Dispute at Pillings

[SoosieQ]

Expensive holidays oh please!! I don't think a week in the canaries can be classed as expensive.

 

 

 

 

But spending Christmas and the new year in the Bahamas doesn't come cheap and that was only a few weeks ago.

 

In fairness,i thought his christmas break was in the uk? But im not certain

[JerryP]

ame="JerryP" post="1251556" timestamp="1393447643"]

 

In fairness,i thought his christmas break was in the uk? But im not certain

 

 

 

In that case I apologise and stand corrected

[SoosieQ]

In that case I apologise and stand corrected

Im not certain...and nothing would surprise me

[Peter X]

until recently I knew nobody that had a lease. I have now met 4 different leaseholders. All were in the pub in the village on Friday and there general opinion was it is nothing to worry about.

 

Did these 4 leaseholders in the pub venture an opinion as to why they're not worried? The CRT have made it crystal clear that they intend to block access on 14th April, so do they not want to use the cut at some point? Otherwise they must know of a peace deal about to be made between Mr Steadman, the liquidator and the CRT which is acceptable to them? If so, do tell us because it would move this topic forward no end.

 

I hope to continue enjoying my mooring and hopefully it will be sorted by April. I suspect it won't be. For some it's not as easy as just moving.

...

I agree, but I'm struggling to reconcile this with what you said an hour earlier. You suspect there is no peace deal, so did you share these concerns with the leaseholders in the pub?

By the way, for what it's worth, I don't think you are Paul Lillie. I can accept that some moorers may think he's a nice person, if that's the only side of him they've seen. They can't have seen his nasty rant at Dangerous Dave on page 3, or the unpleasant behaviour which various people have reported. I don't know PL, but I've seen enough evidence to know I don't want to, and to suspect that many moorers will be keeping their opinions to themselves so long as they stay, out of fear.

[matty40s]

Expensive holidays oh please!! I don't think a week in the canaries can be classed as expensive.

Interesting, when did anyone mention the Canaries.....

[Pillingsmoorer]

Interesting, when did anyone mention the Canaries.....

I mentioned it!!

[Phantasm]

 

Did these 4 leaseholders in the pub venture an opinion as to why they're not worried? The CRT have made it crystal clear that they intend to block access on 14th April, so do they not want to use the cut at some point? Otherwise they must know of a peace deal about to be made between Mr Steadman, the liquidator and the CRT which is acceptable to them? If so, do tell us because it would move this topic forward no end.

 

I agree, but I'm struggling to reconcile this with what you said an hour earlier. You suspect there is no peace deal, so did you share these concerns with the leaseholders in the pub?

By the way, for what it's worth, I don't think you are Paul Lillie. I can accept that some moorers may think he's a nice person, if that's the only side of him they've seen. They can't have seen his nasty rant at Dangerous Dave on page 3, or the unpleasant behaviour which various people have reported. I don't know PL, but I've seen enough evidence to know I don't want to, and to suspect that many moorers will be keeping their opinions to themselves so long as they stay, out of fear.

I am aware of a number of leaseholders who do not cruise but use the marina as a base, so they may not be at all worried about the threat to block egress, but I would have thought they would have some concerns about the continuation of their lease.

 

For what it's worth, in November 2012 Roy Rollings apparently told a moorer that the marina was not residential but a leisure marina and there were no tenants. Not sure when PLM started collecting council tax from the non existent "residents".

[tony collins]

from what I am lead to believe reduced payments were offered to CRT but returned.

I think you will find that it was reported earlier, the payments were return because of the conditions attached to them. e.g. "Full and final settlement" or something of that ilk.

[Midnight Rider]

I think you will find that it was reported earlier, the payments were return because of the conditions attached to them. e.g. "Full and final settlement" or something of that ilk.

Would it not be better to bank the cheque & send a note back saying 'Thanks for the part payment, see you in court for the rest'?

[TruckDrivingMan]

Pillingsmoorer, you're unbelievable.

Wake up!

[Peter X]

I think you will find that it was reported earlier, the payments were return because of the conditions attached to them. e.g. "Full and final settlement" or something of that ilk.

 

Would it not be better to bank the cheque & send a note back saying 'Thanks for the part payment, see you in court for the rest'?

I don't know whether an actual cheque was sent or just a letter or e-mail, but if there was a cheque accompanied by such a letter as tony collins describes, my view of contract law is that this was an offer to modify a contract, worded so that if the CRT banked the cheque they would be deemed to have accepted the offer and given up their right to the rest of the money. Nice try Paul Lillie, but the CRT's lawyers would see straight through that. For a discussion of the case law see:

http://www.dwf.co.uk/news/view-point/cheques-tendered-in-full-and-final-settlement

[SoosieQ]

Re the council tax issue,a quick search on Charnwood Borough Council site shows 7 boats registered for paying council tax. In a marina without residential planning permission? How does that work? And that must mean CBC bill them so who is PL taking council tax from? Are we certain that he is? Didnt John Lillie say that they applied for retrospective residential planning? I cant remember

[mayalld]

all very ideal world!! Reality is suppliers need paying

 

 

And at last, you get it.

 

Suppliers need paying!

 

CRT supplies PLM with access to its network of canals. PLM hasn't paid the bill, so CRT is doing what any other supplier would do and ceasing to supply.

[johnlillie]

Re the council tax issue,a quick search on Charnwood Borough Council site shows 7 boats registered for paying council tax. In a marina without residential planning permission? How does that work? And that must mean CBC bill them so who is PL taking council tax from? Are we certain that he is? Didnt John Lillie say that they applied for retrospective residential planning? I cant remember

did it say which marina? there are at least 4 in the area with res boats

[Tuscan]

And at last, you get it.

 

Suppliers need paying!

 

CRT supplies PLM with access to its network of canals. PLM hasn't paid the bill, so CRT is doing what any other supplier would do and ceasing to supply.

 

I understood that trading when knowingly insolvent is illegal as well as paying one supplier preferentially to another deliberately prior to a liquidation.

[SoosieQ]

did it say which marina? there are at least 4 in the area with res boats

PLM, it even gives the boat name. If you go on CBC website & input the marina post code,it lists 7 narrowboats paying council tax. However, the VOA lists moorings as a band E since 2012. Is this when the letter was sent by Roy?

Edited February 27, 2014 by SoosieQ

[tupperware]

I think CRT have more money than sense. 180 grand is nothing to them. Maybe if they cut down on advertising, marketing a bit. I don't need a CRT promotional stand in my local shopping centre. I am pretty sure that working at CRT is probably a bit of a gravy train,

not sure what you mean by apparent wealth??

 

Well, CRT may have more money than sense and perhaps £180 grand is nothing to them. My energy supplier might suffer from a surfeit of money and a deficit of sense and my energy bills represent a mere drop in the ocean to them but that does not mean than they will we wrong to pursue me should I renege on my commitment to pay them for the service they render.

 

Using your logic, if I were to fail to pay my license fee to CRT and continue to cruise the network unlicensed then you would of course defend my action as the £800 quid or thereabouts is "nothing to them". Or indeed, if you failed to pay you mooring fees to PLM then this would be OK because in the scale of things, that sum would be nothing to PLM.

 

It is clear that you do not like CRT and it might well be that some of use here also regard some of their actions as a little high-handed and some of their senior personnel as singularly ill-qualified for the roles to which they have been appointed. In the matter of QMP failing to pay their debts, however, I am in support of their action 100% and I would be very disappointed were they not to have endeavoured to recover the monies owed. Any advertising, merited or not, which CRT might have chosen to make is totally irrelevant.

 

If CRT fail to get the money they are owed then it is not improbable that I and everyone else who pays their dues is going to be asked to stump up a little more to cover the loss. Quite why I should be expected to feel happy about this when some of those who moor at the marina continue to defend a company which has elected not to pay its debt is quite beyond me.

I understood that trading when knowingly insolvent is illegal as well as paying one supplier preferentially to another deliberately prior to a liquidation.

 

Paying one creditor in preference to another is legitimate if no unfair favour is shown. If, however, favour has been shown to one creditor over another then this is indeed misconduct. Without access to the income/expenditure statement we on this forum can only speculate whether this has happened although various suspicions have been raised although without, admittedly any evidence. The IP will, of course, have access to the necessary figures and part of his/her duty is to examine whether such behaviour has taken place over a period which can extend quite some time before the date of liquidation. CRT do appear to be fairly on the ball as regards the IP and one can be sure that the question of "unfair preference" will be clearly in their view.

 

Were the IP to find that such preference has occurred then he/she can require that the beneficiaries of such payment return them to the company being liquidated.

Re the council tax issue,a quick search on Charnwood Borough Council site shows 7 boats registered for paying council tax. In a marina without residential planning permission? How does that work? And that must mean CBC bill them so who is PL taking council tax from? Are we certain that he is? Didnt John Lillie say that they applied for retrospective residential planning? I cant remember

 

I understand that council tax can only be charged by a landlord where a letting agreement between landlord and tenant explicitly states that the landlord is responsible for meeting the charge. Under such circumstances it would, of course, be natural for the landlord to recharge the tenant for the sum involved.

 

If the marina does not have planning permission for residential moorings, a claim asserted many times in this forum, then I fail to see how it can have a agreement with any moorer permitting it to claim for a charge which applies only to berths it does not seem to have permission to offer.

[SoosieQ]

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=dd65bcbc-d40a-485c-8e4d-080a31d50250

 

This is a link to an old edition of Towpath Talk,back in Jan 2013. PL states he is facing bankruptcy. If he was only offering me 4.35% of what he owed,I wouldn't accept it either. How can he have settled his other bills, including Mr Steadmans interest payments if things were that bad?

Plus advertising the fact of imminent bankruptcy is not likely to draw in huge crowds of interested moorers is it?

Edited February 27, 2014 by SoosieQ

[MtB]

 

I understand that council tax can only be charged by a landlord where a letting agreement between landlord and tenant explicitly states that the landlord is responsible for meeting the charge. Under such circumstances it would, of course, be natural for the landlord to recharge the tenant for the sum involved.

 

If the marina does not have planning permission for residential moorings, a claim asserted many times in this forum, then I fail to see how it can have a agreement with any moorer permitting it to claim for a charge which applies only to berths it does not seem to have permission to offer.

 

As I understand it. this is commonplace in the property rental market. Neither the council tax dept nor the planning debt at any local council takes much interest in the affairs of the other.

 

If you build yourself house without full compliance with your planning permission (if you applied for it at all!) the council tax dept will still require you to pay CT while you spend years on end squabbling with the planning dept over the PP. Living there is what renders you liable for CT, whether or not you have valid PP to live there.

 

MtB

[PaulG]

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=dd65bcbc-d40a-485c-8e4d-080a31d50250

 

This is a link to an old edition of Towpath Talk,back in Jan 2013. PL states he is facing bankruptcy. If he was only offering me 4.35% of what he owed,I wouldn't accept it either. How can he have settled his other bills, including Mr Steadmans interest payments if things were that bad?

He (PL) also states that he is paying them £500.00 per month, albeit that he is "struggling" to do so.

Economical with the truth, perhaps?

[tupperware]

until recently I knew nobody that had a lease. I have now met 4 different leaseholders. All were in the pub in the village on Friday and there general opinion was it is nothing to worry about.

until recently I knew nobody that had a lease. I have now met 4 different leaseholders. All were in the pub in the village on Friday and there general opinion was it is nothing to worry about.

 

Well, why would there be anything to worry about? They have leases issued by a company in the process of becoming defunct which has, under its management, failed to pay a legitimate business debt. Personalities connected to that company have made reassuring noises that any slight tremor in the QMP universe is little more than an "administrative misunderstanding" and this has apparently satisfied at least the four individuals you cite that everything in the garden is lovely.

 

What is wrong with this picture?

[MtB]

 

Were the IP to find that such preference has occurred then he/she can require that the beneficiaries of such payment return them to the company being liquidated.

 

The obvious questions this raises is what counts as paying in unfair preference and who might have been paid in unfair preference.

 

Wages and salaries are presumably fair preference along with interest payments on secured borrowing, so what else might have been paid in unfair preference? One would imagine director bonuses would fall into that category (if there were any). And any dividends declared would too, when the LtcCo is trading at a loss.

 

 

MtB

[PaulG]

 

The obvious questions this raises is what counts as paying in unfair preference and who might have been paid in unfair preference.

 

Wages and salaries are presumably fair preference along with interest payments on secured borrowing, so what else might have been paid in unfair preference? One would imagine director bonuses would fall into that category (if there were any). And any dividends declared would too, when the LtcCo is trading at a loss.

 

 

MtB

A company must not pay a dividend unless it has distributable reserves, which can come from current year profits, or those retained in previous years.

A dividend declared without sufficient distributable reserves may be considered illegal, so directors must demonstrate they acted responsibly in declaring the dividend

[SoosieQ]

He (PL) also states that he is paying them £500.00 per month, albeit that he is "struggling" to do so.

Economical with the truth, perhaps?

Precisely,that £500 is approx 4.35% of what he should be paying. Ive seen the marina,im fairly confident his moorings bring in enough to pay....after all,he increased his charges to customers once the NAA had to be paid in full,to cover it! Not counting the 12 months paying none and 12 months at 50%. Im sure the salaries didnt only get paid at 5% of what it should be

[tupperware]

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=dd65bcbc-d40a-485c-8e4d-080a31d50250

 

This is a link to an old edition of Towpath Talk,back in Jan 2013. PL states he is facing bankruptcy. If he was only offering me 4.35% of what he owed,I wouldn't accept it either. How can he have settled his other bills, including Mr Steadmans interest payments if things were that bad?

Plus advertising the fact of imminent bankruptcy is not likely to draw in huge crowds of interested moorers is it?

 

Thank for the link to the article. According to this, the marina was struggling to pay £500 per month again a quarterly commitment of come £9,500 (or some £3,200 per month or thereabouts). This equates to a percentage of around 15% not the 4.35% you mention unless you are referring to his offer to CRT in "full settlement". His mention of VAT is also quite interesting in that it reinforces the notion that the whole world is conspiring to overcharge him. The VAT would, of course, be offset against VAT on purchases which, judging by QMP's debt to PLM of some £1.6million, must make quite a tidy sum.

 

Your point about a novel approach to marketing the delights of the marina is also well made. Suggesting that your product is shortly going to sink without trace and conducting public spats with customers past and present is not, to my simple mind, going to bring the crowds flocking to your door.