Dispute at Pillings

[kevinl]

The marina itself was ordered to carry out this work by the court. It is only the failure of them to comply with the order of the court that has brought CaRT along to to do it for them, (And no doubt issue an invoice for the work). It would be poetic justice if CaRT used PLM's own stop planks to stank off the marina from the waterway.

Reluctant as I am to join in on this topic, but if the court ordered that the marina cut themselves off wouldn't it be contempt of court if they didn't, or can they use the "we're a new company so it doesn't apply to us" as a get out of jail free card?

K

[StarUKKiwi]

Reluctant as I am to join in on this topic, but if the court ordered that the marina cut themselves off wouldn't it be contempt of court if they didn't, or can they use the "we're a new company so it doesn't apply to us" as a get out of jail free card?

K

Actually, as that company is under the IP, he should have organised it (I think it came up in one of Phil Spencer's letters (not ploughing all the back.to find it on my phone) that the court had decreed and as such CRT would hope they complied with the High Court Ruling.

[kevinl]

Well if the IP doesn't want to get slapped with a contempt of court order maybe he'd better get a move on, before he transfers the assets over to the new company, unless he likes the taste of porridge!

K

[Peter X]

I thought the court decision was merely to require QMP to repay its debt to CRT, which was soon followed by QMP going into voluntary liquidation? And that it was just CRT which terminated the NAA and demanded the entrance be closed, saying if it wasn't done by 14th April CRT would do it? I am too lazy to re-read the whole topic to check this ultimately unimportant point, but I think it was in one of the early pages?

 

I think the IP has already transferred the only significant asset, the freehold, to Mr Steadman, but QMP still exists in liquidation. Somehow I think CRT either can't or don't want to force the IP to organise stop planks himself. Otherwise they'd have done so long ago.

[kevinl]

I thought the court decision was merely to require QMP to repay its debt to CRT, which was soon followed by QMP going into voluntary liquidation? And that it was just CRT which terminated the NAA and demanded the entrance be closed, saying if it wasn't done by 14th April CRT would do it? I am too lazy to re-read the whole topic to check this ultimately unimportant point, but I think it was in one of the early pages?

 

I think the IP has already transferred the only significant asset, the freehold, to Mr Steadman, but QMP still exists in liquidation. Somehow I think CRT either can't or don't want to force the IP to organise stop planks himself. Otherwise they'd have done so long ago.

Read back, they company were told to disconnect as such the IP now owns the company (and will until it's wound up) and is responsible for complying with the court order, will anything come of it if he doesn't? Probably not. The CRT said if it wasn't done they would do it, well they are a charity and anyway how do you enforce a court order on a company in liquidation. Consensus (on here) seems to be the CRT should make an example and get the rules set out with a legal president pay up or get cut off. Not saying it's right, but it would send out a message. As the old civil servants bail out (mentioning no names) maybe some sharper business brains will take over and work out all these boats only give us 25% of out income, captive market, milk them like a cow as the chuggers wear out the towpaths. Welcome to the brave new world.

K

[johnlillie]

re closure, it seems that the fact that CRT are allowing boats to leave after 14th rules out stop planks, too time consuming to take in and out. Much simpler to just put a locked chain across the entrance, no boats or anything extraordinary needed.

[mayalld]

Read back, they company were told to disconnect as such the IP now owns the company (and will until it's wound up) and is responsible for complying with the court order, will anything come of it if he doesn't? Probably not. The CRT said if it wasn't done they would do it, well they are a charity and anyway how do you enforce a court order on a company in liquidation.

 

 

The court, unless anybody can definitively show to the contrary, did NOT order anybody to disconnect.

 

The court simply confirmed, once and for all that QMP owed a certain amount of money to CRT. Once it had that judgement, CRT terminated the NAA for non payment.

 

It is the NAA which obliges QMP to disconnect (presumably it contains clauses dealing with termination for default, that allow CRT to require disconnection).

 

So far as enforcing, that option went out of the window as soon as the liquidator disclaimed the property. CRT cannot enforce the termination clauses against Steadman as successor in title, and they will close the access themselves.

 

I would expect that they will close it, if only to send a clear message that they aren't going to be bullied into a new deal by, and that they won't be rushing to conclude a new NAA before phase 2 of the closure kicks in at the end of May.

[TruckDrivingMan]

Dear PL.

Tick Tock.

[MtB]

Dear PL.

Tick Tock.

 

Indeed.

 

Nine more sleeps to go!

 

 

MtB

[tony collins]

 

CaRT have invoked a condition in the NAA that allows them to seal off a marina entrance in case of default and has given three months notice that it intends to do this on 14th April.

 

 

Here you go from page one. Sorry if my previous post was misleading.

[StarUKKiwi]

 

The court, unless anybody can definitively show to the contrary, did NOT order anybody to disconnect.

 

The court simply confirmed, once and for all that QMP owed a certain amount of money to CRT. Once it had that judgement, CRT terminated the NAA for non payment.

 

It is the NAA which obliges QMP to disconnect (presumably it contains clauses dealing with termination for default, that allow CRT to require disconnection).

 

So far as enforcing, that option went out of the window as soon as the liquidator disclaimed the property. CRT cannot enforce the termination clauses against Steadman as successor in title, and they will close the access themselves.

 

I would expect that they will close it, if only to send a clear message that they aren't going to be bullied into a new deal by, and that they won't be rushing to conclude a new NAA before phase 2 of the closure kicks in at the end of May.

Thanks - it's so many pages ago, I forgot to check - it seems as though CRT will be busy on April 12th

[matty40s]

re the planks, yes there were a complete set on site,

 

 

there still are, hence the present impasse....

[NigelMoore]

For those curious to see how much canal bank Pillings does and does not own

 

 

It's the northernmost section that is relevant - that immediately north of the winding hole; more than sufficient bank to construct an entry the size of the existing one through CaRT land.

 

Whether any interested parties have researched the relevant enabling Acts is yet to be seen - but if they have, and if the standard riparian clauses are included, it just could be that the marina has plans to allow blockage of the entry through CaRT land, knowing that they have arguable rights to access through their own.

 

Given the sums involved not just for this one marina [i am thinking especially of Tim Coghlans interest and others like him], this is not a possibility that CaRT should be discounting [although past performance suggests that private enterprises are reluctant to risk challenges against the authority].

 

edit to add: those car park leased spaces are the tiny rectangles marked out and numbered in the bottom LH corner.

Edited April 4, 2014 by NigelMoore

[johnlillie]

even if PLM did move the entrance, they would still have to have a NAA, as they would still be opening on to the canal, not the river.Any subsequent blockage would just take a different format.

[Peter X]

We will probably never know, unless John Lillie knows, whether Mr Steadman and Paul Lillie were aware before signing the NAA of the option of using their own section of bank to make an entrance onto the canal, and if so what legal advice they got at the time.

 

If indeed the original Act (Leicester Canal Act 1791 we think?) does entitle owners of an offside bank to free access to the canal, and I understand NigelMoore to be saying that the Act probably has such a clause but he hasn't seen it to check, and if he's right that the Transport Act 1962 doesn't override that right, which I accept looks quite possible from its wording, then it must indeed be a big worry for the CRT. In that case, would the situation then be that Steadman, PLT or whoever actually owns the land now still needs a NAA and has to meet requirements like not leaking too much water away or polluting the water, but that if they meet those requirements the CRT can't refuse a NAA or require them to pay fees?

 

This doesn't mean that Mr Steadman would be laughing all the way to the (financial!) bank; he'd have to be confident enough of his case to risk massive legal costs if he lost, and if he won it might take a while for his savings from NAA fees to pay back the cost of the works to construct the new entrance? I have no idea what the construction cost would be. Plus of course there's the income he must be losing at the moment and will go on losing until his new entrance can be opened, and the fact he's made an enemy out of CRT; they might jump at any legal opportunity for revenge in the future. And Pillings Lock does have an image problem which won't help it to fill up with a happy community of boaters...

 

The big concern for the CRT must be that if the above came to pass it could, dare I say it, open the floodgates. Any current or potential marina owner who owns land up to the canal bank (how many actually do?) would be getting a lawyer to dust off the Act which created their particular canal. Existing marina owners might not be able to tear up their NAA, but they could hope to get rid of it via a carefully planned liquidation and phoenix company, and if unlike Pillings their entrance is already in a piece of bank they own they wouldn't need to construct a new one. The long term effect might be a decline in NAA income as marinas still obliged to pay the NAA compete at a disadvantage with a slowly increasing number who don't have to pay.

 

However that scenario need not become a big disaster for CRT, because it won't happen overnight. I see nothing to stop them reacting by gradually, over say 5 or 10 years, reducing NAA fees and correspondingly increasing licence fees for all boats moored in marinas. That in turn might not be a big disaster for those who like to moor in a marina, because marina owners are in competition with each other and with other mooring options; on-line, no home mooring or outside CRT. What the owners gain from paying lower NAA fees, they may lose by having to trim back or at least not increase their mooring fees. Not exactly doomsday is it?

[kevinl]

increasing licence fees for all boats moored in marinas. That in turn might not be a big disaster for those who like to moor in a marina, because marina owners are in competition with each other and with other mooring options; on-line, no home mooring or outside CRT.

Why not make CC'er pay more, or widebeams or the bigger your boat the more you pay per foot to encourage more smaller boats, or is this just another "anyone but me should pay more" bit of logic. Marina boaters are the cash cow so let's milk them dry! Marina owners famed for their richness could just soak up the cost anyway, get real, there's a recession on, just smack of get someone else to pay. Personally I think there should be a canal use mileage charge with a congestion charge for London, southerners are rich they can afford it and it wouldn't affect me so I'm alright Jack.

K

[Peter X]

Why not make CC'er pay more, or widebeams or the bigger your boat the more you pay per foot to encourage more smaller boats, or is this just another "anyone but me should pay more" bit of logic. Marina boaters are the cash cow so let's milk them dry! Marina owners famed for their richness could just soak up the cost anyway, get real, there's a recession on, just smack of get someone else to pay. Personally I think there should be a canal use mileage charge with a congestion charge for London, southerners are rich they can afford it and it wouldn't affect me so I'm alright Jack.

K

 

In the scenario I described marina boaters wouldn't end up paying more on average (in real terms allowing for inflation), because I argued that if the money CRT currently gets from most of them indirectly in the form of the NAA fee was taken directly by raising their licence fee, competition would mean that there would be a corresponding decrease in mooring fees. There would be winners and losers, but the changes would come in over a number of years and market forces would ensure it wasn't too painful. Marina owners overall wouldn't be "soaking up the cost" because what they lost in mooring fees would be made up for by paying less NAA to CRT.

 

In fact I don't own a boat, but when I do go boating it's on my brother's boat which is kept in a marina.

 

A mileage charge would be a big mistake because it would be awkward and costly to enforce, whether done by having people collecting tolls or by high-tech methods of tracking boat movements.

 

Boating in London is bound to become more expensive due to soaring demand and limited supply, and I do indeed think that CRT should be milking people who want to live aboard their boats without ever venturing more than 5 miles outside the Circle Line, to help finance the upkeep of the wider network. Of course it has to remain possible for boats to pass through London, so they need to keep enough 48 hour visitor moorings there and enforce rules to keep them available.

 

Not all southerners are rich, but there is a lot of money about and those who have a job in central London are more likely to afford high mooring costs than those who don't. If anyone unemployed wants to live cheaply on canals, location won't matter so much to them and they should move somewhere cheaper where CRT's enforcement staff will take far less interest. Sorry for drifting off-topic, but all this is loosely related to my discussion of the possible consequences if Pillings Lock sets a precedent for avoiding the NAA fees.

[kevinl]

 

In the scenario I described marina boaters wouldn't end up paying more on average (in real terms allowing for inflation), because I argued that if , competition would mean that there would be a corresponding decrease in mooring fees. There would be winners and losers, but the changes would come in over a number of years and market forces would ensure it wasn't too painful. Marina owners overall wouldn't be "soaking up the cost" .

 

In fact I don't own a boat, but when I do go boating it's on my brother's boat which is kept in a marina.

 

A mileage charge would be a big mistake because it would be awkward and costly to enforce, whether done by having people collecting tolls or by high-tech methods of tracking boat movements.

 

Boating in London is bound to become more expensive due to soaring demand and limited supply, and I do indeed think that CRT should be milking people who want to live aboard their boats without ever venturing more than 5 miles outside the Circle Line, to help finance the upkeep of the wider network. Of course it has to remain possible for boats to pass through London, so they need to keep enough 48 hour visitor moorings there and enforce rules to keep them available.

 

Not all southerners are rich, but there is a lot of money about and those who have a job in central London are more likely to afford high mooring costs than those who don't. If anyone unemployed wants to live cheaply on canals, location won't matter so much to them and they should move somewhere cheaper where CRT's enforcement staff will take far less interest. Sorry for drifting off-topic, but all this is loosely related to my discussion of the possible consequences if Pillings Lock sets a precedent for avoiding the NAA fees.

Well there's plenty there to discuss:

" marina boaters wouldn't end up paying more" - so who would?

"the money CRT currently gets from most of them indirectly in the form of the NAA fee was taken directly by raising their licence fee" - get the CM'ers and the CC'ers to pay more then?

"there would be a corresponding decrease in mooring fees" that one made me laugh - in your dreams

"because what they lost in mooring fees would be made up for by paying less NAA to CRT" - it would appear only one CRT marina pays an access charge

"Boating in London is bound to become more expensive" - well the streets there are paved with gold so sod them.

I have read a number of your posts Peter X and know you to be a sensible man/woman but all this trying to shift extra income onto some mythical place is madness. The only secure income the CRT have is the boaters and a declining income from the government, keep putting the price up, lose business so put the price up, classic spiral of decline.

Pillings Lock not paying/being able to afford the NAA could just be the tip of the iceberg of a "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" mentality, be interesting to see what happens next.

K

[Skye]

 

"The only secure income the CRT have is the boaters and a declining income from the government, keep putting the price up, lose business so put the price up, classic spiral of decline."

K

 

Or a classic way of shifting an amenity owned by us all into the hands of an elite few!

Is this the right time to propose mooring fees should be based on ability to pay not the size of the space you take up ?

Edited April 5, 2014 by Skye

[johnlillie]

Peter x is missing the point, the entrance at PLM was constructed at the direct cost of the previous owners, as part of the purchase deal, as was the water and electricity supply to site.The NAA is for the right of access to the system, NOT for the right to cross the land owned by the CRT. It would not matter where the access was.

[Alan de Enfield]

If I am understanding correctly - what is being said is that (probably) under the 1791 Leicester canal Act the owner of the 'bank' does not need anyones permission to gain access to the canal therefore if the marina exited onto the canal via PLM / QMP / QMH / LL750 owned land then there would be no NAA to pay.

 

If the previous owners had built the exit point further 'downstream' (sort of top right hand corner of the Land Registry map) then BW / C&RT could not have implemented the NAA chage.

 

All down to someone reading and interpreting the 1791 Act.

[NigelMoore]

If I am understanding correctly - what is being said is that (probably) under the 1791 Leicester canal Act the owner of the 'bank' does not need anyones permission to gain access to the canal therefore if the marina exited onto the canal via PLM / QMP / QMH / LL750 owned land then there would be no NAA to pay.

 

If the previous owners had built the exit point further 'downstream' (sort of top right hand corner of the Land Registry map) then BW / C&RT could not have implemented the NAA chage.

 

All down to someone reading and interpreting the 1791 Act.

Exactly.

We will probably never know, unless John Lillie knows, whether Mr Steadman and Paul Lillie were aware before signing the NAA of the option of using their own section of bank to make an entrance onto the canal, and if so what legal advice they got at the time.

If the immediately prior post by johnlillie is any indication, then none of them were/are aware there might have an option to avoid the NAA. Even if they had been, it is possible that, like many businesses, they felt it sensible not to quibble, and so made a pragmatic business decision to have the more convenient access at what might have seemed to be, at the time, a reasonable overhead.

In that case, would the situation then be that Steadman, PLT or whoever actually owns the land now still needs a NAA and has to meet requirements like not leaking too much water away or polluting the water, but that if they meet those requirements the CRT can't refuse a NAA or require them to pay fees?

In that case they would not need a NAA, and even if they did could not be charged fees. However CaRT are, by a controversial 2001 Appeal Court judgment [british Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd], entitled to demand consent for polluted water entering their canal. Not a judgment that could apply to the Grand Union I dont think, unless there is some over-riding modern legislation on drainage. There could well be. Its awhile since I read the High Court and Appeal judgments, and there may well be wriggle room for CaRT under such pollution control avenues.

[Jerra]

I am getting lost! Isn't the NAA a fee which gives the right for boats to leave a marina on to a canal? If so does it matter who owns the land the opening is on? Surely they need CRT permission which could incur a fee. If you own land beside your neighbour you can take down the fence but that doesn't give you the right to allow friends and neighbours to use it as a short cut.

[RLWP]

That would be a very short 'cut' indeed, shorter than the Bond End canal

 

Richard

[Hawkmoth]

 

"The only secure income the CRT have is the boaters and a declining income from the government, keep putting the price up, lose business so put the price up, classic spiral of decline."

K

 

Or a classic way of shifting an amenity owned by us all into the hands of an elite few!

Is this the right time to propose mooring fees should be based on ability to pay not the size of the space you take up ?

 

You could be right

That way lies madness

Bob