Dispute at Pillings

[MtB]

Pillings Lock Marina is a business and it owes a CRT for the marina connection fee etc.

 

I know that innocent people (ie moorers in the Marina) will be effected but instead of yet again complaining of nasty CRT how about being concerned that a commercial company is failing to pay a charity valid charges for access to its assets?

 

So according to some on here CRT are the villain no matter what they do. They may not enforce licence terms not only on individuals but also businesses. If that sentiment prevails then CRT face anarchy and lose a 3rd of its income because no will feel the need to pay them for anything.

 

Greenied.

 

Boaters paying annual mooring fees in advance are taking a plain ordinary risk that the firm they are paying in advance continues to provide the service they've paid for. It's no different in law from paying your builder up front for your extension and hoping he turns up and builds it.

 

Same applies to those who bought long leases. Their solicitors would have advised them of the risk they are running. Those who chose not to pay a solicitor for legal advice,and those who ignored it, have only themselves to blame should Pillings fail to pay their access debt. Sad, but as Churchward says, why should the rest of us fund a private company stitching up CRT?

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

It seems that no thought has been given to CaRT's customers in this matter.

 

Whilst completely understanding the point you are trying to make, if this is true.....

 

Apparently CaRT have sent letters out to boat owners @ Pillings informing them of the impending blockade of the marina access in April

 

A

 

......... then CRT have actually given at least some thought to who will be affected!

 

This could turn into an interesting debate. There are plenty who feel that CRT don't flex their legal weight enough when the offender is a boat owner, and should be far quicker to take action, so I wonder if they will feel the same way if the offender is a marina owner? I suspect this may be heavily influenced by whether they are currently paying for a berth in that particular marina or not!

[MtB]

 

Whilst completely understanding the point you are trying to make, if this is true.....

 

 

......... then CRT have actually given at least some thought to who will be affected!

 

This could turn into an interesting debate. There are plenty who feel that CRT don't flex their legal weight enough when the offender is a boat owner, and should be far quicker to take action, so I wonder if they will feel the same way if the offender is a marina owner? I suspect this may be heavily influenced by whether they are currently paying for a berth in that particular marina or not!

 

I fall into this category. If the marina I moor in was subject to a similar dispute, I would still support them being disconnected, and I would not have renewed my mooring agreement last year. It's not as though this problem only surfaced ten days ago, is it?

 

The only boaters I have some sympathy for are the long term leaseholders, but on balance, I'd prefer CRT to disconnect anyway as these boaters knew what they were buying, and it would set an awful, unjustifiable precident if CRT caved in and let Pilling off the hook just because some boaters made a foolish decision to pay a private company for their moorings for 'x' years in advance.

 

 

MtB

[haggis]

If I had my boat there, I think I'd get it out sooner rather than later in case the marina owner stages a "lock in" in the hope of getting support against CRT.

 

haggis

[MtB]

If I had my boat there, I think I'd get it out sooner rather than later in case the marina owner stages a "lock in" in the hope of getting support against CRT.

 

haggis

 

Quite. Anybody with their boat still there must be stark staring bonkers in my opinion, but then loads of boaters appear to fall into this category!

 

I hear there is still space at Barby for anyone deciding to move...

 

 

MtB

[OldGoat]

It wasn't until I first saw the Pilling's issue that I knew some marinas and offside moorings were not deemed to be on CaRT's waters so you didn't need a licence to be there.

 

Is that the Pillings issue or is it that they won't pay a connection fee. If either of these what's their argument, please?

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

Remember, all those boaters sitting in that Marina have already paid the marina, its the marina who have not used that money to pay CaRT. As for suing the marina for being locked in and not able to use your boat, if they are out of business do you think they will have money to pay you compensation?

[MtB]

Remember, all those boaters sitting in that Marina have already paid the marina, its the marina who have not used that money to pay CaRT. As for suing the marina for being locked in and not able to use your boat, if they are out of business do you think they will have money to pay you compensation?

 

Quite. Hence the foolhardiness of their customers in renewing their moorings agreements at last expiry!

 

MtB

[Willber G]

It wasn't until I first saw the Pilling's issue that I knew some marinas and offside moorings were not deemed to be on CaRT's waters so you didn't need a licence to be there.

 

Is that the Pillings issue or is it that they won't pay a connection fee. If either of these what's their argument, please?

 

The articles I linked to earlier may answer your questions:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=63317#entry1217029

[alan_fincher]

It wasn't until I first saw the Pilling's issue that I knew some marinas and offside moorings were not deemed to be on CaRT's waters so you didn't need a licence to be there.

 

Is that the Pillings issue or is it that they won't pay a connection fee. If either of these what's their argument, please?

 

 

 

I may be wrong, but from stuff I have seen in the past on Facebook, I believe it may be something like this......

 

The operators have to pay a connection fee to CRT, and this is payable on every berth, whether occupied or not, (the amount has been quoted, but I can't immediately recall it).

 

The operators willingly signed up to such an arrangement, in the belief their marina would be constantly oversubscribed, so probably thought that having to pay a connection fee for berths that they are not getting income from would never be an issue.

 

The operators are unable to fill all berths, but believe this is because of an oversupply now in the area, and think BW initially told them it would be a money-spinner that it has not turned into. They blame BW/CRT for their predicament, rather than any failure on their part to ensure it was a good business proposition.

 

From what I saw on Facebook of the way that "Pilling's Lock" were prepared to publicly attack former customers with whom they have fallen out, I think it is fair to say they did not look to have any great hopes of filling their unoccupied berths. I certainly would not have given them any custom at all after some particularly venomous rants.

 

CAVEAT: It is my assumption that CRT's threatened actions will probably relate to non payment of the above charges, so I am not definitively claiming that is the case. Perhaps there is some other reason?

 

Anyaw I'm happy to be educated on the point - presumably some on here must know what the letter that CRT sent to current moorers in the marina actually said?

[churchward]

The operators willingly signed up to such an arrangement, in the belief their marina would be constantly oversubscribed, so probably thought that having to pay a connection fee for berths that they are not getting income from would never be an issue.

 

Any business like this that has a business model that relies on full occupancy or near to it is likely to fail at some point. You do need to take into account that if it is that good someone else is likely to want to get on the gravy train in competition with you.

 

I have sympathy with the people effected but none for the business.

[OldGoat]

 

I may be wrong, but from stuff I have seen in the past on Facebook, I believe it may be something like this......

 

The operators have to pay a connection fee to CRT, and this is payable on every berth, whether occupied or not, (the amount has been quoted, but I can't immediately recall it).

 

The operators willingly signed up to such an arrangement, in the belief their marina would be constantly oversubscribed, so probably thought that having to pay a connection fee for berths that they are not getting income from would never be an issue.

 

The operators are unable to fill all berths, but believe this is because of an oversupply now in the area, and think BW initially told them it would be a money-spinner that it has not turned into. They blame BW/CRT for their predicament, rather than any failure on their part to ensure it was a good business proposition.

 

From what I saw on Facebook of the way that "Pilling's Lock" were prepared to publicly attack former customers with whom they have fallen out, I think it is fair to say they did not look to have any great hopes of filling their unoccupied berths. I certainly would not have given them any custom at all after some particularly venomous rants.

 

CAVEAT: It is my assumption that CRT's threatened actions will probably relate to non payment of the above charges, so I am not definitively claiming that is the case. Perhaps there is some other reason?

 

Anyaw I'm happy to be educated on the point - presumably some on here must know what the letter that CRT sent to current moorers in the marina actually said?

 

 

I'm obliged to you and to Wilbur_G.

 

So it's not a matter of CaRT being an unreasonable bully, more of an intransigent customer causing grief to more third parties.

 

(Shades of other problems happening at the other end of the system?)

It's always cheaper to resolve issues from within, rather than resorting to legal proceedings - hence the Trust's action.

 

If not resolved (and it won't be amicable) then a lot of innocent folks will be caught.

 

Have any of the moorers taken any action, are there any of them on this forum?

[Swallowman]

 

 

 

 

So it's not a matter of CaRT being an unreasonable bully, more of an intransigent customer causing grief to more third parties.

 

 

No it's not - it is more a case of a supplier (CaRT) who is not being paid by his customer (Pillings Lock Marina) for a service being supplied (access to CaRT waters). In such cases any reasonable business would have withdrawn credit and stopped supplying if payment is not received before the normal credit terms x three. In my employer's case, we stop supplying if an outstanding account is not paid before the end of the second month from when it should have been paid.

If alan_fincher is correct in his assumption, CaRT is acting in very good faith by letting their customer's customers (the moorings occupiers) know that the marina entrance will be sealed off.

We don't tell our customers' customers we are withholding supplies, they find out the hard way and find another supplier if they can.

Shouldn't be too difficult to find an alternative marina mooring in that neck of the woods and any boat owner in that situation would have to discuss with Pillings Lock management any refund for sailing away from a mooring that had been paid for "up-front" as it were. Good luck!

[Mike Tee]

If the numbers being quoted are correct - £44k per year and a total outstanding of £180k - without knowing the financial ins and outs, it looks like 4 years fees unpaid. If this is the case (and I know its a lot of 'if's') then either C&RT were very generous (very, very generous) in the time they allowed for this debt to be sorted, or their business practices are appalling. If the latter then I can't see C&RT staying afloat for long if they are that bad in chasing and collecting debt in general.

Having left things to fester for so long, the outcome for all involved looks bad.
C&RT go to court for the debt and win - maybe the marina goes broke, so C&RT end up with sod all
in the meantime the residents are out of a mooring and out of pocket
the marina is blocked off and gradually deteriorates

C&RT are out of pocket for future fees

dozens more boats tied up in the area

and on and on.

 

From reading the various threads etc, it looks as if both parties were / are at fault, but guess who suffers in the end? People who own boats and want to enjoy the lifestyle without being ripped off or overcharged due to incompetence.

 

Rant over - been watching this for a while and the general incompetence all round finally got to me.

[tillergirl]

doesn't bode well for this then which I believe is on over the may day bank holiday weekend this year

 

http://www.onthewater.co.uk/events/event_items/pillings_lock_marina_open_week.aspx

Edited January 18, 2014 by tillergirl

[OldGoat]

If the numbers being quoted are correct - £44k per year and a total outstanding of £180k - without knowing the financial ins and outs, it looks like 4 years fees unpaid. If this is the case (and I know its a lot of 'if's') then either C&RT were very generous (very, very generous) in the time they allowed for this debt to be sorted, or their business practices are appalling. If the latter then I can't see C&RT staying afloat for long if they are that bad in chasing and collecting debt in general.

 

Having left things to fester for so long, the outcome for all involved looks bad.

C&RT go to court for the debt and win - maybe the marina goes broke, so C&RT end up with sod all

in the meantime the residents are out of a mooring and out of pocket

the marina is blocked off and gradually deteriorates

C&RT are out of pocket for future fees

dozens more boats tied up in the area

and on and on.

 

From reading the various threads etc, it looks as if both parties were / are at fault, but guess who suffers in the end? People who own boats and want to enjoy the lifestyle without being ripped off or overcharged due to incompetence.

 

Rant over - been watching this for a while and the general incompetence all round finally got to me.

Not wanting to stretch out the argument, but CaRT hasn't been in existence for 4years, so it's a hangover from BW who were either trying to consider the plight of moorers, or being uncharitable (pun not intended), thought we're being "taken over" soon, why bother?

 

CaRT has to look at the future and closing the access is the cheapest way of forcing the issue. Court action will take ages and end up being a net cost. Perhaps they're relying on customers taking more direct action????

[Mike Tee]

Not wanting to stretch out the argument, but CaRT hasn't been in existence for 4years, so it's a hangover from BW who were either trying to consider the plight of moorers, or being uncharitable (pun not intended), thought we're being "taken over" soon, why bother?

 

CaRT has to look at the future and closing the access is the cheapest way of forcing the issue. Court action will take ages and end up being a net cost. Perhaps they're relying on customers taking more direct action????

BW - C&RT

 

Same as Tory -- Labour -- Tory -- Labour

 

The chiefs may change (or in some cases the chief changes allegiance) but the workers, be they civil servants or office workers, continue regardless of the power changes. So if the thinking, as you say, was 'we are being taken over soon', - well the people who thought that are still sitting at their desks.

However you slice it up, its incompetence

[matty40s]

BW - C&RT

 

Same as Tory -- Labour -- Tory -- Labour

 

The chiefs may change (or in some cases the chief changes allegiance) but the workers, be they civil servants or office workers, continue regardless of the power changes. So if the thinking, as you say, was 'we are being taken over soon', - well the people who thought that are still sitting at their desks.

However you slice it up, its incompetence

Hardly worth banging on about, in the meantime £180k is not being paid by someone which could be used for repairs to lock gear, collapsing lock landings et al.

[Mike Tee]

Hardly worth banging on about, in the meantime £180k is not being paid by someone which could be used for repairs to lock gear, collapsing lock landings et al.

'Banging on' is what forums are about. Or not. I don't really care.

 

Incompetence referred to the fact that if whoever had been in charge 3 years ago did their job, the debt would not be £180k, it would be a lot nearer to £44k. The poor residents would have found somewhere else to live / moor, and the organisation would have received the mooring fees and hopefully have spent it on repairs to lock gear, collapsing lock landings et al.

[nicknorman]

The general problem could be fixed at a stroke. Eliminate the CCer licence, and then all marinas would be full.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never mind my coat, where is my armour!

[Mike Tee]

What marinas? apparantly they are all about to go broke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

putting on cuirasse and helmet

[Mike Todd]

And that is true whenever a business (as a limited company) fails. All its creditors lose out - but that is the system: it encourages risk taking and therefore innovation but sometimes does not seem to impose proportionate penalities on those who fail through a lack of planning or good business commonsense. Some creditors are more able to absorb the losses than others and there are cases where one insolvency has a domino effect on others.

 

Any business like this that has a business model that relies on full occupancy or near to it is likely to fail at some point. You do need to take into account that if it is that good someone else is likely to want to get on the gravy train in competition with you.

 

I have sympathy with the people effected but none for the business.

I susepct that it is a little more difficult: if a current moorer leaves before the date specified by CaRT then they may find it difficult to make a claim, especially if the closure is deferred or the dispute resolved. In such a case the moorer has not actually lost anything and the departure a matter of free choice.

 

 

No it's not - it is more a case of a supplier (CaRT) who is not being paid by his customer (Pillings Lock Marina) for a service being supplied (access to CaRT waters). In such cases any reasonable business would have withdrawn credit and stopped supplying if payment is not received before the normal credit terms x three. In my employer's case, we stop supplying if an outstanding account is not paid before the end of the second month from when it should have been paid.

If alan_fincher is correct in his assumption, CaRT is acting in very good faith by letting their customer's customers (the moorings occupiers) know that the marina entrance will be sealed off.

We don't tell our customers' customers we are withholding supplies, they find out the hard way and find another supplier if they can.

Shouldn't be too difficult to find an alternative marina mooring in that neck of the woods and any boat owner in that situation would have to discuss with Pillings Lock management any refund for sailing away from a mooring that had been paid for "up-front" as it were. Good luck!

[Henhouse]

Surely CaRT are pretty much in a win / win situation here.

 

Either they will get their money, whether as a lump sum, or in a series of negotiated staged payments, or, should the marina cease business, they would be able to buy it up at a much reduced price.

 

Who else would want to buy what would in effect be a very expensive lake. Without a connection it's worthless. ( relatively )

[Paul G2]

Reading the news articles that were linked above, it appears that neither party to this dispute is guilt free.

 

The main factor in whether or not this marina will be profitable depends mainly upon occupancy, and occupancy relies heavily upon supply and demand. The people who built this marina relied upon representations from CRT (or their predecessor) that it would be a good investment based on demand exceeding supply. CRT then apparently oversold marina permits, making supply exceed demand.

 

If I were the marina owner, I'd be in court too - and I would probably win if I could show that CRT in any way insinuated that they would limit the supply and then oversold the market.

 

Nobody wins the way this thing is headed, the parties should work to resolve the matter. A fair solution might be to retroactively reduce the charges due so that the fees only apply to occupied berths, rather than all berths, and then have the CRT agree not to flood the market with too many marinas.

 

Boaters should keep in mind too that it is not the marina owner that pays these fees, it is the boaters. The access fee is just another tax on boaters, but the CRT has made the marina responsible for assessing and collecting that tax, then passing it on to them.

[Naughty Cal]

Is that not how all marinas work the connection fee?

 

Certainly ours is included in our mooring fee.