Dispute at Pillings

[Grace and Favour]

That depends on whether or not you could get enough customers on that basis.

Which bring us back to the subject of 'access arrangements'

 

At least the NAA is consistent, fair and even-handed!

[Willber G]

Which bring us back to the subject of 'access arrangements'

 

At least the NAA is consistent, fair and even-handed!

I agree. The bottom line is if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

[Paul G2]

Which bring us back to the subject of 'access arrangements'

 

At least the NAA is consistent, fair and even-handed!

 

I'm not even trying to open that debate again, and I'm certainly not condoning what Steadman/Lillie have done. I'm just saying, from a purely business standpoint, if the marina could avoid the NAA by digging a short channel to the Soar, it would be a good investment. I'm not commenting on the morality of the idea, merely the economics.

I agree. The bottom line is if you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

 

I agree with you 100%. Read my comment above.

[Willber G]

... if the marina could avoid the NAA by digging a short channel to the Soar, it would be a good investment ...

As I said, only if there were sufficient customers for this scenario.

[tupperware]

I'm sure this point has been covered previously but the thought of locking back over all the previous posts is a little daunting.

 

I'd be quite interested to know:

 

1. Which company name was on the invoices presented to a moorer in respect of their mooring fees?

 

2. Which company name was on the receipt issued when those mooring fees were paid?

 

3. Did the invoicing company provide a means to pay by credit card and did any moorer pay all or part of their bill by this method?

 

The thought that has occurred is that should CRT block access to the marina in April as planned, the moorers still there will lose their access to the national network a fact which CRT has acknowledged by their offer to reimburse the unused portion of the license fee. In this case the service for which moorers have paid is no longer within the power of PLM or QMP to deliver. Under such circumstances, any moorer who used a credit card to pay at least £100 of their mooring fees is entitled to seek reimbursement of the full amount from their card issuer under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. With mooring fees running into the thousands it may just be possible that the card issuers might reconsider whether to continue to provide the commercial credit arrangements under which the fees were collected.

[matty40s]

Yacht club... How deep's the Soar?

...about 5 feet deep up to the lock, then mast down to get under the bridge. 1/2 mile of river then turn or mast down again to get under barrow bridge.

 

Mind you, most yacht clubs on the Thames just have those tupperware yoghurtpots in the majority.

[tupperware]

 

I'm not even trying to open that debate again, and I'm certainly not condoning what Steadman/Lillie have done. I'm just saying, from a purely business standpoint, if the marina could avoid the NAA by digging a short channel to the Soar, it would be a good investment. I'm not commenting on the morality of the idea, merely the economics.

 

I agree with you 100%. Read my comment above.

 

I understand that the Environment Agency is responsible for the Thames, the Medway and the rivers of East Anglia and other waterways have similar more local bodies with statutory responsibility for their management.. I am amazed that I can not get a definitive answer as to who manages the Soar although it is clear that CRT are involved perhaps with others. Given these circumstances and that an NAA makes reference to waterways and not canals I wonder if a channel to the river would really avoid the need for an NAA.

[Ray T]

Naive question perhaps?

 

If the access to the marina is blocked will PLM, QMP or who ever, still expect those trapped inside to pay their mooring dues?

I am aware that CRT have said that if this happens they will not expect the license fee.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Ray T

[tupperware]

...about 5 feet deep up to the lock, then mast down to get under the bridge. 1/2 mile of river then turn or mast down again to get under barrow bridge.

 

Mind you, most yacht clubs on the Thames just have those tupperware yoghurtpots in the majority.

 

I'm deeply offended.

 

Whilst my wife and I are now members of the club of "sewer-tubers", we did start out with a boat constructed from the same material as a Ferrari although I must confess that our first boat could never achieve a 0-60 measured in seconds or indeed years for that matter. Please desist from your tupperphobia.

[Alan de Enfield]

Yacht club... How deep's the Soar?

 

'Tacking' could be the problem - much of the Soar is not much wider than the canal

[BruceinSanity]

I'm sure this point has been covered previously but the thought of locking back over all the previous posts is a little daunting.

 

I'd be quite interested to know:

 

1. Which company name was on the invoices presented to a moorer in respect of their mooring fees?

 

2. Which company name was on the receipt issued when those mooring fees were paid?

 

3. Did the invoicing company provide a means to pay by credit card and did any moorer pay all or part of their bill by this method?

 

The thought that has occurred is that should CRT block access to the marina in April as planned, the moorers still there will lose their access to the national network a fact which CRT has acknowledged by their offer to reimburse the unused portion of the license fee. In this case the service for which moorers have paid is no longer within the power of PLM or QMP to deliver. Under such circumstances, any moorer who used a credit card to pay at least £100 of their mooring fees is entitled to seek reimbursement of the full amount from their card issuer under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. With mooring fees running into the thousands it may just be possible that the card issuers might reconsider whether to continue to provide the commercial credit arrangements under which the fees were collected.

Only an accountant would have had that thought! Nice one.

 

I'm only an intelligent layman when it comes to these matters (though Sheila did temp for an IP at one stage in her (very checkered) career), but surely as the Steadmans are both the major shareholder and the principal creditor of QMP, don't they have the whip hand when it comes to choice of liquidator?

[MtB]

 

The thought that has occurred is that should CRT block access to the marina in April as planned, the moorers still there will lose their access to the national network a fact which CRT has acknowledged by their offer to reimburse the unused portion of the license fee.

 

 

Naive question perhaps?

 

If the access to the marina is blocked will PLM, QMP or who ever, still expect those trapped inside to pay their mooring dues?

I am aware that CRT have said that if this happens they will not expect the license fee.

 

Point of order here.

 

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that if CRT blocks off the entrance, boats in the marina will no longer need a licence. This is not quite the case. Boats in the marina no longer need a licence NOW even though access to the cut still exists.

 

As one of the terms of the NAA is that boats inside the marina must be licensed evem though not on the canal, CRT's revocation of the NAA means this condition no longer applies and boaters are entitled to a backdated refund.

 

And moorers, by the way, have stated on here they pay their mooring fees to PLM.

 

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

 

The thought that has occurred is that should CRT block access to the marina in April as planned, the moorers still there will lose their access to the national network a fact which CRT has acknowledged by their offer to reimburse the unused portion of the license fee. In this case the service for which moorers have paid is no longer within the power of PLM or QMP to deliver.

 

Being Devils Avocate - the 'moorers' have paid for a 'mooring' which will still be provided.

 

Definition of mooring from Webster Dictionary : a place where a boat or ship can be anchored or moored

 

Unless their 'mooring' contract states 'mooring and acess to the waterway' then they are still meeting the terms of their agreement and no refunds will be due.

 

C&RT's licence fee is to enable the user to 'use' the waterway - if for any reason the user is not using, or has no access to, the waterway then it is right an proper that C&RT should refund the unused portion of the licence

[MtB]

 

Thank you.

 

Your point about "Unfair Preference" (favouring one creditor over another) is one I raised here some days ago. An IP can go back over the last two years to look for evidence of this practice in any company whose activities he is winding up and where such activities are proven can require the return of such monies to be included in the liquidation "pot" for distribution to creditors. Where such activities are found an IP can also, I believe, consider the motivation for the act and can examine any associations between those directors who sanctioned the preference and the third parties who benefitted from it. Timing is also important in terms of the period which elapsed between the preference and the winding up. Consideration can also be taken as to whether at the date of the preference, the company was actually illiquid. I have mentioned two years as the normal historical period which an IP can review but I understand that, where if preference can be demonstrated, an application might be possible to consider earlier periods in addition.

 

Such matters will, of course, be of interest to CRT who are owed a significant sum and will, one assumes, seek to recover as much of their loss as possible.

 

It is considerations such as these that lead me to be concerned about whether Mr Nelson, the appointed IP, is in the thrall of the Steadmans.

 

If he is, he will have no inclination to explore the avenues tupperware points out in posts such as this and previous posts, and will be keen to wrap it all up with the minimum of questions asked.

 

How does one find out if an IP has done a good and thorough job, or a quick cut 'n' shut?

 

MtB

[Bod]

Do the EA. have an equivlent to C&RT.s NAA.?

 

Bod

 

See new thread please.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Bod

[MtB]

Do the EA. have an equivlent to C&RT.s NAA.?

 

Bod

 

Do the EA. have an equivlent to C&RT.s NAA.?

 

Bod

 

May I suggest that's a topic for a new thread, rather than diluting discussion of PLM on here?

 

MtB

[tupperware]

Only an accountant would have had that thought! Nice one.

 

I'm only an intelligent layman when it comes to these matters (though Sheila did temp for an IP at one stage in her (very checkered) career), but surely as the Steadmans are both the major shareholder and the principal creditor of QMP, don't they have the whip hand when it comes to choice of liquidator?

 

That's a terrible accusation to make! I am not actually an accountant but having spent much of my working life dealing with accounting systems and now run my own business a little knowledge (which as they say is a dangerous thing) has rubbed off.

 

In respect of the selection of an IP, then from what I have read the creditors wishes in respect of the IP will prevail. There is an interesting document published by HM government at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/TrusteesandLiquidators.pdf which sets out the conduct of a liquidation and the role and duties that an IP assumes. It well worth a read.

[MtB]

 

In respect of the selection of an IP, then from what I have read the creditors wishes in respect of the IP will prevail. There is an interesting document published by HM government at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/pdfs/guidanceleafletspdf/TrusteesandLiquidators.pdf which sets out the conduct of a liquidation and the role and duties that an IP assumes. It well worth a read.

 

From the guide:

 

This guide summarises the functions and powers of a private sector insolvency practitioner who

is appointed as:

• trustee of a bankrupt; or

• liquidator of a company in compulsory liquidation.

 

Given QMP is in voluntary liquidation I imagine there would be a similar document, but with significant differences, covering that!

 

Interesting document though as you say. Thanks.

 

MtB

Edited February 14, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[johnthebridge]

 

I'm deeply offended.

 

- with a boat constructed from the same material as a Ferrari although I must confess that our first boat could never achieve a 0-60 measured in seconds or indeed years for that matter. Please desist from your tupperphobia.

 

Mamma mia! The same material as a Ferrari? Dear boy, the only road-going Ferraris constructed from that Devil's Spawn, aka fibreglass, were early versions of the 308GTB, a model introduced nearly 40 years ago. All other road Ferraris are tin.

[Phantasm]

 

Being Devils Avocate - the 'moorers' have paid for a 'mooring' which will still be provided.

 

Definition of mooring from Webster Dictionary : a place where a boat or ship can be anchored or moored

 

Unless their 'mooring' contract states 'mooring and acess to the waterway' then they are still meeting the terms of their agreement and no refunds will be due.

 

C&RT's licence fee is to enable the user to 'use' the waterway - if for any reason the user is not using, or has no access to, the waterway then it is right an proper that C&RT should refund the unused portion of the licence

But then, if the access is blocked by CRT and moorers refuse to pay their mooring fees how is PL going to throw them off the marina?

Reminds me of the film Passport to Pimlico

[MtB]

But then, if the access is blocked by CRT and moorers refuse to pay their mooring fees how is PL going to throw them off the marina?

Reminds me of the film Passport to Pimlico

 

Is there a crane pad at Pillings Lake?

 

MtB

[matty40s]

Is there a crane pad at Pillings Lake?

 

MtB

At a cost.....

[tupperware]

 

Being Devils Avocate - the 'moorers' have paid for a 'mooring' which will still be provided.

 

Definition of mooring from Webster Dictionary : a place where a boat or ship can be anchored or moored

 

Unless their 'mooring' contract states 'mooring and acess to the waterway' then they are still meeting the terms of their agreement and no refunds will be due.

 

C&RT's licence fee is to enable the user to 'use' the waterway - if for any reason the user is not using, or has no access to, the waterway then it is right an proper that C&RT should refund the unused portion of the licence

 

When one enters into a contract with a marina connected to the national network to moor one's boat and is required to remit to CRT a license fee in order to use the network then it is not unreasonable for the moorer to expect continued access to the network whether the contract states this explicitly or not. Were one to purchase a motor vehicle then it is most unlikely that the contract will specify that it comes with wheels although should these be missing on delivery there is little doubt that a court would take the view that the product was not fit for purpose and find in favour of the purchaser.

 

UK consumers are also protected against the inclusion of unfair terms in most contracts and I see no reason why a mooring agreement should be excluded from the provisions of the various acts. A court might well consider that the purchaser of a mooring service from a marina connected to the national network has every right to claim that such access was the most material consideration in their purchasing the mooring in the first place particularly as the company charging for the service has entered into an agreement with BW/CRT to provide such access, whatever the dictionary definition of a "mooring" might be.

[Ray T]

At a cost.....

 

What would the legal status be if marina staff boarded a boat to move it without the owners consent?

I suppose a court injunction would be needed?

 

In "our" marina I have given consent for the staff to move our boat should it either be in danger itself or a danger to other marina moorers.

Not to move it for the purpose of taking it out of the water. Could they argue taking it out of the water was for safety reasons?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Ray T

[b0atman]

so where do wilderness trail boats fit into your comment ? licence is paid for use of the canal/river system not for access to it !