Dispute at Pillings

[Mike Todd]

Somewhere way back in this thread there is a pointer to the sample contracts for NAA and I recall that someone also stated that the closure in the event of non-payment (and probably other defaults) was an explicit term.

 

I suspect MtB is correct in asserting that BW/CaRT have been keen to bend over backwards not to inconvenience third parties who, in the event, have also lost out.

 

 

My head is a bit fuzzy due to having had no breakfast yet – but isn’t that saying much the same thing in a very slightly different way? My phrasing assumes an explicit contract term, yours assumes [or knows] a merely implicit contract term.

 

Either way, it would be interesting to know whether affirmation of this formed part of the judgment, because that was what seemed to be the burden of costalot’s query regarding use of the judgment as a precedent.

Just so.

 

It’s not so much a question of ‘complications’ respecting the particular situation, which, as you say, will pan out shortly for all to see.

 

However the interest of many ‘outsiders’ is not, I daresay, centred on concern for this specific isolated situation, but rather on the ramifications of the whole process. The executive decisions being made are a pointer to what we may expect in terms of the management ethos and efficiency of CaRT, looking to the long term future.

[Alan de Enfield]

Not long now - 2 hours and 10 minutes until QMP2 and Roy take over at Pillings Lock marina

[Alan Saunders]

BW/CRT have not done their best for their ultimate customer, their licence holders. As I said early in this discussion the moorers at PLM are CRT customers; PLM, QMP, QMH etc. are/were private enterprise, intermediate suppliers. The BW/CRT Directors should have made every effort to personally visit each and every one of the Pillings moorers to explain the situation. I am pleased that CRT have now allowed their customers an extended period to leave the marina but, in business a peronal meeting is worth a hundred letters/emails as PL has proved!

 

Amongst the ramblings from PL I note "My mistake was signing the NAA" which suggests that although QMP have not denied their liability from the previous contract they intend to deny its validity for the new company. CRT have replied by strengthening the terms of the standard NAA.

 

Like many other contributors to this thread I have no specific interest but there but for fortune go I and I want to see the best possible outcome for the PLM moorers. Please do not see BW/CRT as a moral organisation; I am aware of two cases where they refused to pay their contractual obligations in the order of £100K. The result is no competant engineer will now tender for BW/CART projects.

 

CRT still think like a government department, they pretend to be a business but fail and resort to the might of their legal department. For every other business profit is the bottom line.

 

Alan

[PaulG]

Amongst the ramblings from PL I note "My mistake was signing the NAA" which suggests that although QMP have not denied their liability from the previous contract they intend to deny its validity for the new company. CRT have replied by strengthening the terms of the standard NAA.

Alan

IF I understood his statement correctly, the gist of it was that he was forced to sign an unfair contract because there would have been no marina without it.

It will be interesting to see if the phoenix company will sign up a new NAA, as the terms are likely to be more onerous than the first one i.e. the one that was allegedly so unfair that it ruined the business.....

Edited March 20, 2014 by PaulG

[johnlillie]

As I recall, the NAA was signed willingly and its terms were never even discussed, at least not until much nearer the time when the payments were due to commence.

[costalot]

You would probably have to be a scrupulously honest person to say "I signed the contact and at the time thought it was fair and reasonable. However my business model didn't turn out as expected and so I thought some of my creditors should share my pain!" The alternative is to subsequently say "I was forced into signing the agreement because otherwise I wouldn't have had a marina. Therefore I don't feel any responsibility for the CRT financial loss!"

[Dangerous Dave]

As I recall, the NAA was signed willingly and its terms were never even discussed, at least not until much nearer the time when the payments were due to commence.

 

 

Paul Lillie has a habit of not keeping to agreements when it doesn't suit him..

 

For instance ....Leaseholders electric supply cost at the meter!!

 

PLM pay sub 10p to their supplier ,but charge 19p per unit..Where as the agreement says not more than 10% of the supply cost

[David Mack]

Please do not see BW/CRT as a moral organisation; I am aware of two cases where they refused to pay their contractual obligations in the order of £100K. The result is no competant engineer will now tender for BW/CART projects.

Would you care to say more about this?

[Alan de Enfield]

Irrespective of the "AGREEMENT" he is breaking the law if he is selling it for more than he is paying.

You can charge an annual 'service charge' but that must be shown seperately to the unit charge.

 

I think OFGEM would be very interested - although nw QMP is no-more maybe nothing they can do about it.

 

 

Ofgem has therefore issued a direction which has the practical effect of

allowing landlords in the domestic sector to charge no more, either for energy

units or for standing charges, than they themselves have paid to the authorised

supplier.

 

 

We have taken the view that there is insufficient justification for regarding

marine craft as a special case in the light of the flexibility built into the new

MRP regime, and Ofgem’s direction therefore applies equally to marine craft

and land-based accommodation.

From :

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/74436/1837-mrpdecision07.pdf

[mayalld]

 

I want to call them the lawful basis of waterways authority. There are things they can legitimately charge for, and there are thing they may not charge for. If the authority wants a law-abiding clientele, it is advisable for them to show that they set an example. Clear-cut prohibitions against certain charges are not ‘loopholes’, but rather the carefully determined framework by which the original canal companies sought approval of their schemes, and which are binding on their successor.

 

If we accept Mr Pillings’ assertion that the charges were never denied and that no defence against the court action was filed, then the expensive pursuit through the courts was hardly necessary – CaRT spent £24,000 to have a judge say what Pillings already admitted. Obtaining a Court Order to that effect was never going to help extract the money. It is impossible for a rational person to see what the point of the exercise was. If they wanted to bankrupt the company, they could have done that on the cheap with a Statutory Demand, because there could not have been [and wasn’t] any counter-claim.

 

All that I can think of is that they wanted affirmation of their ‘right’ to blockade the marina as an example to others.

 

“How is CaRT going to be able to keep our canals in a navigable state?” They are not going to be able to. They haven’t been able to with considerably more income in their previous incarnation, and even if everyone, boaters and businesses, paid in full all the time on time, it cannot be done.

 

People need to recognise that this is not an unforseen state of affairs. As I posted earlier on some other thread, government were informed by Evans, Johnson and DEFRA that CaRT’s formation would result in about a decade of infrastructure decline, even before the most sanguine of pecuniary prognostications became reality.

 

So what we are seeing is precisely what was expected to happen – and both the BW executive and DEFRA were happy about throwing this priceless national asset to the wolves this way, on the entirely specious pretext that public goodwill would ensure extraordinary [and growing] levels of voluntary contribution.

 

If I had the energy for any agenda outside of my desire for a quite and unmolested life, then it would be for a reversal of this suicidal lunacy, and for a recognition by the government that the only equitable means of meeting the funding ‘gap’ while ensuring an improvement of the network, is to improve upon the earlier ludicrous system of providing ‘grant in aid’.

 

Practically everybody benefits in some measure from the success of the canal network – and they are already contributing to this national asset through the taxes they pay to government. It is only simple honesty for sufficient funds to meet the maintenance shortfall to be allocated from those contributions.

 

 

So, to distill the above into something a little more succinct;

 

Your endless litigation, seeking to gnaw away at the powers that CRT has to regulate anything or to charge for anything, without suggesting how they might make up that income elsewhere, is motivated by a wish to ensure that the canals cannot be made to pay, with the natural consequence that HMG will take over and pour more money in.

 

It isn't going to happen.

[johnlillie]

Irrespective of the "AGREEMENT" he is breaking the law if he is selling it for more than he is paying.

You can charge an annual 'service charge' but that must be shown seperately to the unit charge.

 

I think OFGEM would be very interested - although nw QMP is no-more maybe nothing they can do about it.

 

 

Ofgem has therefore issued a direction which has the practical effect of

allowing landlords in the domestic sector to charge no more, either for energy

units or for standing charges, than they themselves have paid to the authorised

supplier.

 

 

We have taken the view that there is insufficient justification for regarding

marine craft as a special case in the light of the flexibility built into the new

MRP regime, and Ofgem’s direction therefore applies equally to marine craft

and land-based accommodation.

From :

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/74436/1837-mrpdecision07.pdf

Plm charge for the electricity, not QMP

[Alan de Enfield]

johnlillie, on 20 Mar 2014 - 2:26 PM, said:

Plm charge for the electricity, not QMP

 

Well then if any moorers feel they have been overcharged for electricity they can complain to OFGEM who then will 'compel' PLM to repay and then pay a fine as well

 

"...............These changes bring the provisions for electricity resale into line with those for gas. Until 1st January 2003 the landlord had been able to recover a daily ‘availability charge' which was payable whether or not the tenant used the electricity on the particular day so long as the supply was available. It is now the case that landlords will not be able to charge tenants more for electricity than they have paid for it. In addition, to ensure transparency, at the request of the tenant, the landlord must inform the tenant the price he is paying for gas or electricity and furnish documentary evidence to support this information. This is enforced by financial penalties. A landlord who overcharges will also be subject to such penalties. These penalties will be enforced through the civil courts"

[Dangerous Dave]

Irrespective of the "AGREEMENT" he is breaking the law if he is selling it for more than he is paying.

You can charge an annual 'service charge' but that must be shown seperately to the unit charge.

 

I think OFGEM would be very interested - although nw QMP is no-more maybe nothing they can do about it.

 

 

Ofgem has therefore issued a direction which has the practical effect of

allowing landlords in the domestic sector to charge no more, either for energy

units or for standing charges, than they themselves have paid to the authorised

supplier.

 

 

We have taken the view that there is insufficient justification for regarding

marine craft as a special case in the light of the flexibility built into the new

MRP regime, and Ofgem’s direction therefore applies equally to marine craft

and land-based accommodation.

From :

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/74436/1837-mrpdecision07.pdf

 

 

If the Marina operator supplies their own equipment ,as is usual then they can charge what they like for expenditure and management costs...Although this must not be charged above the unit price ,but recovered as an even means spread by say mooring charges or a service charge.

Leaseholders did so for 30 years

 

Normal bertholders are being overcharged on the unit price and then again in way of mooring/service charges.

 

We spent 2 years in a legal situation in way of the small claims court.

OFGEM do nothing to enforce such a situation of overcharging but advise individuals to take legal action on their own .

 

We could write a book on the squirming of affairs(bu*****) coming from the management "team"!

[Paul G2]

 

So, to distill the above into something a little more succinct;

 

Your endless litigation, seeking to gnaw away at the powers that CRT has to regulate anything or to charge for anything, without suggesting how they might make up that income elsewhere, is motivated by a wish to ensure that the canals cannot be made to pay, with the natural consequence that HMG will take over and pour more money in.

 

It isn't going to happen.

 

I must have missed something, or lack some general knowledge of events. Can you please explain what you mean by this?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paul G2: see https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nigel+moore+british+waterways

Edited March 20, 2014 by Richard Fairhurst

[scrunch]

 

So, to distill the above into something a little more succinct;

 

Your endless litigation, seeking to gnaw away at the powers that CRT has to regulate anything or to charge for anything, without suggesting how they might make up that income elsewhere, is motivated by a wish to ensure that the canals cannot be made to pay, with the natural consequence that HMG will take over and pour more money in.

 

It isn't going to happen.

Hence my post re what agenda does Nigel have,,and the fact that if you have a clever mind and the time to dig, and because a lot of the laws are embroiled in 19th century confusion try and, use it for present day rulings it just doesnt work and we have CaRT having to spend much needed money for the canals in the courts.

[NigelMoore]

 

I must have missed something, or lack some general knowledge of events. Can you please explain what you mean by this?

 

I am afraid that mayalld has never forgiven me for winning a protracted 6 year court battle against BW/CaRT’s section 8’ing of a half dozen boats in my care. This case he had derisively scorned as “the charade of a case that is about little more than your belief that you have found a clever way of avoiding paying your way . . . frankly somebody who avoids paying towards the upkeep of the waterways he uses, and then expects BW/CRT to pay for his many days in court to try and argue ever more obscure reasons why he can avoid paying anything is no hero.”

 

His first comment on the result of the [successfully appealed] judgment of 2012 was:

 

“The man is a freeloader, who not only isn’t paying his way, but has caused BW to spend a significant amount of money on indulging his desire for a day in court.” He never did account for the fact that I voluntarily paid for 3 of the licences regardless of my position that it was not necessary.

 

His prognostications as to eventual outcome were: “From reading the judgement, there seems little prospect that Mr Moore will be granted any permanent relief from being evicted. Rather, I suspect that, like the previous criticism, the outcome will be that BW went about it the wrong way, and should have been more particular in ensuring that their processes are right, and that in consequence Mr Moore will be allowed a 6 month period of grace before the vessel has to be removed.”

 

In the event, as you will doubtless have garnered from Richard’s google search, I was proved right and the Notices were quashed as illegal.

 

Evidently, resentment at this reversal of mayalld’s expectations has had the unfortunate effect of creating permanent perceptual problems as to the content and intent of my life and postings.

 

It is a pity, because aside from gratuitous nastiness at times [which had appeared to be diminishing of late], he has the ability to see and communicate on most other matters with some intelligent insight, which is reflected in a majority of his generally useful posts.

 

I would hope that most would be capable of taking whatever I write at whatever face-value they perceive in that, without feeling a need to discern some imagined agenda.

[Graham Davis]

Nigel, you remind me of Neil Kinnock; use 9 words when 3 would really do.

[LoneWolf]

Nigel, you remind me of Neil Kinnock; use 9 words when 3 would really do.

 

I thought that the non-quote parts of that post were quite succinct

 

Why don't you precis it for us and see how much you can cut out?

[scrunch]

Niigel I do not hold any malice to you whatsoever, you seriously do my head in trying to read your posts, in fact I usualy give up and probably in light of this maybe I miss your point, are you against CaRT in general, please just a straight answer, how if you had the say so, would you make CaRT be able to makee it pay.

[mayalld]

 

I am afraid that mayalld has never forgiven me for winning a protracted 6 year court battle against BW/CaRTs section 8ing of a half dozen boats in my care. This case he had derisively scorned as the charade of a case that is about little more than your belief that you have found a clever way of avoiding paying your way . . . frankly somebody who avoids paying towards the upkeep of the waterways he uses, and then expects BW/CRT to pay for his many days in court to try and argue ever more obscure reasons why he can avoid paying anything is no hero.

 

His first comment on the result of the [successfully appealed] judgment of 2012 was:

 

The man is a freeloader, who not only isnt paying his way, but has caused BW to spend a significant amount of money on indulging his desire for a day in court. He never did account for the fact that I voluntarily paid for 3 of the licences regardless of my position that it was not necessary.

 

His prognostications as to eventual outcome were: From reading the judgement, there seems little prospect that Mr Moore will be granted any permanent relief from being evicted. Rather, I suspect that, like the previous criticism, the outcome will be that BW went about it the wrong way, and should have been more particular in ensuring that their processes are right, and that in consequence Mr Moore will be allowed a 6 month period of grace before the vessel has to be removed.

 

In the event, as you will doubtless have garnered from Richards google search, I was proved right and the Notices were quashed as illegal.

 

Evidently, resentment at this reversal of mayallds expectations has had the unfortunate effect of creating permanent perceptual problems as to the content and intent of my life and postings.

 

It is a pity, because aside from gratuitous nastiness at times [which had appeared to be diminishing of late], he has the ability to see and communicate on most other matters with some intelligent insight, which is reflected in a majority of his generally useful posts.

 

I would hope that most would be capable of taking whatever I write at whatever face-value they perceive in that, without feeling a need to discern some imagined agenda.

It remains my view that you engage in endless litigation not in order to protect what may be regarded as equitable rights, but in the hope of eventually getting a perverse judgement that either resurrects some long defunct right that is not equitable or establishes some new right through finding an unintended hole in the law.

 

As an acedemic exercise in the study of the law, it is interesting. As a way of protecting the rights of boaters, it is an abject failure.

 

You cost CRT shed loads of money that would be better spent on maintaining the canals, and gain a few people the right to avoid paying their equitable share of the costs of the waterways.

 

The vast majority of boaters lose out because of your actions.

 

As to your motives, what I wrote is just a précis of what you wrote.

[NigelMoore]

. . . are you against CaRT in general, please just a straight answer, how if you had the say so, would you make CaRT be able to makee it pay.

 

 

Of course I am not against CaRT in general, anymore than I was ever against BW in general; they are the guardians of the national asset that we live, work and take pleasure in.

 

It is because I care for the waterways that I sometimes express myself with some vehemence against those at executive level who, as I see it, have driven the management - and are driving it still - into the ground, due in very large part to the philosophical legacy of the unwarranted penny-pinching of government [of whatever colour], and their appointees, and of their overseeing [?!] bodies.

 

There was never anything wrong with BW that a clean sweep of the appointed upper executive could not have remedied, and there was nothing wrong with the funding principle [of government meeting the funding shortfall], that a radical re-arrangement of methodology could not have cured, of the ridiculous system DEFRA employed - wherein BW could never be certain of what they could budget for looking ahead, and wherein they were effectively penalised for any success in the previous year’s budgeting.

 

As I said in my previous answer to you, the present arrangement can never suffice to keep pace with existing maintenance requirements, let alone allow of any improvement. The previous arrangement [with the methodology subjected to radical reform] of government taking responsibility for that which they nationalised, is, on the authority of every study into the subject, the only feasible means of funding the national asset. Belief in the reliable generosity of a populace prepared to add, in adequate amounts, to the huge list of other charitable demands on their purse, is akin to belief in fairies.

 

One suggestion that occurs as I write, as to how one might make CaRT able to pay its way - demand that every Member of Parliament who voted for transition into the voluntary sector [or abstained] dedicate voluntarily to the Trust that percentage of their own income that would make up the shortfall. I say this frivolously, yet with a degree of wistful underlying sincerity.

Edited March 20, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Tuscan]

Now that the merging with the EA is reportedly back in the agenda the potential risk of getting the funding wrong could have a much greater impact. Or if the government is desperate to offload maybe an opportunity

[Alan Saunders]

I am aware of two cases where they refused to pay their contractual obligations in the order of £100K. The result is no competant engineer will now tender for BW/CART projects.

Alan

Would you care to say more about this?

Sorry, I am not at liberty to expand on my statement nor to offer further proof. I offered this, reluctantly, only as an indication that BW, also, do not pay their bills and rely on their legal department to 'frighten' small businesses.

 

BW alienate their most competant suppliers which is not in the best interest of those who fund the canals. They also failed to take early action to protect the interests of their customers from the actions of a third party, private enterprise business (QMP, PLM) that they enabled and encouraged.

 

Hopefully, CRT will do better but they still have the same employees with their embedded attitude of a Government Department with endless funds and no business sense.

 

Pure speculation: Maybe Mr Steadman has suffered losses in previous dealings with BW and has now decided to "take a stand" whatever it costs. Hopefully, he is about to play his Ace and all the reassurances to Pillings moorers will be realised.

 

Alan

[Ssscrudddy]

Well according to that Nigel won, so the endless litigation was justified, or more importantly, it seems BW/CRT were engaged in practices that resulted in litigation, that ultimately the court decided was wrong because they found in Nigels favour