Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

If I wasa moorer I would keep my boat licenced to enable me to exit after the blockage if needed, I would also only pay my mooring monthly on any renewal. If I had a lease I think I would by now have obtained legal advice although it might take a while for a solicitor to unravel.

 

Agreed, the first bit..

 

But for long term leaseholders, provided their leases are registered with the Land Registry a solicitor will confirm they are unaffected. All that happens is the superior landlord changes. The new landlord 'steps into the shoes' of the old and is bound by the same rights and obligations under the lease terms as the old.

 

MtB

[Tuscan]

Agreed, the first bit..

 

But for long term leaseholders, provided their leases are registered with the Land Registry a solicitor will confirm they are unaffected. All that happens is the superior landlord changes. The new landlord 'steps into the shoes' of the old and is bound by the same rights and obligations under the lease terms as the old.

 

MtB

Maybe I would want the solicitor to advise on whether the new landlord was required also to allow a mooring with access to the network as part of the agreement based on how it was sold.

[mayalld]

 

 

As you say MTB, very interesting. It poses a couple of questions:

 

1.. If QMP have not invoiced PLM in respect of the mooring fees then how were QMP ever going to be able to meet the access charges to be levied by CRT?

 

 

I fear that you have been led astray by earlier comments about payments going to PLM only.

 

I believe that the situation actually is that Moorers pay PLM, that QMP Invoiced PLM, and that those invoices were paid.

 

QMP, in turn had two main outgoings;

 

1) Mortgage to Steadman

2) NAA to CRT.

 

What they appear to have done is pay the former, and fail to pay the latter, hiding behind a veil of contesting the amount due.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Grace & Favour
changed 'former' to 'latter'

[MtB]

QMP, in turn had two main outgoings;

 

1) Mortgage to Steadman

2) NAA to CRT.

 

What they appear to have done is pay the former, and fail to pay the former, hiding behind a veil of contesting the amount due.

 

I see. If the mortgage to Steadman has been hoovering up all the cashflow provided by the part-filled marina mooring income, I can see how Paul Lillie gains the impression that that the NAA is iniquitous. I bet the mortgage rate was carefully calculated to suck up all the cash. I wonder if it is interest-only or if regular capital repayments were being made.

 

So the intention was that the NAA payments would be funded by the topslice income resulting from the last few spaces in the marina being filled, but they aren't, and CRT told him they would be! Hence the anger with CRT and it all being their fault that the NAA remains unpaid and PL considering them architects of their own misfortune.

 

This all fits in with a geezer who forgets to account for VAT on mooring income when preparing cashflow forecasts.

 

MtB

[costalot]

 

I fear that you have been led astray by earlier comments about payments going to PLM only.

 

I believe that the situation actually is that Moorers pay PLM, that QMP Invoiced PLM, and that those invoices were paid.

 

QMP, in turn had two main outgoings;

 

1) Mortgage to Steadman

2) NAA to CRT.

 

What they appear to have done is pay the former, and fail to pay the former, hiding behind a veil of contesting the amount due.

And apparently QMP offered to make partial payments to CRT which were refused. One assumes the directors of QMP would claim that because CRT wouldn't accept the money they made higher payments to their other creditor (QMH). Which is why there is no money left in the kitty!

[tupperware]

 

I fear that you have been led astray by earlier comments about payments going to PLM only.

 

I believe that the situation actually is that Moorers pay PLM, that QMP Invoiced PLM, and that those invoices were paid.

 

QMP, in turn had two main outgoings;

 

1) Mortgage to Steadman

2) NAA to CRT.

 

What they appear to have done is pay the former, and fail to pay the former, hiding behind a veil of contesting the amount due.

 

So you are of the view that payment under the mortgage agreement was made in preference to that to CRT? If this is indeed the case then such a payment clearly falls within the time window one would expect, as in any liquidation, the IP to consider whether in his/her view the payment could described as unfair preference and hence due for repayment to the liquidated company.

 

I see. If the mortgage to Steadman has been hoovering up all the cashflow provided by the part-filled marina mooring income, I can see how Paul Lillie gains the impression that that the NAA is iniquitous. I bet the mortgage rate was carefully calculated to suck up all the cash. I wonder if it is interest-only or if regular capital repayments were being made.

 

So the intention was that the NAA payments would be funded by the topslice income resulting from the last few spaces in the marina being filled, but they aren't, and CRT told him they would be! Hence the anger with CRT and it all being their fault that the NAA remains unpaid and PL considering them architects of their own misfortune.

 

This all fits in with a geezer who forgets to account for VAT on mooring income when preparing cashflow forecasts.

 

MtB

 

The iniquity of the NAA is most unlikely to be of any interest to the IP. If I understand this correctly, a debt (to CRT) was incurred and was not discharged with the monies set aside in the accounts to meet that liability not apparently being used to liquidate the debt. I would not like to have to explain to an IP how this might have occurred.

If I wasa moorer I would keep my boat licenced to enable me to exit after the blockage if needed, I would also only pay my mooring monthly on any renewal. If I had a lease I think I would by now have obtained legal advice although it might take a while for a solicitor to unravel.

 

I agree that it would be eminently sensible to continue with the license. I would, however, seek advice as to whether, in concert with the other moorers, it would be possible to pass that portion of the mooring fee due to CRT directly to them. I can understand why this might not be possible but there might just be a way this could be arranged.

[Phantasm]

 

Agreed, the first bit..

 

But for long term leaseholders, provided their leases are registered with the Land Registry a solicitor will confirm they are unaffected. All that happens is the superior landlord changes. The new landlord 'steps into the shoes' of the old and is bound by the same rights and obligations under the lease terms as the old.

 

MtB

So would this mean that, should heaven forbid the marina does not carry on, the leaseholders would have a hold over the Steadmans regarding whatever development they may want to do in the future.

[tupperware]

And apparently QMP offered to make partial payments to CRT which were refused. One assumes the directors of QMP would claim that because CRT wouldn't accept the money they made higher payments to their other creditor (QMH). Which is why there is no money left in the kitty!

 

So, although the debt with CRT remained, the part-payment offered to them which they refused to accept as a full payment of the monies owed was used to offset some other liability? A business strategy this is not.

[MtB]

So would this mean that, should heaven forbid the marina does not carry on, the leaseholders would have a hold over the Steadmans regarding whatever development they may want to do in the future.

 

Yes but bear in mind the leases expire in less than 25 years anyway, so they are irrelevant if Steadman is playing a really long game.

 

 

 

 

So, although the debt with CRT remained, the part-payment offered to them which they refused to accept as a full payment of the monies owed was used to offset some other liability? A business strategy this is not.

 

 

So, although the debt with CRT remained, the part-payment offered to them which they refused to accept as a full payment of the monies owed was used to offset some other liability? A business strategy this is not.

 

True, but the worry is whether Mr Nelson the IP can be bothered to delve into all this. What if he doesn't because he is not being paid enough? How can CRT hold him to account? Will CRT even bother?

 

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The stated financial position of QMP (which is in creditors voluntary liquidation) is as follows -

The freehold property (i.e. the marina) is its only asset. It has a book value of £2.57m but will only fetch £2m on sale. Mathew Steadman holds a £2.75m fixed charge over the marina.

There are no floating charge holders.

(The above appears to be contrary to information held at companies house which suggests that Mathew Steadman held a floating charge for unspecified amounts loaned to QMP. However, this might have changed very recently.)

Non preferential claims are as follows - (Notes)

 

Mathew Steadman - £750,000 1

Contingent Liabilities - £444,000 2

CaRT - £185,000 3

QMH - £400,000 4
PLM £1,628,000 5

Total non-preferential claims are £3.4m

Notes (this is what I think these figures mean!)

 

1. The £750,000 is the difference between Mathew Steadman's preferentila claim of £2.75m and what the marina can be sold for (£2m).

 

2. This appears to represent the claims that mooring leaseholders might have against QMP.

3. This represents the amount that CaRT was awarded in its court action against QMP.

4. This represents a claim that QMP's parent company has.

 

5. This represents a claim that Pillings lock Marina (the operating company) has.

CaRT appear to be questioning why two associated companies of QMP have such large claims against it.

 

**** Edited to correct one of the figures and add another

Edited February 14, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm going round in circles - but I just cannot understand how QMP can 'owe' PLM £1,628,000.

 

The only suggestion I can come up with is that Moorers paid their fees to QMP and then it was (should have been ) 'charged back' to PLM

 

But (say) 200 moorers at an average of £1500 is only £300,000

 

Otherwise how can there be this debt ?

 

I'm lost on this one.

[Drop_Shunt]

 

Do we actually know what the Steadmans intend for the site long term or are we jumping to a conclusion that it might be for housing development?

 

I keep seeing allusions to the possibility that the site is seen - in the long to medium term - as a prospect for housing development.

 

However the vast majority of the marina sits on land that has been designated as Zone 3B (functional floodplain) under the local authority's Serious Flood Risk Assessment. The types of development permitted inside Zone 3B are strictly limited to:

 

1. Water Compatible Infrastructure; and

2. Essential Infrastructure (but only if exception test is passed).

 

The entirity of the remainder of the site (that land adjacent to Flesh Hovel Lane) is designated as Zone 3A (High Probability), and residential development is prohibited there unless an "exception test" is passed. The policy states that

 

Depending on the land use vulnerability, there may be a further requirement to satisfy the Exception Test outlined in PPS25 prior to development in these higher risk zones. paragraph D9 states that "For the Exception Test to be passed:

 

a) It must be demontrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by an SFRA where one has been prepared.

 

the development should be on developable previously-developed land or, if it is not on previously developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously-developed land;

 

c) A flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

 

The Exception Test should only be applied after the Sequential Test has been used to demonstrate that no sites with a lower flood risk are available. Both tests should be applied as early in the Planning Process as possible, and should not be used simply as a tool to retrospectively justify 'highly vulnerable development' in PPS25 Zone 2, or 'less vulnerable'; 'more vulnerable'; and 'highly vulnerable' in PPS25 Zone 3a.

 

I don't see that even the most optimistic and patient of developers would anticipate being able to develop the site for housing. One only has to look at the current news to realise that Local Authorities are hardly going to be keen to attract the bad publicity that a flooded estate will generate if they are persuaded to vary their own planning policies, nor central governement to overturn their decision on appeal.

 

The following document is worth a read, if you have the time:

 

https://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/strategic_flood_risk_assessment_main_report/strategicfloodriskassessmentmain.pdf

 

And the relevant map:

 

http://www.charnwood.gov.uk/files/documents/figure_43_river_soar_comparison_of_flood_zone_3a_extents/figure4.3riversoar-comparisonoff.pdf

 

Regards

 

D_S

[Paul G2]

The stated financial position of QMP (which is in creditors voluntary liquidation) is as follows -

 

The freehold property (i.e. the marina) is its only asset. It has a book value of £2.57m but will only fetch £2m on sale. Mathew Steadman holds a £2.75m fixed charge over the marina.

 

There are no floating charge holders.

 

(The above appears to be contrary to information held at companies house which suggests that Mathew Steadman held a floating charge for unspecified amounts loaned to QMP. However, this might have changed very recently.)

 

Non preferential claims are as follows - (Notes)

 

Mathew Steadman - £750,000 1

Contingent Liabilities - £444,000 2

CaRT - £185,000 3

QMH - £400,000 4

PLM £1,628,000 5

 

Total non-preferential claims are £3.4m

Notes (this is what I think these figures mean!)

 

1. The £750,000 is the difference between Mathew Steadman's preferentila claim of £2.75m and what the marina can be sold for (£2m).

 

2. This appears to represent the claims that mooring leaseholders might have against QMP.

 

3. This represents the amount that CaRT was awarded in its court action against QMP.

 

4. This represents a claim that QMP's parent company has.

 

5. This represents a claim that Pillings lock Marina (the operating company) has.

 

CaRT appear to be questioning why two associated companies of QMP have such large claims against it.

 

**** Edited to correct one of the figures and add another

 

Re. 5. - You don't show a "-" in front of the £1,628,000. Is that a typo, or does PLM owe QMP £1,628,000?

[tupperware]

The stated financial position of QMP (which is in creditors voluntary liquidation) is as follows -

 

The freehold property (i.e. the marina) is its only asset. It has a book value of £2.57m but will only fetch £2m on sale. Mathew Steadman holds a £2.75m fixed charge over the marina.

 

There are no floating charge holders.

 

(The above appears to be contrary to information held at companies house which suggests that Mathew Steadman held a floating charge for unspecified amounts loaned to QMP. However, this might have changed very recently.)

 

Non preferential claims are as follows - (Notes)

 

Mathew Steadman - £750,000 1

Contingent Liabilities - £444,000 2

CaRT - £185,000 3

QMH - £400,000 4

PLM £1,628,000 5

 

Total non-preferential claims are £3.4m

Notes (this is what I think these figures mean!)

 

1. The £750,000 is the difference between Mathew Steadman's preferentila claim of £2.75m and what the marina can be sold for (£2m).

 

2. This appears to represent the claims that mooring leaseholders might have against QMP.

 

3. This represents the amount that CaRT was awarded in its court action against QMP.

 

4. This represents a claim that QMP's parent company has.

 

5. This represents a claim that Pillings lock Marina (the operating company) has.

 

CaRT appear to be questioning why two associated companies of QMP have such large claims against it.

 

**** Edited to correct one of the figures and add another

 

In respect of item (2), I understood that mooring contracts were between the moorers and PLM and one wonders how this liability has found its way into the accounts of QMP, a company with which moorers have no legal contract. This can not represent some kind of escrow arrangement as this would mean the money would still be in existence under the control of some third party.

 

In respect of item (4) if there any indication as to what might represent other than a mortgage charge?

 

In respect of item (5) what possible services/products could PLM have provided to QMP to accumulate such a debt?

 

Of the list above it would seem that both QMH and PLM are the main creditors with CRT coming fourth in terms of value after this mysterious contingent liability of £400,000.

 

May one enquire as to the origin of these figures?

[tupperware]

I'm going round in circles - but I just cannot understand how QMP can 'owe' PLM £1,628,000.

 

The only suggestion I can come up with is that Moorers paid their fees to QMP and then it was (should have been ) 'charged back' to PLM

 

But (say) 200 moorers at an average of £1500 is only £300,000

 

Otherwise how can there be this debt ?

 

I'm lost on this one.

 

Quite so but does the absence of a minus sign against this figure indicate that it is owed by PLM to QMP rather than the other way around as someone else here has suggested? If not, then I too can not understand what possible services PLM could have provided to QMP for the latter to incur such an enormous debt unless it represents some substantial capital investment which PLM financed to improve the marina facilities owned by QMP. Has there been such a development?

 

I'm also puzzled by the figure of £444,000 as "contingent liabilities" when I understood that invoices in respect of mooring fees were submitted by PLM not QMP unless QMP were offering some kind of insurance to PLM to cover the latter's liability if the demise of QMP meant that PLM were unable to service the mooring contracts. But even that does not work as if QMP die then unless the "insurance" is held by some third party in escrow, the money dies along with QMP. In any event, it would be interesting to know whose name is on the mooring agreement as the party from which the moorers contract their service. One would not expect that the "other party" would be QMP when the invoice to the moorer was in the name of PLM but the murkiness seems to be growing rather than dissipating.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

In respect of item (2), I understood that mooring contracts were between the moorers and PLM and one wonders how this liability has found its way into the accounts of QMP, a company with which moorers have no legal contract. This can not represent some kind of escrow arrangement as this would mean the money would still be in existence under the control of some third party.

 

In respect of item (4) if there any indication as to what might represent other than a mortgage charge?

 

In respect of item (5) what possible services/products could PLM have provided to QMP to accumulate such a debt?

 

Of the list above it would seem that both QMH and PLM are the main creditors with CRT coming fourth in terms of value after this mysterious contingent liability of £400,000.

 

May one enquire as to the origin of these figures?

In respect of item 2, I am talking about the 20 or so moorers who have leases (rather that those who simply have contracts).

 

I don't know how or why these debts exist.

 

The figures are from QMP's Statement of Affairs (produced prior to the creditors meeting).

 

 

Re. 5. - You don't show a "-" in front of the £1,628,000. Is that a typo, or does PLM owe QMP £1,628,000?

QMP owes £1.6m.

 

From Phil Spencers last email to moorers -

 

......... CRT is in correspondence with Mr Nelson regarding various matters including the way in which QMP was managed and is seeking clarification as to why QMP has such substantial debts to connected companies being Quorn Marina Holdings Limited (QMP’s parent company) and with Pillings Lock Marina Limited (which has historically operated the Marina on a day to day basis).

Edited February 14, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[tupperware]

In respect of item 2,

 

PLM owes QMP £1.6m.

 

From Phil Spencers last email to moorers -

 

 

Well in that case, the sums owed by QMP in terms of items 2, 3 and 4 total £1,029,000 against a debt owed to QMP by PLM of £1,600,000 giving a net asset value of £571,000. If this is truly the case then it is only the £750,000 which represents the difference as I understand it between the value of the site and the loan amount held by the Steadmans that makes QMP illiquid. The difference in site value would only normally be payable on disposal.

 

Do I have this right or am I missing something?

[LoneWolf]

 

...

What they appear to have done is pay the former, and fail to pay the latter, hiding behind a veil of contesting the amount due.

 

nice turn of phrase there. I don't know hardly anything about insolvency law but it sounds reasonable as a defense against 'preferential treatment' to me for transactions before the court case judgement.

 

 

...

True, but the worry is whether Mr Nelson the IP can be bothered to delve into all this. What if he doesn't because he is not being paid enough? How can CRT hold him to account? Will CRT even bother?

 

MtB

 

Mike, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this despite tupperware's links.

 

Insolvency Practitionery is licensed. The IP will have to follow certain Duties and will also have Professional Standards and Ethics code that he will have to follow. This will be regulated by whichever body issues his licence - I think the ICAEW is the biggest issuer of licenses

 

Your comments about 'Mr Nelson' are questioning his professional integrity and ethics without ANY cause

 

 

Lucky i don't have any gas in my house - All gas boiler repairmen rip you off

[carpet wallah]

In respect of item 2, I am talking about the 20 or so moorers who have leases (rather that those who simply have contracts).

I don't know how or why these debts exist.

 

The figures are from QMP's Statement of Affairs (produced prior to the creditors meeting).

 

 

"PLM owes QMP £1.6m".

 

Is this a typo?

You have just stated that total unsecured creditors of QMP = £3.4m. Therefore the £1.6m is part of this and QMP OWES PLM.

(though, how the hell that can be !?)

[Paul G2]

 

The figures are from QMP's Statement of Affairs (produced prior to the creditors meeting).

 

PLM owes QMP £1.6m.

 

 

 

Thank you Allan!

 

QMP own(ed) the marina and leased it to PLM who then manage the marina and sub-lease the moorings. So that £1.6m is probably the total of the lease payments due under the lease from QMP to PLM.

 

If you then consider that the £1.6m that PLM owes QMP is an asset, QMP is only underwater by about £151,000 - and that figure is derived using Steadman's evaluation of £2m for the marina, which may or may not be a valid evaluation.

[tupperware]

 

nice turn of phrase there. I don't know hardly anything about insolvency law but it sounds reasonable as a defense against 'preferential treatment' to me for transactions before the court case judgement.

 

 

Mike, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this despite tupperware's links.

 

Insolvency Practitionery is licensed. The IP will have to follow certain Duties and will also have Professional Standards and Ethics code that he will have to follow. This will be regulated by whichever body issues his licence - I think the ICAEW is the biggest issuer of licenses

 

Your comments about 'Mr Nelson' are questioning his professional integrity and ethics without ANY cause

 

 

Lucky i don't have any gas in my house - All gas boiler repairmen rip you off

 

There have been cases where the IP appointed has not discharged their duties without favour although in this particular case there seems no grounds upon which to question the integrity of the IP appointed to oversee the liquidation of QMP especially as he has been but a very short time in post.

 

CRT are, of course, claiming a not insubstantial sum which they have taken the time and trouble to pursue through the courts and have, it would seem, already incurred costs of around £24,000 in seeking payment of the sum owed to them by QMP. As a creditor they will be entitled to participate in the insolvency process and will be able to use internal or third-party resources to evaluate the conduct of the liquidation. I would be most surprised if they do not participate as far as the process permits this.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Well in that case, the sums owed by QMP in terms of items 2, 3 and 4 total £1,029,000 against a debt owed to QMP by PLM of £1,600,000 giving a net asset value of £571,000. If this is truly the case then it is only the £750,000 which represents the difference as I understand it between the value of the site and the loan amount held by the Steadmans that makes QMP illiquid. The difference in site value would only normally be payable on disposal.

 

Do I have this right or am I missing something?

Sorry, I got it the wrong way round - it is QMP that owes PLM the £1.6m.

 

 

 

Thank you Allan!

 

QMP own(ed) the marina and leased it to PLM who then manage the marina and sub-lease the moorings. So that £1.6m is probably the total of the lease payments due under the lease from QMP to PLM.

 

If you then consider that the £1.6m that PLM owes QMP is an asset, QMP is only underwater by about £151,000 - and that figure is derived using Steadman's evaluation of £2m for the marina, which may or may not be a valid evaluation.

Sorry again - I got it the wrong way round. QMP owes PLM £1.6m

 

In a nutshell, QMP's only asset is the freehold of the marina valued at £2m but it has been used to secure a debt to Steadman of £2.75m.

 

QMP's total debt is £3.4m the majority of which it owes to associates.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

Sorry, I got it the wrong way round - it is QMP that owes PLM the £1.6m.

 

 

Sorry again - I got it the wrong way round. QMP owes PLM £1.6m

 

 

 

So - again - why and how ?

[Paul G2]

 

Well in that case, the sums owed by QMP in terms of items 2, 3 and 4 total £1,029,000 against a debt owed to QMP by PLM of £1,600,000 giving a net asset value of £571,000. If this is truly the case then it is only the £750,000 which represents the difference as I understand it between the value of the site and the loan amount held by the Steadmans that makes QMP illiquid. The difference in site value would only normally be payable on disposal.

 

Do I have this right or am I missing something?

 

This appears to be the case - although Steadman is a secured creditor and the £750,000 is based on the loss that would be suffered on the £2.75m mortgage Steadman owns and the £2m Steadman claims is all he can sell the marina for.

[tupperware]

 

Thank you Allan!

 

QMP own(ed) the marina and leased it to PLM who then manage the marina and sub-lease the moorings. So that £1.6m is probably the total of the lease payments due under the lease from QMP to PLM.

 

If you then consider that the £1.6m that PLM owes QMP is an asset, QMP is only underwater by about £151,000 - and that figure is derived using Steadman's evaluation of £2m for the marina, which may or may not be a valid evaluation.

 

Exactly. Many moons ago it was claimed that the Steadmans held title to the freehold by virtue of this being their security in the event that QMP were unable to survive. It seems a little odd to include a notional difference between purchase and book value which would only be material were QMP required to make immediate reimbursement to the Steadmans in respect of the original load to purchase the site which was claimed in previous posts to be a long-term liability. Taking this out of the equation and QMP does not seem to be illiquid at all. Has something changed to make this long-term liability become a short term one?

 

If I've got it totally wrong then forgive me and tell me where I've lost touch with reality.