Dispute at Pillings

[steven wilkinson]

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ? What did happen yesterday?

[dor]

The only director listed is Roy David Frank Rollings.

 

OK, so PL is the puppet master? All amounts to the same thing really.

[johnthebridge]

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ? What did happen yesterday?

 

Perhaps it's so quiet because, after reading Alan's statement that there's going to be a pragmatic solution* to this, the amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus and the pure guessers have no further reason/excuse to comment?

 

*As I tentatively suggested, but was shot down by the experts, in post 4011!

 

For those with short memories, I'll ask again. What else can the C&RT do?

[Peter X]

 

Perhaps it's so quiet because, after reading Alan's statement that there's going to be a pragmatic solution* to this, the amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus and the pure guessers have no further reason/excuse to comment?

 

*As I tentatively suggested, but was shot down by the experts, in post 4011!

 

For those with short memories, I'll ask again. What else can the C&RT do?

 

I'm not quite sure what "pragmatic solution" and "statement" you're referring to here, so I'll have to guess.

 

In your post #4011 you seemed to mean by "pragmatic solution" that the CRT would end up having to write off the debt, hold their nose and let No. 750 Leicester Ltd have a new NAA. People shot this down because they feel the CRT cannot afford to set such a precedent. Just because Mr Steadman has been handed back the freehold by the IP and we are told that he intends to sell it to the new company, that doesn't mean the CRT have caved in, I'll believe that when I see it. It does suggest that Mr Steadman thinks a deal will be possible, but for all we know such a deal may involve someone coughing up the debt, or Mr Steadman may be mistaken.

 

What else can the CRT do? They don't need to do much. As I and various others have said, while PLM's income slows to a trickle the CRT only have to wait, blockade the entrance as per their latest statement, then maybe wait a bit longer until the penny drops in Mr Steadman's mind and he caves in. He needs a NAA much more badly than the CRT need to grant it to him. Meanwhile press the IP to investigate PL, and perhaps Mr Steadman too, for trading while insolvent, and hopefully get PL barred as a company director.

 

Lower deck lawyers? If a boat has more than one deck, how does it get under the low bridges? It wouldn't be able to use much of CRT's waters, but still more than Pillings Lock moorers in the near future.

[Paul G2]

May I qualify - the lease on New Mills is a 30 year one and therefore you had to supply both a 30 year plan as well as a shorter one - i had spoken to a person looking into it

 

Thanks for clarifying, Star.

[costalot]

 

Perhaps it's so quiet because, after reading Alan's statement that there's going to be a pragmatic solution* to this, the amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus and the pure guessers have no further reason/excuse to comment?

 

*As I tentatively suggested, but was shot down by the experts, in post 4011!

 

For those with short memories, I'll ask again. What else can the C&RT do?

Well a new NAA cannot be "unreasonably" withheld and CRT will have to be pragmatic. However CRT cannot afford to allow the debit to just be "forgiven" by the directors of QMP/QMH/PLM placing QMP into voluntary liquidation, only to be replaced by a phoenix company with the same directors. Allowing this to happen would open the floodgates for other CRT creditors to do the same.

 

My guess is CRT won't be "unreasonable". Neither will they feel constrained by a time frame. They will want to ensure any agreement doesn't allow a repeat occurrence at Pillings Lock Marina. Moreover they will want to ensure the action they take precludes any other marina owner from adopting the same strategy. I would suspect the new owners will either have to find all (or the majority) of £185,000. Or prepare themselves for some lengthy negotiations to reach a "reasonable" solution. The directors of the phoenix company might complain the delay in reaching a NAA is unreasonable, but somehow I can't see the court agreeing with them.

 

I would be extremely surprised if CRT were to agree to reduced NAA fees for the phoenix company.

 

I suspect the blockade will occur, with CRT notifying the boaters that they regret having to take this action, but that they need to protect themselves from a similar occurrence. PLM will tell the boaters that they (PLM & moorers) are helpless victims and that CRT are being unreasonable.

 

At the end of the day those boaters who remain at PLM after 13 April are pawns in a business struggle. It's probably a risk they didn't foresee when they decided on a cheap mooring plan.

 

The longer a NAA is unresolved the greater the revenue loss to PLM. This means more pressure on Steadman and PL as they will be getting a reduced return on their investment. My guess is Steadman will either sell his 75% the business and leave the NAA for the new partner to resolve. Or he will buy out PL's 25% (probably at a reduced rate) and employ a new marina manager. This would enable him to finalises a new NAA with CRT on the basis of a new management team.

[boathunter]

The thought Mr Steadman will buy out PL seems highly unlikely IMO. To start with - why would PL give up his shares? I think the sooner we get away from the idea that Mr Steadman and PL aren't in this together up to their necks the better.

[Alan de Enfield]

As much as I hate to say it, ( and I very much hope I am wrong) -

 

I think that the speed that this has all gone through, and the apparent 'handing back' of the Freehold to Stedman, the Solicitors statement that the new company will take over on the 20th March, and the apparent lack of action aganst the Director & Shadow Director -

 

It will all be resolved before 14th April

 

There is a saying "money breeds money" and I have a feeling that C&RT may just see that an additional £40,000 per year (for doing nothing apart from granting a new NAA) may be preferable to no income from the marina, and the negative 'press'

 

It is an appaling situation when companies go 'bust' leaving debts - particularly to smaller companies who can least afford them - a new company arrises from the flames and carries on as if nothing had happened - Sorry - I find it morally wrong.

[MtB]

As much as I hate to say it, ( and I very much hope I am wrong) -

 

I think that the speed that this has all gone through, and the apparent 'handing back' of the Freehold to Stedman, the Solicitors statement that the new company will take over on the 20th March, and the apparent lack of action aganst the Director & Shadow Director -

 

It will all be resolved before 14th April

 

There is a saying "money breeds money" and I have a feeling that C&RT may just see that an additional £40,000 per year (for doing nothing apart from granting a new NAA) may be preferable to no income from the marina, and the negative 'press'

 

It is an appaling situation when companies go 'bust' leaving debts - particularly to smaller companies who can least afford them - a new company arrises from the flames and carries on as if nothing had happened - Sorry - I find it morally wrong.

 

Agreed, and it seems likely to pan out this way because there is no money to pay the IP to investigate properly.

 

I keep asking how the IP will be funded to carry out the investigations you mention but no-one has a credible answer. So I conclude he won't be carrying out any meaningful investigation and it will all be wrapped up and swept under the carpet with the maximum of haste.

 

 

MtB

[Phantasm]

 

Perhaps it's so quiet because, after reading Alan's statement that there's going to be a pragmatic solution* to this, the amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus and the pure guessers have no further reason/excuse to comment?

 

*As I tentatively suggested, but was shot down by the experts, in post 4011!

 

For those with short memories, I'll ask again. What else can the C&RT do?

Whooooooo, now that's what I call a sarcastic and extremely condescending attitude.

 

99% of the "amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus" you deride have a genuine concern for fellow boaters caught up in a fiasco not of their making, and an interest in the outcome of this debacle as it may impact on their future as well. They are people who, whilst not "experts", have experience from past situations, and are merely trying to say how they see things personally. I, for one, am amazed at the depth of information that has been posted here and the time and effort a lot of people have given to this thread.

 

I have followed this forum for many years although this is the first situation on which I have made any comments, because it is the first of which I have any personal experience. What I have posted is my knowledge of events at this marina, and what I have been told by friends still moored there who are worried about what is going to happen. If what I post gives help to anybody concerned then I am glad to do it.

 

I haven't posted for the past few days because I have no new information/insight to impart. I will be visiting friends at PLM today so will see what the feelings are. Then I may, as an amateur sleuth, have a valid reason/excuse to comment.

 

TTFN

 

As much as I hate to say it, ( and I very much hope I am wrong) -

 

I think that the speed that this has all gone through, and the apparent 'handing back' of the Freehold to Stedman, the Solicitors statement that the new company will take over on the 20th March, and the apparent lack of action aganst the Director & Shadow Director -

 

It will all be resolved before 14th April

 

There is a saying "money breeds money" and I have a feeling that C&RT may just see that an additional £40,000 per year (for doing nothing apart from granting a new NAA) may be preferable to no income from the marina, and the negative 'press'

 

It is an appaling situation when companies go 'bust' leaving debts - particularly to smaller companies who can least afford them - a new company arrises from the flames and carries on as if nothing had happened - Sorry - I find it morally wrong.

 

Yes, it is morally wrong, but these are amoral people in charge of QMP/PLM/QMH.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Phantasm

[Tuscan]

This was always going to be the case why should be Pillings be any different from the thousands of other companies that close and reopen the next day . All suppliers can do is choose whether to supply to them again, in this case I am sure CRT will supply but exercise their right as any supplier to a new business (with a high credit risk) to ensure there are guarantees in place for payment.

 

It depends whether the shareholders are prepared to offer these guarantees I suspect

Edited March 9, 2014 by Tuscan

[Alan de Enfield]

This was always going to be the case why should be Pillings be any different from the thousands of other companies that close and reopen the next day . All suppliers can do is choose whether to supply to them again, in this case I am sure CRT will supply but exercise their right as any supplier to a new business (with a high credit risk) to ensure there are guarantees in place for payment.

 

It depends whether the shareholders are prepared to offer these guarantees I suspect

 

Quite - but in this case will the new company 'legally' have to honour any agreements - I think not. The new compnay has not had the 'benefit' of that income so how are they going to service their commitments, be it by providing (as far as their income / accounts are concerned) 'free moorings' or paying the NAA.

 

The 'little people' who have paid their 25 year leases, and those who have paid 12 months moorings in advance are likely to be the most affected - the only choice they have is accept it or 'walk away'

[Pen n Ink]

It is not at all uncommon, nor has it been for some time, for Directors Personal Guarantees to be required before loans are given to businesses. It seems an obvious thing for CaRT to do here; if the directors themselves are not able to give such guarantees with adequate backup, then obviously guarantors of more substantial means should be sought (usually backed up by, for example, a legal charge on property), and I would be amazed if this wasn't going to happen here.

 

That way, irrespective of whether the original debt is paid or covered, at least it would avoid a recurrence the debacle we currently see, because I suspect the directors might be a little more assiduous in ensuring payments are made correctly.

[MtB]

It is not at all uncommon, nor has it been for some time, for Directors Personal Guarantees to be required before loans are given to businesses. It seems an obvious thing for CaRT to do here; if the directors themselves are not able to give such guarantees with adequate backup, then obviously guarantors of more substantial means should be sought (usually backed up by, for example, a legal charge on property), and I would be amazed if this wasn't going to happen here.

 

That way, irrespective of whether the original debt is paid or covered, at least it would avoid a recurrence the debacle we currently see, because I suspect the directors might be a little more assiduous in ensuring payments are made correctly.

 

 

There is a trap in accepting personal guarantees.

 

One needs to keep a track of the personal creditworthiness of the guarantee. Let's assume Lillie junior gave such a guarantee. Let's assume in five years CRT try to call it in, with a further £180k of debt run up. Mr Lillie junior in the meantime has squandered his £60k a year on more cars and holidays but not only that, has mortgaged his house to the hilt and has no personal net worth at all.

 

CRT will have been manouvred into exactly the same position again. They may bankrupt Mr Lillie junior but for a second time around, they'll have lost the money to a sharper operator.

 

MtB

[johnthebridge]

As much as I hate to say it, ( and I very much hope I am wrong) -

 

I think that the speed that this has all gone through, and the apparent 'handing back' of the Freehold to Stedman, the Solicitors statement that the new company will take over on the 20th March, and the apparent lack of action aganst the Director & Shadow Director -

 

It will all be resolved before 14th April

 

There is a saying "money breeds money" and I have a feeling that C&RT may just see that an additional £40,000 per year (for doing nothing apart from granting a new NAA) may be preferable to no income from the marina, and the negative 'press'

 

It is an appaling situation when companies go 'bust' leaving debts - particularly to smaller companies who can least afford them - a new company arrises from the flames and carries on as if nothing had happened - Sorry - I find it morally wrong.

This is the first post I've seen that contains anywhere like a realistic view of this situation. It IS morally wrong and anyone who thought I was in some way condoning the "pragmatic" decision I had suggested earlier would be incorrect.

BUT.

Unfortunately, nobody here seems to have realised that C&RT aren't a business in the sense that there is a figurehead/CEO/chairman/board involved, with vested interests or ownership concerns with regard to "their" company. It's just a disparate number of people brought together by government, charged with the idea of making the best of a bad job. As history has shown, if it all goes wrong, they invariably walk away unscathed, usually accompanied by a pot of publicly funded gold. (Names withheld to avoid libel charges against me.)

Just imagine the different attitudes prevailing. If this was a private company, I'm sure any MD would be moving heaven and earth to sort this problem out. IF it had ever been allowed to degenerate to the extent it has. Not the C&RT board. It's not their money, so a decision will be made, call it pragmatic or otherwise, that may not please the business purists but will have the marina up and doing ere long, regardless of who's in charge.

Sorry chaps, them's me thoughts.

Edited March 9, 2014 by johnthebridge

[MtB]

This is the first post I've seen that contains anywhere like a realistic view of this situation. It IS morally wrong and anyone who thought I was in some way condoning the "pragmatic" decision I had suggested earlier would be incorrect.

BUT.

Unfortunately, nobody here seems to have realised that C&RT aren't a business in the sense that there is a figurehead/CEO/chairman/board involved with vested interests, or ownership concerns with regard to "their" company. It's just a disparate number of people brought together by government, charged with the idea of making the best of a bad job. As history has shown, if it all goes wrong, they invariably walk away unscathed, usually accompanied by a pot of publicly funded gold. (Names withheld to avoid libel charges against me.)

Just imagine the different attitudes prevailing. If this was a private company, I'm sure any MD would be moving heaven and earth to sort this problem out. IF it had ever been allowed to degenerate to the extent it has. Not the C&RT board. It's not their money, so a decision will be made, call it pragmatic or otherwise, that may not please the business purists but will have the marina up and doing ere long, regardless of who's in charge.

Sorry chaps, them's me thoughts.

 

 

I fear you are right and this is exactly how it all developed, and how it will pan out.

 

Hopefully CRT will have the business nous to stop it, but for the reasons you outline, I suspect they won't. No-one at CRT is personally affected by the outcome, unlike the shareholding directors of a real commercial business.

 

MtB

[DeanS]

They removed the NAA for unpaid debt of £160000 .

Surely they will only re-issue an NAA when they see a deposit in the CRT bank account for £160000 .

 

If they issue an NAA for £000000 then why did they bother removing the NAA in the first place.

[Alan de Enfield]

They removed the NAA for unpaid debt of £160000 .

Surely they will only re-issue an NAA when they see a deposit in the CRT bank account for £160000 .

 

 

The company that owe the £185000 is no more.

 

Its like if you bought your new TV from Comet, it developed a fault so you took it back - in the meantime Comet has gone bust and Currys have moved into the shop.

Same shop - same products - different owner

You will not get any satisfaction from Currys

[MtB]

They removed the NAA for unpaid debt of £160000 .

Surely they will only re-issue an NAA when they see a deposit in the CRT bank account for £160000 .

 

If they issue an NAA for £000000 then why did they bother removing the NAA in the first place.

 

As AdeE points out, they removed it from A.

 

In a few weeks B will apply for a new one. B is a different 'legal person'.

 

 

MtB

[costalot]

The director didn't have the money to make the regular NAA payments last time and nor did he have the money to defend the company in court. So where will the "new" company find the money to pay CRT in advance?

 

The only thing I can think of is that the money has always been there...... Except the finances were structured to ensure the money wasn't in QMP.

 

One thing I do know for certain. The marina won't be getting any of our business next time we pass that way!

[Graham Davis]

They removed the NAA for unpaid debt of £160000 .

Surely they will only re-issue an NAA when they see a deposit in the CRT bank account for £160000 .

 

If they issue an NAA for £000000 then why did they bother removing the NAA in the first place.

No Dean.

The unpaid debt is now "closed" because the company that owed it went into Liquidation, and now no longer exists.

[johnthebridge]

Whooooooo, now that's what I call a sarcastic and extremely condescending attitude.

 

99% of the "amateur sleuths, the lower deck lawyers, the tax experts, the company insolvency gurus" you deride have a genuine concern for fellow boaters caught up in a fiasco not of their making, and an interest in the outcome of this debacle as it may impact on their future as well. They are people who, whilst not "experts", have experience from past situations, and are merely trying to say how they see things personally. I, for one, am amazed at the depth of information that has been posted here and the time and effort a lot of people have given to this thread.

 

 

 

"99%"...."have a genuine concern"? Really? How do you know that?

What of the remaining 1%? What do they think?

"Genuine concern"? Sorry, but it seems to me that a lot of the opinions expressed on here appear to have been those of the lynch mob, baying for blood.

[Pen n Ink]

Baying for blood maybe. Does that make them wrong? Err - NO!

[costalot]

 

 

There is a trap in accepting personal guarantees.

 

One needs to keep a track of the personal creditworthiness of the guarantee. Let's assume Lillie junior gave such a guarantee. Let's assume in five years CRT try to call it in, with a further £180k of debt run up. Mr Lillie junior in the meantime has squandered his £60k a year on more cars and holidays but not only that, has mortgaged his house to the hilt and has no personal net worth at all.

 

CRT will have been manouvred into exactly the same position again. They may bankrupt Mr Lillie junior but for a second time around, they'll have lost the money to a sharper operator.

 

MtB

CRT might consider asking for a Bank Guarantee. That way if QMP(Mk2) folds CRT get their money. However I suspect QMP(Mk2) would have difficulty in obtaining a bank guarantee given the state of the finances. Which then begs the question...... Why should CRT take the financial risk of non payment [again]?

[johnthebridge]

CRT might consider asking for a Bank Guarantee. That way if QMP(Mk2) folds CRT get their money. However I suspect QMP(Mk2) would have difficulty in obtaining a bank guarantee given the state of the finances. Which then begs the question...... Why should CRT take the financial risk of non payment [again]?

But, but! Why can't people understand this?

Who, exactly, takes "the financial risk"? C&RT? What "risk" do they take? As I keep saying, it's only public money. No-one there cares.