillings towards Leicester,Junction Lock is unofficially closed! Stop planks in place. CRT are unaware of the closure if you ring or look on the website....but its definitely shut!

[Paul G2]

I understand what you say, but that said, I can't think of many buildings that are worth less than the building costs 7 years later, provided they are still in good condition and fit for purpose.

 

It's anyone's guess what Steadman and P.Lillie have done with the books and the accounting for this development. It seems that everything is purposely intertwined and deliberately confusing.

 

As far as the actual value of the building, though, you bring up a salient point about "fit for purpose". As I recall, special planning permission was given for that apartment because it was to be used by the owner/operator (you & Mrs. L). The zoning for that property does not allow for residential development and you were granted a dispensation of some sort. If the conditions of approval for that apartment mean that it can technically only be occupied by an owner/operator, it really doesn't have a whole lot of value; or at least not as much value as it would have if its use were unrestricted.

 

Edit to add:

 

Keep in mind too, in the eyes of the tax authorities, one of the Steadman/Lillie entities is divesting themselves of that building. If, at the time of divestiture, the building, which cost £600K, is valued at £300K, isn't that a nice tax write-off for someone? Essentially they have "sold" an asset with a book value of around £600K for £300K.

 

This could be one motivation for the £300K evaluation, but it's just rampant speculation on my part.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Paul G.

[johnlillie]

In 2007, PL applied for, and obtained, planning permission to use the apartment for holiday let (knowing that it was meant to be our only home for the foreseeable future!), as well as obtaining permission to allow use of the café by the general public. This information I obtained from the council direct, recently.

[Phantasm]

In 2007, PL applied for, and obtained, planning permission to use the apartment for holiday let (knowing that it was meant to be our only home for the foreseeable future!), as well as obtaining permission to allow use of the café by the general public. This information I obtained from the council direct, recently.

But if you didn't leave until 2009, that means he applied for the change of use before you were forced out then, John. Obviously premeditated behaviour.

[boathunter]

It's probably been said before, but one has to wonder if this is Steadman's standard business model, he seems very good at it.

Put the money in and protect it, set up 3 companies, one to operate it that's safe, one to "own it" and owe all the money to go bust and one to oversee the whole debacle. He gets his interest, never the director of the bust company and no doubt searches show him up as a hapless investor loosing all the time due to marked up losses etc etc.

Chance is this time it's a Marina, but could have been a nightclub or pretty much anything.

[boathunter]

What I mean is this is the end game.

[Captain Fizz]

You could very probably be correct.

[carpet wallah]

1). "........Intriguingly QMP's fixed assets suffered a total depreciation of 1,344,520 in the period from its incorporation up to June 2011; I doubt the land and buildings could have lost that much value, even though the land has a leisure use and there was a big recession. Was PL keen to write it down? If a magnificent uninsured building on the site had been destroyed I think someone would have mentioned it."

 

2). ".Another point of some interest is that the debt to Mr Steadman seems to remain constant at 2,750,000 each year; it's an amount falling due after more than one year, i.e. QMP hasn't been required to make payments on the mortgage.".

1) This is the source of the intrigue here:

 

QUORN MARINA PROPERTIES LIMITED

NOTES TO THE ABBREVIATED ACCOUNTS

For the Year Ended 30 June 2009

1.2 GOING CONCERN

During the year an impairment provision of £1,344,520 was made on THE COMPANY'S FREEHOLD PROPERTY and as a result the company had a balance sheet deficit of £1,739,563 on the 30 June 2009.

The accounts have been prepared on a going concern basis on the understanding the the parent company, other group company and M Steadman will continue to financially support the company until sufficient future rental income is received to repay them.

 

2). I would suggest that the reason that the long term liability to Steadman hasn't altered is that it's set up as a fixed, interest only mortgage. It may have been JL that disclosed (who else would know?) that regular payments of £10,000 were being made by QMP to MS. If this was interest, it would not be an unreasonable rate on £2.75m.

 

What gets me (and a lot of other people on here) is what the hell kind of lease agreement exists between QMP and PLM?

If it were a normal, arms length transaction between a landlord and lessee it would be for a set term and rent. If the lessee had insufficient income from moorers to pay the rent, why should the landlord need financially supporting by the tenant?