Dispute at Pillings

[LoneWolf]

 

Interesting. The Stamp Duty Investigation Specialists website whose like I posted lists the same figures, but also a further threshold of £2m where the rate steps up to 7%.

 

In addition, it states £2m "purchased by certain persons including corporate bodies" is charged at 15%.

 

I apprecite these two further figures are missing from the HMRC site but equally, I'd expect a firm of Stamp Duty Investigation Specialists to be getting it right!

 

 

MtB

 

there were changes to SDLT (iirc held in a corporate envelope) announced in the recent budget - i would expect your guys to update their website quicker than HMRC

 

MTB - Is this a tax that has to be paid every time a property changes ownership? If so, this tax is going to be a lot more than paying the NAA would have been, isn't it?

 

yes but there are various reliefs

 

I would expect companies in the same group to be able to transfer properties between themselves free of STLD

 

i'll check now

[MtB]

 

MTB - Is this a tax that has to be paid every time a property changes ownership? If so, this tax is going to be a lot more than paying the NAA would have been, isn't it?

 

 

Yes. Not only that, but if the rate mentioned for mixed use properties on the stamp duty specialist website I quoted is correct, the SDLT on the transaction will be a cool £300,000. Way more than was saved by allowing insolvency of QMP.

 

MtB

[LoneWolf]

 

 

Yes. Not only that, but if the rate mentioned for mixed use properties on the stamp duty specialist website I quoted is correct, the SDLT on the transaction will be a cool £300,000. Way more than was saved by allowing insolvency of QMP.

 

MtB

 

wrong

 

SDLT Group relief would apply

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/SDLTM23010.htm

[MtB]

 

wrong

 

SDLT Group relief would apply

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/sdltmanual/SDLTM23010.htm

 

 

Even when the transferor is a private individual?

 

From your link:

 

If the purchaser and vendor of a chargeable interest are companies...

[LoneWolf]

 

 

Even when the transferor is a private individual?

 

From your link:

 

If the purchaser and vendor of a chargeable interest are companies...

 

I think it's still owned by QMP isnt it?

 

i wouldn't expect Mr S to f*ck up on something like this, master long term strategist that he is

Edited March 28, 2014 by LoneWolf

[StarUKKiwi]

Shall go and edit my original post one page back - i think that CaRT have the measure of the current situation and don't believe a word of it!

I wonder if the current leaseholders understand their position and how precarious it is? the gentleman who emailed Richard Parry seems not to have understood and in saying that they had a residential mooring when.one wasn't approved leads me to suspect that he has not done any homework but has believed the bs from the current management. If I were a leaseholder, I would be applying to the county court mighty quickly for a refund. As a scam, this is surely one of the strangest I have heard of.

[Alan de Enfield]

Mike the Boilerman, on 28 Mar 2014 - 12:26 AM, said:

 

 

Even when the transferor is a private individual?

 

From your link:

 

If the purchaser and vendor of a chargeable interest are companies...

 

There is - maybe - a prior question to this, If the Freehold / ownership was 'given' to Mr S by the IP as payment for the balance of his outstanding mortgage (loan to PMP) should he have paid SDLT ?

[MtB]

As I understand it, Mr Steadman forclosed on his mortgage and transferred the land ownership back to his himself.

 

This is what members of this board were saying the IP's notice to leaseholders disclaiming interest in the land meant, two or three weeks back.

 

 

MtB

 

There is - maybe - a prior question to this, If the Freehold / ownership was 'given' to Mr S by the IP as payment for the balance of his outstanding mortgage (loan to PMP) should he have paid SDLT ?

 

No. A "mortgagee in possession" pays no SDLT on transfer of his security.

 

Mtb

[LoneWolf]

As I understand it, Mr Steadman forclosed on his mortgage and transferred the land ownership back to his himself.

 

This is what members of this board were saying the IP's notice to leaseholders disclaiming interest in the land meant, two or three weeks back.

 

 

MtB

 

No. A "mortgagee in possession" pays no SDLT on transfer of his security.

 

Mtb

 

the IP may have 'disclaimed interest' but that doesn't mean that the paperwork was done and the property was actually transferred

[Paul G2]

As I understand it, Mr Steadman forclosed on his mortgage and transferred the land ownership back to his himself.

 

This is what members of this board were saying the IP's notice to leaseholders disclaiming interest in the land meant, two or three weeks back.

 

 

MtB

 

No. A "mortgagee in possession" pays no SDLT on transfer of his security.

 

Mtb

 

My recollection is the same as yours, that Steadman took back title to the property because of the default on the mortgage. How funny would that be if those clowns ended up having to pay £300,000 to get out their £185,000 CRT debt?

 

And CRT wants a recorded deed before they'll even talk to Roy the Rube, so Steadman will have to transfer title and possibly incur the tax just to get in the door to talk with CRT.

 

This could get interesting!

[tupperware]

 

Thank you for this, Wilbur. It's very enlightening.

 

ROFLMAO - Apparently PL thinks that adding another corporate layer of separation is somehow going to make CRT feel more secure. What a laugh!

 

At least CRT seems to be sticking to their guns as far as requiring some kind of reasonable guarantee that the NAA will be paid. Personally, I will be surprised if CRT approves any company that has anything at all to do with Paul Lillie. Since PL has shot his mouth off so much about how unfair CRT is, and continues even to this day to blame CRT for his financial mismanagement, I'd imagine that CRT knows that he will be a constant thorn in their side and I doubt they will allow that to happen. PL has shown that he can't be dealt with, and I would be surprised if CRT simply refuses to have anything to do with him or any company he is associated with.

 

I dare say PL is history as far as PLM is concerned. Why would anyone at CRT allow themselves to be bothered by such a moron ever again, if they could avoid it?

 

 

I quite agree. The longer Mr Lillie junior continues his sniping at CRT the less inclined CRT may be to expedite matters in respect of a new NAA. It is reassuring that Mr Spencer's statement makes clear that significant evidence is required to ensure that CRT are not left facing another financial loss in the future and quite how the young RoyR is going to provide this reassurance without committing some fairly hefty money upfront is questionable.

 

Mr Spencer's statement also makes clear that NBW's latest article is about as disconnected with the reality of the new NAA as it would be possible to be. I will await, without much confidence, their publishing a retraction and apologising for misleading their readers.

Edited March 28, 2014 by tupperware

[Peter X]

This latest development adds to my feeling that Mr Steadman doesn't know what he is doing.

Having got the freehold back from the IP, he hands it to PLT (director RR), which is owned by 750LLtd (director RR), itself owned by QMH (director PL but 75% owned by Steadman and 25% by PL). What a pointless complicated mess, with PL still lurking in the background, a man whose presence will not be helpful to the cause of getting a NAA.

 

Note that we're only told that PLT is the new owner of the marina, not that it is the operator.

PLM might be on the verge of going broke, but it seems to be the operator for the time being.

 

If as I believe, the rights and obligations of leases automatically transfer to a new freeholder, then the QMP 20 (the long term leaseholders) can expect PLT to provide them with any access to the network specified in the original leases, and sue PLT if that access is not provided?

 

Similarly, the cheap-as-chips long term lease which I suspect PLM holds for the marina would still exist, and if PLM were to be liquidated its IP would demand that PLT provide access to the network? Logically, although of course this is Pillings Lock we're talking about, PLM's lease would contain this obligation.

 

All of which suggests to me that the newly formed PLT is already in deep trouble. It desperately needs a NAA pronto, but even when the Stamp Duty and documentation has been sorted out so that RR can get a meeting with the CRT, he then meets Phil "Show Me The Money" Spencer, who will not be at all desperate to grant a NAA.

[Alan Saunders]

Were I in Phil Spencer's position now with all the B/S and the impudent demand to have me removed I would do all I could to destroy PL! I would put my job on-the-line rather than give in. I would demand that the Board agree to cause the Marina to be permanently closed rather than give in to their finagling.

Hopefully, Mr Spencer is a level headed manager who is expecting a sensible conclusion to this fiasco that will satisfy Pillings moorers and all other CRT customers and suppliers.

 

If the BMF did not approve the standard NAA or now believe it to be unfair then surely all Marinas should be refusing to pay it.

[Bod]

As previously posted, but with headers intact.... I had this email forwarded from a friend at Pillings this evening.

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Phil Spencer <Phil.Spencer@canalrivertrust.org.uk>

Date: 27 Mar 2014 17:35

Subject: FW: New Company Set-Up Complete

To: Phil Spencer <Phil.Spencer@canalrivertrust.org.uk>

Cc:

 

Dear Boat Licence Customer

 

 

 

Many of you may have already received a copy of my email below but as I do not know who Mr Lillie’s email group included I am forwarding it to you.

 

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Phil Spencer

 

 

 

Head of Business Boating

 

 

 

Canal & River Trust | Fearns Wharf | Neptune Street | Leeds | LS9 8PB | M: 07710 175342 | DD: 0113 281 6833 |

 

 

 

Please visit http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/ to find out more about the Canal & River Trust.

 

 

 

 

 

From: Phil Spencer

Sent: 27 March 2014 16:36

To: 'Pillings Back Office'; 'Pillings Lock'

Cc: 'Pillings Lock Reception Desk'; Roy Rollings; 'Paul Lillie'; Richard Parry; zoe.wright@shoosmiths.co.uk; Lynne Berry; editor@canalboatmag.co.uk; editor@wwonline.co.uk; editorial@towpathtalk.co.uk; editor@narrowboatworld.com

Subject: RE: New Company Set-Up Complete

 

 

 

Dear Paul

 

 

 

Thank you for copying me in to your email. I think it is appropriate for me to respond setting out the Trusts position.

 

 

 

I can confirm that an email was received from Roy Rollings, Director of No.750 Leicester Limited, with whom we have been in previous correspondence, at 18.10 yesterday evening advising the Trust that a different company, Pillings Lock Trading Limited (company no.08957508), acquired ownership of Pillings Lock Marina yesterday and that this company would now like to enter into talks with the Trust with a view to securing a new Network Access Agreement.

 

 

 

Pillings Lock Trading Limited was incorporated on 25 March 2014 and Mr Rollings is sole Director of the company. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of No.750 Leicester Limited of which Mr Rollings is also sole Director. The sole shareholder of No 750 Leicester Limited is Quorn Marina Holdings Limited (company no. 6002830) of which Mr Paul Lillie is sole Director and a shareholder.

 

 

 

At present, the Trust has not been provided with any documentary evidence to confirm that Pillings Lock Trading Limited has acquired the Marina and the Trust will shortly be writing to Mr Rollings to ask that a certified copy of the Transfer Deed evidencing the sale is provided so that the Trust can be clear as to which company to enter into discussions with for a new Network Access Agreement.

 

 

 

The Trust is willing to enter into discussions with Pillings Lock Trading Limited if it is the new owner of the Marina, however at present no information has been provided to the Trust to enable it to understand how this company will be funded, how the structure of the various companies within the group will operate the Marina and what, if any, financial security will be offered to satisfy the Trust that the company can meet the financial obligations which would exist under the terms of any new Network Access Agreement to ensure that the position of both the Trust and berth holders is adequately protected.

 

 

 

The Trust will shortly be responding to Mr Rollings to seek further information.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

Phil Spencer

 

 

 

Head of Business Boating

 

 

 

Canal & River Trust | Fearns Wharf | Neptune Street | Leeds | LS9 8PB | M: 07710 175342 | DD: 0113 281 6833 |

 

 

 

Please visit http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/ to find out more about the Canal & River Trust.

Has this E-Mail been verified as genuine?

 

Bod

[AndrewIC]

Higher rate for corporate bodies

From 21 March 2012 SDLT is charged at 15% on interests in residential dwellings costing more than £2 million purchased by certain non-natural persons. This broadly includes bodies corporate, for example companies, collective investment schemes and all partnerships with one or more members who are either a body corporate or a collective investment scheme. There are exclusions for companies acting in their capacity as trustees for a settlement and property developers who meet certain conditions.

 

I dont know - just copying from HMRC website on SDLT

The higher rate thing on residential properties was brought in to stop some very wealthy people setting up a company of which they were sole shareholder, using that company to buy a very expensive house, and then renting it back to themselves, thus reducing the stamp duty payable.

[Marc Harris]

Has this E-Mail been verified as genuine?

 

Bod

 

I can assure you it is genuine. If you PM me your email address, I will forward it on to you.

[Bod]

I can assure you it is genuine. If you PM me your email address, I will forward it on to you.

Thats fine, it just seemed strange how it first appeared, with no headers or footers, I almost thought it was a spoof!

This has more twists and turns, than a crime novel.

The chapter, April 13th-15th will be interesting though.

How will it be done....chains....work boat....stop planks...?

Again thanks for the verification.

 

Bod

[Grace and Favour]

I wonder if other creditors of this group of companies are watching (with any nervousness) these developments unravel/unfold ?

[Peter X]

I wonder if other creditors of this group of companies are watching (with any nervousness) these developments unravel/unfold ?

 

I wonder what other companies, directly or more likely indirectly, Mr Steadman is a majority shareholder of, and I would be nervous if I were a creditor of any of them. Castles made of sand seems to be his business model.

[Phantasm]

It seems that Roy is in no hurry to update his LinkedIn profile to company director, he is still listed as assistant general manager.

 

Interestingly, he is going to Nottingham in September to take the Legal Practice course. I know from my own experience that this is an intensive course, he will have no time to have any significant input into the marina!

[MtB]

This latest development adds to my feeling that Mr Steadman doesn't know what he is doing.

Having got the freehold back from the IP, he hands it to PLT (director RR), which is owned by 750LLtd (director RR), itself owned by QMH (director PL but 75% owned by Steadman and 25% by PL). What a pointless complicated mess, with PL still lurking in the background, a man whose presence will not be helpful to the cause of getting a NAA.

 

I can't help but agree. The initially shrewd appearance of the 'designed to fail' triumvirate is looking more to me as though Mr Steadman himself was shrewdly advised in the early stages of the marina project, possibly by his solicitor.

 

Now he is making messy decisions for himself (e.g. rely on Lillie junior to run things, transfer the freehold to PLT) without the benefit of such advice. I wonder if he has just handed it over in a hurry for some reason, or sold it to PLT funding it with a 100% personal mortgage - as with QLM.

 

Another thought. On reflection, PLT might be a device to avoid SDLT. In the residential market a bank foreclosing on a mortgage doesn't pay SDLT possibly because the never actually get to own the house. A mortgagee in possession acquires control of the property and the right to either manage it themselves or dispose of it however they see fit. Most lenders place such a house with an auctioneer and dispose of it. I'm wondering if Mr Steadman foreclosed and took control of the freehold, but transferred it directly from QLM to PLT without ever owning it himself, in which case the SDLT exception on transfer between connected companies pointed out by Lonewolf possibly applies. This might explain the creation of PLT.

 

Still looks rather more like a 'reacting to events' style of management now than a carefully pre-planned long term strategy...

 

 

MtB

 

 

 

(Edit to clarify last but one para)

Edited March 28, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[LRHarris]

I can assure you it is genuine. If you PM me your email address, I will forward it on to you.

I would like to make it clear that Marc Harris is not Mark Harris from L R Harris & Son

[Jim Riley]

thought I'd send a copy of Phil Spencers email to NBW , in the interests of telling it like it is and hearing both sides of the story

 

Tom's reply

 

I included a piece from Phil Spencer, but have no permission to include anything else I'm afraid, and just cannot include letters to other people that are copyright.

--
Tom

What is the situation re copyright, if its a publicly available document?

[MtB]

thought I'd send a copy of Phil Spencers email to NBW , in the interests of telling it like it is and hearing both sides of the story

 

Tom's reply

 

I included a piece from Phil Spencer, but have no permission to include anything else I'm afraid, and just cannot include letters to other people that are copyright.

--

Tom

What is the situation re copyright, if its a publicly available document?

 

 

First time I've ever heard of them being bothered about infringing copyrights, lol! They seem more than happy to plunder CWF for content.

 

Besides, I see from the headers they were copied in on Phil's email anyway...

 

 

MtB

[adam1uk]

thought I'd send a copy of Phil Spencers email to NBW , in the interests of telling it like it is and hearing both sides of the story

 

Tom's reply

 

I included a piece from Phil Spencer, but have no permission to include anything else I'm afraid, and just cannot include letters to other people that are copyright.

--

Tom

What is the situation re copyright, if its a publicly available document?

 

Did he at least agree to amend the copy that says the fight is settled -- given that it clearly isn't?