Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

Where are the enquiries coming from then ?

 

Obviously not PLM moorers because they are all happy and all staying in PLM as they have been assured nothing is going to happen, and, if it does they will blockade C&RT from blocking the entrance.

No what I actually said we're people are not getting dramatic like people on here. I also said I would expect come late march/early April the marina will start to see some movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

point I am trying to make is, his initial expectation might have been somewhere in the region of £350k a year return on his £2.6m investment

ventnor farm is a similar place with good management and is full, as far as I know.

 

I would hazard a guess at 90%, there are some spaces in Phase I where we moor.

Ventnor Farm doesn't have a Bistro or any other such luxuries. Also it is well off the public beaten track.

 

The marina is in two separate phases so it is actually bigger than would appear at first sight.

As far as I am concerned it is managed extremely well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that when we signed the agreements in march 2007, Barclays base rate was 6%, and the mortgage was for that plus 2%. The comments about ventnor farm not having a bistro AND being well run are the points I was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think PLM is badly located.

 

I know the Soar is lovely but it is a river prone to flooding which I would find off putting personally. With talk of weather patterns changing and increased flooding in future, even if it doesn't happen I think it will effect people's activities. I would rather keep a boat somewhere it wouldn't be 'locked in' by random flood events.

 

I am familiar with the area yes I know it is canal and river but you can't go past Bishop Meadow or Pillings Lock if the river is up too much.

 

and its near Leicester :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No what I actually said we're people are not getting dramatic like people on here. I also said I would expect come late march/early April the marina will start to see some movement.

 

 

What's the rush ? ,you've got until May 31st to get out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the latest email from CRT , received this afternoon 3/3/2014

 

 

 

 

Dear Boat Licence Customer

 

 

 

I am writing with a further update on the Trusts position.

 

 

 

As I mentioned in my previous update of 10th February, our solicitors wrote to the liquidator of QMP setting out the basis upon which the Trust would be willing to grant a standard Network Access Agreement (NAA) to allow connection to the canal to any new owner of the freehold of the marina.

 

 

 

A reply from the liquidator dated 24th February has been received and it confirms that he has embarked on his detailed investigation into the affairs of the company and its directors, or any shadow director(s). The Trust has also received from the liquidator the standard letter sent to creditors enclosing a copy of a report on the proceedings at the meeting of creditors and inviting us to submit a Proof of Debt form. He also confirms that in accordance with Insolvency legislation he will be issuing his next report to creditors on or before the 2nd April.

 

 

 

The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA.

 

 

 

If a new owner is willing to proceed on the basis we have indicated to the liquidator in our recent letter, then a new NAA can be completed and any boats moored at the marina would continue to have access to the Trusts waterways, provided they are licenced to do so. If however any new owner is unwilling to meet our requirements for completing a standard NAA then no agreement will be granted.

 

 

 

In the event that there is no prospect of an NAA being complete by 14th April, the Trust will proceed to close off the connection between the marina basin and the waterway on or shortly after that date.

 

 

 

This will take the form of secure and effective temporary works to prevent navigation between the marina and the waterway, but leaving in place the physical connection thus continuing to supply water to the marina basin. In an effort to mitigate the adverse impacts on you and your fellow boat licence holders moored at the Marina, I am now able to confirm that these works will also allow those boats that remain in the marina after 14th April a further period up to the 31st May in which to leave the marina.

 

 

 

I must make it very clear that we will only allow passage out of the marina basin but this will not be available on demand. There will be a small number of designated periods when controlled passage will be provided. I would be happy to receive your views on what these arrangements might be. The final decision will however be the Trusts.

 

 

 

Under no circumstances will boats be allowed to enter or re-enter the marina basin following the installation of these works unless and until a new NAA is in place.

 

 

 

While this approach is primarily aimed at assisting you and your fellow moorers it will also give a further period of time for any new owner of the marina to complete a standard NAA.

 

 

 

What happens after this will very much depend on the actions of the new owners of the marina. To permanently sever the connection will involve civil engineering works that will not only be costly for the Trust but will also be expensive for any future owners to remove in the event that they would eventually be willing to complete a standard NAA. The Trust will only implement these works if it is satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of a standard NAA being completed within the foreseeable future. These works will also stop the supply of water from the waterway to the marina basin.

 

 

 

Finally you may see some activity in the vicinity of the marina entrance soon as site investigations are to be carried out. This is preliminary work only and does not alter the time scales we have stated for the installation of any blocking structures.

 

 

 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have if you would like to contact me.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Phil Spencer

Head of Business Boating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I removed my boat from Pillings last weekend & en route met four others doing likewise.

Far from obstructing CRT I'll help them.

Hope to see you at the May open weekend at Pillings nature reserve!

 

Don't think we'll be very welcome somehow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest statement from Mr Spencer of CRT seems pretty robust. Not only does it reiterate their position in respect of severing the connection in mid-April but it also contains a number of interesting remarks:

 

"A reply from the liquidator dated 24th February has been received and it confirms that he has embarked on his detailed investigation into the affairs of the company and its directors, or any shadow director(s)." This is a firm indication that the IP will not, as has been suggested some pages back, carry out his/her duties in a perfunctory manner.

 

"The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA."

 

This does rather suggest that "csh"'s claim, some days ago, that "The issue is the NAA and this is being discussed with CaRT." may not have been entirely factual.

 

"Under no circumstances will boats be allowed to enter or re-enter the marina basin following the installation of these works unless and until a new NAA is in place."

 

April 14th is not far away and, whilst it would not be impossible for the IP to complete his/her work, for freehold of the site to be transferred to a new company, for CRT to complete whatever credit checks they need to do on this new owner and for an NAA to be negotiated and signed, the timescale does seem almost impossibly short.

 

This places the moorers and leaseholders in something of a quandary if they intend to access the national network in the near future. Perhaps those who have been complacent enough to buy into the fiction that it is all an "administrative understanding" might now start to face the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on Dean keep up ,this is the new company set up after QMP was liquidated ,this one is the one Roy Rollings is director of

 

oh yes....I remember now..lol.

So the puppet GrandmasterSteadman will be controlling the puppetMasterPL, who will be controlling the puppetRR. Got it.

So RR will have to sign for the new NAA....and it will be him who CRT takes to court down the line.

 

i reckon there's a plan to sell. Get the NAA, under the name of RR and then sell up a working marina and head for the hills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JerryP, on 03 Mar 2014 - 10:56 PM, said:snapback.png

new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina.

 

 

Who is this?

 

I must confess I may have created some confusion in my post #3315 by saying:

 

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 didn't bother to check the number 560, but I meant whichever company the CRT statement had referred to. Must've been 750.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

oh yes....I remember now..lol.

So the puppet GrandmasterSteadman will be controlling the puppetMasterPL, who will be controlling the puppetRR. Got it.

So RR will have to sign for the new NAA....and it will be him who CRT takes to court down the line.

 

i reckon there's a plan to sell. Get the NAA, under the name of RR and then sell up a working marina and head for the hills.

 

In view of the past events it is not unlikely that CRT will examine any new company in quite some detail including both the provenance of the management team (which appears to comprise, at present, a law student) and whether the new company will enjoy the degree of credit worthiness essential for a new CRT customer. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that CRT, if so permitted, would seek some kind of escrow arrangement under which a new company would be required to deposit an agreed sum as protection for CRT in the event of some future default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA.

 

Can someone explain the difference between owner and freehold owner? I thought the now defunct company that owes cart was the freehold owner albiet mortgaged, so what's the difference now? Sounds like here we go again to me. What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA.

 

Can someone explain the difference between owner and freehold owner? I thought the now defunct company that owes cart was the freehold owner albiet mortgaged, so what's the difference now? Sounds like here we go again to me. What am I missing?

 

I think that, in practice, there is no difference. CRT's statement seems merely to be using the recognised term to describe their insistence that the other party in some new NAA agreement has title to the land. Whether this is to preclude PLM, as a leaseholder of the defunct QMP, from attempting to contract such an arrangement is difficult to say.

I removed my boat from Pillings last weekend & en route met four others doing likewise.

Far from obstructing CRT I'll help them.

Hope to see you at the May open weekend at Pillings nature reserve!

 

TDM. Did your fellow "fugitives" express any reasons as to why they had decided to leave?

There is even evidence that the monies of the companies were muddled with personal monies.

 

Mike. I understand where you are coming from but I have not seen any evidence so far that QMP was being used as a personal piggy bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA.

 

If a new owner is willing to proceed on the basis we have indicated to the liquidator in our recent letter, then a new NAA can be completed and any boats moored at the marina would continue to have access to the Trusts waterways, provided they are licenced to do so. If however any new owner is unwilling to meet our requirements for completing a standard NAA then no agreement will be granted.

 

In the event that there is no prospect of an NAA being complete by 14th April, the Trust will proceed to close off the connection between the marina basin and the waterway on or shortly after that date.

 

 

Interesting move there from CRT.

 

Rather boxes in Mr Steadman as no genuine outside investor with more than two brain cells to rub together would buy a marina without a NAA (except for a knock-down price), so consequently he either has to negotiate a new NAA personally with CRT as the new owner, or he has to he sell the site on to No 750 Leicester Ltd (and CRT seem aware now that he is a shadow director) first, and THEN attempt to negotiate the new NAA..

 

This will hurt because 'someone' (i.e. Mr Steadman) will have to put No 750 Leicester Ltd in funds to pay the Stamp Duty Land Tax on the transaction should they buy it - 4% on transactions over £½m IIRC so let's say sale price is, shall we guess £2m. SDLT is £80k. Roughly half the debt owed to CRT.

 

I think there is scope for a deal is there to be done in there somewhere... Hopefully CRT realise this (and that I haven't overlooked something important, this late!)

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting move there from CRT.

 

Rather boxes in Mr Steadman as no genuine outside investor with more than two brain cells to rub together would buy a marina without a NAA (except for a knock-down price), so consequently he either has to negotiate a new NAA personally with CRT as the new owner, or he has to he sell the site on to No 750 Leicester Ltd (and CRT seem aware now that he is a shadow director) first, and THEN attempt to negotiate the new NAA..

 

This will hurt because 'someone' (i.e. Mr Steadman) will have to put No 750 Leicester Ltd in funds to pay the Stamp Duty Land Tax on the transaction should they buy it - 4% on transactions over £½m IIRC so let's say sale price is, shall we guess £2m. SDLT is £80k. Roughly half the debt owed to CRT.

 

I think there is scope for a deal is there to be done in there somewhere... Hopefully CRT realise this (and that I haven't overlooked something important, this late!)

 

MtB

 

Quite so MtB. Whether Mr Steadman will continue to regard Mr Lillie Junior as part of the solution or part of the problem might well have a major bearing on whether an NAA is possible. I have mentioned previously that, if CRT were empowered to require a payment into escrow by a new owner, then this might be a precondition for granting an NAA which would add a further start-up cost to 750 Leicester. Mr Spencer's statement does seem to lack enthusiasm for the new company and its remarkably young director.

 

One other point (added by edit) is that the CRT statement in respect of shadow directors seems clearly to refer to the IP's investigation into the affairs of QMP, not 750 Leicester.

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Trust has also acknowledged the letter that we received from new company No. 750 Leicester Ltd who indicated that they expected to become the owner of the marina. We have stated that we cannot consider their request unless and until they become the new freehold owner. We are not therefore currently in discussion with them about completing a standard NAA.

 

Can someone explain the difference between owner and freehold owner? I thought the now defunct company that owes cart was the freehold owner albiet mortgaged, so what's the difference now? Sounds like here we go again to me. What am I missing?

 

It sounds to me as if they're saying that any new NAA would have to be made with the parent company, not another subsidiary which can go into liquidation without really having any impact on the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.