Dispute at Pillings

[Paul G2]

 

The timing on this seems interesting. At any point in the last four years or so, given the timescale of the discussions between QMP and CRT claimed in the referenced article, BW/CRT would have been able to pursue a legal avenue to recover the debt. Had they done so and the court ruled much as they did recently, then one presumes QMP, finding itself unable to liquidate the debt, may have entered liquidation rather sooner than they did. BW/CRT may have been dilatory or may just have been leaning over backwards to avoid legal action but there do seem to be some grounds for supposing that, had BW/CRT pursued legal means earlier, the wheel would have fallen off QMP shortly afterwards. The abbreviated accounts do, of course, make reference to long-term financial support from Mr Steadman although this seems to have evaporated at the point at which QMP were actually called upon to pay a debt incurred over some years. This qualification to the accounts was, of course, the basis on which it could be claimed that QMP were a "going concern". For QMP to represent itself as a "going concern" was also rather dependent on it not being required to pay one of its major suppliers according to the contract it had signed with BW/CRT. per the contract between themselves and BW/CRT. Quite why Mr Steadman has decided to withdraw his support at this time is unclear although this may, of course, be entirely coincidental to CRT's recent legal victory.

 

If I were involved in this fiasco, I would ignore Paul Lillie and go after Mr. & Mrs. Steadman. I would be asking them embarrassing questions within the realm of their own social/financial circles, and putting the onus on them for not only allowing it to happen, but now to allow it to continue. PL is a nothing human being with nothing behind him but bluster. He is doing harm to everyone around him, including the Steadmans. The sooner the Steadmans realize that, and pull the rug out from under PL, the sooner this problem can be resolved. But it will never be resolved with PL at the helm. The conditions that he has deemed made it impossible for him to pay the NAA the first time around have not changed.

 

What kind of an idiot would it take to believe that PL would pay the NAA the second time around? Nothing has changed - what magic is it going to make the transformation possible?

[tupperware]

 

If I were involved in this fiasco, I would ignore Paul Lillie and go after Mr. & Mrs. Steadman. I would be asking them embarrassing questions within the realm of their own social/financial circles, and putting the onus on them for not only allowing it to happen, but now to allow it to continue. PL is a nothing human being with nothing behind him but bluster. He is doing harm to everyone around him, including the Steadmans. The sooner the Steadmans realize that, and pull the rug out from under PL, the sooner this problem can be resolved. But it will never be resolved with PL at the helm. The conditions that he has deemed made it impossible for him to pay the NAA the first time around have not changed.

 

What kind of an idiot would it take to believe that PL would pay the NAA the second time around? Nothing has changed - what magic is it going to make the transformation possible?

 

I understand that Mr Lillie junior was the sole director of QMP although I am unaware whether Mr Steadman was a shareholder or not. It seems probable that the IP's first port of call would be Mr Lillie who appears to have signed off the accounts representing the company as a "going concern". I have already pointed out that this claim was somewhat dependent on it being able to rely on continued financial support from Mr Steadman, and the accounts are qualified to this effect. The IP does, of course, have a duty to consider whether this might have misrepresented its financial position, in which case the possibility of personal liability and legal sanction comes into the equation.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I understand that Mr Lillie junior was the sole director of QMP although I am unaware whether Mr Steadman was a shareholder or not.

 

The shares of QMP are 100% owned by QMH.

 

Mr Steadman owns 75% of the shares of QMH and Paul Lillie owns the remaining 25%

[tupperware]

 

The shares of QMP are 100% owned by QMH.

 

Mr Steadman owns 75% of the shares of QMH and Paul Lillie owns the remaining 25%

 

Thanks for that AdeE. In which case, Mr Lillie junior, as the sole director of QMP would be the party whom the IP would regard as central to questions about QMP's past trading viability.

[johnlillie]

 

The timing on this seems interesting. At any point in the last four years or so, given the timescale of the discussions between QMP and CRT claimed in the referenced article, BW/CRT would have been able to pursue a legal avenue to recover the debt. Had they done so and the court ruled much as they did recently, then one presumes QMP, finding itself unable to liquidate the debt, may have entered liquidation rather sooner than they did. BW/CRT may have been dilatory or may just have been leaning over backwards to avoid legal action but there do seem to be some grounds for supposing that, had BW/CRT pursued legal means earlier, the wheel would have fallen off QMP shortly afterwards. The abbreviated accounts do, of course, make reference to long-term financial support from Mr Steadman although this seems to have evaporated at the point at which QMP were actually called upon to pay a debt incurred over some years. This qualification to the accounts was, of course, the basis on which it could be claimed that QMP were a "going concern". For QMP to represent itself as a "going concern" was also rather dependent on it not being required to pay one of its major suppliers according to the contract it had signed with BW/CRT. per the contract between themselves and BW/CRT. Quite why Mr Steadman has decided to withdraw his support at this time is unclear although this may, of course, be entirely coincidental to CRT's recent legal victory.

 

Quite so AdeE - as you say, pure speculation. If this was an "off the record" comment it has, nonetheless, found its way into print. We shall probably never know the circumstances unless either the gentleman concerned or his alter ego release details here or elsewhere, the likelihood of which seems vanishingly small. Whether this enhances the credibility of the person in question or damages it still further is a matter on which everyone will form their own view.

 

JohnLillie. I'm not sure of the rules in terms of how far back one can claim but £2 an hour seems someway south of the National Minimum Wage. Employers who fail to pay their employees according to the rules can be required to reimburse the underpayment and can also be fined a maximum of £5,000 which may have risen to £20,000 recently. Just a thought.

the situation of £100 a week lasted for about a year, from January 2008 to approx. March 2009, when I insisted she went up to approx. £14k a year. Shortly after, Steadman visited, queried the increase, and asked Carol "what she thought she was worth" and at the same meeting, doubled our rent. In june, we were given notice to quit, and threatened with dismissal, the compromise of us going quietly and getting our money back was reached shortly after.

 

Thanks for that AdeE. In which case, Mr Lillie junior, as the sole director of QMP would be the party whom the IP would regard as central to questions about QMP's past trading viability.

when the three companies were formed in march 2007, we were all directors of all three, PL, the steadmans, and me and Carol. For some unexplained reason, Carol was removed a few months after.

[DeanS]

on a completely personal note. Is it legal for someone to register more than one business (each providing different services to the public) and for each business to trade with each other...even though they are run by the same person. Not LTD......sole proprietor.

[Grace and Favour]

on a completely personal note. Is it legal for someone to register more than one business (each providing different services to the public) and for each business to trade with each other...even though they are run by the same person. Not LTD......sole proprietor.

Yup - it's certainly legal.

 

One could always discuss the possible ethics of such a structure, but it's certainly legal

[DeanS]

Yup - it's certainly legal.

 

One could always discuss the possible ethics of such a structure, but it's certainly legal

 

the ethics would only be an issue if the reasons for doing so were unethical ;-)

[Dyertribe]

Toot and Ploot

[Peter X]

Paul Lillie said (on another website):

Do CaRT really not realise that it may have the legal and moral high ground, but customers here think they are the Devil Incarnate and are now plotting and scheming all sorts of plans to disrupt any action or works that CaRT may foolishly try to undertake to block us up.

 

I doubt if anyone is contemplating such plans, but just in case here's a word in your lughole:

CRT would be able to sue you for the cost of any damage or delay you cause under the tort of trespass.

CRT would be able to refuse you a boating licence using their powers under the jolly old Transport Act 1962.

Forget it.

[Dyertribe]

Rosie & Jim

[Bod]

the situation of £100 a week lasted for about a year, from January 2008 to approx. March 2009, when I insisted she went up to approx. £14k a year. Shortly after, Steadman visited, queried the increase, and asked Carol "what she thought she was worth" and at the same meeting, doubled our rent. In june, we were given notice to quit, and threatened with dismissal, the compromise of us going quietly and getting our money back was reached shortly after.

when the three companies were formed in march 2007, we were all directors of all three, PL, the steadmans, and me and Carol. For some unexplained reason, Carol was removed a few months after.

 

Strikes me, John your better off being out of it!

 

Bod

[boathunter]

 

Pure speculation - as much of this is, - but could the C&RT representative (either before, during or after the liquidation) have been having 'off the record' discussions with a view to resolving the 'closing off' issue, or could it just be the delusions of a Walter Mitty character and the meeting never took place ?

How about considering that the CRT representative is not daft and in fact was leading PL along with such matey remarks to see what he could glean as to PL's general attitude to this whole fiasco. Good cop/bad cop style. The effusive PL probably doesn't take much ego tickling to get him to spill the beans.

[DeanS]

is effusive actually a word?

[Charles]

Consult a dictionary, Dean.

[Alan de Enfield]

is effusive actually a word?

An effusive eruption is a volcanic eruption characterized by the outpouring of lava onto the ground (as opposed to the violent fragmentation of magma by explosive eruptions). Lava flows generated by effusive eruptions vary in shape, thickness, length, and width

[tupperware]

the situation of £100 a week lasted for about a year, from January 2008 to approx. March 2009, when I insisted she went up to approx. £14k a year. Shortly after, Steadman visited, queried the increase, and asked Carol "what she thought she was worth" and at the same meeting, doubled our rent. In june, we were given notice to quit, and threatened with dismissal, the compromise of us going quietly and getting our money back was reached shortly after.

when the three companies were formed in march 2007, we were all directors of all three, PL, the steadmans, and me and Carol. For some unexplained reason, Carol was removed a few months after.

 

So was Mr Steadman still a director of QMH and QMP when the latter entered CVL?

[boathunter]

is effusive actually a word?

Yes, probably not quite the right one technically, but a hint of sarcasm doesn't go amiss now and again.

[kris88]

flotsam and jetsom

[tupperware]

Yup - it's certainly legal.

 

One could always discuss the possible ethics of such a structure, but it's certainly legal

 

G&F. Certainly such a structure may be perfectly sensible and by no means unethical. QMH, QMP and PLM are all, of course, separate legal entities and the role of the management team of each is to try and ensure that how they conduct the affairs of the company in which they hold such a position is in the best interests of that company. The fact that the management of each company seems to be identical appears to have blurred the legal distinction between them to quite a marked extent. It is unclear from the recently referenced article just what organisation is being represented in terms of each of the individual quotes from Mr Lillie junior.

[DeanS]

Yes, probably not quite the right one technically, but a hint of sarcasm doesn't go amiss now and again.

 

effusayso

[Peter X]

on a completely personal note. Is it legal for someone to register more than one business (each providing different services to the public) and for each business to trade with each other...even though they are run by the same person. Not LTD......sole proprietor.

 

An interesting question. As Grace & Favour says, it's legal but the ethics can be questionable. To be precise, part of the QMP liquidator's remit is to examine the conduct of Paul Lillie as a director of QMP, but not his conduct wearing his other hat as a director of PLM.

A director is required among other things to act in the interests of the company, which he didn't do if he granted PLM a highly advantageous lease. Other directors who took part at the time (2007?) in making that decision (Mr Steadman perhaps?) would also share responsibility. Even though QMH owns all the shares in both QMP and PLM this still applies I think.

[Alan de Enfield]

tupperware, on 02 Mar 2014 - 11:19 PM, said:

 

So was Mr Steadman still a director of QMH and QMP when the latter entered CVL?

 

According to "Company Check" list of Directors - Mr Steadman was never a Director in either QMH or QMP

 

It appears he is only a financier and major share holder with no responsibility for the running of the companies.

 

QMH

In 2007 the original 'founding directors' was a company called Harvey Ingram Directors Ltd, they were dismissed 16th March 2007 when John Lillie and Paul Lillie were appointed, John Lillie was dismissed 3/7/2009

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

QMP

Exactly the same people and same dates, and again Steadman was never listed as a Director

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

Was Steadman involved in (or a Director of) Harvey Ingram ?

Edited March 2, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[tupperware]

Paul Lillie said (on another website):

Do CaRT really not realise that it may have the legal and moral high ground, but customers here think they are the Devil Incarnate and are now plotting and scheming all sorts of plans to disrupt any action or works that CaRT may foolishly try to undertake to block us up.

 

I doubt if anyone is contemplating such plans, but just in case here's a word in your lughole:

CRT would be able to sue you for the cost of any damage or delay you cause under the tort of trespass.

CRT would be able to refuse you a boating licence using their powers under the jolly old Transport Act 1962.

Forget it.

 

Quite so and I was surprised at Mr Lillie junior's lack of circumspection. To be fair, he is then quoted as saying "This is not my doing" and has, no doubt, either issued a formal directive or will shortly do so that PLM customers may not use the marina site, for which PLM bears management responsibility, as a launch pad for breaking the law. Dissociating oneself from any contravention of the law would be entirely prudent in avoiding any notion that one was an accessory before the fact.

Edited March 2, 2014 by tupperware

[Phantasm]

 

According to "Company Check" list of Directors - Mr Steadman was never a Director in either QMH or QMP

 

It appears he is only a financier and major share holder with no responsibility for the running of the companies.

 

QMH

In 2007 the original 'founding directors' was a company called Harvey Ingram Directors Ltd, they were dismissed 16th March 2007 when John Lillie and Paul Lillie were appointed, John Lillie was dismissed 3/7/2009

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

QMP

Exactly the same people and same dates, and again Steadman was never listed as a Director

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

Was Steadman involved in (or a Director of) Harvey Ingram ?

Harvey Ingram Shakespear is a firm of solicitors in Leicester. They deal with business matters and I believe set up companies for their clients, who then take the company over.