Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings


andy the hammer

Featured Posts

Blimey, this thread (which I had not looked at for a few weeks) has now reached novel length and is still droning on. If there's no such thing as bad publicity, the marina must have a waiting list ten miles long by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With another company being formed there seems to be the likelyhood of another tangled web of company relationships running or involved with the site.

If I was CaRT I'd want guarantees from all of them......too many smokescreens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blimey, this thread (which I had not looked at for a few weeks) has now reached novel length and is still droning on. If there's no such thing as bad publicity, the marina must have a waiting list ten miles long by now.

 

 

I didn't realise there was such a high demand amongst boaters to keep their boats inside a sealed off lake.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jez must have had a very dodgy speedo, most of the Bonnevilles/Nortons/tritons of that era struggled to scrape past 110mph, according to the expert testers in the motorcycle press ( although my 650SS did 120MPH, HONEST!)

 

 

Every now and again someone very special comes along and makes bikes and cars faster than seems possible..

 

That New Zealand guy with his Indian motorcycle for instance..Something out of this world !

 

Then there is me with Hillman Imps ..Ahem!

 

On the other hand a person who gets a silver plate of a marina business for little outlay of his own, lots of other peoples money then makes a total dishonest manner hash of it all!

 

 

The last paragraph was a means of getting the post back on topic!

Sorry to bring us back to the bad side of PLM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the company name, 750Ltd sounds like some sort of nameplace holder until they come up with a real name, perhaps the new name PLT Ltd is the real name instead of 750Ltd, dunno, just guessing.

Dave Johnson sounds like an idiot with too much money. A narrowboat & a widebeam, & a house, so he doesnt really need residential moorings for the 2 boats. Also as has been said Pillings Lock doesnt have official residential planning permission, so according to that he hasnt checked with the local council on the official status of his mooring, or to put it another way he hasnt done his research. He has called CRT for using their customers as pawns, yet cant see that in what PL is doing.

I wonder how he would feel if he didnt get his money (where ever it comes from, wages? pension?) I bet he'd soon start complaining that the company who should have paid him was bad for not paying him, & yet he feels it's CRTs fault for PL not paying CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was going to comment on this earlier, but didn't want to admit to going over to the far side.

However what Mr Johnson seems to be missing is that, as I understand it, there are no official liveaboard moorings at P.L. Perhaps he should keep his head down rather than attacking others.

 

NBW's constant siding with P L is losing them a lot of credibility, or at least of what credibility they had left, over their reporting of the marina's woes.

 

Mr Johnson also doesn't appear to realise that if Lillie the Paul had paid CaRT their just dues that he willingly signed up to, he would probably not be in the position he thinks he will be - juggling two boats, two cars, family, job, etc. Does Mr Johnson understand that PL took money off him to pay CaRT? Probably not because the rose tint has darkened a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil Spencer's letter sets out **very** clearly the basis of the NAA, especially as it relates to those marinas not paying it. It reduces substanitally the room to argue that the NAA is not fair or even a a non-level playing field.

 

 

It is also clear, contrary to allegations, that CaRT have not suggested doing anything that will deprive existing residents in the marina of their home. They can continue to stay put so long as PLM let them - what is not clear is what they do in the event that PLM cancel **their** mooring agreement. Crane?

Once again it's C&RT's fault.frusty.gif

If you believe the daily wail.

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6765-pillingsa-berth-holders-view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the company name, 750Ltd sounds like some sort of nameplace holder until they come up with a real name, perhaps the new name PLT Ltd is the real name instead of 750Ltd, dunno, just guessing.fairly sure that will be the case

 

Dave Johnson sounds like an idiot with too much money. A narrowboat & a widebeam, & a house, so he doesnt really need residential moorings for the 2 boats. Also as has been said Pillings Lock doesnt have official residential planning permission, so according to that he hasnt checked with the local council on the official status of his mooring, or to put it another way he hasnt done his research. He has called CRT for using their customers as pawns, yet cant see that in what PL is doing.

 

I wonder how he would feel if he didnt get his money (where ever it comes from, wages? pension?) I bet he'd soon start complaining that the company who should have paid him was bad for not paying him, & yet he feels it's CRTs fault for PL not paying CRT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the company name, 750Ltd sounds like some sort of nameplace holder until they come up with a real name, perhaps the new name PLT Ltd is the real name instead of 750Ltd, dunno, just guessing..

No, they are different registered companies, not one company with a name change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the company name, 750Ltd sounds like some sort of nameplace holder until they come up with a real name, perhaps the new name PLT Ltd is the real name instead of 750Ltd, dunno, just guessing.

 

 

Well you'd know instead of guessing if you read the thread back even just a few posts!

 

PLT is Pillings Lock Trading Ltd, and 750LLtd is shorthand for No 750 Leicester Ltd. Two new companies set up, we believe, to take over from PLM and QMP respectively once they both finally go bust.

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can continue to stay put so long as PLM let them - what is not clear is what they do in the event that PLM cancel **their** mooring agreement. Crane?

Which leads to something I have been pondering recently . . . just how big a boat can be taken out via road, given the physical restrictions imposed by Flesh Hovel Lane ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which leads to something I have been pondering recently . . . just how big a boat can be taken out via road, given the physical restrictions imposed by Flesh Hovel Lane ?[/quote

 

 

 

You could probably get a 14' widebeam down the lane ,how much paint would be left on is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well you'd know instead of guessing if you read the thread back even just a few posts!

 

PLT is Pillings Lock Trading Ltd, and 750LLtd is shorthand for No 750 Leicester Ltd. Two new companies set up, we believe, to take over from PLM and QMP respectively once they both finally go bust.

 

MtB

Now why didnt I think of that. If I had done that I could have used the abbreviations that others had agreed to use instead of the gobbledy gook that I used (that quite by miraculous coincidence are exactly the same as the abbreviations that where agreed upon).

blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again it's C&RT's fault.frusty.gif

If you believe the daily wail.

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6765-pillingsa-berth-holders-view

The content of the letter from PL to David Johnson is rather interesting. I agree that PL continues to portray QMP as the victim and CRT as 'Mr Nasty'.

 

"I have asked that Phil Spencer be taken off this case and someone else at CaRT given the task of handling matters going forward. Mr Spencer seems to have not made any allowance for the Connection actually being maintained and a new access agreement sought by both parties. I have copied in the Waterways Press and Mr Spencer's superiors to this email and one can only hope they start to take note." and "I am very sorry that Phil Spencer at CaRT seems to be using Customers as Pawns in an issue which he clearly should be resolving with the Marina directly"

 

It appears both sides have firmly declared their positions. I have the impression PL is a desperate man and with everything to lose will hang on to the bitter end no matter who else gets hurt. Meanwhile CRT cannot afford to renegotiate any agreement that might lead to exactly the same situation at some future date.

 

My guess is neither party will budge and the blockade will occur. There are going to be some very upset PLM moorers and both parties are attempting to ensure they aren't seen as the "guilty party".

 

The moorers are likely to fall into one of four categories

 

  • Happy to have a mooring on a lake and not pay for a CRT license;
  • Won’t take the gamble and leave before the blockage;
  • Will leave after the initial blockade and before final closure; or
  • Chose to stay wanting to believe the situation will be resolved and everything will return to normal in the near future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

 

The content of the letter from PL to David Johnson is rather interesting. I agree that PL continues to portray QMP as the victim and CRT as 'Mr Nasty'.

 

"I have asked that Phil Spencer be taken off this case and someone else at CaRT given the task of handling matters going forward. Mr Spencer seems to have not made any allowance for the Connection actually being maintained and a new access agreement sought by both parties. I have copied in the Waterways Press and Mr Spencer's superiors to this email and one can only hope they start to take note." and "I am very sorry that Phil Spencer at CaRT seems to be using Customers as Pawns in an issue which he clearly should be resolving with the Marina directly"

 

He really doesn't get it does he! At the Open Boaters Meeting in Leeds a couple of weeks ago, Richard Parry made clear his support for the current CRT/Phil Spencer position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was going to comment on this earlier, but didn't want to admit to going over to the far side.

However what Mr Johnson seems to be missing is that, as I understand it, there are no official liveaboard moorings at P.L. Perhaps he should keep his head down rather than attacking others.

 

NBW's constant siding with P L is losing them a lot of credibility, or at least of what credibility they had left, over their reporting of the marina's woes.

 

It always amazes me how some minds "work". Mr Johnson is in the fortunate position of having a new wide-beam built and will have contracted with a boatbuilder for its construction Were that boatbuilder, having taken Mr Johnson's money, to then then omit to pay the steel supplier for materials supplied and on being subject to a court order to pay this debt then declared itself bankrupt, one presumes that Mr Johnson's anger would, by his own logic, be directed against the steel supplier not the boatbuilder.

 

Mr Johnson is a customer of CRT in the way that all boaters are, We pay our license fees and, unless we have a private mooring or continuously cruise, pay a marina to provide a home base. Part of the marina pricing will, if the operator is prudent, be set aside to meet their liability under an NAA. The marina is the customer in respect of the CRT, not the moorer although it is not surprising that Mr Lillie junior makes no distinction in his reply published in NBW. QMP failed to make the necessary financial provision and the wheel has fallen off as a result. CRT appear to have kept Mr Johnson informed although his major beefs appear to be that firstly, were the marina to be closed off, this presents him with difficulties in pursuing his future plans which revolve around a residential mooring at the site, despite no planning permission having been granted for this and secondly, CRT have not considered halting their planned actions of mid-April despite it being of great personal inconvenience to Mr Johnson and his family.

 

As someone here appears acquainted with Mr Johnson, perhaps they might suggest his joining this forum and explain why the rest of us should subsidise his choice of mooring?

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He really doesn't get it does he! At the Open Boaters Meeting in Leeds a couple of weeks ago, Richard Parry made clear his support for the current CRT/Phil Spencer position.

I think PL "does get it" but having adopted his current strategy he is now painted into a corner. At the beginning it looked so easy. Put QMP into voluntary liquidation and the debt disappears. Create a new company and transfer the NAA to it. Business as usual.

 

The problem is CRT have their own strategy and as they are the issuing authority for NAA. I think they currently have the upper hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He really doesn't get it does he! At the Open Boaters Meeting in Leeds a couple of weeks ago, Richard Parry made clear his support for the current CRT/Phil Spencer position.

 

I does sometimes seem as though Mr Lillie junior imagines himself leading some noble crusade against the citadels of uncaring officialdom rather than the less attractive reality of having been called to account by a major supplier for payments promised and not made. It seems entirely in keeping with Mr Lillie junior's self-belief, therefore, that Mr Spencer is merely another obstruction to be shunted aside hence his claim to have asked CRT to assign some other less "combative" individual. I can imagine the probable reaction inside CRT to such tactical naivety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The content of the letter from PL to David Johnson is rather interesting. I agree that PL continues to portray QMP as the victim and CRT as 'Mr Nasty'.

 

"I have asked that Phil Spencer be taken off this case and someone else at CaRT given the task of handling matters going forward. Mr Spencer seems to have not made any allowance for the Connection actually being maintained and a new access agreement sought by both parties. I have copied in the Waterways Press and Mr Spencer's superiors to this email and one can only hope they start to take note." and "I am very sorry that Phil Spencer at CaRT seems to be using Customers as Pawns in an issue which he clearly should be resolving with the Marina directly"

 

It appears both sides have firmly declared their positions. I have the impression PL is a desperate man and with everything to lose will hang on to the bitter end no matter who else gets hurt. Meanwhile CRT cannot afford to renegotiate any agreement that might lead to exactly the same situation at some future date.

 

My guess is neither party will budge and the blockade will occur. There are going to be some very upset PLM moorers and both parties are attempting to ensure they aren't seen as the "guilty party".

 

The moorers are likely to fall into one of four categories

 

  • Happy to have a mooring on a lake and not pay for a CRT license;
  • Won’t take the gamble and leave before the blockage;
  • Will leave after the initial blockade and before final closure; or
  • Chose to stay wanting to believe the situation will be resolved and everything will return to normal in the near future.

 

 

There is a fifth category consisting of those moorers who are forced to leave their boats at Pillings Lock because they lack an alternative mooring site. These will, of course, have entered into a mooring contract with, one presumes, PLM, who, come mid-April may be unable to deliver network access. As such access is implicit in a mooring agreement the moorers would be sensible in seeking advice as to whether they have a case for breach of contract against PLM and might be able to recover a portion of their mooring fee and, if the marina is still severed when CRT's deadline to leave expires, compensation for consequential loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the marina co is about to go pop too then, and another company ready to take over...

Roy is the new useful idiot? PL's time limited? What's the betting Steadman ends up with PL's shares. biggrin.png

 

Trouble with all this is that the background is so opaque and hence the interpretation becomes so difficult. On the face of it, yet another company, particularly one whose title includes the word "trading" does seem somewhat suggestive of a successor to PLM. I believe that some pages back, the recently published accounts of PLM were cited with, apparently, the £1.6million owed by QMP to PLM written-off. Do these accounts provide any further evidence that PLM's future is in doubt?

 

In a previous post I had suggested that those moorers forced to remain at a severed marina might be wise to seek advice as to whether they had a case for breach of contract against PLM. If your assumption is correct and PLT take over from a defunct PLM then that avenue will close.

Edited by tupperware
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The content of the letter from PL to David Johnson is rather interesting. I agree that PL continues to portray QMP as the victim and CRT as 'Mr Nasty'.

 

"I have asked that Phil Spencer be taken off this case and someone else at CaRT given the task of handling matters going forward. Mr Spencer seems to have not made any allowance for the Connection actually being maintained and a new access agreement sought by both parties. I have copied in the Waterways Press and Mr Spencer's superiors to this email and one can only hope they start to take note." and "I am very sorry that Phil Spencer at CaRT seems to be using Customers as Pawns in an issue which he clearly should be resolving with the Marina directly"

 

 

And I can imagine C&RT's answer running along the lines of "I have asked that Paul Lillie be taken off this case and someone else at Pillings Lock Marina be given the task of handling matters going forward. Paul Lillie seems not to have made any allowance regarding paying for the connection to actually be maintained..." Just as, or very much more, to the point, I'd have thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I regret that I am insufficiently interested to invest a quid and find out who the shareholders are...

Carpet wallah pointed out a few posts ago that PLM now has a 1.1M hole in its finances (after writing off money owed by QMP), and speculated that this was unsecured debt. Companies House reports a mortgage or charge dating from 2008 against them, so at least some of their debt is secured.

The "mortgage or charge" you mention is a Mortgage Debenture by National Westminster Bank. This is a floating charge over all the assets of the company and gives the Bank extensive powers, especially the right to appoint an administrator or administrative receiver.

 

Assuming the Bank is owed money by PLM, when they see the latest accounts they will wanting to speak to PL quite urgently, I would think.

 

Considering PLM has relatively little in tangible assets, the Bank might be considered imprudent to have loaned more than a limited figure to PLM. That is why I have speculated that most of the £1.1 is probably extra borrowings from Steadman.

 

The new company has to be there to acquire PLM's assets if the Bank realises that the company is insolvent, make a preemtive strike and sends in the receivers.

 

Edited to add

Of course, Mr Steadman may make the preemtive strike himself and go for volutary liquidation.

Edited by carpet wallah
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.