Dispute at Pillings

[Bod]

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?

I think the last C&RT message said that water levels would be maintained, in the short term, longer term, then a proper seal would be put in place.

Bearing in mind the recent weather, should C&RT pump out the water, where would they put it all?

 

Bod

[tupperware]

I think the last C&RT message said that water levels would be maintained, in the short term, longer term, then a proper seal would be put in place.

Bearing in mind the recent weather, should C&RT pump out the water, where would they put it all?

 

Bod

 

Bod. Mr Spencer's letter did indeed mention that water-levels would be maintained, a fact which I had omitted to check - many apologies. It does show just how easy it is to lose track of who said what to whom and when and that "executive summary" is long overdue! Sounds less like stop-planks and more like a couple of mud boats chained in a suitable position.

[matty40s]

I think the last C&RT message said that water levels would be maintained, in the short term, longer term, then a proper seal would be put in place.

Bearing in mind the recent weather, should C&RT pump out the water, where would they put it all?

 

Bod

they wouldn't need to pump it anywhere, it would disappear onto the local alluvial gravel and soil.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

they wouldn't need to pump it anywhere, it would disappear onto the local alluvial gravel and soil.

I seem to remember that one poster (at least) on this forum has knowledge of marina construction so might be able to provide a definitive answer to how fast water would disappear.

 

However, I seem to recall that marinas have to pass a leakage test before connection and must not lose more than a certain amount in 24 hours.

 

With regard to eventually sealing off the marina, I would refer to an earlier post where I say that the intention is that by 21 March the phoenix company will be the owner of the marina.

 

This will give three weeks in which to agree a new NAA before CaRT take any action of any sort.

 

.... and no that did not come from a man in a pub!

Edited March 6, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[TruckDrivingMan]

 

I think that, in practice, there is no difference. CRT's statement seems merely to be using the recognised term to describe their insistence that the other party in some new NAA agreement has title to the land. Whether this is to preclude PLM, as a leaseholder of the defunct QMP, from attempting to contract such an arrangement is difficult to say.

 

TDM. Did your fellow "fugitives" express any reasons as to why they had decided to leave?

 

Mike. I understand where you are coming from but I have not seen any evidence so far that QMP was being used as a personal piggy bank.

Hi tupperware & other forum members.

 

It became my intention to leave Pillings as soon as it became apparent what a total sh*t Paul Lillie was, up to that point he had just been an irritating little man with an over-inflated opinion of himself with whom I had had very few dealings.

 

My contract was approaching renewal and I was not going to give him any more money under any circumstances - this is why I left and the others I met had strikingly similar reasons.

 

The other reason was that I did not want to find myself on an assault charge.

 

I did not identify my boat by name as I did not want to give Paul any opportunity to try one of his pathetic tricks when he finds out someone is criticizing him.

 

Also I still have friends there (who are/have been overseas so may not yet be up to speed with this) so I have to bear their interests in mind.

 

Unsure whether CRT were following this in detail I have been making sure that they are fully aware of all Mr Lillie's attempts to set up a duplicate scam including the lowdown on Roy Rollings etc - my impression is they know exactly what his game is and from my viewpoint they hold all the aces in the new game and do not have to concede anything to Pillings Lock Mk 2 they can just sit tight and watch what happens.

 

TDM

[DeanS]

Just an observation.

If PL had re-acted humbly, and not called CRT every name under the sun, and announced he had seen the error in his ways, and then arranged full payment of the outstanding funds, BEFORE the liquidation, the marina would continue to operate as a lovely marina, with a restaurant etc. PL Mk2, would have to pay the NAA fees ANYWAY, so there is absolutely no logic in not paying them ALREADY. He has only made things more difficult for himself, by using every media channel available to slate CRT....while knowing full well that he would still need to do business with them in order to maintain a successful business.

 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. So silly. Humbleness is an important human trait, and can achieve much when running a business. Pride and rudeness lead to business failure in most cases.

[mayalld]

 

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

It is a formal notice.

 

A landlord/tenant relationship carries mutual obligations and the liquidator is disclaiming those obligations.

 

He can't write a friendly letter, because that could amount to offering legal advice to the tenants.

[johnlillie]

re the stop planks etc, there is in place the facility to replace proper stop planks, and no there was no leak test carried out, either before or after the initial fill, to the best of my knowledge. One of the small lakes maintains a level about 3 or 4ft below the marina level, so I would imagine that is where then water table is, give or take.

[tupperware]

Hi tupperware & other forum members.

 

It became my intention to leave Pillings as soon as it became apparent what a total sh*t Paul Lillie was, up to that point he had just been an irritating little man with an over-inflated opinion of himself with whom I had had very few dealings.

 

My contract was approaching renewal and I was not going to give him any more money under any circumstances - this is why I left and the others I met had strikingly similar reasons.

 

The other reason was that I did not want to find myself on an assault charge.

 

I did not identify my boat by name as I did not want to give Paul any opportunity to try one of his pathetic tricks when he finds out someone is criticizing him.

 

Also I still have friends there (who are/have been overseas so may not yet be up to speed with this) so I have to bear their interests in mind.

 

Unsure whether CRT were following this in detail I have been making sure that they are fully aware of all Mr Lillie's attempts to set up a duplicate scam including the lowdown on Roy Rollings etc - my impression is they know exactly what his game is and from my viewpoint they hold all the aces in the new game and do not have to concede anything to Pillings Lock Mk 2 they can just sit tight and watch what happens.

 

TDM

 

Thanks for the information TDK and I appreciate your need for circumspection.

 

It does seem that CRT hold "all the aces" and Mr Spencer's recent letter contains a strong indication that CRT are not blind to the circumstances surrounding QMP and its successor.

[tupperware]

Just an observation.

If PL had re-acted humbly, and not called CRT every name under the sun, and announced he had seen the error in his ways, and then arranged full payment of the outstanding funds, BEFORE the liquidation, the marina would continue to operate as a lovely marina, with a restaurant etc. PL Mk2, would have to pay the NAA fees ANYWAY, so there is absolutely no logic in not paying them ALREADY. He has only made things more difficult for himself, by using every media channel available to slate CRT....while knowing full well that he would still need to do business with them in order to maintain a successful business.

 

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. So silly. Humbleness is an important human trait, and can achieve much when running a business. Pride and rudeness lead to business failure in most cases.

 

Quite so although I would describe the required approach as conciliatory rather than humble. It can certainly be considered tactically inept for the director of a company to lambast an opponent who has obtained a high court order against the company for around £185,000. Not only is the approach tactically inept but suggestive of a profound ignorance of the importance in business, as in life, of conceding defeat with dignity.

Edited March 6, 2014 by tupperware

[StarUKKiwi]

I've read to the end and I have seen reference to

an email sent out by PLM subsequent to the Cart letter - what did it say?

It appears that winter moorers will leave at the end of March; boats left that have fees due are paying monthly or leaving; once the marina is blocked off then PLM income dries up (pardon the pun) and people who come to eat at the Bistro won't cover all the costs; so jobs at risk as well. (They just had job adverts out as well, although I did note they were minimum/low wage jobs)

Edited March 7, 2014 by StarUKKiwi

[tupperware]

I seem to remember that one poster (at least) on this forum has knowledge of marina construction so might be able to provide a definitive answer to how fast water would disappear.

 

However, I seem to recall that marinas have to pass a leakage test before connection and must not lose more than a certain amount in 24 hours.

 

With regard to eventually sealing off the marina, I would refer to an earlier post where I say that the intention is that by 21 March the phoenix company will be the owner of the marina.

 

This will give three weeks in which to agree a new NAA before CaRT take any action of any sort.

 

.... and no that did not come from a man in a pub!

 

The timescales seem rather short given that the IP may need to complete his/her work to a certain stage before the new company can assume ownership of the site. Even after that takes place CRT may be awaiting the results of the IP investigations into the conduct of QMP as they may consider these material to any future NAA (e.g. are there grounds for seeking a recovery of at least part of the £185,000). CRT may also be looking for a rather more credible basis for accepting the new company as a customer given that it has no trading record, its credit-worthiness may be unknowable, and its present management team comprises a law student who has had at least a tangential role in the activities of its predecessor or a sister company. A recent quote describing CRT as being regarded as the "Devil Incarnate" might not encourage the charity to move hell or high water to expedite contract negotiations.

re the stop planks etc, there is in place the facility to replace proper stop planks, and no there was no leak test carried out, either before or after the initial fill, to the best of my knowledge. One of the small lakes maintains a level about 3 or 4ft below the marina level, so I would imagine that is where then water table is, give or take.

 

JohnLillie. Can you recall how long the negotiations with BW took in respect of the original NAA?

I've read to the end and I have seen an email sent out by PLM subsequent to the Cart letter - what did it say?

It appears that winter moorers will leave at the end of March; boats left that have fees due are paying monthly or leaving; once the marina is blocked off then PLM income dries up (pardon the pun) and people who come to eat at the Bistro won't cover all the costs; so jobs at risk as well. (They just had job adverts out as well, although I did note they were minimum/low wage jobs)

StarUKKiwi. Sorry to seem a little dense at this late hour but is your second paragraph a précis of the email sent by PLM? If so, the email seems remarkably content-free.

[tupperware]

 

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

 

PLM obviously have some kind of lease arrangement in respect of the marina under which they collect the mooring fees paid by those who do not have a car/mooring lease from QMP. Many of those "pay as you go" moorers are likely to have some months to run on the current contract and, if CRT carry out their stated intention to sever the marina connection for incoming craft in mid-April, then many of those moorers will have lost the ability to come and go largely at will. This ability is an entirely legitimate expectation under any mooring agreement whether explicitly stated or not, and its loss may represent a possible breach of contract on the part of the company which sold them the mooring agreement in the first place.

Edited March 7, 2014 by tupperware

[johnlillie]

 

The timescales seem rather short given that the IP may need to complete his/her work to a certain stage before the new company can assume ownership of the site. Even after that takes place CRT may be awaiting the results of the IP investigations into the conduct of QMP as they may consider these material to any future NAA (e.g. are there grounds for seeking a recovery of at least part of the £185,000). CRT may also be looking for a rather more credible basis for accepting the new company as a customer given that it has no trading record, its credit-worthiness may be unknowable, and its present management team comprises a law student who has had at least a tangential role in the activities of its predecessor or a sister company. A recent quote describing CRT as being regarded as the "Devil Incarnate" might not encourage the charity to move hell or high water to expedite contract negotiations.

 

JohnLillie. Can you recall how long the negotiations with BW took in respect of the original NAA?

StarUKKiwi. Sorry to seem a little dense at this late hour but is your second paragraph a précis of the email sent by PLM? If so, the email seems remarkably content-free.

I was not party to all the meetings re the NAA, but from what PL said (or didn't say) around that time, it was not considered in any way a stumbling block to proceeding with the build. My understanding is that it was accepted, just as the mortgage rate was, there were so many other issues , as anyone would appreciate, with a development of that size. The aim was to get it up and running as fast as possible, to develop an income stream.

[DeanS]

The aim was to get it up and running as fast as possible, to develop an income stream.

 

That will be the same motto used after CRT seal it off.

[mayalld]

 

The timescales seem rather short given that the IP may need to complete his/her work to a certain stage before the new company can assume ownership of the site.

 

 

That point has been reached.

 

The Liquidator has disclaimed his interest in the property, and we may assume that Mr Steadman is now the freehold owner, and free to sell it on a new mortgage to 750 Leicester.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

That point has been reached.

 

The Liquidator has disclaimed his interest in the property, and we may assume that Mr Steadman is now the freehold owner, and free to sell it on a new mortgage to 750 Leicester.

 

Quite right - the timescale I quoted is that given by the solicitor handling the transaction.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[costalot]

 

That point has been reached.

 

The Liquidator has disclaimed his interest in the property, and we may assume that Mr Steadman is now the freehold owner, and free to sell it on a new mortgage to 750 Leicester.

If the IP has disclaimed all interest in the property where will he get his income from for the work performed in liquidating QMP?

[mayalld]

If the IP has disclaimed all interest in the property where will he get his income from for the work performed in liquidating QMP?

 

No idea, but as he has disclaimed the property, we may safely assume that he wouldn't have got it from the property in any case.

[MtB]

 

No idea, but as he has disclaimed the property, we may safely assume that he wouldn't have got it from the property in any case.

 

So why would the IP do any work on this project at all, as there appears to be no source of funding for his work?

 

 

MtB

[StarUKKiwi]

StarUKKiwi. Sorry to seem a little dense at this late hour but is your second paragraph a précis of the email sent by PLM? If so, the email seems remarkably content-free.

Apologies I have amended to say 'seen reference to' as I haven't seen it but it was referred to

[BEngo]

 

So why would the IP do any work on this project at all, as there appears to be no source of funding for his work?

 

 

MtB

 

This is a voluntary liquidation so AIUI the IP is required to be funded by the Directors who will be liable for the Company until is removed from the Register.

 

N

[Swallowman]

 

So why would the IP do any work on this project at all, as there appears to be no source of funding for his work?

 

 

MtB

 

Good question to which I alluded many pages back when he was first appointed.

When Ownerships went pop a few years ago, the IP thought he was going to be able to sell "buy-back" shares in some of the boats which he alleged were the property of Ownerships Ltd (in liquidation) to generate some income and a few rather naive syndicates did accept the "generous offer" to sell their own property back to them at a four figure price. The counter argument was that "company money" was not used to buy these shares back from the owners, it was a separate self-financing fund administered by the company and which had been mis-appropriated by the Principal of the company.

The point of this is that the IP was left with the thick end of bugger all to pay his costs because the company coffers were completely bare and any property owned by the company mortgaged to the hilt to Barclays Bank. I think the IP costs are met from central government but not at the same rate at which the accountants are "charged out".

[Dangerous Dave]

Regarding the water levels of the site..

In such recent times the sluice/weir was constructed to remove the constant flooding in LE12 8FE or LE12 8EN as it was once known as.

With my involvement of Quorn Field Farm the water table level is still high..Dig down 360 mm and you have a pond!

 

I do remember though the ponds adjacent to the marina basin did need constant connection by ways of a soil pipe to enable the fish population to survive.

Mentioning this to Phil Spencer he ensured me that the environmental people have been consulted to ensure that fish stocks have ample source of water to survive, with or without the entrance being permanently sealed.

Therefore the basin is unlikely to dry up

Edited March 7, 2014 by Dangerous Dave

[DeanS]

 

Mentioning this to Phil Spencer he ensured me that the environmental people have been consulted to ensure that fish stocks have ample source of water to survive, with or without the entrance being permanently sealed.

 

If they have bothered the environmental people.....it would really seem to mean they have every intention of sealing it off....if they didn't, and we''re just blowing hot air, they wouldn't be "consulting with the environmental people".

 

of course we are all just hypothesising.