Dispute at Pillings

[KenK]

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.

My point was the boat is no longer a moveable structure once the marina becomes a pond. That is like saying a caravan is a moveable structure and then building a brick wall around it. I'm not sure either if a houseboat without a engine comes under the same rules, anyone know for certain?

 

Ken

[Dangerous Dave]

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?

 

 

My first impressions are that the leases are invalid..I hope i'm wrong!!!!!

 

I wonder if PL has gone to work today!

Edited March 6, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[mayalld]

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?

 

It essentially means that the liquidator is not going to contest the mortgagee taking posession, because he believes the property is onerous, in other words, that the liabilities attaching to it exceed the value that he can obtain for it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

 

My first impressions are that the leases are invalid..I hope i'm wrong!!!!!

 

I wonder if PL has gone to work today!

It means what it says. The IP has no claim over the land as now belongs to Mathew Steadman.

 

It will be transferred to No. 750 Leicester Limited by Friday 21st March 2014 who will then negotiate an NAA with CaRT.

 

At least that's the plan.......

 

 

[Midnight Rider]

So ---- where does that leave the leaseholders?

[mayalld]

So ---- where does that leave the leaseholders?

 

Probably still OK.

 

I suspect that the existence of the leases is what made the property onerous.

[Midnight Rider]

 

Probably still OK.

 

I suspect that the existence of the leases is what made the property onerous.

Yes, thanks Dave, that's the way that I read it.

[Dangerous Dave]

Yes, thanks Dave, that's the way that I read it.

 

 

If the new company doesn't get the NAA then what happens?

 

Apart from the obvious low value of the leasehold/mooring rights

[Alan de Enfield]

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?

 

Just an alternative viewpoint :

 

Firstly as the letter is sent to the individual leaseholders, the question we need to ask is does "the Title no given belong to their lease, is the title no shown the same in every letter, does the title no (and the land edged in red) encompass the whole site or just their individual lease ?

 

If it relates to each individual lease, it could actually be saying that he ('and the company') has no-interest in that land, and that it will not be included in any valuation, and that the leaseholders are "safe"

 

If it involves the whole site and the IP is saying "I'll just give it back to M Stedman then presumably all creditors (inc C&RT) will have received a copy.

[Midnight Rider]

 

Just an alternative viewpoint :

 

Firstly as the letter is sent to the individual leaseholders, the question we need to ask is does "the Title no given belong to their lease, is the title no shown the same in every letter, does the title no (and the land edged in red) encompass the whole site or just their individual lease ?

 

If it relates to each individual lease, it could actually be saying that he ('and the company') has no-interest in that land, and that it will not be included in any valuation, and that the leaseholders are "safe"

 

If it involves the whole site and the IP is saying "I'll just give it back to M Stedman then presumably all creditors (inc C&RT) will have received a copy.

Can't really answer that as there was no 'attached plan'.

 

The disclaimer notice was sent to 'interested parties' & includes CaRT but is not quite the same as the unsecured creditors list.

[Alan de Enfield]

You (not necessarily you) can do a search on the Land Registry for the title number given in the letter - it will show either a small 'car park plot' or the full marina site.

It may help to answer some questions.

[Dangerous Dave]

You (not necessarily you) can do a search on the Land Registry for the title number given in the letter - it will show either a small 'car park plot' or the full marina site.

It may help to answer some questions.

 

 

My ex lease plan showed the whole site..Not that everything was built according to that plan ..

The lease plots were shown as little oblongs in the middle of the site in respective number

[Alan de Enfield]

Another possible interpretation :

 

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.

 

Dictionary definition of disclaim = refuse to acknowledge; deny

 

Could the above statement just mean that QMP no longer have claim to the property - as in :

 

Dean Anthony Nelson the liquidator of QMP refuse to acknowledge that QMP have any 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.

[Dangerous Dave]

Another possible interpretation :

 

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.

 

Dictionary definition of disclaim = refuse to acknowledge; deny

 

Could the above statement just mean that QMP no longer have claim to the property - as in :

 

Dean Anthony Nelson the liquidator of QMP refuse to acknowledge that QMP have any 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.

 

 

O h dear ..Maybe my first impression of reading the notice is sadly correct

[johnlillie]

 

 

O h dear ..Maybe my first impression of reading the notice is sadly correct

before all the subsequent comments, my first reaction was that the company referred to was QMP, hence DAN is merely formerly publishing the fact that QMP has ceased to own the site?

[Peter X]

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?

 

I think the letter's meaning is clear; people seem to have missed the crucial words "being the freehold land".

 

QMP's "interest" in the property always was its ownership of the freehold of the whole site, subject to Mr Steadman's mortgage, and as mayalld said in #4128, the liquidator has disclaimed the freehold as onerous property and handed it over to Mr Steadman, as many of us predicted. Mr Steadman's freehold is encumbered by the lease of most of the site to PLM, which doesn't matter because via QMH's 100% shareholding Mr Steadman controls PLM. It is also encumbered by the 20 long term leases of car park spaces with associated mooring rights, and I would imagine explicit or implied rights to access the canal network which Mr Steadman may have difficulty providing after 14th April. It may also be encumbered by a lease for the boat repair business, or they may have a sub-lease from PLM, I don't know which.

[MtB]

before all the subsequent comments, my first reaction was that the company referred to was QMP, hence DAN is merely formerly publishing the fact that QMP has ceased to own the site?

 

In which case why write individually to each leaseholder?

 

Answering my own question, I suspect tyhis might be AccountantSpeak for "We (QMP) are no longer your landlord. Don't pay us ground rent or expect us to meet any of our maintenance or insurance obligations mentioned in your lease."

 

But this is just a guess.

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to change 'right' into 'write'. Doh!)

Edited March 6, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[David Mack]

You (not necessarily you) can do a search on the Land Registry for the title number given in the letter - it will show either a small 'car park plot' or the full marina site.

It may help to answer some questions.

A search of the Land Registry website produces a list of 7 properties on Flesh Hovel Lane, one of which is Pillings Lock Marina. A search on the postcode shows only the marina and Quorn Fields Farm. That seems to show that the individual leases are not registered titles.

[Pillingsmoorer]

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

 

Is the email from the marina to which you refer been posted so far? No it has not.

 

If the existing moorers whose agreement are expiring are paying monthly then this will have a real impact on PLM. Despite interest rates being at an all time low, future cash projections are as important as ever and these are somewhat difficult if a company does not know from one month to the next where its revenue is coming from or, indeed, whether it is coming at all.

 

MtB. How far are we from the end of PLM's financial year when they will need to prepare and submit their next set of accounts? I seem to remember mention of June for past periods in which case, with some major questions in respect of the new company to be addressed before negotiations about a new NAA can commence, a new agreement might not be possible by that date. I do wonder how the PLM accounts would deal with the fact that the company did not have a product to sell.

 

Why don't they sell proper food instead of those rich Roman titbits?

 

Blessed are the cheapskaters.

[Peter X]

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.

...

 

Mr Steadman may not want to pay CRT, via whatever structure of companies he's using at the time, but I think he'll have to as I said "because it restores his crucial mooring income". At present the short term moorings income, from people who are paying monthly while they await events, is paid to PLM. But I think little or none of that was paid by PLM to QMP, before or after the liquidator took over in late January, because I believe that PLM holds a very advantageous lease on the site. My reasoning for this is set out in post #3565.

 

Now that Mr Steadman owns the freehold, encumbered by the various leases I listed in post #4141, until he sells it again any rent that is due from PLM under its lease will be paid to Mr Steadman personally.

[Phantasm]

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.

IIRC this one of the reasons that "liveaboards" were allowed by the council, because those who had to claim benefit to pay their mooring fees would have had to be housed by the council if they been evicted from the marina for non payment.

[MtB]

 

Mr Steadman may not want to pay CRT, via whatever structure of companies he's using at the time, but I think he'll have to as I said "because it restores his crucial mooring income". At present the short term moorings income, from people who are paying monthly while they await events, is paid to PLM. But I think little or none of that was paid by PLM to QMP, before or after the liquidator took over in late January, because I believe that PLM holds a very advantageous lease on the site. My reasoning for this is set out in post #3565.

 

Now that Mr Steadman owns the freehold, encumbered by the various leases I listed in post #4141, until he sells it again any rent that is due from PLM under its lease will be paid to Mr Steadman personally.

 

I agree.

 

And put more simply, Mr Steadman gets a plot of land containing a lake instead of his £2.75m as settlement of his mortgage. However, the income it generates is tiny without the canal connection so it will be in his direct and immediate interest to do whatever it takes to restore the connection, and hence restore the moorings income stream.

 

Moving on, do we know how many staff are on the PLM payroll? I suspect the moorings income funded mainly the wages bill and Mr Steadman's interest payments. As the moorings income dwindles PLM will run out of cash pretty quickly and may go bust in short order.

 

MtB

[mayalld]

Just an alternative viewpoint :

 

Firstly as the letter is sent to the individual leaseholders, the question we need to ask is does "the Title no given belong to their lease, is the title no shown the same in every letter, does the title no (and the land edged in red) encompass the whole site or just their individual lease ?

 

If it relates to each individual lease, it could actually be saying that he ('and the company') has no-interest in that land, and that it will not be included in any valuation, and that the leaseholders are "safe"

 

If it involves the whole site and the IP is saying "I'll just give it back to M Stedman then presumably all creditors (inc C&RT) will have received a copy.

The letter refers to the freehold property, not the leasehold.

 

When New Mills Marina went bump all the moorers got a copy of the letter disclaiming the lease.

 

In which case why right individually to each leaseholder?

 

 

 

MtB

Because all the leaseholders need to know that their lease is no longer with QMP (in liquidation)

[MtB]

Because all the leaseholders need to know that their lease is no longer with QMP (in liquidation)

 

Convention in residential leases is that the new owner writes telling them the news, usually along with new payment details for the rent.

 

If the IP was writing out of courtesy I'd have expected the letter to spell out in normal language and terminology what it meant, rather than framed in 'legalese' and so opaque. It reads like a formal notice.

 

 

MtB

[tupperware]

A number of posts, including my own have referred to the site becoming a "lake" if CRT carry out their stated intention in mid-April. All marinas are, I understand, required to install some means whereby the marina can be sealed off from the network so that dewatering of the pound to which they are connected does not leave the marina dry. If the site in question has stop-plank steels installed then this would be the easiest and cheapest way of CRT severing access. It would, however, prevent the marina from being "topped-up". I seem to recall JohnLillie posting many moons ago that before he removed the stop-planks between the site and the waterway, the natural water depth for the site was some nine inches. Without a means of replenishment, which CRT are unlikely to allow in the absence of an NAA agreement, it is quite likely that the water level at the marina will start to fall with the eventual result that, far from being a "lake", the marina might become a muddy hole. As I am not a civil engineer, how long this might take is a mystery but I do wonder whether, during that process, the water trapped in the marina might become a health-hazard as there will be no flow between it and the waterway outside.

 

A final point is that the contents of the marina were supplied from the national network when the marina was first connected under the original NAA and has been "topped-up" ever since from that source. As it is clear that QMP have failed to meet the charges payable under that now-cancelled agreement, who owns the water currently in the marina? Whilst it is most unlikely that CRT would ever go to the trouble and expense of pumping this water back into the adjacent waterway would they be within their rights in taking such an action?