Dispute at Pillings

[tupperware]

Not sure where you are going here, products would be Lake moorings and Le Bistro end of, quite simple really. Your remarks:-

Well, in that case how did we end up with the shower of intellectual bankrupts who seem to inhabit political and financial life?

Is well off topic, political and not needed on this thread

A

 

My first point was really a question as to whether "Lake moorings and Le Bistro" would be sufficient to sustain a business which hitherto had received some hundred of thousands of pounds in mooring fees each year. PLM have a number of overheads which that revenue would have financed and a loss of that revenue would be quite damaging. From Mr Spencer's recent statement it is quite clear that a new NAA agreement is no "shoo-in" and it could be quite some time before PLM's major revenue source is restored.

 

My second point was in response to a post by "RayT" which appeared to suggest that securing the best talent involved paying the best remuneration. My reply, which was admittedly political, was to point out that high rewards do not necessarily deliver the best brains, quite the reverse. Nonetheless, your criticism is entirely justified, I apologise for any offence I may have caused, and I will ensure that my futures posts avoid straying into inappropriate areas

[tupperware]

It's difficult to see how, at this stage, he could, assuming he wanted to, or what it would achieve. The NAA no longer exists, the company that held the NAA is in liquidation (and therefore by definition beyond recovery - if it wasn't it would be in administration), and Mr S is, if I have followed correctly, neither a director or shareholder. He is not the freeholder, at least not until and unless the IP resolves his charge on the property, so "paying up" would neither reinstate the old NAA nor create a new one.

 

I suppose he could make a charitable donation to CRT for an equivalent amount, and CRT would probably be glad to receive it, but it wouldn't resolve the legal position regarding the defunct contract between CRT and the defunct company.

 

CRT are digging themselves into a position where they must blockade the marina, otherwise any number of other operators may pull the same stunt.

 

AndrewIC. I agree that it does seem rather late in the day, with QMP in the hands of the IP, for gestures like paying the £185,000 to have much of a chance of restoring the position to that pre-liquidation. Even were Mr Steadman to come up with £185,000, the total debt owed by QMP exceeds that by several orders of magnitude including the mysterious £1.6million owed to PLM over which a number of us have been puzzling. In respect to your point about Mr Steadman not being a director, this is true in the literal sense in that he does not hold a formal position as such. The latest statement from Mr Spencer of CRT outlining their position and intent does make reference to the IP investigating the role, if any, of one or more "shadow directors".

 

I agree that CRT are indeed being robust in their stated intent and, whilst something may happen between now and mid-April to defer or delay that intention, it is not clear what that might be. A recent post has mentioned an email from PLM, presumably in response to CRT's latest statement although this has not so far been publicised here.

Edited March 6, 2014 by tupperware

[MtB]

 

Even were Mr Steadman to come up with £185,000, the total debt owed by QMP exceeds that by several orders of magnitude including the mysterious £1.6million owed to PLM over which a number of us have been puzzling.

 

If this were to happen, I cannot imagine Mr Steadman failing to attach conditions to his charitable donation, e.g. No 750 Leicester Ltd gets a NAA.In which case, would the IP have the power to reclaim the donation from CRT saying it was a sham and citing 'undue preference' in paying a creditor?

 

And a further arcane point arises. Income tax can be reclaimed on charitable donations. CRT would be in a very intriguing position if they accepted such a donation subject to a condition like that, I bet HMRC would take an interest too, suspecting some sort of tax evasion if charity donations get accepted in settlement of commercial debt.

 

I don't know when their year end is, I'll have a trawl back. There is no hurry to produce final accounts though surely? Just need to file them in time to meet the tax return deadline, or are things different for 'close companies'?

 

MtB

[tupperware]

 

If this were to happen, I cannot imagine Mr Steadman failing to attach conditions to his charitable donation, e.g. No 750 Leicester Ltd gets a NAA.In which case, would the IP have the power to reclaim the donation from CRT saying it was a sham and citing 'undue preference' in paying a creditor?

 

And a further arcane point arises. Income tax can be reclaimed on charitable donations. CRT would be in a very intriguing position if they accepted such a donation subject to a condition like that, I bet HMRC would take an interest too, suspecting some sort of tax evasion if charity donations get accepted in settlement of commercial debt.

 

I don't know when their year end is, I'll have a trawl back. There is no hurry to produce final accounts though surely? Just need to file them in time to meet the tax return deadline, or are things different for 'close companies'?

 

MtB

 

I really can not imagine CRT wanting to get involved with that kind of game.

[MtB]

 

I really can not imagine CRT wanting to get involved with that kind of game.

 

Nor can I really, but it was suggested as a possibility earlier this evening by AndrewlC, in post 4,100.

 

I should probably have quoted his post, not yours. My apologies.

 

MtB

 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[mango]

I see we have over 200 pages now. When will the executive summary be available?

[MtB]

I see we have over 200 pages now. When will the executive summary be available?

 

In about a year (and approx 100,000 posts), when the marina re-opens under completely new ownership.

 

Just my guess how it will pan out.

 

 

MtB

[Peter X]

In my post #4085 I said:

The more who exit, the greater the pressure on Mr Steadman to cave in and pay up.

 

To clarify this in the light of later posts, what I had in mind was that Mr Steadman would get the freehold back from the liquidator then have an off the record chat with CRT along the lines of "If I elbow Paul Lillie out of the picture, and No. 750 Leicester Ltd gets the freehold, pays the whole past debt to CRT and always pays its fees bang on time in future (on pain of having its access to the network cut off forthwith), would it get a NAA?". Not a charitable donation, just a commercial transaction with Mr Steadman accepting implicitly that he and Paul Lillie had been wrong not to pay from QMP.

 

This would, I suggest, be the best outcome Mr Steadman can realistically hope to get because it restores his crucial mooring income and PL is expendable. And it should be acceptable for the CRT despite the continued involvement of Mr Steadman as a shadow director, because they get their money, both the debt and the future fees, and the deal sends out the right message to any other marina owner thinking of trying it on.

 

It's been said before that the PLM company year ends in June, so because accounts have to be filed with Companies House within 9 months for any private limited company, the accounts for 2012-13 are due by the end of this month. I think those accounts only have to talk about the company's situation up to June 2013, so need not mention the CRT's court case and any possible blockade.

[Phantasm]

In my post #4085 I said:

The more who exit, the greater the pressure on Mr Steadman to cave in and pay up.

 

To clarify this in the light of later posts, what I had in mind was that Mr Steadman would get the freehold back from the liquidator then have an off the record chat with CRT along the lines of "If I elbow Paul Lillie out of the picture, and No. 750 Leicester Ltd gets the freehold, pays the whole past debt to CRT and always pays its fees bang on time in future (on pain of having its access to the network cut off forthwith), would it get a NAA?". Not a charitable donation, just a commercial transaction with Mr Steadman accepting implicitly that he and Paul Lillie had been wrong not to pay from QMP.

 

This would, I suggest, be the best outcome Mr Steadman can realistically hope to get because it restores his crucial mooring income and PL is expendable. And it should be acceptable for the CRT despite the continued involvement of Mr Steadman as a shadow director, because they get their money, both the debt and the future fees, and the deal sends out the right message to any other marina owner thinking of trying it on.

 

It's been said before that the PLM company year ends in June, so because accounts have to be filed with Companies House within 9 months for any private limited company, the accounts for 2012-13 are due by the end of this month. I think those accounts only have to talk about the company's situation up to June 2013, so need not mention the CRT's court case and any possible blockade.

The below is an extract from companies House website. It would seem that PLM/QMP have taken advantange of the exemption in the last 2 years

 

Audit exemptions for small companies

 

10. What exemption is available?

There is exemption from having an audit for certain small companies but only if they are eligible and wish to take advantage of it.

 

11. Which small companies qualify for audit exemption?

To qualify for audit exemption, a company must qualify as small in relation to that financial year (see chapter 7, question 2). In other words it must meet any two of the following:

• annual turnover must not be more than £6.5 million
• the balance sheet total of not more than £3.26 million
• the average number of employee must be not more than 50

For financial years that end before 1 October 2012, a company must qualify as small and meet both of the following two criteria:

• annual turnover must be not more than £6.5 million
• the balance sheet total must be not more than £3.26 million

12. Can anyone object to the company not having an audit?

Yes. Even if a small company meets these criteria, it must still have its accounts audited if a member or members holding at least 10% of the nominal value of issued share capital or holding 10% of any class of shares demands it; or - in the case of a company limited by guarantee - 10% of its members in number. The demand for the audit of the accounts should be in the form of a notice to the company, deposited at the registered office at least one month before the end of the financial year in question. The notice may not be given before the financial year to which it relates.

[Peter X]

Phantasm: Yes, we're both right in what we say. Both QMP and PLM qualify as small companies and thus have no need for an audit or to file full 'statutory' accounts at Companies House for the public to see, however they do have to file abbreviated accounts which provide more limited information, basically a balance sheet showing the asset values at year end, but not the income and expenses during the year which led to those balances. The liquidator will of course see full up to date information for QMP, because by law all its assets and financial documents must be handed over to him upon his appointment.

[costalot]

In my post #4085 I said:

The more who exit, the greater the pressure on Mr Steadman to cave in and pay up.

 

To clarify this in the light of later posts, what I had in mind was that Mr Steadman would get the freehold back from the liquidator then have an off the record chat with CRT along the lines of "If I elbow Paul Lillie out of the picture, and No. 750 Leicester Ltd gets the freehold, pays the whole past debt to CRT and always pays its fees bang on time in future (on pain of having its access to the network cut off forthwith), would it get a NAA?". Not a charitable donation, just a commercial transaction with Mr Steadman accepting implicitly that he and Paul Lillie had been wrong not to pay from QMP.

 

This would, I suggest, be the best outcome Mr Steadman can realistically hope to get because it restores his crucial mooring income and PL is expendable. And it should be acceptable for the CRT despite the continued involvement of Mr Steadman as a shadow director, because they get their money, both the debt and the future fees, and the deal sends out the right message to any other marina owner thinking of trying it on.

 

It's been said before that the PLM company year ends in June, so because accounts have to be filed with Companies House within 9 months for any private limited company, the accounts for 2012-13 are due by the end of this month. I think those accounts only have to talk about the company's situation up to June 2013, so need not mention the CRT's court case and any possible blockade.

Why would Steadman want to pay CRT? He is an investor in QMH and not a director of QMP or PLM. He is also the secured creditor. Any income generated by PLM that would go to QMP will be going to the IP. The IP will surely deduct their expenses and passing on the remainder to the creditors. So Steadman should get some income from his investment whilst he waits for the matter to be resolved.

 

I suspect the CRT blockade of PLM will occur because the IP will not have completed his winding up of QMP. Consequentially CRT will not have commenced (let alone finalized) a new NAA with QMP (Mk2).

 

Boaters will be able to leave after the implementation of the blockade, but not return. Those boaters financially affected are long term lease holders and those who pay annually with time left. These people face a decision. Leave and lose your mooring, or stay and be confined to the lake until the matter is resolved. No doubt the majority of them are hoping the matter will be resolved before they are locked in. The boaters on monthly payments can leave without incurring a major financial loss.

 

My unsolicited advice to those boaters whose annual rental is due would be to only make monthly payments until the matter is satisfactorily resolved. It wouldn't surprise me if PLM were unhappy with this and require the total payment. My response would be to decline any such demand on the basis PLM couldn't guarantee access to the canal. My guess is PLM need the income and would reluctantly agree to the monthly payments on the basis they are at least getting an income.

[David Mack]

It's been said before that the PLM company year ends in June, so because accounts have to be filed with Companies House within 9 months for any private limited company, the accounts for 2012-13 are due by the end of this month. I think those accounts only have to talk about the company's situation up to June 2013, so need not mention the CRT's court case and any possible blockade.

I thought that the statutory accounts had to include reference to any post year end events which could have a significant impact on the company.

[mango]

 

In about a year (and approx 100,000 posts), when the marina re-opens under completely new ownership.

 

Just my guess how it will pan out.

 

 

MtB

Even Waterways World devotes a couple of pages to this topic.

[AndrewIC]

Nor can I really, but it was suggested as a possibility earlier this evening by AndrewlC, in post 4,100.

 

I wasn't suggesting a donation as a sensible or likely course of action, I was making the point that, at the moment, "just paying the money" wouldn't be enough to untangle the mess.

 

The comment about income tax being recoverable did occur to me when I wrote it though

[mayalld]

Why would Steadman want to pay CRT?

 

Because his 2.75 million pounds is secured against the marina, and because the longer this goes on, the more the asset diminishes in value.

 

At the moment he can get an asset worth 2 million pound out of it. As soon as CRT cuts the marina off, and boaters start to leave, you can bet that the value of the marina will diminish by 10%

[RLWP]

I see we have over 200 pages now. When will the executive summary be available?

When you have written it?

 

Richard

[cloggy]

Heres one option for a lake http://dornob.com/75-prefab-floating-homes-form-a-houseboat-town-in-holland/#axzz2vBZ4AaHc

Edited March 6, 2014 by cloggy

[tupperware]

Phantasm: Yes, we're both right in what we say. Both QMP and PLM qualify as small companies and thus have no need for an audit or to file full 'statutory' accounts at Companies House for the public to see, however they do have to file abbreviated accounts which provide more limited information, basically a balance sheet showing the asset values at year end, but not the income and expenses during the year which led to those balances. The liquidator will of course see full up to date information for QMP, because by law all its assets and financial documents must be handed over to him upon his appointment.

 

Peter X. I believe that the abbreviated accounts filed under the small company scheme applies only to those at Companies House which are accessible to the public. Full accounts still need to be filed with HMRC and these should be available to the IP.

[tupperware]

Some six million or so posts back (maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration) I raised the topic of VAT. The recent referenced article quotes Mr Lillie junior as describing payments invoiced by CRT as being "Plus VAT). CRT will have needed to include the sales on these invoices in their VAT returns to HMRC and will have remitted the amount due after all their other sales and costs had been included. CRT would, if the debt written off, be permitted to recover the VAT under the bad debt provisions.

 

From QMP's viewpoint, it would be expected that their VAT returns included this same VAT as the invoices arrived and, in their case, they would be permitted to offset that cost against sales VAT. This is assuming that QMP are not registered as a small business for VAT purposes which I think is most unlikely. The net result of all this is that QMP may have enjoyed a reduction in their VAT liability in respect of invoices which eventually turned out not to have been paid. I do not know if HMRC would seek to recover the relief claimed in the event of a company liquidation but it does appear that HMRC are listed on the Creditor Statement as being due nothing. Whilst the VAT rate has changed since QMP began receiving invoices from CRT and point at which the financial wheel fell off, on the basis of a gross(?) invoice amount of £180,000, the VAT relief claimed would have been slightly less that 16% of that figure or a shade off £30,000. Does anyone have knowledge about HMRC's attitude in such circumstances?

[Dangerous Dave]

Heres one option for a lake http://dornob.com/75-prefab-floating-homes-form-a-houseboat-town-in-holland/#axzz2vBZ4AaHc

 

 

That is interesting as there are a couple who have a floating cabin on site and they are leaseholders.

 

My initial feelings are that they are in dire straights but seeing that link may provide some inspiration for the future

Edited March 6, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[KenK]

 

 

That is interesting as there are a couple who have a floating cabin on site and they are leaseholders.

 

My initial feelings are that they are in dire straights but seeing that link may provide some inspiration for the future

I seem to recall way back that there is no official residental mooring on site and that the lease hold is for a car parking space with a "free" mooring attached. Given a reluctance on the part of the planners to grant permission for housing I would be suprised if they would grant permission for what is a houseboat. That of course also applies to anyone living on their boat, while it is a marina they can come and go and as at many marinas local councils turn a blind eye if you live aboard. Once it becomes a lake / pond they may well be forced to take a different view especially if they do not want to open the door to applications for housing development.

 

Ken

[b0atman]

A lot of people seem to be unaware that planning permission is not needed for boats as they are moveable structures.It is not upto councils as to whether council tax is liable but the Ratings valuation officer.This all changes when you have a right to your mooring and boat cannot be moved by other persons as and when they want.The problem for councils is if they become heavy handed then as you cannot liveaboard then they have to house you.Why marinas apply for planning permission for moorings is a mystery.

[mayalld]

A lot of people seem to be unaware that planning permission is not needed for boats as they are moveable structures.

 

 

That is correct, planning permission isn't required for boats. It IS required for the land they are moored to.

[Dangerous Dave]

The floating cabin is as it is a movable structure but does not have its own means of movement ,ie no engine.Therefore it comes under liabilty for council tax or maybe not as it is there as a leisure item

I did notice that it had a licence plate issued by C&RT.

Interesting to know if it is classed as a boat or a shed/cabin of sorts.

All in all it is there as a leisure leasehold structure...Where on earth the owners will be able to put it if say the site is completely closed is something i have sympathy for them ..

 

If i had a lotto win of substance and the site was available then a cafe/bistro,fishing complex,floating hotels and floating cabins would be my business plan..

 

Please forward my suggestion to the MD at PLM..lol No doubt he will say in his usual arrogant way the idea has already been monitered.

[Midnight Rider]

The leaseholders have now received a letter from solicitors acting for Dean Anthony Nelson (the IP) --- should he be known as Dan?

 

This encloses a 'Notice of Disclaimer under S.178 of the Insolvency Act 1986' & states ----

Dean Anthony Nelson the liquidator of the above named company disclaim all the company's interest in the property registered at HM Land Registry under Title No ****** being the freehold land shown edged with red on the attached plan of the Title & being on the east side of Flesh Hovel Lane, Quorn.

 

I've had a quick Google of the subject, but still none the wiser. Anyone with any knowledge please?