Dispute at Pillings

[Tony Brooks]

 

"99%"...."have a genuine concern"? Really? How do you know that?

What of the remaining 1%? What do they think?

"Genuine concern"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a lot of the opinions expressed on here appear to have been those of the lynch mob, baying for blood.

 

Two questions:

 

1. What are your qualifications or experience in this type of matter that makes your impressions any more valid that those form others.

 

2. This affair has illustrated how hard the law in the UK makes it for ordinary citizens to avoid being ripped off and how easy it is for the ethically lacking to rip off them and those they contract with. The whole thing stinks but the largest stink is the way people can legally avoid their moral and ethical responsibilities. This goes right across UK law and is not restricted to this marina.

 

I do not see that CaRT had any option that to do as they have done, except to possibly taken firm action sooner rather than later. I am also disturbed about the reported action by the police in this case. It seems to me that some people have special privileges. It seems to have been proven they do in the Met so maybe it is the same here.

But, but! Why can't people understand this?

Who, exactly, takes "the financial risk"? C&RT? What "risk" do they take? As I keep saying, it's only public money. No-one there cares.

 

It seems that myself and many other boaters care because they are the largest individual funders of CaRT and do not see why a bunch of wide boys should in effect rip them off and set precedent. WE know CaRT read the forum so just maybe this thread has concentrated their minds a little.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Tony Brooks

[Alan de Enfield]

...... Why should CRT take the financial risk of non payment [again]?

 

I seem to be on the 'other side' today;

 

It has been argued that C&RT have no 'costs' in maintaining the access, or in providing the water (there may be some minimal cost but the 'supply' is River-fed from the Soar.)

 

What have C&RT actually got to loose - if they receive any payment from QMP(Mk2) it will be a money they would not have had.

 

The real big downside is that QMP / PLM sets a precedent and that is where C&RT need to be very careful, if all 50 Marinas with an NAA decide to follow suit that would leave a big financial hole to fill.

 

C&RT - dammed if they do & dammed if they dont, but they do need to take a proper long term business view of the situation and that could hurt individual people.

[matty40s]

 

I seem to be on the 'other side' today;

 

It has been argued that C&RT have no 'costs' in maintaining the access, or in providing the water (there may be some minimal cost but the 'supply' is River-fed from the Soar.)

 

What have C&RT actually got to loose - if they receive any payment from QMP(Mk2) it will be a money they would not have had.

 

The real big downside is that QMP / PLM sets a precedent and that is where C&RT need to be very careful, if all 50 Marinas with an NAA decide to follow suit that would leave a big financial hole to fill.

 

C&RT - dammed if they do & dammed if they dont, but they do need to take a proper long term business view of the situation and that could hurt individual people.

CRT have just spent a lot of money refurbishing Loughborough Town lock, they also have spent a lot of time looking after and controlling Pillings Flood Lock - these are the two locks either side of Pillings Lock Marina. They are also investigating a collapsed culvert and potential breach directly across from PLM.

I would say that it has cost them more than £180k in the last few years in the immediate area - perhaps they shouldn't have bothered.

[Alan de Enfield]

CRT have just spent a lot of money refurbishing Loughborough Town lock, they also have spent a lot of time looking after and controlling Pillings Flood Lock - these are the two locks either side of Pillings Lock Marina. They are also investigating a collapsed culvert and potential breach directly across from PLM.

I would say that it has cost them more than £180k in the last few years in the immediate area - perhaps they shouldn't have bothered.

 

Would they not have done this work if PLM was not there ?

[costalot]

 

I seem to be on the 'other side' today;

 

It has been argued that C&RT have no 'costs' in maintaining the access, or in providing the water (there may be some minimal cost but the 'supply' is River-fed from the Soar.)

 

What have C&RT actually got to loose - if they receive any payment from QMP(Mk2) it will be a money they would not have had.

 

The real big downside is that QMP / PLM sets a precedent and that is where C&RT need to be very careful, if all 50 Marinas with an NAA decide to follow suit that would leave a big financial hole to fill.

 

C&RT - dammed if they do & dammed if they dont, but they do need to take a proper long term business view of the situation and that could hurt individual people.

I suspect CRT are very aware of the potential adverse impact upon their image. If they simply allow the same conditions to reoccur then they are likely to have a considerable number of customers (boaters) very annoyed.

 

If they take action to ensure a similar adverse situation can't be repeated then in the short term a small number of boaters at PLM are going to be very annoyed. I think this is partially why CRT has been corresponding with the moorers in PLM. The one thing the moorers won't be able to say is they were unaware that the marina is to be blockaded after 13 April and cut off completely at the end of May should no new NAA be in place.

 

From an image perspective CRT currently have the "high moral ground". They can take as long as they "reasonably" can to negotiate a satisfactory NAA. Not having a NAA is costing them £3333 per month. The cost to QMH/QMP(Mk2)/PLM in not having a NAA is likely to be considerably higher. Why hurry? Racing in and agreeing to a NAA on the same terms as before has already cost them £180,000.

 

CRT would have to be rather stupid to repeat the original error. The trustees and executive managers are not stupid!

[StarUKKiwi]

 

"99%"...."have a genuine concern"? Really? How do you know that?

What of the remaining 1%? What do they think?

"Genuine concern"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a lot of the opinions expressed on here appear to have been those of the lynch mob, baying for blood.

I don't think we are baying for blood here; personally speaking, I have followed this saga because like others who live Onboard I was concerned about the boaters affected and indirectly all of us.

It has highlighted that we, as boaters, have little or no rights when paying mooring fees to a marina and if said marina goes bust, you lose that money. Maybe, that's what you need to factor in when paying for a car park space with a mooring attached - it has certainly opened my eyes to what can happen and for me has been educational.

There is also the morality of the dealings of the triumvirate of companies - although entirely legal, one has to wonder if yhis,was the desired outcome all along and that must be a concern for CaRT; the agreement was signed with the previous body, BW who perhaps had a more lassez-faire attitude to these matters because it was 'our' money from the public purse. Cart, however, have to be self sufficient and raise monies from wherever. So, IMHO, this has been a good exercise in identifying where things can go badly wrong and how to put steps in place to prevent it happening again

[johnthebridge]

 

Two questions:

 

1. What are your qualifications or experience in this type of matter that makes your impressions any more valid that those form others.

 

2. This affair has illustrated how hard the law in the UK makes it for ordinary citizens to avoid being ripped off and how easy it is for the ethically lacking to rip off them and those they contract with. The whole thing stinks but the largest stink is the way people can legally avoid their moral and ethical responsibilities. This goes right across UK law and is not restricted to this marina.

 

I do not see that CaRT had any option that to do as they have done, except to possibly taken firm action sooner rather than later. I am also disturbed about the reported action by the police in this case. It seems to me that some people have special privileges. It seems to have been proven they do in the Met so maybe it is the same here.

 

It seems that myself and many other boaters care because they are the largest individual funders of CaRT and do not see why a bunch of wide boys should in effect rip them off and set precedent. WE know CaRT read the forum so just maybe this thread has concentrated their minds a little.

 

Q1. None. Where did I say or imply that my "impressions (were) any more valid? I merely stated my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do you think it appears to be the case that, when any person does voice an opinion on here that runs contrary to that of the common herd, that person is invariably roundly castigated?

 

Q2. You have not posed a second question, so I cannot respond, but only agree with what you say. I repeat, my current view of this sorry affair should not be seen as any form of approval or agreement from me as to what is taking place, but rather is founded on my own view of BW/C&RT and the way in which it has been and, in my opinion continues to be, run. I'm sorry if that view does not accord with yours, but it remains my opinion. Would that my statement "concentrated their minds a little"!

[Phantasm]

 

"99%"...."have a genuine concern"? Really? How do you know that?

What of the remaining 1%? What do they think?

"Genuine concern"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a lot of the opinions expressed on here appear to have been those of the lynch mob, baying for blood.

 

Obviously, I have a less jaded view of the sincerity and passion of the forum users on here for the plight of their fellow boaters than you.

 

It is my observation that the greatest majority of posts are supportive, helpful and insightful. You are right in one respect, most people on here are not experts (but they have never purported to be), but they have gone out of their way to try and find information that may be useful, and that moorers who are affected can use to ask the right questions of the right organisations if they so wish.

 

Please do not presume to patronise me unless you can prove categorically that my opinions are without any foundation. How do you know that they do NOT have a genuine concern? You believe they are baying for blood, I do not, and my beliefs and those of other forum members must be of equal merit to yours.

 

As attributed (wrongly) to Voltaire "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[johnthebridge]

I don't think we are baying for blood here; personally speaking, I have followed this saga because like others who live Onboard I was concerned about the boaters affected and indirectly all of us.

It has highlighted that we, as boaters, have little or no rights when paying mooring fees to a marina and if said marina goes bust, you lose that money. Maybe, that's what you need to factor in when paying for a car park space with a mooring attached - it has certainly opened my eyes to what can happen and for me has been educational.

There is also the morality of the dealings of the triumvirate of companies - although entirely legal, one has to wonder if yhis,was the desired outcome all along and that must be a concern for CaRT; the agreement was signed with the previous body, BW who perhaps had a more lassez-faire attitude to these matters because it was 'our' money from the public purse. Cart, however, have to be self sufficient and raise monies from wherever. So, IMHO, this has been a good exercise in identifying where things can go badly wrong and how to put steps in place to prevent it happening again

I was careful to say that "a lot" were, and I'm certain that you and others did not fall into that category.

[Phantasm]

 

Q1. None. Where did I say or imply that my "impressions (were) any more valid? I merely stated my opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do you think it appears to be the case that, when any person does voice an opinion on here that runs contrary to that of the common herd, that person is invariably roundly castigated?

 

 

Maybe it is your original phraseology that has elicited such responses.

[johnthebridge]

 

Obviously, I have a less jaded view of the sincerity and passion of the forum users on here for the plight of their fellow boaters than you.

 

It is my observation that the greatest majority of posts are supportive, helpful and insightful. You are right in one respect, most people on here are not experts (but they have never purported to be), but they have gone out of their way to try and find information that may be useful, and that moorers who are affected can use to ask the right questions of the right organisations if they so wish.

 

Please do not presume to patronise me unless you can prove categorically that my opinions are without any foundation. How do you know that they do NOT have a genuine concern? You believe they are baying for blood, I do not, and my beliefs and those of other forum members must be of equal merit to yours.

 

As attributed (wrongly) to Voltaire "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

I'm obliged.

As I've said elsewhere, I actually said "a lot". Not all, just "a lot".

As for presuming to patronise you, I'm uncertain as to your meaning. You, and others, keep up this pretence of me apparently thinking my views have more merit than others. Where is this evident? I merely asked you how you knew what the attitude of the "99%" was!

I'm sure some have voiced their concerns here in a heart-felt manner, but others have pontificated, displaying varying levels of knowledge that, in my opinion, have done absolutely nothing to further the cause of enlightenment amongst those who are most directly concerned-the customers of this marina. Again, I have to reiterate-only my opinion. No better or no worse than others!

[Phantasm]

I'm obliged.

As I've said elsewhere, I actually said "a lot". Not all, just "a lot".

As for presuming to patronise you, I'm uncertain as to your meaning. You, and others, keep up this pretence of me apparently thinking my views have more merit than others. Where is this evident? I merely asked you how you knew what the attitude of the "99%" was!

I'm sure some have voiced their concerns here in a heart-felt manner, but others have pontificated, displaying varying levels of knowledge that, in my opinion, have done absolutely nothing to further the cause of enlightenment amongst those who are most directly concerned-the customers of this marina. Again, I have to reiterate-only my opinion. No better or no worse than others!

Well, I think 99% can be classed as "a lot", different wording, same underlying meaning in the end maybe.

 

I absolutely uphold your fundamental right to an opinion and I do not usually "pick" at postings.

 

anyway, off to PLM for a visit to friends

Edited March 9, 2014 by Phantasm

[MtB]

 

What have C&RT actually got to loose - if they receive any payment from QMP(Mk2) it will be a money they would not have had.

 

 

Keep up Alan, that's an easy one to answer!

 

The £45k per year.they have gave up by removing 30 online moorings worth £1,500 a year each, under their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

[costalot]

 

 

Keep up Alan, that's an easy one to answer!

 

The £45k per year.they have gave up by removing 30 online moorings worth £1,500 a year each, under their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

Yes.... you might be able to make a case that this has cost CRT £360,000. (£180,000 in lost mooring revenue and £180,000 from QMP)

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Keep up Alan, that's an easy one to answer!

 

The £45k per year.they have gave up by removing 30 online moorings worth £1,500 a year each, under their side of the NAA.

 

MtB

They have already lost those moorings for the last 5 years - they either give QMP2 an NAA and risk non-payment (unlikely as I bet C&RT would be like a rat up a drainpipe if the payments were a day overdue) or they can reinstate the 30 moorings they originally removed.

 

Either way they gain more than they have at the moment.

[John Holden]

Yes.... you might be able to make a case that this has cost CRT £360,000. (£180,000 in lost mooring revenue and £180,000 from QMP)

 

No they haven't lost mooring revenue and payment from QMP, they've lost mooring revenue or payment from QMP. There is no way they would ever have had both.

[costalot]

 

No they haven't lost mooring revenue and payment from QMP, they've lost mooring revenue or payment from QMP. There is no way they would ever have had both.

I stand corrected!

[KJT]

Well a new NAA cannot be "unreasonably" withheld and CRT will have to be pragmatic. However CRT cannot afford to allow the debit to just be "forgiven" by the directors of QMP/QMH/PLM placing QMP into voluntary liquidation, only to be replaced by a phoenix company with the same directors. Allowing this to happen would open the floodgates for other CRT creditors to do the same.

 

My guess is CRT won't be "unreasonable". Neither will they feel constrained by a time frame. They will want to ensure any agreement doesn't allow a repeat occurrence at Pillings Lock Marina. Moreover they will want to ensure the action they take precludes any other marina owner from adopting the same strategy. I would suspect the new owners will either have to find all (or the majority) of £185,000. Or prepare themselves for some lengthy negotiations to reach a "reasonable" solution. The directors of the phoenix company might complain the delay in reaching a NAA is unreasonable, but somehow I can't see the court agreeing with them.

 

 

Just out of interest. Who is it that will decide what is 'unreasonable'? Is it a defined criteria set out in a NAA contract or is it something subjective, open to legal interpretation?

 

If CRT decided it was reasonable in the circumstances to reinstate the 30 online moorings, rather than grant a new NAA and risk further default, who would have the authority to deem that was 'unreasonable'?

Edited March 9, 2014 by NB Ellisiana

[raymondh]

Can we clarify

CRT will not "unreasonably withold" what? a NEW or transfered NAA

Pillings will be a "new" NAA ?

Ray

[Tim]

Maybe CRT should grant the new NAA requiring payment in advance and reinstate the online moorings until the £180,000 or so has been recovered? Seems simple to me, but then I'm a simple person.

[Alan de Enfield]

Tim, on 09 Mar 2014 - 4:56 PM, said:

Maybe CRT should grant the new NAA requiring payment in advance and reinstate the online moorings until the £180,000 or so has been recovered? Seems simple to me, but then I'm a simple person.

 

The £180,000 debt cannot be RECOVERED, it is dead, gone, deceased, an ex-debt, its a stiff, Bereft of life, it rests in peace! Its metabolic processes are now history! its kicked the bucket, its shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!

 

THIS IS AN EX-CONTRACT with an EX-COMPANY

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Edited March 9, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Pen n Ink]

Might still be transmogrified though….

[b0atman]

Just remember that this money owing which was paid by moorers has been subsidised by licence payers money .

It would only be right and proper that whosoever wants the blockage removing must first clear the debt and sign a new NAA agreement with payments yearly in advance .

The same payments in advance to be applied to all new agreements .

[Alan de Enfield]

.It would only be right and proper that whosoever wants the blockage removing must first clear the debt ...........

Whilst we would all wish that to be the case unfortunately it would be "neither right nor proper".

 

If you bought a car, and were told that in addition to the purchase price of the car you were resonsible for (say) £10,000 of unpaid finance on the car I'm sure you would say "its only right and proper I pay the previous guys debts" ..........

 

Need I go on ?

[leisureboatlady]

As of today I know of four boats making arrangements to leave PLM for new moorings