Dispute at Pillings

[George94]

 

They can call it anything they want!

 

It is called a Network Access Agreement, because access to the network is what it gives. How the charges are set is irrelevant to the name (but relevant to showing that the charges are reasonable).

 

And in terms of moorings removed, a list was published in this thread several hundred pages back. Go and look for the list.

 

Please read what was written. Then respond.

 

Hint: The words "in every case" are pertinent.

[Ally]

Please read what was written. Then respond.

 

Hint: The words "in every case" are pertinent.

And if you read back or check the records you will see an appropriate amount of moorings were closed when Pillings originally agreed the NAA, in accordance to the agreement.

[mayalld]

 

Please read what was written. Then respond.

 

Hint: The words "in every case" are pertinent.

Perhaps if you had followed my suggestion and read back to find the list you would have found the answer to your question, rather than stamping your feet and demanding answers be spoon fed to you.

 

So far as I am aware, since NAAs were centralised in (IIRC) 2007, all agreements have been on standard terms. 9% of gross mooring capacity NAA fee and 1:10 moorings removed. In every case.

 

Agreements prior to that date may be on different terms, and naturally those terms must be honoured rather than be subject to unilateral change by either party. Some very long standing marinas may have a historic and perpetual right to connection without a fee.

 

All the documentary evidence that I have seen suggests that all new marinas have been on identical terms and that the policy has been applied in every case.

[David Mack]

Perhaps if you had followed my suggestion and read back to find the list you would have found the answer to your question, rather than stamping your feet and demanding answers be spoon fed to you.

 

So far as I am aware, since NAAs were centralised in (IIRC) 2007, all agreements have been on standard terms. 9% of gross mooring capacity NAA fee and 1:10 moorings removed. In every case.

 

Agreements prior to that date may be on different terms, and naturally those terms must be honoured rather than be subject to unilateral change by either party. Some very long standing marinas may have a historic and perpetual right to connection without a fee.

 

All the documentary evidence that I have seen suggests that all new marinas have been on identical terms and that the policy has been applied in every case.

 

And of course some marinas are on rivers where CRT is the navigation authority, but not the landowner. Landowners have riparian rights of access, and CRT cannot charge for access to the network.

[MtB]

Changed my mind

Edited May 6, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[MtB]

Numpty edit

Edited May 6, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[StarUKKiwi]

I don't understand why Paul Lille is so upset, he didn't have to build a marina and once he did, he knew what to expect. There was an email from Phil Spencer that I note NBW didn't publish explaining it all. Paul Lille seems to be on the,same collision path and I note still advertising half page adverts all over Towpath Talk

[Peter X]

I notice the NBW article refers to "his own Network Access Agreement". But it's PLT (sole director Roy Rollings) which has the NAA.

Officially it's not Paul Lillie's agreement at all except that he is a 25% shareholder of QMH, which owns 750LLtd, which owns PLT.

Welcome to the convoluted fantasy world of Pillings Lock.

 

PL is just (still, inexplicably) the director of PLM which operates the marina. Until, in the dream scenario, Mr Nelson the liquidator of QMP makes his report on the conduct of directors, which by law he must although I don't know what his deadline is, and we may hope that report is critical enough of Paul Lillie to prompt the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to prosecute him for wrongful trading under the Insolvency Act 1986. The report ought to be critical; if I were Phil Spencer I think I'd be gently nudging Mr Nelson to press on with his job and do the decent thing. In the real world I suspect this won't happen.

[PaulG]

I don't understand why Paul Lille is so upset, he didn't have to build a marina and once he did, he knew what to expect.

I can.

He was running a business which, by his own admission, made no net profit, and so he was unable to pay the NAA charge. This eventually lead to court action and the demise of his company.

It is not unusual in circumstance like these, for company managers to suggest an alternative explanation for the failure - anything other than management incompetence, really.

[George94]

And if you read back or check the records you will see an appropriate amount of moorings were closed when Pillings originally agreed the NAA, in accordance to the agreement.

 

Yes, but I am talking generally, not about Pillings.

[Ally]

But again, read the linked info before. Or perhaps you would like someone to sit and write out every closure for you, in respect of new marinas?

[George94]

Perhaps if you had followed my suggestion and read back to find the list you would have found the answer to your question, rather than stamping your feet and demanding answers be spoon fed to you.

 

So far as I am aware, since NAAs were centralised in (IIRC) 2007, all agreements have been on standard terms. 9% of gross mooring capacity NAA fee and 1:10 moorings removed. In every case.

 

Agreements prior to that date may be on different terms, and naturally those terms must be honoured rather than be subject to unilateral change by either party. Some very long standing marinas may have a historic and perpetual right to connection without a fee.

 

All the documentary evidence that I have seen suggests that all new marinas have been on identical terms and that the policy has been applied in every case.

 

Thank you. That answers one part of the question. Now for the other:

 

 

But is it true, in every case, that BW removed a number of moorings sufficient to justify the size of the NAA charge?

 

The problem is that removing moorings doesn't guarantee that the boats concerned will move into the new marina. CART, of course, will know exactly what happened to the boats concerned, and if they DID go to Pillings, I am sure Mr Spencer would be saying so. Perhaps he who likes FOIs will oblige.

 

But again, read the linked info before. Or perhaps you would like someone to sit and write out every closure for you, in respect of new marinas?

 

Well, if you're offering, why not? Thank you very much.

 

Such kindness stands out like a beacon in a thread marred by rudeness.

[PaulG]

 

Thank you. That answers one part of the question. Now for the other:

 

 

But is it true, in every case, that BW removed a number of moorings sufficient to justify the size of the NAA charge?

 

The problem is that removing moorings doesn't guarantee that the boats concerned will move into the new marina. CART, of course, will know exactly what happened to the boats concerned, and if they DID go to Pillings, I am sure Mr Spencer would be saying so. Perhaps he who likes FOIs will oblige.

 

Of course the reduction in online moorings doesn't force boats into any particular marina.

Imagine the outcry from boaters if it did!

Boaters have freedom of choice, which is exactly how it should be.

 

In this case it seems that insufficient numbers of boaters decided to spend their hard-earned with Pillings Lock Marina.

 

Of course, we can only speculate on the reasons for this , but to try to suggest that CRT were at fault because they made insufficient effort to promote a private business in which they have no financial interest is absurd.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Thank you. That answers one part of the question. Now for the other:

 

 

But is it true, in every case, that BW removed a number of moorings sufficient to justify the size of the NAA charge?

 

The problem is that removing moorings doesn't guarantee that the boats concerned will move into the new marina. CART, of course, will know exactly what happened to the boats concerned, and if they DID go to Pillings, I am sure Mr Spencer would be saying so. Perhaps he who likes FOIs will oblige.

 

 

Why would you expect boats that were on 'shut down moorings' to go into a Marina ?

If they were happy to use a marina they would probably have been in a marina in the first instance - there is certainly no shortage of capacity (in the PLM area).

 

I also think its unlikely hat C&RT actually 'shut down' moorings that had boats on them, they would simply 'shut down' empty / non-used moorings in the vicinity.

 

Whay do you try to make everything so complicated ?

[George94]

Of course the reduction in online moorings doesn't force boats into any particular marina.

Imagine the outcry from boaters if it did!

Boaters have freedom of choice, which is exactly how it should be.

 

In this case it seems that insufficient numbers of boaters decided to spend their hard-earned with Pillings Lock Marina.

 

Of course, we can only speculate on the reasons for this , but to try to suggest that CRT were at fault because they made insufficient effort to promote a private business in which they have no financial interest is absurd.

 

No financial interest? Just the NAA.

 

I didn't suggest CART were at fault. I am just looking at the claim by Mayall and others that the NAA is justified by the closure of on-line moorings.

 

Why would you expect boats that were on 'shut down moorings' to go into a Marina ?

If they were happy to use a marina they would probably have been in a marina in the first instance - there is certainly no shortage of capacity (in the PLM area).

 

I also think its unlikely hat C&RT actually 'shut down' moorings that had boats on them, they would simply 'shut down' empty / non-used moorings in the vicinity.

 

Whay do you try to make everything so complicated ?

 

Not me, Guv. See my answer to PaulG.

[PaulG]

 

No financial interest? Just the NAA.

 

I didn't suggest CART were at fault.

The NAA is part of a normal supplier - customer relationship. In this case CRT is the supplier and Pillings are the customer. The only "financial interest" that CRT have is that their reliance on Pillings actually paying the amount that they agreed to pay.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had suggested that CRT were at fault.

 

However, plenty of others have!

[MtB]

 

Why would you expect boats that were on 'shut down moorings' to go into a Marina ?

If they were happy to use a marina they would probably have been in a marina in the first instance - there is certainly no shortage of capacity (in the PLM area).

 

I also think its unlikely hat C&RT actually 'shut down' moorings that had boats on them, they would simply 'shut down' empty / non-used moorings in the vicinity.

 

Whay do you try to make everything so complicated ?

 

Because he is enjoying winding you all up!

 

 

MtB

[George94]

The NAA is part of a normal supplier - customer relationship. In this case CRT is the supplier and Pillings are the customer. The only "financial interest" that CRT have is that their reliance on Pillings actually paying the amount that they agreed to pay.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you had suggested that CRT were at fault.

 

However, plenty of others have!

 

Fine.

 

 

Because he is enjoying winding you all up!

 

 

MtB

 

Actually, I am seeking clarification. Some people say the NAA is unfair, others that it is justified by removing moorings (in which case, that must be based on the assumption - which I question - that the marina will pick up the displaced boats).

 

But I do enjoy seeing how studiously MTB ignores me. I just wish he were as studious when it comes to basic economics.

Edited May 7, 2014 by George94

[Mike Todd]

 

No financial interest? Just the NAA.

 

I didn't suggest CART were at fault. I am just looking at the claim by Mayall and others that the NAA is justified by the closure of on-line moorings.

 

Not me, Guv. See my answer to PaulG.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the NAA charges are solely justifed by the on line closures - some form of charge would be reasonable even if that action did not take place. I take the calculations as simply putting the NAA Charges into context and indicating that they would pass a reasonable test if challenged via judicial review.

 

Remember that BW had a policy of finding a way of reducing permanent on line moorings as it was beginning to reacha scale that irritated many boaters (or at least those who move their boats some distamnce) and it was reasonable for them to encourage the alternative which reduces the demand for on line mooring. All of this has to take place in a context that is part private enterprise (where resonsibility lies with the entrpreneur to get their business plan right) and part public sector (even if now modified to a charitablke status rather than angency) where a different set of criteria may be taken into account such as public benefit (eg availability of towpaths free of charge to walkers and cyclists)

[George94]

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the NAA charges are solely justifed by the on line closures - some form of charge would be reasonable even if that action did not take place. I take the calculations as simply putting the NAA Charges into context and indicating that they would pass a reasonable test if challenged via judicial review.

 

Remember that BW had a policy of finding a way of reducing permanent on line moorings as it was beginning to reacha scale that irritated many boaters (or at least those who move their boats some distamnce) and it was reasonable for them to encourage the alternative which reduces the demand for on line mooring. All of this has to take place in a context that is part private enterprise (where resonsibility lies with the entrpreneur to get their business plan right) and part public sector (even if now modified to a charitablke status rather than angency) where a different set of criteria may be taken into account such as public benefit (eg availability of towpaths free of charge to walkers and cyclists)

 

Thanks for that.

 

Actually, several people HAVE claimed that the NAA is justified (largely, if not solely) by on-line closures ; most recently PaulG in post 5769.

 

"However, the facts are very simple. If you want to open a new marina, you must compensate CRT for the income that they lose by taking moorings off line.

If you don't like it, don't open a marina."

 

Taking one of your points, I am not sure how it encourages people to open marinas if they are going to be charged for doing so. If the NAA works to increase a marina's revenue sufficiently to offset the charge, then fair enough, but you seem to be agreeing with me that the NAA (as far as I can see) doesn't do that.

 

 

Usual disclaimer: I am not a fan of Mr P Lillie. I am simply trying to understand whether his claims have any validity.

[PaulG]

 

Usual disclaimer: I am not a fan of Mr P Lillie. I am simply trying to understand whether his claims have any validity.

 

I think that we have done that one to death, George, with the greatest of respect.

 

It is generally accepted that, if you sign an agreement of your own free will, then you must comply with the terms of that agreement.

 

Even if, as various people have tried to claim, the agreement is completely unfair, the appropriate course of action is not to sign it in the first place.

 

You might also take into account that, out of (I think!) approx 50 marinas that have similar agreements, Pillings is the only one that has defaulted.

[mayalld]

 

Thank you. That answers one part of the question. Now for the other:

 

 

But is it true, in every case, that BW removed a number of moorings sufficient to justify the size of the NAA charge?

 

The problem is that removing moorings doesn't guarantee that the boats concerned will move into the new marina. CART, of course, will know exactly what happened to the boats concerned, and if they DID go to Pillings, I am sure Mr Spencer would be saying so. Perhaps he who likes FOIs will oblige.

 

 

 

There has NEVER been any suggestion that closing on-line moorings will cause particular boats to move into a marina.

 

Indeed that would be a ridiculous suggestion, and utterly irrelevant to the question.

 

For the most part the moorings that were taken out of use were taken out of use when they were vacant (because it would be unfair to simply close an occupied mooring and displace the occupant).

 

That reduces the SUPPLY of on-line moorings.

 

The boater who last occupied that mooring may well have taken an on-line mooring elsewhere, or taken a marina morring elsewhere, but that mooring is NOT now available for somebody new to take it up.

 

The person who would otherwise have secured that mooring will now perhaps secure another online mooring, or will moor in a marina (perhaps not PLM). If he secures another online mooring, then that displaces another boat etc.

 

The end result is that there are less on-line moorings available, and that as a result, it will become more difficult to get one, and somebody at the end of that merry go round will move into a marina. The policy creates an increased demand for marina moorings, and it is for marina owners to capture that custom.

 

CRTs accounts show that ON AVERAGE, the income yield for one of its moorings is £1,469 per annum.

 

If a 300 Berth Marina opens (such as PLM), and they put 30 on-line moorings out of use, they will ON AVERAGE lose an income of £44,000 per annum as a result.

 

Now, can you remind me what the NAA charge was for PLM (The unfair one that they didn't pay before they took out some berths)?

 

In the interest of a level playing field, it is fair and just that;

 

• For each new marina, BW/CRT should take identical actions to stimulate demand (by removing one online berth for every 10 marina berths in a 30 mile radius).
• The charge for that demand stimulus should be on an identical basis for all new marinas (rather than calculating the income forgone for each individual marina).

The loss to CRT income overall justifies the level of the charge.

[George94]

 

There has NEVER been any suggestion that closing on-line moorings will cause particular boats to move into a marina.

 

Indeed that would be a ridiculous suggestion, and utterly irrelevant to the question.

 

For the most part the moorings that were taken out of use were taken out of use when they were vacant (because it would be unfair to simply close an occupied mooring and displace the occupant).

 

That reduces the SUPPLY of on-line moorings.

 

The boater who last occupied that mooring may well have taken an on-line mooring elsewhere, or taken a marina morring elsewhere, but that mooring is NOT now available for somebody new to take it up.

 

The person who would otherwise have secured that mooring will now perhaps secure another online mooring, or will moor in a marina (perhaps not PLM). If he secures another online mooring, then that displaces another boat etc.

 

The end result is that there are less on-line moorings available, and that as a result, it will become more difficult to get one, and somebody at the end of that merry go round will move into a marina. The policy creates an increased demand for marina moorings, and it is for marina owners to capture that custom.

 

CRTs accounts show that ON AVERAGE, the income yield for one of its moorings is £1,469 per annum.

 

If a 300 Berth Marina opens (such as PLM), and they put 30 on-line moorings out of use, they will ON AVERAGE lose an income of £44,000 per annum as a result.

 

Now, can you remind me what the NAA charge was for PLM (The unfair one that they didn't pay before they took out some berths)?

 

In the interest of a level playing field, it is fair and just that;

 

• For each new marina, BW/CRT should take identical actions to stimulate demand (by removing one online berth for every 10 marina berths in a 30 mile radius).
• The charge for that demand stimulus should be on an identical basis for all new marinas (rather than calculating the income forgone for each individual marina).

The loss to CRT income overall justifies the level of the charge.

 

Hardly.

 

It's CART's choice to close on-line moorings. If the NAA charge doesn't lead to an equal amount of additional revenue that the marina wouldn't otherwise have got, it's just an extra cost that the marina has to bear - and pass on to the berth-holders.

 

Furthermore, not every displaced boat will go to a marina. Some may decide to pack it in, others to CC.

 

And what about those marinas that DON'T pay the NAA, but will benefit (according to you) from the withdrawal of moorings?

 

What's more, this is a cost that falls ultimately on marina berth-holders. CCers don't have to pay it.

 

So it's not a level playing field.

 

I think that we have done that one to death, George, with the greatest of respect.

 

It is generally accepted that, if you sign an agreement of your own free will, then you must comply with the terms of that agreement.

 

Even if, as various people have tried to claim, the agreement is completely unfair, the appropriate course of action is not to sign it in the first place.

 

You might also take into account that, out of (I think!) approx 50 marinas that have similar agreements, Pillings is the only one that has defaulted.

 

I am grateful for the respect, but that closing statement was aimed at everybody, not you particularly. Some of the flak that has come my way has done so because of an erroneous perception that I am here to support P Lillie, Esq.

 

Let us hope that the economy improves sufficiently that no other marina will default.

[Tuscan]

Guess there are alternatives:

 

Remove the NAA and restore the online moorings , might need to lower the reserve price to fill them, good marinas in a good location would no doubt survive but would have to market themselves competitively others would be allowed to fail. As CRT is a major marina owner there is to much of a conflict of interest for that to happen

 

Remove the NAA and increase all boat licences by the equivalent of the lost amount.

 

Remove the NAA and charge all boats without a home mooring a 9% surcharge

 

Remove the NAA and change license fee to area rather than length

 

No where's my tin hat

[FredDrift]

Hardly.

 

It's CART's choice to close on-line moorings. If the NAA charge doesn't lead to an equal amount of additional revenue that the marina wouldn't otherwise have got, it's just an extra cost that the marina has to bear - and pass on to the berth-holders.

 

Furthermore, not every displaced boat will go to a marina. Some may decide to pack it in, others to CC.

 

And what about those marinas that DON'T pay the NAA, but will benefit (according to you) from the withdrawal of moorings?

 

What's more, this is a cost that falls ultimately on marina berth-holders. CCers don't have to pay it.

 

So it's not a level playing field.

in the same way that the cost of renting a lock up garage is borne entirely by the users of said garages and not those who choose to park at the kerbside.

 

CCers don't pay for on-line moorings either so are they in any way pertinent to any discussion about marina NAAs?