Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

What happens if a number of boats leave before the 14th April and moor up outside pillings ,and CRT then block the entrance ,do those boats then have to abide by the 14 day mooring rule ?

 

Yes of course. Why would they not have to? All boats have to abide by the 14 day mooring limit whether or not they have a home mooring, if that is what you are getting at.

 

A more pertinent question is whether they are entitled to shuffle up and down bridge hopping or would they be declared CCers by CRT and have to embark on 'bona fide navigation' (whatever that means this week!)

 

MtB

[matty40s]

what happens if CRT licenced vessels moor across CRT pilings in front of a non NAA licenced marina.

Nothing legally.

If someone wants to exit the marina, I suppose, one in a boat would let them pass.

however, would one let them return, what right would they have to disturb your mooring under the current impasse.........

 

...oooo Pillie...

[MtB]

 

I'm not au fait with leases and ground rent but HMRC seems to list a service, "Parking - grant, or licence, to occupy land on which incidental parking takes place", which closely resembles the parking spaces under discussion here. This type of service is VAT exempt which, of course, a mooring is not.

 

If anyone has one of these leases, it would be most interesting to learn how the invoiced amounts were dealt with in VAT terms.

 

That's interesting. That would be a FAR more credible reason for the leases being written as car park spaces with free mooring, rather than the other way around. I wonder if the VAT inspector has the power to unwind that and demand VAT is accounted for.

 

MtB

what happens if CRT licenced vessels moor across CRT pilings in front of a non NAA licenced marina.

Nothing legally.

If someone wants to exit the marina, I suppose, one in a boat would let them pass.

however, would one let them return, what right would they have to disturb your mooring under the current impasse.........

 

...oooo Pillie...

 

Ah, you are wondering if someone were to do this NOW, I imagine? Surely PL would call the police and have you arrested.

 

Oh hang on, hasn't he just flown abroad on holiday....?

[tupperware]

 

Not quite sure what you are asking. Are you asking if it will help with change of use or are you asking if it will hinder it?

 

Either way the only effect of the leases will be to make any future developers of the site wait until they have expired, or force them to make the leaseholders 'an offer they can't refuse' to give up their leases should Charnwood change their mind about planning permission. (Stranger things have happened when big developments are proposed).

 

MtB

 

Possible that a major developer would regard the buying out of the leases as just one of the costs of any redevelopment. In the circumstances where the site ceased to be a marina, a lease entitling one to park a car on a patch of ground when the reasons for wishing to park there have entirely disappeared might cease to have any significant monetary value and would be unlikely to attract any buyer other than the site developer.

[Ally]

What happens if a number of boats leave before the 14th April and moor up outside pillings ,and CRT then block the entrance ,do those boats then have to abide by the 14 day mooring rule ?

I wonder if someone, say a leisure boater, who intends to holiday on their boat in June for example, worried they can't get out then, might put the boat outside the marina for access,but not be in a position to navigate till June. They are as near as they can be to their mooring, unable to reach it if the marina does get blocked....will they have an arguable stance to 'overstay'?

They may also be leaseholders who therefore can't currently sell the mooring and move to another.

I would assume officially they should move every 14 days, but might they have a case?

[tupperware]

 

That's interesting. That would be a FAR more credible reason for the leases being written as car park spaces with free mooring, rather than the other way around. I wonder if the VAT inspector has the power to unwind that and demand VAT is accounted for.

 

MtB

 

Ah, you are wondering if someone were to do this NOW, I imagine? Surely PL would call the police and have you arrested.

 

Oh hang on, hasn't he just flown abroad on holiday....?

 

During the 90s I spent some years working for a large organisation whose products included many of mixed composition where part of the product was zero-rated whilst the remainder was taxed at the prevailing VAT rate. We were required to account very carefully for the split which needed to be based, in our case, on the design, manufacturing and supply costs of the individual elements and not merely on some whim. In the case of a car-park space which carries a mooring entitlement, I would seem unreasonable to take a view that the car park provision costs rather less in terms of service provision than the mooring. The former requires set-out, the installation of some kind of hard standing and very little else. The mooring, on the other hand, requires the provision of expensive infrastructure and does, of course, bear a element of fee directly attributable to the NAA agreement.

 

I would be most surprised were HMRC not empowered to revisit past financial accounting given that wrongly accounting for past VAT liabilities on the part of any organisation lays that organisation open to heavy penalties including fines and reclamation by HMRC of any underpayment(s) with interest. In more extreme cases, the legal authorities may also take an interest.

[tupperware]

I wonder if someone, say a leisure boater, who intends to holiday on their boat in June for example, worried they can't get out then, might put the boat outside the marina for access,but not be in a position to navigate till June. They are as near as they can be to their mooring, unable to reach it if the marina does get blocked....will they have an arguable stance to 'overstay'?

They may also be leaseholders who therefore can't currently sell the mooring and move to another.

I would assume officially they should move every 14 days, but might they have a case?

 

If CRT block access in April to incoming craft and, in the light of this, a boatowner decides to shift his boat outside prior to this date in order to avoid being landlocked then from s strict point of view, CRT would be within their rights to insist that the craft be moored with due regard for any limits which might be in place for the location they choose. Any sympathy CRT might feel for someone placed in the invidious position you describe is likely to be muted were a substantial number of the craft currently in the marina elect to do likewise. The resulting congestion would not be helpful as would the significant loss of short-term mooring for others cruising from elsewhere.

 

If I were your hypothetical boater I'd try and find a short-term mooring elsewhere rather than rely on CRT's uncertain willingness to allow possibly dozens of craft to turn the area into a waterways version of Central London.

[Midnight Rider]

VAT was included in the price of the leases.

[tupperware]

 

That's interesting. That would be a FAR more credible reason for the leases being written as car park spaces with free mooring, rather than the other way around. I wonder if the VAT inspector has the power to unwind that and demand VAT is accounted for.

 

MtB

 

Ah, you are wondering if someone were to do this NOW, I imagine? Surely PL would call the police and have you arrested.

 

Oh hang on, hasn't he just flown abroad on holiday....?

 

MtB

 

I think "matty40s" was actually thinking of post-April as he/she does make reference to "across CRT pilings in front of a non NAA licenced marina" which would only exist were CRT to pile the entrance and sever the marina from the network. Once severed, CRT would be perfectly within their rights to allow mooring across the closed entrance should they so choose and if this meant that boats in the marina could not exit then so be it. It would certainly be strange to imagine that a boat could enter the marina in these circumstances whether mooring was allowed across the former entrance or not as this would entirely negate CRT's action in cutting off marina access to the national network in the first place.

VAT was included in the price of the leases.

 

MR. Thank you for a very prompt response.

 

Out of interest did the invoice show an amount at a VAT rate of zero/exempt and another amount at a VAT rate of whatever or was there just one net amount on which VAT was levied? I understand that the leases were between the leaseholder and QMP and I would be interested to known whether this was indeed the case and which company name appeared at the top of the invoice. Sorry to pose more questions but the question of VAT is quite significant.

[Midnight Rider]

 

 

MR. Thank you for a very prompt response.

 

Out of interest did the invoice show an amount at a VAT rate of zero/exempt and another amount at a VAT rate of whatever or was there just one net amount on which VAT was levied? I understand that the leases were between the leaseholder and QMP and I would be interested to known whether this was indeed the case and which company name appeared at the top of the invoice. Sorry to pose more questions but the question of VAT is quite significant.

Sorry, I have lost some of the paperwork. I only know that the lease shows the price as being inclusive of VAT.

[Semitrad]

I seem to remember that when I was VAT registered the registration number had to be shown on the invoice.

[jelunga]

Sianimelyn,

 

Thank you very much for posting this.

 

I find Phil's comment about CRT needing to be satisfied that any new NAA holder will be able to meet it's obligations faintly worrying as I'm sure QMP showed BW they were perfectly able to meet their obligations too. I'm still worried that CRT are going to sleepwalk into exactly the same situation AGAIN. CRT need to be asking for something more solid like a substantial security deposit or a first charge over a property e.g. the marina, a house or some other sort of freehold property.

 

The other interesting comment is his observation that QMP has not been liquidated yet but continues to exist, under control of the liquidator Mr D A Nelson, a point we all seem to have overlooked on here! Phil Spencers says Mr Nelson is in dialogue with CRT to help explain how QMP was unable to meet it's obligations, which is a polite and formal way, I think, of saying he is on CRT's side and will explain in full detail how they got so badly scammed and how to avoid it happening again next time around.

 

Another aspect seems to be that while QMP still exists, CRT will not be entering NAA negotiations with No.750 Leicester Limited (or anyone else) so the closing off of the marina entrance still seems likely.

 

All in all though, it looks as though CRT have similar concerns to many of those voiced here. They could almost have been reading this thread.

 

MtB

I think that a company once set up, will always exist, but "in liquidation" shows on records. A company I was once a director of, went into liquidation many years ago due to a bad debt tgat an employee had taken on in an unauthorised manner. The company still shows as existing but in liquidation" maybe thus is so it can be unliquidated later?

Not sure on that one thiugh

[MtB]

I think that a company once set up, will always exist, but "in liquidation" shows on records. A company I was once a director of, went into liquidation many years ago due to a bad debt tgat an employee had taken on in an unauthorised manner. The company still shows as existing but in liquidation" maybe thus is so it can be unliquidated later?

Not sure on that one thiugh

 

Interesting point. I'm not sure about it either, but I certainly remember 30 years ago being taught about a process where a company can be closed down and cease to exist. It's operations are shut down, it's assets realised and the money distributed back to the shareholders. I think the term was 'dissolved' or perhaps 'wound up'.

 

I imagine 'in liquidation' means the process hasn't been completed, maybe deliberately, for reasons you mention. One can certainly apply for a winding up order under certain circumstances as the nuclear option when pursuing a company for a debt. It generally gets the directors' attention if they intended continuing trading!

 

MtB

[scrunch]

This has probably been posted before apologise if it has but does seem to mention the VAT http://www.abnb.co.uk/boat_pages/2336web/2336abnb.php?BoatID=2336

[LoneWolf]

 

Interesting point. I'm not sure about it either, but I certainly remember 30 years ago being taught about a process where a company can be closed down and cease to exist. It's operations are shut down, it's assets realised and the money distributed back to the shareholders. I think the term was 'dissolved' or perhaps 'wound up'.

 

I imagine 'in liquidation' means the process hasn't been completed, maybe deliberately, for reasons you mention. One can certainly apply for a winding up order under certain circumstances as the nuclear option when pursuing a company for a debt. It generally gets the directors' attention if they intended continuing trading!

 

MtB

 

You're correct Mike, companies can be dissolved

 

In practice (well, back when i was in practice) the usual method of getting rid of unwanted companies was to stop sending the required information to Companies House and eventually the company will be 'struck off' and cease to exist

[George94]

 

But they haven't paid up front, have they!

 

 

MtB

 

Do you know that?

 

Commercial lease rents traditionally are payable on Quarter Days, which fall a few days before the end of a month. So most tenants would be creditors at the end of any particular accounting period.

 

I don't know what the situation is at Pillings, but speaking generally it is commonplace for lessees to be creditors of landlords.

[b0atman]

I cannot believe that anyone is still moored in pillings or are they waiting for their advance mooring payment to expire before they leave .THE logical solution is to all leave then hopefully a new buyer will buy the freehold and the marina which then may become what it should have been all along a thriving business that pays its way and charges boaters the local area rates and treats them as customers with respect.

the people who will suffer are the workshop staff who are the only ones that I have heard good reports about.

[MtB]

 

Do you know that?

 

Commercial lease rents traditionally are payable on Quarter Days, which fall a few days before the end of a month. So most tenants would be creditors at the end of any particular accounting period.

 

I don't know what the situation is at Pillings, but speaking generally it is commonplace for lessees to be creditors of landlords.

 

They are not commercial leases though according to the ABNB listing linked to earlier. There is a ground rent of £50 per year (plus VAT) like with a residential long lease, not quarterly rent days like a commercial lease.

 

The fact that the leases are not extinguished by insolvency of the freeholder but pass with the land to the new owner (as an encumbrance attached to the freehold) suggests to me that they are not creditors of the current landlord in liquidation.

 

MtB

P.S. I accept that the short term moorers who pay rent, say a year in advance will be creditors though!

[George94]

I did say that I would not respond to your post further but, rather than agree to disagree, you seem determined to fan the flames still more.

 

In my 60-odd years on this planet I have come across many types of individuals and, to my regret, your attitude is not unknown in those whose self belief in their own intellectual superiority is completely without foundation. You seem so very keen to hurl abuse at those who might express the slightest disagreement whilst being equally quick to play the victim card when those whom you judge your inferiors have the impertinence to defend themselves. At no point, it seems, does anyone else here have the slightest interest in doing other than misrepresent your views or, in my own case, in behaving "dishonestly".

 

I am at a total loss as to what possible satisfaction you could get out of such behaviour.

 

I should like to resolve this issue.

 

Please point out where I have stated that the flaws in the NAA justify non-payment. If I have in fact stated that, then I will apologise. If I haven't I hope you will.

[RLWP]

I cannot believe that anyone is still moored in pillings

 

I think, if I were in that situation I would stay put for now. It's a marina, it will almost certainly be a marina again in the future, CRT seem to be sympathetic to the moorers. This will get sorted out one way or another

 

Richard

[George94]

 

They are not commercial leases though according to the ABNB listing linked to earlier. There is a ground rent of £50 per year (plus VAT) like with a residential long lease, not quarterly rent days like a commercial lease.

 

The fact that the leases are not extinguished by insolvency of the freeholder but pass with the land to the new owner (as an encumbrance attached to the freehold) suggests to me that they are not creditors of the current landlord in liquidation.

 

MtB

P.S. I accept that the short term moorers who pay rent, say a year in advance will be creditors though!

 

I was just answering your general comment about lessees being creditors of landlords. It is not impossible that some moorers at Pillings are on short-term agreements.

 

It seems to me that Pillings may have treated the payments for the long leases as a prepayment by the lessees (and therefore a creditor), so that they can release a portion each year to the P&L account. I am not a tax expert, but probably they would be taxed on this basis too - 1/25 per year for 25 years, rather than treating the whole thing as income in year one.

 

If the leases are registered at the Land Registry, then normally they would be beyond the IP's grasp, and any rights attached to the leases would have to be honoured by the new freeholder.

 

All very tricky.

[Dangerous Dave]

 

Just a thought - Could it be because you are on PLM 'web address' and 'blocked'

 

 

 

I'm beginging to think that Pillingsmoorer isn't a berth holder at all at the Marina as this video is well known to the site and much commented on!

[Dangerous Dave]

Sorry, I have lost some of the paperwork. I only know that the lease shows the price as being inclusive of VAT.

 

 

The leases were due for VAT as they are (or mine was) deemed as a leisure property transaction,not residential!

Rate at the time was 17.5%

I cannot believe that anyone is still moored in pillings or are they waiting for their advance mooring payment to expire before they leave .THE logical solution is to all leave then hopefully a new buyer will buy the freehold and the marina which then may become what it should have been all along a thriving business that pays its way and charges boaters the local area rates and treats them as customers with respect.

the people who will suffer are the workshop staff who are the only ones that I have heard good reports about.

 

They cannot go anywhere apart from 200 metres to the right or as far as Bishops Meadow due to the flooding on the Soar & Trent!

 

Loads of Marinas(good or bad) are looking forward to a mass exodus in the future once the Rivers are navigatable

[RLWP]

Let's hope they paid the VAT man, otherwise things could get very tricky

 

Richard

[MtB]

Let's hope they paid the VAT man, otherwise things could get very tricky

 

Richard

 

They probably did, the VAT man isn't like CRT, they are on your case within days if late with a VAT return and the associated payment.

 

And a business the size of Pillings probably gets VAT inspected (fishing for avoidance) a good deal more often than I do

 

Or I'd hope it does anyway.

 

MtB