Dispute at Pillings

[DeanS]

My goodness. Almost March already. I'm sure come a few weeks time, this will all have been worked out. No need to get in a frazzle.

At this point, there seems to be no further indication from CRT regarding their intentions come April 13. I presume because they have said what they needed to say, and are just waiting for the clock to tick down. It's a little sad that no updates are being published by any of the main parties involved......possibly because it's gotten past the point of "updates"...I imagine when something gets to the liquidation phase....thats the end...Maybe when CRT play hardball, come April13, PL and the liquidator will offer a phase 2 option...new management.....a payment to CRT of the monies owed......which might then cause CRT to back off and let them continue.

 

Surely that's the only way forward....? That connectivity of the marina to the canal system does seem to be the only real card that CRT could play...to exert pressure,..and they have given ample warning to any boaters currently in the marina....so they cant then be accused of acting against boaters interests...

 

they cant just ignore it..

[SoosieQ]

A week or so ago, the PLM website advertised 72 vacancies. Some quick math shows then that 250 is about right.

So there shouldnt really be a problem in paying the NAA?

[Nightwatch]

So there shouldnt really be a problem in paying the NAA?

I agree there shouldn't be a problem!

[Dangerous Dave]

So there shouldnt really be a problem in paying the NAA?

 

 

What is read on the PLM site is to be taken with a pinch of salt..I remember ,if not that exact figure was quoted some 2 years ago when in fact the marina was just over half empty.

Although now out of spying viewing i could not confirm the occupancy,but i think you are right in that as always they could have paid the NAA but chose to not do so..

tupperware and carpet wallah, thanks for your efforts to help me resolve the question of whether the QMP liquidator could disclaim PLM's lease on the marina. I'd seen a different article somewhere referring to the Willmott case in Australia but found your link http://www.allens.co...insol5dec13.htm explained that better. Although precedents from the US and Commonwealth countries whose legal systems are based upon English common law can I think be used sometimes in English courts, in general they probably won't carry much weight, especially against a decision in England or Wales. Also, the Willmott ruling was based upon a very specifically Australian Act, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), so I can't see it being useful to QMP.

 

Unfortunately I have yet to find anything more relevant to a landlord being liquidated in England or to clarify our s178 Insolvency Act 1986, except to say that as there are definitely businesses here who pay up front for long leases, they must be confident that they won't lose out badly in the event of their landlord being liquidated.

 

I'm only an amateur lawyer, and it would be a goldmine for the professionals but good for the CRT if I could be disproved, but meanwhile I'll restate the main conclusions of my post #3565 as a basis to argue with or build upon:

We can be confident that PLM has a lease and that the lease is very advantageous to PLM.

The lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed.

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.

Here I'm talking about the scenario that CRT blockade the marina, and Mr Steadman has recovered the freehold and compensated the QMP 20 (I think he'd have to) and is content for a while to have little or no income from the land.

 

Does anyone know how well the cafe is doing recently? Is it the in place to visit for the high society of Leicestershire, or somewhat less busy? The reviews on Trip Advisor make it sound not too shabby.

 

tupperware and carpet wallah, thanks for your efforts to help me resolve the question of whether the QMP liquidator could disclaim PLM's lease on the marina. I'd seen a different article somewhere referring to the Willmott case in Australia but found your link http://www.allens.co...insol5dec13.htm explained that better. Although precedents from the US and Commonwealth countries whose legal systems are based upon English common law can I think be used sometimes in English courts, in general they probably won't carry much weight, especially against a decision in England or Wales. Also, the Willmott ruling was based upon a very specifically Australian Act, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), so I can't see it being useful to QMP.

 

Unfortunately I have yet to find anything more relevant to a landlord being liquidated in England or to clarify our s178 Insolvency Act 1986, except to say that as there are definitely businesses here who pay up front for long leases, they must be confident that they won't lose out badly in the event of their landlord being liquidated.

 

I'm only an amateur lawyer, and it would be a goldmine for the professionals but good for the CRT if I could be disproved, but meanwhile I'll restate the main conclusions of my post #3565 as a basis to argue with or build upon:

We can be confident that PLM has a lease and that the lease is very advantageous to PLM.

The lease is not the landlord's property and therefore cannot be disclaimed.

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.

Here I'm talking about the scenario that CRT blockade the marina, and Mr Steadman has recovered the freehold and compensated the QMP 20 (I think he'd have to) and is content for a while to have little or no income from the land.

 

Does anyone know how well the cafe is doing recently? Is it the in place to visit for the high society of Leicestershire, or somewhat less busy? The reviews on Trip Advisor make it sound not too shabby.

 

 

Is this "trip adviser " an independent body or something based on comments ..I do know the "comments" by visitors type of thing that was pointed out to me are mostly been left by "friends" of PL's fB page..,including our Mr Chris Herbert contributor of recent posts on here!

Not that i'm slagging it off it is on the whole a nice venue .

i don't think it would be so though finacially without berth holder(mooring fees) involvement as in subsidising its existence.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[johnlillie]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Dangerous Dave]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

 

 

I too await a libel threat..Oh dear another chunk out of my working tax credit!

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour
remove offensive word.

[Nightwatch]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

i did wonder about his age. Thank you.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[dor]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

Of course he could just be relating what he has been told and he actually believes it. Love is blind and all that.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Peter X]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. going on 16. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

 

The credibility of Chris Herbert (csh) is utterly destroyed by PaulG's post #3615 and tupperware's earlier post along the same lines, which prove based upon Paul Lillie's own figures that the total ever paid to BW/CRT is either zero or a figure very close to zero. This directly contradicts all the vague assurances from csh and Paul Lillie before him.

 

The NAA terms sound very fair to me, based as they are upon the number of berths and the fees charged, because this is much more practical to enforce than dynamically counting boats. A big practical problem with the "Community Charge" introduced by Mrs Thatcher in the late 1980's, leaving aside the associated politics which would be very off topic, was that it was far more time-consuming to count people than it had been to assess property as had been done under the preceding system of "Rates". Going forward, it could be argued that although there is no excuse for the triumvirate's non-payment of NAA fees they'd signed up to, an alternative would be to include the charges in the licensing fees for boats kept in a marina, but that would constitute moving the goalposts for the older marinas who have an exemption, and those marinas might well challenge the effective removal of their exemption in court. So whoever runs Pillings Lock when the dust has settled will just have to accept that NAA fees have to be paid as all the other non-exempt marinas do. Of course there still has to be a NAA anyway because it's about water use and all the other interaction between the marina and CRT, not just the fees.

 

If the CRT do indeed follow this topic, please I beg of you stick to your hard line and make an example out of Paul Lillie to deter others who may see you as a soft touch. As I've said before, it's BW who were the soft touch in the case of QMP; from when Richard Parry took over CRT in April 2013 it was only 8 months until the court judgement in December, which is reasonably quick for matters like this.

I imagine the CRT's lawyers treating my efforts as a bit of lunch-break entertainment, along the lines of "This Peter X has some idea, but when's he going to spot the precedent of Smith v Jones from 1867?"

[csh]

I have not insulted anyone on here. There have been no personal attacks or derogatory connotations. My age is irrelevant, but I would argue that my conduct has certainly shown more maturity that those that freely give personal insults. It is not my nature to resort to this infantile behaviour.

 

Concerning the payments made to CaRT, these will be posted in due course. Obviously, I am unable to do this without being in the office.

 

Paul is in the office daily to answer questions.

 

We all hope to move forward towards a solution that enables the berth holders to remain in a facility that they enjoy.

Edited February 28, 2014 by csh

[Grace and Favour]

The aims and ambitions of CWDF include the desire to openly discuss items and areas of interest to the boating community. Sometimes the subjects will be of much greater importance, and by nature, may be more sensitive.

On the current thread "Dispute at Pillings" a great many aspects of the subject are being discussed simultaneously, and whilst we maintain an ethos of free speech, our members must not publish or make public, statements that are libellous or slanderous.

 

Before publishing documents, one must consider their accuracy, from where they are sourced and whether they are suitable for release into the public domain.
We therefore ask all members, however involved in the issues, please make a conscious effort to avoid making such unacceptable statements and in doing so help us to keep this thread open for healthy debate.

[Woodstock]

I have not insulted anyone on here. There have been no personal attacks or derogatory connotations. My age is irrelevant, but I would argue that my conduct has certainly shown more maturity that those that freely give personal insults. It is not my nature to resort to this infantile behaviour.

 

Concerning the payments made to CaRT, these will be posted in due course. Obviously, I am unable to do this without being in the office.

 

Paul is in the office daily to answer questions.

 

We all hope to move forward towards a solution that enables the berth holders to remain in a facility that they enjoy.

so perhaps Paul can post them tomorrow if he is in the office daily

[JerryP]

We all hope to move forward towards a solution that enables the berth holders to remain in a facility that they enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

Then pay CRT what their owed

 

 

 

 

edited to cut out swearing

Edited February 28, 2014 by JerryP

[RLWP]

The aims and ambitions of CWDF include the desire to openly discuss items and areas of interest to the boating community. Sometimes the subjects will be of much greater importance, and by nature, may be more sensitive.

 

On the current thread "Dispute at Pillings" a great many aspects of the subject are being discussed simultaneously, and whilst we maintain an ethos of free speech, our members must not publish or make public, statements that are libellous or slanderous.

 

Before publishing documents, one must consider their accuracy, from where they are sourced and whether they are suitable for release into the public domain.

We therefore ask all members, however involved in the issues, please make a conscious effort to avoid making such unacceptable statements and in doing so help us to keep this thread open for healthy debate.

What isn't being said here is that Dan and the moderators are getting a lot of email traffic about this thread and it's content. These guys are all unpaid volunteers, and this thread is starting to cause them grief. So, can we keep things accurate and avoid personal attacks. The moderators all have real lives to lead outside of the forum

 

Richard

[DeanS]

Note to the MODS.

This thread is now reaching 180 000 views. If we had made it a "pay to view" thread, at £1 per view, we could have raised the £180 000 due and given it to PL to pay CRT.

[Nightwatch]

Good idea. But I wouldn't have viewed it.

 

Martyn

[scrunch]

did think Chris Herbert was a director sure I read it somewhere.

Edited February 28, 2014 by scrunch

[Phantasm]

Here we go again, the biased diatribe from the evicted moorers. The lovely community at PLM does not lament the loss of Robin (Dangerous Dave), David (Shyster_basher) or Phantasm (I forget his name). PLM were so keen to expel them from the community that they paid them back what remained of their leases. Good luck to wherever they now reside. They can continue to spread their own particular brand of vitriol there. The 250+ moorers that remain are not joining in with this muck slinging as they are busy enjoying their boating experience. It is the small embittered minority that shout the loudest. People with nothing to complain about do just that. 1% of unhappy customers - this gives the situation some perspective.

Chris, get your facts straight. I was never evicted from the marina, and PLM never paid me any money back!!!!

[Ark Right]

did think Chris Herbert was a director sure I read it somewhere.

Not according to the searches I've done at Companies House

[scrunch]

They said Pillings Lock Marina, near Quorn, had no customers at all on Monday due to resurfacing work along Barrow Road and the problem continued yesterday.

One of the marina's owners, Paul Lillie, said the restaurant was empty all day and no customers came to rent out day boats.

Before the roadworks began, Mr Lillie had threatened to park his van to prevent the construction vehicles starting work.

However, he changed his mind after Leicestershire County Council, which is carrying out the work, announced that access to the marina would be available at all times.

When the construction vehicles moved in on July 23, the marina remained accessible – but Mr Lillie said all that changed on Monday.

He said this week the only way to get into the marina had been to ask workmen to move traffic cones, which had deterred customers.

Chris Herbert, the marina's managing director, said: "Last week access was difficult but manageable.

Found it

[Grace and Favour]

Note to the MODS.

This thread is now reaching 180 000 views. If we had made it a "pay to view" thread, at £1 per view, we could have raised the £180 000 due and given it to PL to pay CRT.

It may not be too late!!

 

 

 

 

We only need another 180,000 views - - - but hang on - we don't charge fees to our members!!

Edited February 28, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Phantasm]

now that CSH (chris Herbert) has chosen to "out" certain people, he can have no qualms about me calling him an outright LIAR. He has made statements that he knows to be false, so that is lying, however you want to view it. In particular his claim that PLM paid us off, when he knows as well as anyone that it was Steadman's money. that's how their shareholding went from 50% to at least 75%. As to his age, he is late thirties. I await the libel threat, he knows how to find me.

 

 

 

I too await a libel threat..Oh dear another chunk out of my working tax credit!

He'll probably try and include me in the libel action. Well, bring it on. I have the full information on everything I have stated and police records will easily show the calls made and the attendance of officers on a number of occasions.

Of course he could just be relating what he has been told and he actually believes it. Love is blind and all that.

Didn't know it was downright stupid as well though.

[Jerra]

To refer back to the post where CHS stated there were 250+ moorers. I have just had a count up of berths on the diagram they have on the website.

 

I make it 285 berths so 250 occupied would be 87 - 88% bring in the + and they are probably nearer 90% full so they should have no problem with the NAA payments.

 

What am I getting wrong?

[SoosieQ]

To refer back to the post where CHS stated there were 250+ moorers. I have just had a count up of berths on the diagram they have on the website.

 

I make it 285 berths so 250 occupied would be 87 - 88% bring in the + and they are probably nearer 90% full so they should have no problem with the NAA payments.

 

What am I getting wrong?

Depends which pic is on the site,as theres an additional pontoon now to what was on the plan originally.....looking at the plan and the recent aerial shots. One extra 'full' pontoon = more money = more chance to pay NAA

[Nightwatch]

I have just written a long post. Deleted it as there's no point.

 

Time will tell if this is a well run marina or not.

 

What do Mr & Mrs Steadman think is going on? Surely they either know already or they would like to know. Where is the money that should have been.............you know the rest.