Dispute at Pillings

[johnlillie]

I haven't been on here for ages, work commitments have taken over.

But, on the rare occasion I look in I come across this sorry tale.

My deepest sympathy lies with those who took out a long term lease and look set to loose big time.

But most of all it is with Johnlillie, it must be heartbreaking to have gone through what you have at the hands of your son, his partner and your former business associate. Nothing I or anyone else say or do can change the past for you, but if ever there was someone who needed to be able to wind the clock back to right the wrongs of the past. Surely this man must be close to the top of the list.

I am about to become a dad, and for the life of me I hope I never suffer at the hands of my child the way you have.

The fact that john Lillie is willing to share documents with anyone on here to prove the scandalous behaviour of his son says more about him than it does the people who seem to want to censor him.

I take my hat off to you sir, it must be very difficult to find you and your wife in this position.

 

your comments much appreciated.

[tupperware]

I haven't been on here for ages, work commitments have taken over.

But, on the rare occasion I look in I come across this sorry tale.

My deepest sympathy lies with those who took out a long term lease and look set to loose big time.

But most of all it is with Johnlillie, it must be heartbreaking to have gone through what you have at the hands of your son, his partner and your former business associate. Nothing I or anyone else say or do can change the past for you, but if ever there was someone who needed to be able to wind the clock back to right the wrongs of the past. Surely this man must be close to the top of the list.

I am about to become a dad, and for the life of me I hope I never suffer at the hands of my child the way you have.

The fact that john Lillie is willing to share documents with anyone on here to prove the scandalous behaviour of his son says more about him than it does the people who seem to want to censor him.

I take my hat off to you sir, it must be very difficult to find you and your wife in this position.

 

Well said sir. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think that many here find the notion of disrespecting your parents in such a way as worthy of nothing less than outright condemnation.

 

Congratulations on your own imminent addition.

Edited February 27, 2014 by tupperware

[gazza]

Small comfort I know John, but as long as you can both be strong for one another and ignore the stirring from other quarters.

I am not usual taken to showing of much emotion, leave alone on a forum, but by crickey a bit of moral support in your direction is not that big an ask.

[tupperware]

"Only Fools & Horses"

 

Mange tout !!

 

Or Tony Driscoll. Cheerio, or they say in France, Bonjour.

[gazza]

 

Well said sir. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think that many here find the notion of disrespecting your parents in such a way as worthy of nothing less than outright condemnation.

 

Congratulations on your own imminent addition.

Thanks, I am the tender age of 35 so it will be a wee shock to have a little un to think about :-)

[tupperware]

Thanks, I am the tender age of 35 so it will be a wee shock to have a little un to think about :-)

 

Having just experienced another birthday (celebration is not appropriate in one's dotage) the last thing I need right now is for some young whippersnapper like yourself to remind me of those dim distant days beyond recall.

 

The very best of luck to your and your partner.

[DeanS]

Thanks, I am the tender age of 35 so it will be a wee shock to have a little un to think about :-)

 

well done for delaying it as long as possible. ;-)

 

(father of 3.)

[gazza]

Tupperware,

Your last post raised a smile, I shall pass your best wishes on to Mrs H, the half that is prepared, cool headed and more than up to the job of picking up the slack her slightly immature hubby may leave!

 

All the best.

 

Gaz

[Alan de Enfield]

Tupperware,

Your last post raised a smile, I shall pass your best wishes on to Mrs H, the half that is prepared, cool headed and more than up to the job of picking up the slack her slightly immature hubby may leave!

 

All the best.

 

Gaz

 

Make sure she does her exercises and the 'slack' should tighten up nicely.

[gazza]

 

well done for delaying it as long as possible. ;-)

 

(father of 3.)

I thought I had got away with it, lots of our friends had kids 10 odd years ago, we put careers and getting financialy stable before starting a family.

Mrs H had other ideas though.... 16.5 years latter Nipper #1 is on its way OMG as is common parlance :-)

 

Make sure she does her exercises and the 'slack' should tighten up nicely.

A welcome diversion from some of the recent mud slinging. Any more comments like that and its the naughty step for you :-)

[tupperware]

 

Make sure she does her exercises and the 'slack' should tighten up nicely.

 

Unlike Mrs H, my slack is down to old age and a sedentary lifestyle which includes sitting at my computer and writing this tosh.

 

Nevertheless, it seems a little unfair that, like Loretta (aka Stan) in "Life of Brian", being unable to have babies ("which is no-ones fault not even the Romans") precludes me from an entitlement to the exercises to which you refer.

Edited February 27, 2014 by tupperware

[dor]

I had a difficult relationship with my father. It was probably more common them (I was born in 1951). I was determined that it wouldn't happen between me and my two sons and I am pleased to say we all have a really good relationship. However like marriage, it takes a bit of intelligent give and take on both sides. If one side decides to behave like a prick then you are on a hiding to nothing. It is always difficult to try and see both sides of the story, but everything I have picked up about PL, through this forum and the big wide world, suggests that John Lillee has been well and truly shafted by an ignorant son. There doesn't seem to be any other way to describe it.

 

And as for the Steadmans... I really hope that they do finish up having to repay all the people they have alledgedly shafted through their puppet PL.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Phantasm]

 

Well, old chap. if your case rests on what Phantasm posted then it are relying on some pretty insubstantial foundations.

 

Phantasm, as far as I can see, claimed to have witnessed some kind of altercation between the gentleman mentioned and others. Phantasm may, of course, be inventing the entire episode and, having not been a witness to the purported event, I can not be sure that he has not. Nonetheless, page 3 does suggest some basis for Phantasm's contention as to the volatility of the gentleman in question. You have previously mentioned the undesirability of washing dirty linen in public, and Phantasm's post seems to comply with your desire in this regard unlike the Facebook posting on page 3 to which I have already made reference.

 

It is unwise to play the victim card when others have free access to what I would describe as quite the most offensive and odious statement I have ever had the misfortune to read. No matter what the provocation, one does not, ever, address people in such terms.

I most certainly witnessed some of the most atrocious behaviour I have ever seen during my time at this marina (together with other moorers). And it wasn't just one altercation.

 

I could write a best seller (now there's a thought), but I don't think there is any mileage in making the information public on a forum. PL seems quite capable of hanging himself, so I'll just let him get on with it.

[tupperware]

I most certainly witnessed some of the most atrocious behaviour I have ever seen during my time at this marina (together with other moorers). And it wasn't just one altercation.

 

I could write a best seller (now there's a thought), but I don't think there is any mileage in making the information public on a forum. PL seems quite capable of hanging himself, so I'll just let him get on with it.

 

Quite so His Facebook rant seemed quite the most accomplished act of character assassination of oneself imaginable.

[Peter X]

It's only 48hours since I last posted to this topic but it feels longer. Warning: Epic dry financial/legal stuff coming up, drier than a desert, anyone seeking entertainment from the misfortune of others should look away now.

I've been looking back at the subject of PLM's lease from QMP and think it needs clarification.

We can be confident that PLM has a lease because otherwise: Mr Steadman, whatever else he may be, would not be so stupid as to allow QMP to go into liquidation. The liquidator would then just decide that the plan to obtain best value for unsecured creditors was:

Order Paul Lillie off the site

Agree a deal with CRT under which profit would be used first for mortgage payments, then for a new NAA, and payments to QMH and PLM would only happen after CRT was fully paid. In return CRT would allow access to the network.

This would be expected to enable the liquidator to attract enough new moorings to pay off CRT, which is why CRT would agree. He can give CRT this preferential treatment because without their NAA the plan wouldn't be possible, and with it the other unsecured creditors (QMH and PLM) eventually get something. The QMP 20 get to enjoy what they've paid for, so the contingent liability vanishes.

We can be confident too that the lease is very advantageous to PLM, because QMH controlled both parties to the lease and the point of setting up the tangled triumvirate was to protect PLM in the event that QMP becaume insolvent.

So PLM probably paid little or nothing to have the lease, it will be for a very long term, and yet there will be a very low rent (a "peppercorn" rent is the usual term). Hence QMP still owes PLM the £1.6m development cost after years of this lease, because the rent didn't reduce this. A very cheap lease might just mean that PLM could survive with very low mooring income, IF the cafe and letting the flat makes enough money to cover other costs such as staff and litigation. However:

 

tupperware, on 24 Feb 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

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.

 

I took this to mean that the liquidator of QMP could walk away from any commercial lease which QMP had issued to PLM (NB: I use PLM to mean Pillings Lock Marina Ltd, not the physical marina or the entire triumvirate), and went on to speculate that this would mean that the liquidator could chuck PLM off site then either sell the freehold to a new investor or run the marina himself, e.g. as detailed above.

tupperware hasn't provided details of the court ruling (please do), but I've been surfing and I think he's referring to this law:

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:disclaiming-onerous-contracts&catid=77:insolvency-corporate-recovery&Itemid=599 describes how s178 Insolvency Act 1986

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/178

gives a liquidator some powers to "disclaim onerous property" in order to be able to conclude the liquidation. I can see that it's reasonable that a liquidator of a tenant can terminate a lease, e.g. if I begin a 10 year lease for a shop then find after 3 months that I can't get customers and go bust, the liquidator cannot pay 10 years of rent and can end the lease without the landlord suffering too badly. But can the liquidator of a landlord really do the same, it seems unjust? If a business pays a fair price to buy a long lease at a peppercorn rent, they shouldn't lose that money if the landlord goes bust. I suspect that the lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed. He may sell the freehold but the lease persists with the new owner. He may disclaim the freehold, which in the case of QMP means Mr Steadman gets it, or if there were no mortgage the Crown would get it, but either way again the lease persists.

[scrunch]

In my humblest opinion the reasons this topic is receiving so much attention is, because ! genuine people are offering advice,2 like myself I am amazed on the business side of things and pay more attention to the posts around the legal side of things and 3 for our own interest in other peoples problems, on the last point if we did not have this interest Jeremy Kyle would be out of a job and Big brother would not be on our TVs (me personally hate them but hey).

Over all this mess the most awful thing is a Father and Son making public their problems, I work with young people who have lost parents in sometime horrendous circumstances and through no fault of their own. I do not know personally John or Paul Lillie and obviously we can all make up our own minds through comments and posts what they are like but unless we know them this is not fact, it does seem all they are doing by airing their fall out is making even more distant between them, I presume as they started a business together they must at some time got on and I do wonder as a Father myself how it manages to go so bad, we only have one life and one chance, Pauls choice of his private life is his own and should not come into this debate.

I have ran businesses and know the only way they can work is, you have to grit your teeth and be seen to be nice even if your fuming underneath, this appears to be something Paul Lillie needs to practice on.

I do not support the Pilling Lock business in any way and if all I have read is true totally condemn the way people have been treated and yes CaRT must get the money back.

[costalot]

I've been following this thread from the beginning and it has concerned me that for much of the time only one side of the case has been put forward. There are always two sides to the story and, in my experience, the true is somewhere in the middle.

Some of the information recently provided by CSR has been illuminating. Originally the financial problems at PLM were attributed the BW/CRT with an alleged over optimistic forecast of moorings and an unfair NAA leading to an over supply of moorings. This resulted in the marina wanting to renegotiate their NAA charges and pay what they thought was reasonable and could afford. Paul Lillie certainly put forward this as the issue in his post on the CWDF thread "CART connection charge".

Subsequently CSH advised in post #3494 "Part of the problem faced by PLM was releasing £350k out of the company for Mr Lillie Snr when he chose to resign. His son fought to release his investment rather than have shares and this was a serious financial hole to fill. This coupled with the ongoing onslaught of legal cases actioned against the business by aforementioned Mr Lillie Snr put further strain on the companies finances."

There have also been other previous comments about monies having to be paid from the business to former clients.

It therefore appears to me the root cause of PLM financial problems is probably not due to a problem with an unreasonable NAA charge and an over supply of moorings, but rather the result of a breakdown in relationships (family and client) within PLM. I suspect if all these unforeseen legal and other expenses were totaled they would far exceed the money owed to CRT.

I would be more prepared to accept PL and CSH position that the problem was caused by BW/CRT; except I believe a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. At the moment their chain has numerous unexplained weak links.

[johnlillie]

The money we got as "payoff" did NOT come from PLM funds, but directly from the steadmans (there was a delay of a few days whilst Mrs Steadman "juggled " her finances) so to attribute QMP's downfall in any way to us leaving is absolute nonsense.

and, once again, WE DID NOT RESIGN

Edited February 28, 2014 by johnlillie

[tupperware]

It's only 48hours since I last posted to this topic but it feels longer. Warning: Epic dry financial/legal stuff coming up, drier than a desert, anyone seeking entertainment from the misfortune of others should look away now.

I've been looking back at the subject of PLM's lease from QMP and think it needs clarification.

We can be confident that PLM has a lease because otherwise: Mr Steadman, whatever else he may be, would not be so stupid as to allow QMP to go into liquidation. The liquidator would then just decide that the plan to obtain best value for unsecured creditors was:

Order Paul Lillie off the site

Agree a deal with CRT under which profit would be used first for mortgage payments, then for a new NAA, and payments to QMH and PLM would only happen after CRT was fully paid. In return CRT would allow access to the network.

This would be expected to enable the liquidator to attract enough new moorings to pay off CRT, which is why CRT would agree. He can give CRT this preferential treatment because without their NAA the plan wouldn't be possible, and with it the other unsecured creditors (QMH and PLM) eventually get something. The QMP 20 get to enjoy what they've paid for, so the contingent liability vanishes.

We can be confident too that the lease is very advantageous to PLM, because QMH controlled both parties to the lease and the point of setting up the tangled triumvirate was to protect PLM in the event that QMP becaume insolvent.

So PLM probably paid little or nothing to have the lease, it will be for a very long term, and yet there will be a very low rent (a "peppercorn" rent is the usual term). Hence QMP still owes PLM the £1.6m development cost after years of this lease, because the rent didn't reduce this. A very cheap lease might just mean that PLM could survive with very low mooring income, IF the cafe and letting the flat makes enough money to cover other costs such as staff and litigation. However:

 

tupperware, on 24 Feb 2014 - 12:56 AM, said:

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.

 

I took this to mean that the liquidator of QMP could walk away from any commercial lease which QMP had issued to PLM (NB: I use PLM to mean Pillings Lock Marina Ltd, not the physical marina or the entire triumvirate), and went on to speculate that this would mean that the liquidator could chuck PLM off site then either sell the freehold to a new investor or run the marina himself, e.g. as detailed above.

tupperware hasn't provided details of the court ruling (please do), but I've been surfing and I think he's referring to this law:

http://www.crippslink.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:disclaiming-onerous-contracts&catid=77:insolvency-corporate-recovery&Itemid=599 describes how s178 Insolvency Act 1986

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/178

gives a liquidator some powers to "disclaim onerous property" in order to be able to conclude the liquidation. I can see that it's reasonable that a liquidator of a tenant can terminate a lease, e.g. if I begin a 10 year lease for a shop then find after 3 months that I can't get customers and go bust, the liquidator cannot pay 10 years of rent and can end the lease without the landlord suffering too badly. But can the liquidator of a landlord really do the same, it seems unjust? If a business pays a fair price to buy a long lease at a peppercorn rent, they shouldn't lose that money if the landlord goes bust. I suspect that the lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed. He may sell the freehold but the lease persists with the new owner. He may disclaim the freehold, which in the case of QMP means Mr Steadman gets it, or if there were no mortgage the Crown would get it, but either way again the lease persists.

 

 

PeterX

 

As you are no doubt aware, legislation is often somewhat ambiguous and it relies on case law as to how that legislation is to be interpreted. Such is the case in respect of the case I cited and I was actually referring not to the legislation but a ruling in the High Court which clarified the position. Quite why I did not post a link to the case mystifies me but it is at

 

http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/insol/foinsol5dec13.htm

 

I take your point that it may seem unfair but when a liquidation occurs there is frequently a list of those suffering financial loss without them being in any way culpable. Any lease will represent a contractual arrangement between the owner of a property and a tenant. If the landlord goes belly-up then, following the High Court case, the IP can declaim the lease and, should they so choose, require the tenant to vacate the property.

[boathunter]

The money we got as "payoff" did NOT come from PLM funds, but directly from the steadmans (there was a delay of a few days whilst Mrs Steadman "juggled " her finances) so to attribute QMP's downfall in any way to us leaving is absolute nonsense.

and, once again, WE DID NOT RESIGN

So the Steadmans purchased your shares? That being the case another example of PL/CSH muddying the waters then. The more i read the less inclined I am to believe a word they say. They have some back-peddling to do if they wish to gain anyone's trust I think, though most people are human enough to allow that. Carrying on repeating their lop-sided views of reality really won't do the job, the rug has been well and truly pulled from under their feet in that respect (on here at least) but it's not us they have to convince is it? Perhaps it's working just fine with the inhabitants of the marina and these are the people their income depends on after all.

Edited February 28, 2014 by boathunter

[Tuscan]

If John Lillie sold his shares to the majority shareholder then this would have had no effect on the cash flow or profits of the business.

[tupperware]

 

I've been following this thread from the beginning and it has concerned me that for much of the time only one side of the case has been put forward. There are always two sides to the story and, in my experience, the true is somewhere in the middle.

Some of the information recently provided by CSR has been illuminating. Originally the financial problems at PLM were attributed the BW/CRT with an alleged over optimistic forecast of moorings and an unfair NAA leading to an over supply of moorings. This resulted in the marina wanting to renegotiate their NAA charges and pay what they thought was reasonable and could afford. Paul Lillie certainly put forward this as the issue in his post on the CWDF thread "CART connection charge".

Subsequently CSH advised in post #3494 "Part of the problem faced by PLM was releasing £350k out of the company for Mr Lillie Snr when he chose to resign. His son fought to release his investment rather than have shares and this was a serious financial hole to fill. This coupled with the ongoing onslaught of legal cases actioned against the business by aforementioned Mr Lillie Snr put further strain on the companies finances."

There have also been other previous comments about monies having to be paid from the business to former clients.

It therefore appears to me the root cause of PLM financial problems is probably not due to a problem with an unreasonable NAA charge and an over supply of moorings, but rather the result of a breakdown in relationships (family and client) within PLM. I suspect if all these unforeseen legal and other expenses were totaled they would far exceed the money owed to CRT.

I would be more prepared to accept PL and CSH position that the problem was caused by BW/CRT; except I believe a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. At the moment their chain has numerous unexplained weak links.

 

 

 

I see that JohnLillie has just posted his own take on the return of his investment monies. "csh" has asserted that a £350,000."refund" to JohnLillie was instrumental in QMP's demise whilst JohnLillie has claimed that the monies were not taken from QMP funds but were paid by the Steadman's directly. We thus have two claims in direct conflict and it is somewhat difficult to see any middle ground which could leave both intact.

 

In post 3516 I suggested that, given the sum owing to CRT and the likely period over which that debt accrued which I calculated from the figure quoted by Mr P Lillie in the TowpathTalk article of January 2013, "csh"'s claim that CRT had been paid for at least part of the period somewhat difficult to credit. The figures and time period allow for no substantial payments to have been made. I did accept that my mathematics might be at fault and invited anyone to point out my errors but no-one has so far done so. "csh", having made his claims of such payments then replied to another here that he would post details of those payments, an offer which appears to have been withdrawn.

 

That there has been a family breakdown and that bitterness has ensued is undeniable and it is rarely the case that one party is wholly at fault and the other spotless. Nonetheless, one is able to draw something of a contrast between the attitudes of Mr Lillie Senior and Mt Lillie Junior by comparing postings here with the Facebook post quoted on page 3 of this forum. Against such a background, "csh"'s claim that this forum is full of "speculation, defamation and libellous nonsense" can be judged with some confidence.

 

I can understand why you might suspect family strife to have been root cause of QMP's demise and, whilst that may have contributed to the failure, in place of evidence that the £350,000 was material in precipitating the liquidation we have only innuendo.

[tupperware]

If John Lillie sold his shares to the majority shareholder then this would have had no effect on the cash flow or profits of the business.

 

Unless, of course, the company was buying its own shares which seems, not to put too fine a point on it, highly improbable. Furthermore, when setting up a company it is not unusual to price the shares at, say £1, and to then distribute these amongst the investors. The nominal value of those shares does not, of course, reflect the amount of the investments each of the participants contribute to the set-up.

 

What has been claimed here by "csh" is that JohnLillie's investment was around £350,000 and that by withdrawing this sum from the QMP coffers in order to "pay him off" the company was left unable to meet its obligations. JohnLillie has posted a rebuttal that this sum came from QMP and claims that, to the contrary, the repayment was made by Mrs Steadman. Of these competing claims both may be untrue and one most certainly is. Certainly, it is somewhat difficult to see just how QMP would have been in possession of the £350,000 in question unless some third party had provided the cash.

[carpet wallah]

PeterX

 

As you are no doubt aware, legislation is often somewhat ambiguous and it relies on case law as to how that legislation is to be interpreted. Such is the case in respect of the case I cited and I was actually referring not to the legislation but a ruling in the High Court which clarified the position. Quite why I did not post a link to the case mystifies me but it is at

 

http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/insol/foinsol5dec13.htm

 

I take your point that it may seem unfair but when a liquidation occurs there is frequently a list of those suffering financial loss without them being in any way culpable. Any lease will represent a contractual arrangement between the owner of a property and a tenant. If the landlord goes belly-up then, following the High Court case, the IP can declaim the lease and, should they so choose, require the tenant to vacate the property.

Can I ask: does a bizarre decision by an Australian High Court count as legal precedent in England?

[tupperware]

Can I ask: does a bizarre decision by an Australian High Court count as legal precedent in England?

Quite right - I did not make a note of the original ink and I can not now locate it. If I have indeed made an error of fact I apologise to everyone here for misleading them.

 

I will continue to endeavour to locate the original ink.