Dispute at Pillings

[Mac of Cygnet]

Shouldn't you two be in the word game thread?

[johnlillie]

 

Seriously, John?

 

You don't really believe that little Christopher is going to come on here and provide details of payments that were never made, do you?

 

I can only speculate, but, if Chris does show up and make any remarks at all, he will most likely remain true to form, which means he will come on and state that he has read everyone's comments and that, in the face of such overwhelming and unfair prejudice against PL/PLM by CWDF members, he simply isn't going to release that information because everyone here would turn it against them and refuse to acknowledge that it was CRT who imposed the fees and CRT who refused to renegotiate the fees and CRT who is at fault because PL offered to negotiate and all CRT wanted was payment.

 

Some simple math would seem to indicate that NO NAA fees were ever paid by or for PLM, so of course Chris will not supply any record of payments because it is most probable that no payments were ever made.

just a polite enquiry, why do Americans miss the S off the end of maths?

 

Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this, it is only speculation on my part, but I don't think so.

[Ray T]

 

 

just a polite enquiry, why do Americans miss the S off the end of maths?

 

O

 

 

Cos they can't spoke English proper like wot I does.

 

I also suppose its the same reason they pronounce Jaguar as "jagwaar".

Edited March 1, 2014 by Ray T

[tupperware]

I see the charm offensive has stalled.

[Paul G2]

 

 

 

 

Some simple math would seem to indicate that NO NAA fees were ever paid by or for PLM, so of course Chris will not supply any record of payments because it is most probable that no payments were ever made.

 

just a polite enquiry, why do Americans miss the S off the end of maths?

 

 

 

 

That's a good question, if you happen to be interested in linguistics.

 

If I were to say, "Some simple arithmetic....", would you question why I didn't say arithmeticS? I don't think so. The reason is that "arithmetic" stands on its own, whilst "math(s)" is used to mean "mathematical computation(s)".

 

With that in mind, much of language use revolves around the simple matter of how easy or how difficult something is to say. The reason we say "more involved", rather than "involveder" is simply because "involveder" is more difficult to say. Personally, I find "maths" a little difficult to pronounce. That could be my dental work, it could be the way Americans speak, I dunno. But you can kind of see from the above how "math(s)" is actually an abbreviated way of saying something else and, way back when, our cultures started abbreviating it differently.

 

That's the best I can come up with anyway.

[SoosieQ]

.

Edited March 1, 2014 by SoosieQ

[Little Else]

Flanders and Swan

[paneuro]

back on topic, big day today, the publishing of PLM payments made to CRT, as promised!(what's the odds on cheques for part payments sent but returned uncashed are included)

bodget & scarper

[Dangerous Dave]

I wonder if it could be alledged that CSH had perhaps had a bit too much pop yesterday!

 

Yes it was somewhat obvious to me also..Only speculating & wondering though..

Myself and others have witnessed this on a regular occasion in the Boat House( bar/ cafe/ bistro.restuarant and him driving away in the BMW cabriolet

Edited March 3, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Paul G2]

 

I suspect that is the most obvious response. Along with a comment about the money being all that could be afforded and a refusal by CRT to accept it. But no mention of it being offered as "Payment in Full"!

 

I'd say the chances of that happening are somewhere between.... ta-da..

 

slim and none!

[Peter X]

Do anybody know anything about a dispute between Pillings Lock Marina and C.A.R.T.?

 

A lot of people know a lot of things, Andy, and have mostly been willing to share that knowledge. Joining up the dots has told us more, and I feel that I can now make an interesting guess as to how the dispute could end.

 

CRT have stated their intention to make sure marina holders cough up the NAA fees; I'm paraphrasing but I think that accurately summarises their thinking. So what if CRT were to really grow a pair and announce, or maybe merely just put the word about, that nobody will be granted a new NAA for Pillings Lock, or any other marina in future, unless any outstanding debts to CRT from that site are paid in full, even if there's a genuinely new and unconnected owner who's bought it from a liquidator?

 

I see no legal reason why they couldn't, because their guidance about NAAs here:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/266.pdf

is flexible enough. The crucial words Roy Rollings and his new company seem to rely upon are that a NAA...

Is transferable to another party who is the freehold owner or head lessee of the whole marina with CRT consent (such consent not be unreasonably withheld or delayed).

But the NAA issued to QMP has been terminated. It is deceased. It is an ex-agreement. It cannot be transferred.

And who is the arbiter of "unreasonably withheld or delayed" anyway? I think it's CRT.

 

I've gone the extra mile and studied the law referred to in the above document, Section 43 Transport Act 1962

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/10-11/46/section/43

and my view is that it really gave the new British Waterways Board (now the CRT has inherited its powers) a total carte blanche to decide who may have a new NAA and to decide boat licencing rules and charges for their waters. Except that subsection (2) does say that "any local enactment" can prohibit charges; this may be how some older marinas are exempt?

 

The effect of my suggested CRT policy would be that Steadman/Lillie, or anyone else who ends up with the freehold, would face a stark choice. They either just operate a lake+cafe with a few long term leaseholders paying nothing and maybe suing for compensation (see my earlier post #3625), or they cough up £185,000, plus another £30,000 or so to cover the last chunk of the NAA which ran April to December 2013, in order to get a new NAA which enables them to make a far greater amount back in new mooring fee income. Mr Steadman would surely quickly cave in once he knows the CRT are serious, and no marina would ever try to monkey with the CRT again. A very happy ending.

 

Are you watching, CRT?

 

Come to that, are you watching Andy the Hammer and what do you think of the show so far?

[FadeToScarlet]

At a meeting today Richard Parry mentioned this in passing and his slide mentioned a "new NAA" but, tantalisingly, he didn't explain this and I couldnt get to buttonhole him before he left.

[Alan de Enfield]

The Pillings Lock Marina lock out By Tim Coghlan of Braunston Marina:

 

The dispute between the CRT and Pillings Lock Marina, for unpaid connection charges, is a very sad mess, which daily gets worse. This I put squarely at the door of the CRT. Despite claims that it has ‘spent many months trying to resolve the issue,’ the CRT has refused to make any concessions that recognize the enormous difficulties many new marina operators now face in having to pay connection charges on their empty berths. There are estimated presently to be in excess of 3,000 of them across the inland waterways, and increasing daily with the inexorable rise of the uncontrolled continuous cruisers - as boaters leave marinas to seek the free alternative to paying a marina mooring.

 

The development of Pillings Lock Marina is a top-of-the-market inland waterways marina story. The 300 berth marina was constructed in an existing gravel quarry adjacent to the River Sore, and opened in 2007. The developers had only nominal experience of operating marinas, and in supporting their near £3m investment, they relied heavily on what transpired to have been the highly optimistic forecasts on need and profitability contained in the BW Inland Marina Investment Guide, published only the previous year in March 2006. Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

Since opening, Pillings Lock Marina has never been able to fill more than 200 of its 300 berths. The company has hardly traded profitably in most years, often recording losses. That 18% rate of return proved little more than a pipe dream. Had the CRT agreed to review new marina connection agreements, so as to base them on the actual mooring income received, it is quite possible that the Pillings Lock Marina dispute would never have got this far. Instead the CRT has spent £23,000 in legal costs, and obtained judgment for £185,000 arrears of connection charges - none of which it has much chance of collecting.

 

Pillings Lock Marina stated that it couldn’t pay, and has now gone into receivership, with the marina’s assets going to the mortgagee. To prevent the marina from trading under new ownership, the CRT is now ridiculously threatening to blockade its entrance from April with its work-boats, despite 200 moorers having paid their licences to navigate the CRT’s waterways. And the stakes continue to be raised.

 

Many marina operators had hoped that with BW’s move to charitable status as the CRT, and the installation of a new CEO free from the shackles of the old BW’s mantle, there might have been a change for the better. But it is more of the same, and the relationship between marina operators and the CRT has never been at a lower ebb. We marina operators feel we are dealing with a dysfunctional organisation that is at once the navigation authority, landlord and competitor – that will stop at nothing to get its own way. -

 

See more at: http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/pillings-lock-marina-dispute#sthash.QR6Rvpll.dpuf

[DeanS]

increasing daily with the inexorable rise of the uncontrolled continuous cruisers - as boaters leave marinas to seek the free alternative to paying a marina mooring.

 

uncontrolled continuous cruisers?

free alternative to paying a marina mooring?

 

"Rubbish". It's more expensive to CC....keeping the engine running to charge batteries....or keep moving...than to live in a marina. I've done both..and I've spent less money living in the marina, than out of it. (and having to keep going to fill up with water and empty the elsan somewhere along the canal system, is much more difficult than in a marina. The only reason people would leave a marina, would be because it's prices are much too high, or it's too cramped, or restrictive....like the owner wanting to do DNA tests on dogs.)

 

 

(sorry Mods for bad word)

Edited March 2, 2014 by DeanS
Inappropriate word

[Paul G2]

Tim Coghlan of Braunston Marina may very well have some good points to make. However, to make those points in the context of defending PL/PLM, he is shooting himself in the foot.

 

uncontrolled continuous cruisers?

free alternative to paying a marina mooring?

 

"Rubbish". It's more expensive to CC....keeping the engine running to charge batteries....or keep moving...than to live in a marina. I've done both..and I've spent less money living in the marina, than out of it.

 

 

(sorry Mods for bad word)

 

How dare they want to live outside a marina, anyway. They should be flogged, I tell you, flogged!

[Dangerous Dave]

 

uncontrolled continuous cruisers?

free alternative to paying a marina mooring?

 

"Rubbish". It's more expensive to CC....keeping the engine running to charge batteries....or keep moving...than to live in a marina. I've done both..and I've spent less money living in the marina, than out of it.

 

 

Suggest you forward your comment to the business boating invited comments then..

 

I will be doing something similar on Monday!

 

Quoting page 3 of the CWDF as a reality of being a PLM berth holder and the reason it never reached its target of occupancy!

Edited March 2, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[Jerra]

Since opening, Pillings Lock Marina has never been able to fill more than 200 of its 300 berths.

Fascinating statement. Google Earth shows the Marina with more than 200 boats in and gives the image date as 27/9/11

 

As the image is for September it is IMO reasonable to assume some boats are out cruising as well.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The Pillings Lock Marina lock out By Tim Coghlan of Braunston Marina:

 

The dispute between the CRT and Pillings Lock Marina, for unpaid connection charges, is a very sad mess, which daily gets worse. This I put squarely at the door of the CRT. Despite claims that it has ‘spent many months trying to resolve the issue,’ the CRT has refused to make any concessions that recognize the enormous difficulties many new marina operators now face in having to pay connection charges on their empty berths. There are estimated presently to be in excess of 3,000 of them across the inland waterways, and increasing daily with the inexorable rise of the uncontrolled continuous cruisers - as boaters leave marinas to seek the free alternative to paying a marina mooring.

 

The development of Pillings Lock Marina is a top-of-the-market inland waterways marina story. The 300 berth marina was constructed in an existing gravel quarry adjacent to the River Sore, and opened in 2007. The developers had only nominal experience of operating marinas, and in supporting their near £3m investment, they relied heavily on what transpired to have been the highly optimistic forecasts on need and profitability contained in the BW Inland Marina Investment Guide, published only the previous year in March 2006. Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

Since opening, Pillings Lock Marina has never been able to fill more than 200 of its 300 berths. The company has hardly traded profitably in most years, often recording losses. That 18% rate of return proved little more than a pipe dream. Had the CRT agreed to review new marina connection agreements, so as to base them on the actual mooring income received, it is quite possible that the Pillings Lock Marina dispute would never have got this far. Instead the CRT has spent £23,000 in legal costs, and obtained judgment for £185,000 arrears of connection charges - none of which it has much chance of collecting.

 

Pillings Lock Marina stated that it couldn’t pay, and has now gone into receivership, with the marina’s assets going to the mortgagee. To prevent the marina from trading under new ownership, the CRT is now ridiculously threatening to blockade its entrance from April with its work-boats, despite 200 moorers having paid their licences to navigate the CRT’s waterways. And the stakes continue to be raised.

 

Many marina operators had hoped that with BW’s move to charitable status as the CRT, and the installation of a new CEO free from the shackles of the old BW’s mantle, there might have been a change for the better. But it is more of the same, and the relationship between marina operators and the CRT has never been at a lower ebb. We marina operators feel we are dealing with a dysfunctional organisation that is at once the navigation authority, landlord and competitor – that will stop at nothing to get its own way. -

 

See more at: http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/pillings-lock-marina-dispute#sthash.QR6Rvpll.dpuf

Whilst Tim Coghlan is absolutely correct, he speaks from the viewpoint of a marina owner.

 

Marina owners are usually limited companies who return profits to shareholders.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It is of course boaters that end up paying for unfilled berths .

 

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[David Mack]

Amongst its more controversial statements was the following: ‘Indicative nominal pre-tax rates of return (IRR) for newly constructed marinas can be up to 18%’.

 

So what businessman worth his salt would take as an assurance of an 18% return a sentence which includes the words "indicative", "nominal", "can be" and "up to"?

[Alan de Enfield]

Companies House Check now shows QMP in Liquidation

QMP had a previous name of "No 626 Leicester Ltd" (probably the 'off the shelf' setup name.

Here is what Tim actually said

 

 

Are you implying I have amended the 'statement' ?

 

I know its late and my eyes are getting tired but would you be kind enough to highlight the differences between your version of Tims statement and the one I posted - I cannot see any differences

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

So what businessman worth his salt would take as an assurance of an 18% return a sentence which includes the words "indicative", "nominal", "can be" and "up to"?

I would suggest everyone who has developed a marina since about 2007.

 

I think that the guidance suggesting 15-18% return on investment was not withdrawn until about two years ago.

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Allan(nb Albert), on 02 Mar 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

I would suggest everyone who has developed a marina since about 2007.

 

I think that the guidance suggesting 15-18% return on investment was not withdrawn until about two years ago.

 

 

 

What David said was " a businessman" - No buisnessman would take such wishy washy statements as guarantees - except maybe inexperienced "developers who had only nominal experience of operating marinas"

I would actually go so far as to say NO experience in running a business when things like 'forgetting' the VAT in the business plan just happened to come along.

There is no defence for ignorance.

 

NB :-

You appear to have deleted "What Tim actually said" - why ?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Grace and Favour]

I would suggest everyone who has developed a marina since about 2007.

 

I think that the guidance suggesting 15-18% return on investment was not withdrawn until about two years ago.

 

 

If something seems too good to be true - - then it probably is.

 

I believe a reasonable business adage is "Caveat Emptor"

Edited March 2, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Allan(nb Albert)]

If something seems too good to be true - - then it probably is.

 

I believe a reasonable business adage is "Caveat Emptor"

Absolutely!

 

However, the inescapable fact is that developers believed BW's assertion that demand for berths would outstrip supply up till 2015.

 

From memory, BW's new marinas unit asserted that 47 x 250 berth marinas would be needed.

 

The reality is that many marinas, including Pillings, have been built on a financial model that is unsustainable.