Dispute at Pillings

[Pillingsmoorer]

I don't see any drama. It's a dry, technical discussion of the complex business matters arising as far as several of us here are concerned, in a search for an equitable outcome for the berth holders.

 

We have no intention of belittling the impact it might be having on some of the moorers but while you describe the whole affair as a drama, cliftoma thinks it is a non-issue. You two need to make your minds up.

 

 

MtB

No there are people on here that are enjoying the drama. I will say some people not all.

No there are people on here that are enjoying the drama. I will say some people not all.

the people at Pillings are not talking about it. It's not a case of putting your head in the sand. I think it's a case that some will go before April some will stay.

[Peter X]

Since I came onto this forum a few days ago as a new member to add my thoughts to this topic, I like to think I've behaved as anyone on a forum should, and indeed as most people on canalworld do. Canals generally tend to attract the nicer people, I think Brian Blessed says something to that effect on CRT's website. (When is Flash Gordon 2 coming out please?).

No-one's flamed me although perhaps Paul Lillie will when he gets back from his holiday, a few have disagreed with me on some points and corrected my mistakes but with good manners, and I feel generally welcome. Compare and contrast this with the new member cliftoma who sets out to insult all and sundry with his first post. It's full of loaded words and inaccuracies (just like Paul Lillie's letter on page 3), so let's pull a few apart:

"John Lillie inflaming the discussion with his 'insider' viewpoint" - he's been pretty reasonable considering his ex-son's treachery. Why the quote marks, If he wasn't an insider who was? He may well feel very disappointed by how his son has turned out, but I know of no reason to blame him for Paul Lillie's personality, there's only so much a parent can do.

To publish the Statement of Affairs is not an "outrageous misuse of a document". A liquidator is required to publish it, because it's in the public interest that the outgoing director must be made to summarise the finances for all to see and then defend what he has said. To publish it is the central purpose of the document, because it may help to expose any wrongdoing. It's like saying that buying goods in a shop is an outrageous misuse of cash. The Electoral Register is published too for good reasons, just go down to your local library and ask to see it if you don't believe me.

People have used the word lake, but as far as I can remember only when referring to what it will be after the stop planks go in. If it looks like a lake it is a lake; for the time being at least it's a marina.

I feel it's a good thing to occasionally treat a serious problem as entertainment if it's inbetween doing something to help; mockery directed at the right target can keep up the spirits of the downtrodden. I wonder... how many leaseholders are considering legal action against PLM or Paul Lillie to recover money obtained by misrepresentation? It would be helpful to know... all sorts of things about the finances of the triumvirate and the intentions of various parties to the dispute, so that the leaseholders can make their decisions based on facts rather than propaganda. Helpful to the moorers affected.

The post contains lots of sarcasm, but appears to be genuine when saying: "we are all waiting for the network to be fully navigable before making a mass exodus from the marina", which seems to answer Bod's post #3288. Except that rather than a mass exodus which several others have suggested too, I suspect that those who go will do so spread out over the next 6 weeks or so, and so long as the system is navigable the congestion won't be too serious, even on the last weekend 12-13 April. Maybe the nearest moorings on the cut will be fully occupied at first, but I suppose a few CRT people will be around to help advise boaters?

[Nightwatch]

What a level headed post. A pleasure to read.

 

I haven't commented much on this topic, well not as much as some others, but I find it remarkable that the moorers in this marina have not been more outspoken and critical of the Directors and their behaviour.

 

PL as he has become to be known is an unusual man. In my opinion he has little business sense and seems to disregard everyone except himself.

 

How has he got away with this for so long? What is Mr Steadman and his business associates doing to put right the damage that this fellow director is causing to their good name?

 

Martyn

[tupperware]

I wrote this post a couple of days ago and have held back from posting it as I’m sure it’s wasted on you but as the discussion sinks into the abyss with your doggie poo jollies – I now think what the heck let someone affected by the dispute first hand have a say on here.

 

I have been a customer of Pillings Lock Marina for almost seven years. I have always enjoyed the services and location. Personally I find the whole management team to be accommodating and helpful. Now there’s a radical viewpoint! Many of you have already noticed that there’s not a throng of dissenting voices from current moorers on this forum but brush this off by accusing us of being brain-washed or on the PL team. I know many moorers here on the marina and yes we are concerned with the action threatened by CaRT but we haven’t been swept along by the collective hysteria escalating on this forum. Boy can’t you tell that you haven’t got anything better to do with your time.

 

I have more issues with the conduct of this forum than I do with the underpayment of the NAA charges by the marina. Firstly can I dispel the myth that moorers at Pillings still believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy – what a relevant and helpful comment that was – it must have given great succour and comfort to leaseholders for which you collectively hold such empathy and concern – not!

 

Secondly we are all waiting for the network to be fully navigable before making a mass exodus from the marina (sorry, I meant to use your preferred term – lake). Has it ever occurred to you that we like the marina? And certainly prefer it to the local competition for a great number of reasons.

 

Thirdly, it’s my observation that anyone on this forum who doesn’t think Paul Lillie is an idiot or rogue… is an idiot, in his employ, or brain-washed of course! Also that anyone who wishes to stay falls into the latter groups. Oh yes almost forgot we are all hardly boaters at all as we don’t take our boats out too – what nonsense! Whether someone chooses to take their boat out or not is entirely up to them and their own choice.

 

Fourthly, I’m a parent and grandparent and to see John Lillie inflaming the discussion with his ‘insider’ viewpoint is beyond belief. Does he really think that leading the attack on his own son makes him look better? In my experience I know of several moorers who conducted a “mass exodus” thanks to his own particular management style. If my son had as many personal and business shortcomings as he seems to condone accusations of his, I would feel nothing but an overwhelming sense of disappointment and responsibility in my parenting.

 

Next I would like to challenge the publication of the Statement of Affairs on Friday – what an outrageous misuse of a document – oh yes – I forgot that it’s only done to try and help the poor leaseholders for whom you hold such empathy. And yes I know it’s in the “public domain” but then again so are your Electoral Register details – why not publish those? The only reason that there hasn’t been an outcry from the leaseholders about doing so is, I suspect, they either haven’t even heard of this discussion thread, or they can’t be bothered to challenge such a small number of individuals making such a sport out of their predicament. I can already hear you bleating about the original document being redacted – but what a farce that is – anyone who has email notification of postings to the forum can immediately access the original pdf published online – I have my copy! The same goes for posts that are subsequently deemed unfit for publication – it doesn’t matter if they are subsequently taken down they’ve still been seen and no amount of “…the jury will disregard that last remark…” will change that.

 

I could go on but what is the point? A few individuals on here have seen their opportunity to settle some old scores and capitalised on the opportunity – bully for them! Here on the marina (sorry, …lake) I can’t say there’s anyone ‘driven away’ by PL’s’ management style’ that’s greatly missed. The marina (sorry, …lake) has a fairly comprehensive rule book and as long as it’s abided by – there’s few problems despite the hysterics described on this forum.

 

To finish I will just add that I’m sure I won’t have in any way impeded your fun-making on this forum – you can all continue to use your most favourite phrase… “I wonder…” or… “it would be helpful to know…” – helpful to whom exactly? Certainly not the moorers affected, more likely your new entertainment and light relief from being unable to take your boat out! Save your empathy for those that ask for it! Happy chatting!

 

I'm not directly affected by the dispute but my license and a portion of my mooring fees, together with those of everyone else using the national network, provides the funds to CRT so that we call all continue to enjoy our leisure boating activities. If CRT experience a shortfall in income then that affects us all no matter where we might be moored and, potentially, might require every single one of us to pay a little extra to cover the shortfall. Furthermore, whilst you have presumably paid on an annual or similar basis for your mooring spot, the creditor statement lists a considerable number of others who, having paid upfront for leases lasting many years might now face the possibility that their money has been lost and they may have no choice, assuming that they can afford it, to pay again for something they believed settled for the future. Many of these individuals might not be able to afford to pay again and be forced into selling their boat and giving up the leisure activity which they love. To these unfortunate people, your own satisfaction with the marina and its management will afford little comfort.

 

If you can not put aside your objections to the "drama" on this forum and the light-hearted references to doggy-poos, then one wonders why you have bothered to join and criticise most of the others here who are, quite frankly, appalled that the body responsible for our national network and many private individuals are facing considerable financial loss. You may not welcome our sympathy and the genuine attempts being made here to find out what has been going on but never imagine that you speak for anyone other than yourself.

 

Publication of the "Statement of Affairs" to which you refer was, I understand, sanctioned by the Insolvency Practitioner before being posted, who obviously took the view that making this available to third parties represented no "misuse". Quite why you take issue with his/her decision is a mystery.

 

Finally, no-one here has withheld monies they freely committed to pay to CRT or is responsible for selling long-term leases to those who now may have to face up to a considerable financial loss. Your remark that you have "more issues with the conduct of this forum than I do with the underpayment of the NAA charges by the marina" suggests that, as long as your comfort is assured and you continue to find the management team "accommodating and helpful" then the views of anyone else who happens to be affected by the liquidation of QMP, directly or indirectly, is of no consequence.

Edited February 25, 2014 by tupperware

[tupperware]

Just a thought, if P Lillie Esq was as concerned as Cliftoma suggests why is he abroad and not at the marina sorting all the issues for his fee paying customers?

 

I could say why I think, but it would get me a warning point.

 

I think it is called leading from the back.

[tupperware]

So Cliftoma has come out and spoken. How long before this person gets accused of being either Paul, one of Paul's staff or a Paul supporter!! How dare this person go against the opinion of the forum, who does he or she think they are.

 

On a serious note when you do more here and like mooring here and don't want to leave this forum does make for quite depressing reading. I have said in the past there are too many people (not all) that are enjoying the drama a bit to much.

 

Against a background where a substantial number of people face a considerable financial loss which could, in some cases result in their losing the leisure activity they love, any discussion is not going to be light-hearted. If one ignores the quips about the gentleman at the heart of this debacle then most of the posts here do seem to be trying to examine such information as is in the public domain as forensically as possible to try and formulate suggestions as to other avenues to be explored or possible solutions to be adopted. We are all, whether we moor at the marina or not, affected by a shortfall in CRT income and hence our interest in the situation is entirely legitimate. Suggesting, as Cliftoma has done, that that our motives are questionable and that he regards our input as more worthy of condemnation than the matter of the unpaid £185,000 is not only highly offensive but suggests that all those who face a financial loss are of no importance when set against his/her own peace of mind and comfort.

 

I find the discussion interesting and engaging but if I want some drama, this forum would not even be on my list.

[RLWP]

Ok, not drama. Can we manage comedy?

 

Richard

[tupperware]

No there are people on here that are enjoying the drama. I will say some people not all.

the people at Pillings are not talking about it. It's not a case of putting your head in the sand. I think it's a case that some will go before April some will stay.

 

Is it really the case that the private leaseholders regard their possible financial loss, in some cases of tens of thousand of pounds, with total equanimity? If so, then it seems rather at odds with a natural wish to find out where one's money has gone and to find who is responsible for it having vanished into the ether.

 

I can not help but feel that you claim may be somewhat unreal.

[tupperware]

posted in error...having an actual breakdown!

 

 

And then of course there were the marina chickens! Perhaps they were fed a special kind of fodder that does not attract rodents.....perhaps the said rodents have now deserted the sinking marina/lake!

 

Quite so, a curious inconsistency. It is not, regrettably, that unusual to find that those without the mental wherewithal to understand the big picture tend to concentrate on meaningless minutiae and hatch schemes which seem almost certifiable.

[MtB]

 

Is it really the case that the private leaseholders regard their possible financial loss, in some cases of tens of thousand of pounds, with total equanimity? If so, then it seems rather at odds with a natural wish to find out where one's money has gone and to find who is responsible for it having vanished into the ether.

 

I can not help but feel that you claim may be somewhat unreal.

 

A good opportunity to drag the discussion back onto topic here.

 

Maybe the long leaseholders are reassured by things the Pillings Lock marina management say, such as this extract from an email sent to CWF user 'pearley'.

 

See post 98 in this thread.

 

"If for some unlikely reason the company owning the Leases did ‘go bust’, the liquidators of the property would pass the leases on (with tenants in situ) to the new operating company or land owning company. The Terms of the Lease cannot be varied unless both parties are in agreement to any changes and they take place formally. The new people operating the company would be responsible for servicing the site and therefore they would be the one charging the ground rent etc for the remaining term.]"

 

Mr Nelson the IP seems to think it isn't so cut and dried.

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

A good opportunity to drag the discussion back onto topic here.

 

Maybe the long leaseholders are reassured by things the Pillings Lock marina management say, such as this extract from an email sent to CWF user 'pearley'.

 

See post 98 in this thread.

 

"If for some unlikely reason the company owning the Leases did ‘go bust’, the liquidators of the property would pass the leases on (with tenants in situ) to the new operating company or land owning company. The Terms of the Lease cannot be varied unless both parties are in agreement to any changes and they take place formally. The new people operating the company would be responsible for servicing the site and therefore they would be the one charging the ground rent etc for the remaining term.]"

 

Mr Nelson the IP seems to think it isn't so cut and dried.

 

MtB

 

I looked back at the post to which you referred, Mtb, and it makes for some interesting reading. The blurb asserts "the Leases remain protected as they are held on a different company balance sheet. This company is called Quorn Marina Properties Ltd.". It then continues "If for some unlikely reason the company owning the Leases did ‘go bust’, the liquidators of the property would pass the leases on (with tenants in situ) to the new operating company or land owning company. The Terms of the Lease cannot be varied unless both parties are in agreement to any changes and they take place formally. The new people operating the company would be responsible for servicing the site and therefore they would be the one charging the ground rent etc for the remaining term."

 

Having had a scout around, http://www.consolidatedcredit.co.uk/news/what-are-my-rights-if-my-landlord-goes-bankrupt/, suggests that the above might not tell the whole story. Whilst a new owner of the site might elect to take on the costs of maintaining and servicing the existing leases as a gesture of goodwill, it is my understanding that there would be no obligation to do so and it has been suggested that the contingent liability shown in the Statement of Affairs represents the outstanding value of the leases which are unsecured.

 

If I had such a lease I would be making use of impartial legal advice as to whether, in the light of QMP's demise, my security of tenure was guaranteed or not.

[DeanS]

Some, like myself, are not involved, but are watching closely, for a number of reasons:

 

1. Anything that happens on the canal system is of interest to me.

2. I find the legal knowledge of some forum members astounding, and their input interesting.

3. I keep receiving emails from CRT asking for money....I am therefore very interested to see if they are going to sweep £180 000 under the carpet, and issue a new NAA to the new young director, who PL seems to be angling to control via invisible puppet strings.

 

4. If it does turn out that leaseholders lose tens of thousands of pounds, this will have become the biggest scandal to hit the canal system in recent years, and I'm therefore following the story to April13 and beyond.

[Peter X]

It may be helpful if I expand a bit on my earlier posts #3207 and #3229 to explain what I think is the position of the long term leaseholders, the individuals who appear most vulnerable in all this. PL's statement of affairs lists 20 of them as a contingent liability for QMP, which I take to mean that if they lose their access to CRT waters they can sue QMP for the value of the remainder of their leases. In practice they won't because QMP hasn't got the money to pay.

MtB mentioned a figure of 30 long term leaseholders and someone else had been told by Roy Rollings that there were 24 of the "car park" leases and all those had been sold. Assuming PL's statement is true, and I believe he would be in some nasty legal trouble if he's found to have lied in it, then any long term leases which were sold other than those 20 would be with PLM, as indeed all the other annual or shorter mooring payments are. I think this is consistent with what John Lillie and some others have said on this question; there has been confusion as to which company issued leases because both did!

If anyone out there has a long term lease issued by PLM, and isn't happy to spend the rest of its period with no access to the cut, then I suggest you read up on contract law so that as of 14th April you can quickly begin to sue PLM for breach of contract, pro-rata for the duration of the seige, whether your boat is inside or outside. It wouldn't matter that it's CRT who put the stop planks in, if PLM induced you to enter a contract with even an implied promise that you would have access that's misrepresentation. I'm only an amateur lawyer and not legally responsible for any advice I give, but I'm pretty confident you'd have a good case. The reason I say "quickly" is that if PLM is going to go bust as a result of its inevitable loss of income plus any litigation payouts and costs, those at the front of the queue are the most likely to get paid. There won't be much left of PLM if the liquidator can cancel their commercial lease.

A relatively short term (e.g. annual) leaseholder has less to lose, but still an important sum, and can follow a similar path against PLM except that the amount is low enough for the small claims procedure which is simpler.

If the QMP 20, as I feel they should be known, have not already got together to discuss what to do as a group then I suggest they do so pronto. QMP can't pay, but you can try to press the liquidator for information, or to find some nice millionaire who fancies running a marina properly under scenario 1 of my post #3229. Didn't Sir Richard Branson live on a narrowboat on the Regent's Canal for some years in the 1970s? As I think MtB explained many pages ago, running a marina is not a licence to print money, but my guess is that someone putting up £3m would make a small return in the first year and perhaps £150,000 a year after that if they can achieve a good occupancy rate. A return on investment of 5% is not a goldmine but it's better than a bank and the project would be great PR for someone. Or could crowdfunding raise the money?

Anyone with something constructive to say is cordially invited to pick holes in my argument, I wouldn't want to be misleading anyone!

Purely to satisfy my curiosity and RLWP's thirst for comedy, can anyone theorise as to why PL's statement might need to list five different addresses for HMRC as creditors with zero amounts?

[KJT]

Purely to satisfy my curiosity and RLWP's thirst for comedy, can anyone theorise as to why PL's statement might need to list five different addresses for HMRC as creditors with zero amounts?

No idea really.

A shot in the dark - possibly there are five HMRC tax offices or districts involved. I guess one would be VAT and the other four might be the tax districts of different directors? The zero amounts might be another way of saying 'to be advised'?

[Peter X]

Having just seen the last few emails I'm not too worried by the concerns raised.

tupperware (#3311): Having looked at the link you provided ...

I rented several houses over the years, and my belief is that the 2 month minimum notice to a tenant is when the tenant is "holding over", i.e. any fixed rental period has expired and the tenant is just paying monthly, subject to a deposit against damage. Nothing in that article seems to say that where a lessee has paid in advance for a lease of whatever period someone repossessing or buying the property can disregard that lease. Certainly for example if the liquidator had no better offer and Mr Steadman repossessed the marina from QMP, he must have known by his ownership via QMH of QMP and PLM that QMP would be issuing leases to PLM and to the QMP 20, he can hardly argue ignorance, so it's more of a buy-to-let situation. Similarly if a liquidator or anyone else sells a freehold I think he he is legally bound to give details of any encumbering lease to any potential purchaser. Properties with long leases are sold at auction all the time, you can buy the freehold of some grand block of flats for peanuts if they're all sold on long leases with low ground rents, because there's no way to gain vacant possession except to negotiate it with the lessee. Typically such a freehold would go for about 10 times the total annual ground rent.

The point I'm not quite sure of is how the leaseholder's rights to car parking, mooring and canal access (implied even if not explicitly stated I reckon) are enforced if the CRT won't grant the new owner a NAA. Wouldn't this contingent liability pass to the new owner, in which case any purchaser must either seek a "back-to-back" deal with the CRT before signing up, or risk having to compensate the leaseholders?

DeanS (#3312): The CRT were very sniffy in their statement about the Roy Rollings phoenix company, No. 560 Leicester Ltd I think it's called. They've looked at its DNA and decided it's a no. 2. Anyone recommended by PL is unlikely to get a NAA.

I say this because the CRT hinted that while they may never get the £180,000 back, they are determined not to let any marina owner run up a debt like that again. Realistically I suppose they would grant a NAA to anyone with no history of dishonesty if they're paid monthly in advance, but would be quick to wield the stop planks as soon as payments start bouncing. It was BW's fault, as it Richard Parry took over CRT in May and got the court order in December; quite nifty when you consider cases take time to prepare and go through the legal process.

[magnetman]

I feel there is a very strong possibility that the marina will stay open, agree a new NAA and continue as if nothing happened.

 

Time will tell..

[b0atman]

If CaRT do not get the money owed and wipe off the debt, then there will be a major decline in donations from Boaters and others who are aware of this disgusting state of affairs, which has built up because of bad management decisions BW and CaRT.

[MtB]

Properties with long leases are sold at auction all the time, you can buy the freehold of some grand block of flats for peanuts if they're all sold on long leases with low ground rents, because there's no way to gain vacant possession except to negotiate it with the lessee. Typically such a freehold would go for about 10 times the total annual ground rent.

 

Minor point of order here...

 

'Ground rent investments' (as these are called) sometimes go for quite a lot more than 10 times the total annual ground rent as the investor also gets to charge fees to leaseholders selling up for statements regarding their ground rent accounts. This may sound small beer but the leaseholder can't sell to a buyer needing a mortgage without such a statement, and I hear of cases where such statements are subject to outrageous charges. Worst I've encountered is £7k charged for such a statement. The leaseholder has to like it or lump it. So for a truly avaricious ground rent investor, owning the freehold to perhaps 200 leases can be an absolute goldmine worth a whole lot more than ten times the GR.

 

In addition, if the leaseholders can't organise themselves to assert their rights, there are endless opportunities to have them over with a wide variety of site management and maintenance charges too.

 

MtB

[costalot]

If CaRT do not get the money owed and wipe off the debt, then there will be a major decline in donations from Boaters and others who are aware of this disgusting state of affairs, which has built up because of bad management decisions BW and CaRT.

I don't see any bad management decision on the part of CRT and I suspect the business is structured to ensure CRT will be unable to recover any of the owed money.

 

The best they can probably achieve is to ensure the current executive management at the marina who were responsible for the failure to pay them are excluded from the new business. I suspect a new NAA will not be forthcoming unless that is agreed by the owners of QMP Mk2. I also suspect the new NAA will not be in place by 13 April because the existing MD is likely to have to be "pushed" into exiting the business by Steadman.

 

PLM is likely to come under increasing financial pressure of CRT block access. The businesses on the site are going to lose revenue and will initially complain then then possible reduce, or cease making payments to PLM. If I was a moorer I'd also stop making mooring payments until access was restored. All of this will mean Steadman will not be getting a return on his investment. Obviously he will already have thought of this which is why I see the Director's position as very precarious.

 

The implicate CRT message to other marina owners is "Pay your NAA fees or you might go the same way!"

[MtB]

I also suspect the new NAA will not be in place by 13 April because the existing MD is likely to have to be "pushed" into exiting the business by Steadman.

 

One of the puzzles here is that Paul Lillie seems to be there with the explicit approval and support of Mr Steadman. Someone as sharp as Mr Steadman cannot fail to be aware of his nature, personality and behaviour, therefore I are driven to conclude he has no intention of sacking him as a director or he would have done long ago. In addition, I am also driven to conclude that the outcome of this episode is not important to Mr Steadman or he would be intervening. Some far bigger plan or end game exists.

 

 

The implicate CRT message to other marina owners is "Pay your NAA fees or you might go the same way!"

 

 

I'd say the boot is on the other foot. Other marina owners are watching carefully to see if PL gets away with this and if he does, copycat marina legal structures will be popping up all over the place.

 

 

MtB

[Captain Fizz]

One of the puzzles here is that Paul Lillie seems to be there with the explicit approval and support of Mr Steadman. Someone as sharp as Mr Steadman cannot fail to be aware of his nature, personality and behaviour, therefore I are driven to conclude he has no intention of sacking him as a director or he would have done long ago. In addition, I am also driven to conclude that the outcome of this episode is not important to Mr Steadman or he would be intervening. Some far bigger plan or end game exists.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say the boot is on the other foot. Other marina owners are watching carefully to see if PL gets away with this and if he does, copycat marina legal structures will be popping up all over the place.

 

 

MtB

I think you are probably correct Mike, a much more devious plan is afoot.

[b0atman]

CCers and other boaters who are not in Marinas are going to be displeased if the licence fee goes up to make up the loss of Money to CaRT if NAA agreements are cut up (Worst case scenario).

[MtB]

There is one possibility not yet mentioned. Pure conjecture though. Paul Lillie's holiday may actually have been taken on instruction from Mr Steadman.

 

Get him out of the way while Mr Steadman works directly with Mr Nelson to sort this one out in a businesslike manner. I can't imagine any IP getting on well with Paul given his haphazard administrative style and reported volatility.

 

 

MtB

[Swallowman]

DeanS (#3312): The CRT were very sniffy in their statement about the Roy Rollings phoenix company, No. 560 Leicester Ltd I think it's called. They've looked at its DNA and decided it's a no. 2.

 

At the risk of displeasing Cliftoma, that is one of the funniest things said so far in this thread - almost as funny as someone alleging very early on that PL was going to "tear the a*se out of the company".........

 

 

 

There is one possibility not yet mentioned. Pure conjecture though. Paul Lillie's holiday may actually have been taken on instruction from Mr Steadman.

 

Get him out of the way while Mr Steadman works directly with Mr Nelson to sort this one out in a businesslike manner. I can't imagine any IP getting on well with Paul given his haphazard administrative style and reported volatility.

 

 

MtB

 

If PL's "life partner" is a teacher, it's more likely the trip to the sun would have been booked a while ago to take advantage of the half-term holiday.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Swallowman

[MtB]

If PL's "life partner" is a teacher, it's more likely the trip to the sun would have been booked a while ago to take advantage of the half-term holiday.

 

 

Good point. Presumably he's back now then if you're right.

 

MtB