Dispute at Pillings

[magnetman]

..sorry for pointless post my phone is stuck at 9th march on this thread hoping to now see recent posts

 

 

And it worked!!

[Dangerous Dave]

So, uh, post a copy of that email, Dave!

 

 

 

Trying to but my lap top is limited..Also the email has cropped itself for some reason..

The email is widespread now so someone else i'm sure will forward it!

[Marc Harris]

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

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

Date: 9 Apr 2014 16:55

Subject: Pillings Lock Marina

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

Cc:

 

Dear Boating Licence Customer

 

 

 

Since I wrote to you on the 24th March there has been a lot of activity and which I can summarise as follows:

 

 

 

1. We have been informed that a new company Pillings Lock Trading Ltd (PLT) has become the owner of the marina.

 

 

2. That company has indicated that it is willing to enter into a new standard Network Access Agreement (NAA).

 

 

3. We are in discussions with Mr Roy Rollings the sole director of PLT and PLT’s solicitors about completion of that agreement. I had a meeting with Mr Rollings yesterday to discuss some aspects of the agreement and we are giving these discussions our absolute priority. The Trust is of course seeking to ensure that it is protected from a repeat of the situation that arose with the previous owner of the marina which caused us to revoke the original NAA.

 

 

4. The Trust will proceed with the works to sever the navigable connection in accordance with the timetable previously advised to you unless and until we have a completed NAA. So if we do not have a completed NAA by the 14th April – next Monday – the works to prevent navigation between the marina basin and the waterway will be installed.

 

 

5. I have previously advised that from the 14th April until the 31st May controlled passage out of the marina only will be permitted. I can now tell you that this passage will be made available on each Saturday between the hours of 10.00am and 1.00pm, a total of seven occasions.

 

I hope the above is clear but if you have any questions please email me.

 

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

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.

[Paul G2]

There have been various announcements over the last month or two from RR and before him PL, talking up the likelihood of a new NAA being agreed, which turned out to be false, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that this latest one is true until CRT confirm it.

However RR is now saying a deal has been made and it just remains for the documentation to be completed, so maybe it is true.

 

 

 

Actually, if you look at what RR said, his statement is really quite ambiguous.

 

I am currently waiting for a Network Access Agreement (NAA) to be sent across for approval, which should arrive later today or tomorrow.

 

On a more positive note, good progress has been made today and I am confident access to the system will be maintained.

 

 

Where is the NAA being sent and for approval by whom? Steadman & Lillie can approve the NAA in the sense that they can take it or leave it, but that's about it on their end. CRT, on the other hand, has made it quite clear that they want guarantees of payment for approval by them. RR's statement probably means that he has applied for the NAA and that CRT is now laughing at reviewing his application. If this is the case, there's a long way to go before any "approval" is granted by CRT.

 

Unfortunately as we are entering into a full agreement, we have no choice but to reduce the capacity of the marina. The decision has been taken to close part of G Jetty in order to reduce the annual NAA cost. This is not a decision that has been taken lightly, with G Jetty being chosen due to it having the lowest occupancy in the marina. The Marina Office will be making contact with every berth holder that this will affect in the next day or two.

 

 

One can already see the PL doubletalk taking over here. RR is talking about "closing" a jetty, seemingly, CRT is talking about removing that jetty. While RR and CRT may be saying the same thing, I doubt it and this really does seem to be setting the scene for future obfuscation on PL's part. If CRT wants a jetty removed, they had better be darn sure it is removed before the NAA is approved or it will never happen and PL will insist that his understanding was that it only had to be "closed".

 

ETA - Whilst I was typing this someone else posted the letter from Phil Spencer. It would appear that RR's letter is, in fact, all sizzle and no bacon.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Paul G2

[TruckDrivingMan]

There will no doubt be volunteers (me for one) who will willingly check which jetties are in use & inform CRT.

Well done Phil, stick to your guns & make the b*st**ds sweat!

To RR/PL:

Tick tock, tick tock

[stickleback]

 

 

ETA - Whilst I was typing this someone else posted the letter from Phil Spencer. It would appear that RR's letter is, in fact, all sizzle and no bacon.

Love that expression! Good analysis too.

[johnlillie]

I usually walk my dogs along the towpath at Barrow upon soar on the 2nd Monday in April during even numbered years, so I will be there as well!

[adam1uk]

RR's statement probably means that he has applied for the NAA and that CRT is now laughing at reviewing his application. If this is the case, there's a long way to go before any "approval" is granted by CRT.

The NAA is always. Want to be paid in advance anyway, so even after 'approval', I'm sure CRT will want to see the colour of their money before backing off.

[scrunch]

So come on then simple vote.

I say it will stay open as my earlier post.

Just put blocked or open no long posta explaining why, just me being curious.

 

so OPEN

[MtB]

So come on then simple vote.

I say it will stay open as my earlier post.

Just put blocked or open no long posta explaining why, just me being curious.

 

so OPEN

 

How should I vote if I think it will be blocked for a couple of weeks while Mr Steadman tests out CRT's resolve, then it opens?

 

MtB

[scrunch]

Surely thats Bocked alright lets say on the 14th April what will happen

[MtB]

One way valve installed.

 

 

MtB

[costalot]

It appears to me that the critical part of the CRT email is

 

"I had a meeting with Mr Rollings yesterday to discuss some aspects of the agreement and we are giving these discussions our absolute priority. The Trust is of course seeking to ensure that it is protected from a repeat of the situation that arose with the previous owner of the marina which caused us to revoke the original NAA"

 

So CRT are giving the matter absolute priority........ but they are going to take their time to ensure they are protected against a repeat occurrence!

 

I suspect the blockade will go ahead!

[steven wilkinson]

Its going to be shut on Monday! 100%. I can't envisage anything happening quickly enough to stop the works going ahead!

[MtB]

It appears to me that the critical part of the CRT email is

 

"I had a meeting with Mr Rollings yesterday to discuss some aspects of the agreement and we are giving these discussions our absolute priority. The Trust is of course seeking to ensure that it is protected from a repeat of the situation that arose with the previous owner of the marina which caused us to revoke the original NAA"

 

So CRT are giving the matter absolute priority........ but they are going to take their time to ensure they are protected against a repeat occurrence!

 

I suspect the blockade will go ahead!

 

 

Yes I thought that too.

 

Avoiding getting royally stiffed AGAIN by Mr Steadman is what's getting absolute priority, is how I read that. And very pleased to read it too!

 

I sense a Mexican stand-off looming....

 

 

MtB

[FadeToScarlet]

So at the moment, we're delivering a boat for a forum member, back to Cambridge.

 

This boat has come out of Pilling's Lock.

 

We went up last Saturday to test the engine and ensure it was ready to leave yesterday, on Tuesday- not last week.

 

The engine would not initially start. I found that the umbilical cable between the control panel and the engine had been unplugged, but kept together so nothing appeared wrong.

 

We started the engine, but noticed that the PRM gearbox was chucking out oil in an alarming fashion, and it turned out that the control arm for the gearbox had been removed, causing the leak. The nut, washer and stud were still in place, but the actuating arm was missing.

 

The forum member went to talk to Roy, as he owed some money. Roy initially said (paraphrasing) "oh no, we wouldn't do a thing like that, but we might chain up a boat that owed money as people have left before". However, he rang the workshop, and it transpired that they had removed the gearbox arm, without permission, and had it. However, they stated that they would not be able to fit it until sometime next week, perhaps Wednesday.

 

I was able to fit it, and replace the oil in the gearbox, and we successfully had a cruise around the marina, once the bill was settled.

 

I asked Roy when the control arm had been removed, and he stated that it had been taken a year ago when the boat first arrived- but at that time, the owner of the boat did not owe any money at all! This was incorrect. It troubles me that the director of the business, and the manager of the marina, was unable to give me a correct explanation for this, as he is in charge and responsible.

 

Edit to add: allegedly, access was gained by Pillings staff to this boat subsequently to this from the legal acquisition of a set of keys. Roy Rollings did not mention this. There was no external sign that any parts had been removed, nothing to say "engine inoperable, contact marina office". The first sign that something was wrong with the engine was when it started spurting oil from the gearbox all over the engine bay- which, fortunately, was noticed before damage was done.

 

Deliberately sabotaging this customer's boat, in a way that could have caused a great deal of damage had the oil leak not been spotted, seems in my opinion a very poor way to do business indeed. A simple handwritten note, with the engine covers left up to show that something had been removed, would have prevented this.

 

In my opinion, if Pillings Lock believed that they were acting correctly and lawfully, they should not have gone about this with secrecy, pretence and subterfuge, which risked damage to the engine, but instead should have made it clear that parts had been removed, and that the boat was not operable.

Edited April 10, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[Alan de Enfield]

But RR is a Law Student - he wouldnt be involved in anything underhand or illegal - (would he ?)

[haggis]

Wow, up to now we have had evidence of bad management and dodgy financial deals but to sabotage a boat which is moored there beggars belief. I honestly don't see much of a future for Pillings Lock Marina if they do this.

When CRT stop boats entering the marina next week they will be doing all boaters a favour in my view.

 

haggis

[Grace and Favour]

So at the moment, we're delivering a boat for a forum member, back to Cambridge.

 

ETC As per post above

And what is interesting, of course, is that the boat owner now has a witness to what was done by the workshop, and the explanation / timing from Roy.

 

So should the boat owner ever wish to pursue the matter, ?

Edited April 10, 2014 by Grace & Favour

[Alan de Enfield]

I tried to put a deep and meaningful post together following this revelation - Criminal damage ...........

 

In the ends words just failed me so I now ask - how can anyone who moors there support such a corrupt, evil and contemptuous business and its Director(s)

 

Involve the Police !!!!!

[MtB]

Is this the same workshop that is complaining about customers cancelling work due to the impending network access termination, and claiming to know nothing about it?

 

MtB

[Paul G2]

So at the moment, we're delivering a boat for a forum member, back to Cambridge.

 

This boat has come out of Pilling's Lock.

 

snip

 

I asked Roy when the control arm had been removed, and he stated that it had been taken a year ago when the boat first arrived- but at that time, the owner of the boat did not owe any money at all!

 

So either:

 

-Pillings staff sabotaged this boat when it first arrived, before the owner owed any money at all

 

Or

 

-They gained access to the boat without the owner's permission later in the year, once he owed them some money, perhaps by using copied keys, but subsequently lied about this and denied it.

 

Either way, it doesn't look good. Deliberately sabotaging customer's boats, in a way that could have caused a great deal of damage had the oil leak not been spotted, seems a very poor way to do business indeed.

 

This does not bode well for PLM. What kind of a schmuck takes apart someone's boat? What kind of a workshop takes apart a boat without the owner's permission - actually knowing that they are doing it surreptitiously?

 

When word gets around that PL is willing to vandalize boats to enforce payment on accounts, PLM will never be successful as long as PL is there.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Paul G2

[Marc Harris]

Wow, up to now we have had evidence of bad management and dodgy financial deals but to sabotage a boat which is moored there beggars belief. I honestly don't see much of a future for Pillings Lock Marina if they do this.

When CRT stop boats entering the marina next week they will be doing all boaters a favour in my view.

 

haggis

That wasn't the first, and it probably won't be the last.

 

A friend of ours, moored at PLM had a disagreement with PL. He is not liveaboard, so the marina office had the other set of keys for his boat (in case of emergencies). After leaving the boat for a week or so, he returned and put the central heating system on, only to find that it dumped the entire contents of the central heating water system onto the floor and into the bilges. A nut on a radiator had managed to work itself loose enough to barely catch a thread during the time he was away from the boat.

 

So either -

 

Someone with a key entered the boat while the owner was away, and loosend the nut

 

Or -

 

There is a poltergeist with a plumbing fetish roaming around the marina.

[Ally]

Phil's email reads as if they are taking RR as the new director of a new company and that PL is no longer part of it all. They surely don't really believe that?

[SoosieQ]

So at the moment, we're delivering a boat for a forum member, back to Cambridge.

This boat has come out of Pilling's Lock.

We went up last Saturday to test the engine and ensure it was ready to leave yesterday.

The engine would not initially start. I found that the umbilical cable between the control panel and the engine had been unplugged, but kept together so nothing appeared wrong.

We started the engine, but noticed that the PRM gearbox was chucking out oil in an alarming fashion, and it turned out that the control arm for the gearbox had been removed, causing the leak. The nut, washer and stud were still in place, but the actuating arm was missing.

The forum member went to talk to Roy, as he owed them a small amount of money. Roy initially said (paraphrasing) "oh no, we wouldn't do a thing like that, but we might chain up a boat that owed money as people have left before". However, he rang the workshop, and it transpired that they had removed the gearbox arm, without permission, and had it. However, they stated that they would not be able to fit it until sometime next week, perhaps Wednesday.

I was able to fit it, and replace the oil in the gearbox, and we successfully had a cruise around the marina, once the bill was settled.

I asked Roy when the control arm had been removed, and he stated that it had been taken a year ago when the boat first arrived- but at that time, the owner of the boat did not owe any money at all!

So either:

-Pillings staff sabotaged this boat when it first arrived, before the owner owed any money at all

Or

-They gained access to the boat without the owner's permission later in the year, once he owed them some money, perhaps by using copied keys, but subsequently lied about this and denied it.

Either way, it doesn't look good. Deliberately sabotaging customer's boats, in a way that could have caused a great deal of damage had the oil leak not been spotted, seems a very poor way to do business indeed.

That wont be the workshop thats there now....as far as i know theyve not been there a year.

The CRT tug Little John was heading towards Pillings today