Dispute at Pillings

[Peter X]

I thought we agreed a while back that only a freehold is registered with the Land Registry, not any leases or sub-leases?

So if a transfer of the freehold has to be registered, then when QMP bought it in 2007 and failed to register it, who would be at fault?

Probably whoever Mr Steadman hired to do the conveyancing?

[NigelMoore]

Well I managed to get a copy of the Register via another route, so I still don't understand the message re: no records! Title Plan has to be applied for by post [which I've done, but they take ages].

 

All incumbrances have to be entered into the title record, and this has in fact been done. There are 20 car parking space leases entered under "Schedule of notices of leases". All for 30 year terms starting from various dates from 1 September 2007 to 21 July 2008.

 

An interesting assortment of incumbrances/rights listed under the Charges Register also, one of which I've sent off for.

 

The standard items which have been referred to already are:

 

5 (16.04.2007) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 16 March 2007.

6 (16.04.2007) Proprietor: MATTHEW STEADMAN of 34 Morden Road,

Blackheath, London SE3 0AA.

7 (20.12.2007) The parts of the land affected thereby are subject to the

leases set out in the schedule of leases hereto.

The leases grant and reserve easements as therein mentioned.

8 (23.01.2008) The land is subject to the rights granted by a Deed dated

10 January 2008 made between (1) Quorn Marina Properties Limited and

(2) James Richard Barratt.

NOTE: Copy filed.

[Dangerous Dave]

Well I managed to get a copy of the Register via another route, so I still don't understand the message re: no records! Title Plan has to be applied for by post [which I've done, but they take ages].

 

All incumbrances have to be entered into the title record, and this has in fact been done. There are 20 car parking space leases entered under "Schedule of notices of leases". All for 30 year terms starting from various dates from 1 September 2007 to 21 July 2008.

 

An interesting assortment of incumbrances/rights listed under the Charges Register also, one of which I've sent off for.

 

The standard items which have been referred to already are:

 

5 (16.04.2007) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 16 March 2007.

6 (16.04.2007) Proprietor: MATTHEW STEADMAN of 34 Morden Road,

Blackheath, London SE3 0AA.

7 (20.12.2007) The parts of the land affected thereby are subject to the

leases set out in the schedule of leases hereto.

The leases grant and reserve easements as therein mentioned.

8 (23.01.2008) The land is subject to the rights granted by a Deed dated

10 January 2008 made between (1) Quorn Marina Properties Limited and

(2) James Richard Barratt.

NOTE: Copy filed.

 

 

That's interesting..James Richard Barratt is /was the owner of Quorn Fields Farm ..Next door to PLM.

What is he doing on a deed register ?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

That's interesting..James Richard Barratt is /was the owner of Quorn Fields Farm ..Next door to PLM.

What is he doing on a deed register ?

 

Could be anything - could be granting them an alternative access to avoid the 'bridelway' - maybe we will find out when /if Nigel gets his copy.

[MtB]

Something to do with a positive covensnt agreeing access rights across his land perhaps

[Dangerous Dave]

 

Could be anything - could be granting them an alternative access to avoid the 'bridelway' - maybe we will find out when /if Nigel gets his copy.

 

 

Ah.. I remember access being needed to install "electricity" to PLM..

Something to do with a positive covensnt agreeing access rights across his land perhaps

 

 

Hardly he went mental if anyone trespassed ..It must be the electric thing which was just inside the gate at Quorn Fields Farm.

The bridle path ended at the entrance .

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[scrunch]

Nigel can I ask something.

While I know you are a very clever bloke I wondered what your agenda was, I really have not the time at the moment to read big legal posts, may have got this wrong but it seems your saying that Pillings need not pay the NAA.

Whilst these loopholes, get outs or whatever you want to call them, how is CaRT going to be able to keep our canals in a navigable state when instead they have to pursue people through the courts to get a business to pay a known charge for or someone mooring for to long..

I do realize that sometimes someone's need does need fighting for especially against large companies, but true fully CaRT needs to be self sufficient quite soon.

 

I do not want moorers blocked in a marina absolutely awful position to be in, but at the same time I do not want to see private companies ripping off our money.

[johnlillie]

Well I managed to get a copy of the Register via another route, so I still don't understand the message re: no records! Title Plan has to be applied for by post [which I've done, but they take ages].

 

All incumbrances have to be entered into the title record, and this has in fact been done. There are 20 car parking space leases entered under "Schedule of notices of leases". All for 30 year terms starting from various dates from 1 September 2007 to 21 July 2008.

 

An interesting assortment of incumbrances/rights listed under the Charges Register also, one of which I've sent off for.

 

The standard items which have been referred to already are:

 

5 (16.04.2007) REGISTERED CHARGE dated 16 March 2007.

6 (16.04.2007) Proprietor: MATTHEW STEADMAN of 34 Morden Road,

Blackheath, London SE3 0AA.

7 (20.12.2007) The parts of the land affected thereby are subject to the

leases set out in the schedule of leases hereto.

The leases grant and reserve easements as therein mentioned.

8 (23.01.2008) The land is subject to the rights granted by a Deed dated

10 January 2008 made between (1) Quorn Marina Properties Limited and

(2) James Richard Barratt.

NOTE: Copy filed.

the deed with Barrat is to do with the electricity supply which comes via his peoperty

[NigelMoore]

. . . it seems your saying that Pillings need not pay the NAA.

 

I am not saying that Pillings “need not pay the NAA”, I am saying that they quite possibly [in fact probably] did not need such a thing in the first place. Without sight of the relevant enabling Act/s, it is impossible to be any more emphatic. But having entered, voluntarily, into an agreement wherein terms were individually negotiated, there was never any question but that the agreed payment was due.

 

Under the circumstances, therefore, I think it was somewhat foolish of CaRT to annul the contract – as others have said, the company is IN liquidation, which is a far cry from actually being dissolved, and there was greater leverage for CaRT while they had the contract in place.

 

I will answer your other questions when I have more time to revert to this, my boat engine is giving more personal concern just presently. At least I've clocked up a new experience - literally sailing a narrrowboat downstream under a good stiff wind coming from the right direction.

[Pillingsmoorer]

Fascinating. ISTR John Lillie saying the leases were properly registered at the LR, and at least one moorer confirming this way back in the early days of this thread. Or maybe it was Pillingsmoorer, the PL stooge guy.

 

MtB

no it was not me you idiot, "pl stooge guy" sorry for not agreeing with people on this forum.

[johnthebridge]

Nigel can I ask something.

While I know you are a very clever bloke I wondered what your agenda was, I really have not the time at the moment to read big legal posts, may have got this wrong but it seems your saying that Pillings need not pay the NAA.

Whilst these loopholes, get outs or whatever you want to call them, how is CaRT going to be able to keep our canals in a navigable state when instead they have to pursue people through the courts to get a business to pay a known charge for or someone mooring for to long..

I do realize that sometimes someone's need does need fighting for especially against large companies, but true fully CaRT needs to be self sufficient quite soon.

 

Do you feel Mr. Moore has an agenda? I felt he was merely discussing the various aspects of this particular subject, discussion, after all, being the supposed point of a forum. I also think that the C&RT might be able to "keep our canals in a navigable state" when its staff deign to consider employing far more rigorous and efficient ways of managing its income, including the collection of NAA payments. I'm afraid 185 grand is chickenfeed when compared to the enormous losses incurred and the self-induced balls-ups made in recent times by this organisation and its predecessor. Remind me-was it 35 million written off at Gloucester Quays? No-one there cares a jot, because it's not their cash they're wasting. The attitude is, "it's public money, and there's plenty more where that came from"!

If I read your post correctly, you've also said that C&RT "needs to be self sufficient quite soon." Do you seriously believe that will actually happen? If so, where will the money come from to achieve that happy state?

[scrunch]

 

Do you feel Mr. Moore has an agenda? I felt he was merely discussing the various aspects of this particular subject, discussion, after all, being the supposed point of a forum. I also think that the C&RT might be able to "keep our canals in a navigable state" when its staff deign to consider employing far more rigorous and efficient ways of managing its income, including the collection of NAA payments. I'm afraid 185 grand is chickenfeed when compared to the enormous losses incurred and the self-induced balls-ups made in recent times by this organisation and its predecessor. Remind me-was it 35 million written off at Gloucester Quays? No-one there cares a jot, because it's not their cash they're wasting. The attitude is, "it's public money, and there's plenty more where that came from"!

If I read your post correctly, you've also said that C&RT "needs to be self sufficient quite soon." Do you seriously believe that will actually happen? If so, where will the money come from to achieve that happy state?

Although I said it does not mean I believe it can happen the way things are, We do have a massive problem and this is just not CaRT but they are the ones my interest lie, is the goverment made it a charity so instead of a much cost finacial drain on them they are hoping with volenteers and people giving money it will be self financing, of course it wont work mainly because truthfully not everyone cares about our waterways, a lot of folk would not care less if they where left to silt up and disappear, I have said before Cart are going to be forced to take a long hard look at the way the canals work and I for one am not looking forward to the outcome.

[Nightwatch]

I have wondered why Mr Moore has shown interest in this thread as of late. Relatively speaking.

Martyn

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Do you feel Mr. Moore has an agenda? I felt he was merely discussing the various aspects of this particular subject, discussion, after all, being the supposed point of a forum. I also think that the C&RT might be able to "keep our canals in a navigable state" when its staff deign to consider employing far more rigorous and efficient ways of managing its income, including the collection of NAA payments. I'm afraid 185 grand is chickenfeed when compared to the enormous losses incurred and the self-induced balls-ups made in recent times by this organisation and its predecessor. Remind me-was it 35 million written off at Gloucester Quays? No-one there cares a jot, because it's not their cash they're wasting. The attitude is, "it's public money, and there's plenty more where that came from"!

If I read your post correctly, you've also said that C&RT "needs to be self sufficient quite soon." Do you seriously believe that will actually happen? If so, where will the money come from to achieve that happy state?

BW lost at least £33.1m at Gloucester Quays -

 

Revealed - BW's £33m gamble that lost

[scrunch]

 

I am not saying that Pillings “need not pay the NAA”, I am saying that they quite possibly [in fact probably] did not need such a thing in the first place. Without sight of the relevant enabling Act/s, it is impossible to be any more emphatic. But having entered, voluntarily, into an agreement wherein terms were individually negotiated, there was never any question but that the agreed payment was due.

 

Under the circumstances, therefore, I think it was somewhat foolish of CaRT to annul the contract – as others have said, the company is IN liquidation, which is a far cry from actually being dissolved, and there was greater leverage for CaRT while they had the contract in place.

 

I will answer your other questions when I have more time to revert to this, my boat engine is giving more personal concern just presently. At least I've clocked up a new experience - literally sailing a narrrowboat downstream under a good stiff wind coming from the right direction.

Thats precisely the point Nigel, quotes as without the sight of the relevant acts and the such like, if you look at the wierd acts/laws that used to be in place when motorcars where first introduced a lot had to be changed to enable people to drive on the road. Perhaps because the waterway acts are still based from the time commercial barges plied there trade it all needs revampiing for the leisure industry.

When CaRT explain why they cannot make it pay and need more money I wonder if they will just print off your posts and say look this is what we need to change to make it pay. Alright a bit tongue in cheek but hey.

BW lost at least £33.1m at Gloucester Quays -

 

Revealed - BW's £33m gamble that lost

Ok then because BW lost that money it makes everthing else losing money ok. That was a a total disaster and someone should have been brought forward to answer but its the past , could CaRT do the same thing I am not sure.

[SoosieQ]

****NEWSFLASH****

Theres a possibility of a new 60 berth marina not a stones throw from Pillings! Even closer to the marina at Syston tho! So how does CRT explain that?

[RLWP]

So how does CRT explain that?

 

Why do they have to?

 

Richard

[SoosieQ]

If PLM isnt full and cant afford to pay? Lol......

How can CRT back a new marina!

[MtB]

If PLM isnt full and cant afford to pay? Lol......

How can CRT back a new marina!

 

In what way are they 'backing' this new marina?

 

MtB

[haggis]

Are you sure it is a case of PLM "can't afford to pay" not more like "chose not to pay" ?

 

haggis

[johnthebridge]

****NEWSFLASH****

Theres a possibility of a new 60 berth marina not a stones throw from Pillings! Even closer to the marina at Syston tho! So how does CRT explain that?

 

It's not called Steadman's Marina is it?

[MtB]

 

It's not called Steadman's Marina is it?

 

Yes I was wondering too if a little thin channel might not end up connecting it to Pillings Lake....

 

MtB

[SoosieQ]

In what way are they 'backing' this new marina?

 

MtB

Their representative is on the committee discussing it,theres no mention of CRT being in opposition to it,so i surmised they approve it. Perhaps i was wrong to use the 'backing it' phrase.

And yes haggis,that is possibly the case. But it does seem a little harsh on the marina it will be on the opposite side of the water to

It's not called Steadman's Marina is it?

Yes I was wondering too if a little thin channel might not end up connecting it to Pillings Lake....

 

MtB

No its going to be on the currently non navigable River Wreake....so no NAA for them

[MtB]

Their representative is on the committee discussing it,theres no mention of CRT being in opposition to it,so i surmised they approve it. Perhaps i was wrong to use the 'backing it' phrase.

 

Ah that bankrupt old 'if you are not for us, then you must be against us' type of logic generally trailed out by the hard of thinking.

 

MtB

[SoosieQ]

http://www.leics.gov.uk/minutes_15012014.pdf

 

It states that the marina directly opposite has low level use and is mainly for boat building. Strange then,that no builds have been done since the 90's and the marina basin is busy as are the towpath moorings there