Dispute at Pillings

[John Holden]

I offer here a quotation from

http://www.ihaveawebsite-nowwhat.co.uk/copyright/

... and am fairly confident that doing this does not place me in breach of copyright law!

 

MYTH: "I received it in an email - so I can use it."

To have a copy is not to have the copyright. Technically even the text in e-mails you receive (or write) are all copyrighted to the original author. You are committing an offence by forwarding or extracting this information. But in reality if someone tries to sue over an ordinary message that has no commercial value, they would be unlikely to succeed, but you should always ask first.

 

Phil Spencer's e-mail has no commercial value, in that he could not hope to argue that someone would wish to buy it. In theory he could publish a book of memoirs at some point in the future and use the e-mail in it, but I think a judge would take a cynical view of that idea.

As others have suggested, I think NBW are just giving an excuse not to publish, and that if you send an e-mail to lots of boat owners and particularly to various waterways magazines (whether paper or Internet or any other media) there is a clear implication that there is permission to publish. If you write a letter to a newspaper, they surely won't feel the need to contact you before publication unless you specifically ask them to.

 

On the contrary, it says that you are in breach of copyright but nobody is likely to bother..

 

If you write a letter to the editor of a paper it is for publication..

[Peter X]

 

On the contrary, it says that you are in breach of copyright but nobody is likely to bother..

Well, actually it says they would be unlikely to succeed. I seem to recall there is some general rule in law that a judge may throw out a case if he feels the alleged wrong is very trivial, and am guessing that may be what the author of the article has in mind.

 

If you write a letter to the editor of a paper it is for publication..

Yes... Phil Spencer copied his e-mail to the editor of NBW, which makes it an identical situation in law.

[TruckDrivingMan]

 

 

Are you running an eye test? lol

 

 

Mr Flannel merchant announced that Roy Rollings had contacted "Tammy"(?) of C&RT ..

 

Just what did Roy say to Tammy or what did Tammy say to Roy regarding the success(?) of the new NAA agreement

I imagine Tammy said the second word is off, you Roy may choose the first

[John Holden]

 

 

 

Well, actually it says they would be unlikely to succeed. I seem to recall there is some general rule in law that a judge may throw out a case if he feels the alleged wrong is very trivial, and am guessing that may be what the author of the article has in mind.

 

 

 

 

 

No matter it still doesn't mean that a letter is not covered by copyright.

[MtB]

 

I think Mike meant QMP ltd The leasehold agreement landlord of our now defunct lease

 

I rather doubt that.

 

Well drafted leases usually describe the landlord along the lines of "the legal person or entity entitled to receive ground rent", rather than stating a specific person or company. This allows the owner of the freehold to change and the new owner to step into the shoes of vendor and continue to benefit from the rights and meet the obligations under the sub-lease.

 

MtB

[Dangerous Dave]

I imagine Tammy said the second word is off, you Roy may choose the first

 

 

Nice ! lol

[Marc Harris]

Just read this.... Is this the official language of PL?

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/bollocks-is-britains-first-language-2013013158149

Edited March 29, 2014 by Marc Harris

[StarUKKiwi]

Just read this.... Is this the official language of PL?

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/bollocks-is-britains-first-language-2013013158149

ROFLMAO

[Phantasm]

Just read this.... Is this the official language of PL?

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/bollocks-is-britains-first-language-2013013158149

Even this seems more comprehensible than Pillock speak. sorry meant Pillings Lock speak.

[GoodGurl]

i'm guessing, you all know that roy rollings is only 20 years old, thats a big commitment to take on at that age.

 

 

Registered Office

THE MARINA OFFICE
PILLINGS LOCK MARINA
QUORN
LEICESTERSHIRE
LE12 8FE

----------------------------

Trading Address

THE MARINA OFFICE,
PILLINGS LOCK MARINA,
FLESH HOVEL LANE,
QUORN,
LOUGHBOROUGH,
LEICESTERSHIRE,
LE12 8FE

Edited March 29, 2014 by GoodGurl

[boathunter]

One wonders what bait was/is being used to tempt Roy into a position that could have a very negative effect on his future legal career.

It must be more than a token salary. Dividends? If the marina makes a loss as they claim, there won't be any...

Edited March 29, 2014 by boathunter

[Alan de Enfield]

boathunter, on 29 Mar 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

One wonders what bait was/is being used to tempt Roy into a position that could have a very negative effect on his future legal career.

It must be more than a token salary. Dividends? If the marina makes a loss as they claim, there won't be any...

 

It could be that the 'title' alone is good enough.

RR seems to be a 'high flyer' and is at the top of everything he does - without looking at his facebook page and from memory he was somehing like 'student of the year', chairman of the 'young solicitors' group etc etc.

 

What up & coming 20 year old wouldn't want "Company Director" on his CV ?

Edited March 29, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[MtB]

 

It could be that the 'title' alone is good enough.

RR seems to be a 'high flyer' and is at the top of everything he does - without looking at his facebook page and from memory he was somehing like 'student of the year', chairman of the 'young solicitors' group etc etc.

 

What up & coming 20 year old wouldn't want "Company Director" on his CV ?

 

 

Quite so. He is a social climber as well as trainee solicitor.

 

I also suspect he is a Paul Lillie protegé. He has seen how much money can be syphoned off in positions such as MD of Pillings Lock Marina and fancies a crack at it himself.

 

I suspect he is smart enough to realise he is being set up for this year's 'Patsy of the Year' competition, but probably also arrogant enough to think he can out-manoeuvre Lillie junior and Mr Streadman.

 

He may actually turn out to be right given the apparently clumsy business moves we are seeing now from the Lillie/Steadman camp.

 

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

Interesting 'case law' example of Directors responsibilities :

 

"............In this case, a company agreed a payment schedule with a creditor but failed to keep up the payments. One director told the creditor that the company was expecting a payout from their insurers. Later, another director told the creditor that the company was selling off its business and all creditors would be paid in full. The creditor therefore held off taking legal action against the company. By the time it realised it should have done ― when the company ceased trading and there was no money to pay the creditor ― it was too late. So it brought a court action against the directors for deceit.

The law says there is deceit if one person makes a statement that they do not honestly believe to be true, with the fraudulent intention that someone else will do (or not do) something because of it. A person does not honestly believe their statement to be true if they make it:

• knowing it is not true; or
• without believing it is true; or
• recklessly, without caring whether it is true or not.

Unlike a negligence claim, a person liable for deceit is personally liable for all losses flowing directly from the deceit, even if those losses are not foreseeable.

The court found that:

• the first director knew his statement was untrue; and
• the second director made his statement recklessly, without considering whether the company would actually be able to pay its debts on sale of the business.

The court also considered the law that says statements made with a view to obtaining credit have to be in writing before they can relied upon in legal cases. The Court of Appeal said that, in this case, the statements were not made with a view to obtaining credit because the creditor had already given the company credit. Rather, the statements were made in order that the existing credit should continue. The statements did not therefore have to be in writing. It therefore decided that both directors had been deceitful, and were therefore personally liable for the company’s debt to the creditor."

 

http://www.icaew.com/en/library/subject-gateways/law/company-law/directors-duties

[Thorfast]

I have just been reading the May issue of 'Canal Boat'.

 

They report that PL has said 'he plans to take CRT to court on the grounds that the fee it billed to Quorn was unfair', and the PL 'indicated his intention to seek an injunction preventing CRT blocking off the marina on these grounds'.

 

Sound as if this is going to get even more interesting to follow.

 

On the point of marinas not being able to fill their moorings..........we have overwintered at the new marina at Cropredy.....I was toldby them on Thursday that they only have about 6 empty moorings available.

The difference between a well organised and run marina, and one that isn't?

[NigelMoore]

". . . our now defunct lease"

 

I rather doubt that. Well drafted leases usually describe the landlord along the lines of "the legal person or entity entitled to receive ground rent", rather than stating a specific person or company. This allows the owner of the freehold to change and the new owner to step into the shoes of vendor and continue to benefit from the rights and meet the obligations under the sub-lease.

 

More than that even - if we are talking about the ‘car park’ leases - these will be entirely unaffected by any change of freehold ownership, because they are registered as charges on the land. All future successors in title take that title subject to these ‘encumbrances’.

 

Not only are every one of those spaces listed in the Register, but they are individually marked out and numbered on the Title Plan. [the entry for No.15 was cancelled in January 2009].

 

It is a curious thing, looking at the Title Plan, that the marina chose to create the entrance through BW land instead of their own. Probably they didn’t think it would make any difference, that the access agreement would be necessary anyway.

 

There are two sections to the Title, now differentiated by a blue tinted southern section and a red tinted northern section.

 

The northern section was evidently purchased from BW by a C.W. Bailey in 1981, and the deed granted BW a Right of Way between Flesh Hovel Lane and that part of the bank which BW retained [the area immediately surrounding the winding hole].

 

The month before selling to Quorn, the successors Facer and Jeffries, having evidently amalgamated the two titles, entered into an agreement with BW dated 15 March 2007, whereby BW’s RoW was surrendered, and a new RoW granted in its place. Not having the original deed I can only guess, but it would be logical to presume that the original RoW probably cut straight through and would have interfered with the marina plan, whereas the new RoW would have to be the track skirting the northern perimeter [identified in the new deed as approximately 5 mtrs in width] and ending just south of the winding hole.

 

Thing is that, contrary to what we were assured earlier, Qorn obviously DO own a section of bank -.e. that stretch of bank immediately north of the winding hole – far more length of bank than needed for an entrance identical to the one that has been made. Connecting to the canal through their own land would just mean having an entrance at one corner rather than being more centrally placed. The only drawback, such as it is, would be the necessity to construct a five metre wide movable bridge to maintain the agreed RoW. It would cut down on spontaneity of boats entering and exiting, but less so than with many marinas with locked-through entrances.

[costalot]

I have just been reading the May issue of 'Canal Boat'.

 

They report that PL has said 'he plans to take CRT to court on the grounds that the fee it billed to Quorn was unfair', and the PL 'indicated his intention to seek an injunction preventing CRT blocking off the marina on these grounds'.

 

Sound as if this is going to get even more interesting to follow.

 

On the point of marinas not being able to fill their moorings..........we have overwintered at the new marina at Cropredy.....I was toldby them on Thursday that they only have about 6 empty moorings available.

The difference between a well organised and run marina, and one that isn't?

I'm not sure how well his case would go as he has already publicly stated that it wasn't worth the money defending QMP/PLM in the case that CRt bought against him for failure to pay the NAA fees. What someone "intends"to do and what they actually do can be quite different. Still, I suppose his words give some comfort to those PLM moorers who want to believe it won't become a lake in mid April.

[Peter X]

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.

 

...

 

Phil Spencer

 

So Roy Rollings holds no shares in either company, and whatever he hopes to get, it isn't dividends. Of course there may as we speak be more companies rolling off the production line of some accountant in Leicester...

 

I'm unaware of any public pronouncement by RR, which suggests he's more of a protégé of Mr Steadman than of Paul Lillie.

[cloggy]

If CRT do go ahead with blocking the access to the marina, what would be seen as a reasonable charge for removing said blockage on a new NAA being approved.

[steven wilkinson]

£180k?

[Peter X]

If CRT do go ahead with blocking the access to the marina, what would be seen as a reasonable charge for removing said blockage on a new NAA being approved.

 

That would depend on what they've spent. CRT have said that initially they plan to block the entrance temporarily, and the speculation has been that there will be some combination of stop planks, chains and/or a CRT workboat parked across the entrance. None of those would cost much to remove I suppose. They've also at least hinted that if the dispute is deadlocked long enough, and not before the end of May at least, they might as a last resort fill in the entrance completely. In that event we're talking far more money, tens of thousands or more, and perhaps someone on here who knows about canal engineering could give an informed answer? I see steven Wilkinson has just given a figure, and assume he means the latter scenario?

£180k?

 

Ah, I get it, the NAA fees which weren't paid.

[carpet wallah]

It could be that the 'title' alone is good enough.

RR seems to be a 'high flyer' and is at the top of everything he does - without looking at his facebook page and from memory he was somehing like 'student of the year', chairman of the 'young solicitors' group etc etc.

 

What up & coming 20 year old wouldn't want "Company Director" on his CV ?

I don't think the title of "Company Director" holds that much kudos. When I was getting married, at the age of 25, many, many years ago, I had to arrange with the curate of my parish church for the Banns to be read.

When filling in the form, he asked for my occupation. ............" er.. company director" was my hesitant reply.

He retorted "What, of a market stall ?".

What a pr*ck, still annoys me when I think about it !

[Peter X]

I don't think the title of "Company Director" holds that much kudos. When I was getting married, at the age of 25, many, many years ago, I had to arrange with the curate of my parish church for the Banns to be read.

When filling in the form, he asked for my occupation. ............" er.. company director" was my hesitant reply.

He retorted "What, of a market stall ?".

What a pr*ck, still annoys me when I think about it !

 

Were you casually dressed at the time? Carrying some fruit and veg? In my experience, wearing a suit with appropriate shirt, tie and shoes is the most effective way of getting respect without earning it. Being a company director (I am) means nothing in itself, it all depends what of. Also, and of course I don't know your beliefs, church officials tend to dislike anyone getting married in a church unless at least one of the couple is a regular churchgoer. They do it because the church needs the money.

[Swallowman]

 

I'm unaware of any public pronouncement by RR, which suggests he's more of a protégé of Mr Steadman than of Paul Lillie.

 

No pronouncement from Chris Herbert either - he undertook many pages ago to tell us what sums had been paid to CaRT.

 

PL is getting desperate if he only now thinks of suing CaRT for unfair treatment As someone said before, he signed up to it without duress, why didn't he squeal then?

[Grace and Favour]

Alledgedly Mr Herbert used to hold a position at Pillings Lock Marina, though I know not how accurate the Leicester Mercury was in 2012

 

But, if he had held that position, one would legitimately believe that he could access details of the figures involved / paid / offered to CRT