Jump to content

Dispute at Pillings

andy the hammer

By andy the hammer
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

just thought we had better quote this before he goes back and changes it......

 

It does make me wonder who is libeling whom.

 

Paul Lillie's post appears to contain a fair few things that could turn out to be libelous too, which I imagine why Matty chose to preserve it.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cloggy Collaborator

cloggy

Posted
Posted (edited)

Paul had a tort order so was okay to disable the boat.

If this is the case then should there have been a notice on the boat saying something along the lines of. This boat has been disabled and moving of this boat may cause damage.

Just curious.

Edited by cloggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pen n Ink Collaborator

Pen n Ink

Posted
Posted

I have to say as an "interested but independent party" I sure know who I would believe in the latest little episode.

 

And it doesn't encourage me to want to moor at PLM at all. At the very least it shows an example of appalling business practice and customer service (or public relations), and at the very worst it shows deceit and an intent that may or may not have been verging on criminal. As such I believe that anyone now entering into any dealings at all until there is concrete proof that PL no longer has any interest in any of the group businesses needs their head examining.

 

And before there are any complaints, this is my personal opinion, based entirely on information which is readily available in the public domain, and does not necessarily represent the views of the owner or moderators of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matty40s Veteran II

matty40s

Posted
Posted

If this is the case then should there have been a notice on the boat saying something along the lines of. This boat has been disabled and moving of this boat may cause damage.

Just curious.

Must have been an oversight by the Tortillas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ssscrudddy Rising Star

Ssscrudddy

Posted
Posted

 

This is factually incorrect and Slander.
The vessel in question had a Tort Notice on it as there was a marina bill of over £1500 outstanding and the owner went AWOL - we even contacted the Police as we assumed he was dead!
The vessel had the drive linkage disabled at our request as we had to protect the vessel from any potential theft (keys were in the house where the owner lived and later missing) and also we had a Tort notice to recover our owed money which was considerable. Redwood Collections dealt with this matter formally.
The owner eventually re-appeared and paid his outstanding bill in instalments, but payments were never up to scratch.
The owner departed the Marina last week (still owing a few hundred quid) - there was still a Tort notice in place and had an unpaid bill. The owner actually couldn't pay the bill and therefore offered us a used Generator as payment which we accepted as it was better than nothing!!!
This person quoting this is damaging the reputations of the businesses involved and any post that refers to this matter incorrectly needs to be removed.
Thank you
Paul Lillie Director, Pilling's Lock Marina
pillingsbackoffice@btconnect.com

 

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

 

You expect your customers to pay their bills, & if they dont you disable their boats... whilst your new toy boy top customer facing puppet representative (the new director of the new company, RR) claims you dont disable customers boats, surely he should know?

But at the same time you wont pay your own bills.

 

& then you come on here & start chucking about libellous comments about about a forum member who you claimed has slandered you.

 

& is there a reason why your own communications seem significantly different from those of CaRT regarding the situation at PMT (PMS?) or whatever the hell it's called these days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

 

You expect your customers to pay their bills, & if they dont you disable their boats... whilst your new toy boy top customer facing puppet representative (the new director of the new company, RR) claims you dont disable customers boats, surely he should know?

But at the same time you wont pay your own bills.

 

 

I dunno about that. I see some rather good parallels.

 

PL disables boats when boaters fail to pay. CRT disables marinas when marinas fail to pay.

 

 

MtB

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ssscrudddy Rising Star

Ssscrudddy

Posted
Posted

Yes I agree, but it would seem he doesnt like it when he's on the receiving end. Apparently his customer paid most of the money (by PLs own words before I get accused of slander even though I'm typing & not saying it out loud) & the rest in kind before he got his boat back, so does that mean we can expect him to pay up most of the £180k & the rest in kind before the connection to the canal is re-established)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Yes I agree, but it would seem he doesnt like it when he's on the receiving end. Apparently his customer paid most of the money (by PLs own words before I get accused of slander even though I'm typing & not saying it out loud) & the rest in kind before he got his boat back, so does that mean we can expect him to pay up most of the £180k & the rest in kind before the connection to the canal is re-established)?

 

I think you may find as we speak (or type), he is offering CRT an old generator in settlement of the NAA debt...

 

:D

 

MtB

  • Greenie 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woodstock Rising Star

Woodstock

Posted
Posted

In all seriousness- even without the events planned for next week- What is the long term security for pillings marina?

 

We have seen that payments were not made to CRT, boatowners have not been continuoulsy updated by the marina, communications which differ widely to those from CRT, boats have been disabled without notification to the owner, very poor management -and the list could go on- Would anyone seriously consider mooring there?

 

 

There may be some current boaters who chosse to stay, but that alone will not ensure future security and I can't imagine many new applicants queueing up

 

Would you?

 

I know many boaters who arent on this forum- who are aware of the issues at Pillings and also would not consider mooring there now, so boaters are aware, outside of this forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mayalld Veteran II

mayalld

Posted
Posted

I'd never heard of a Tort notice, had to Google it. Apparently it relates to uncollected or abandoned goods, and is a sort of 'notice to remove'. Yet it seems that the means of removal had been disabled...

 

No doubt people who know about these things rather than relying on the interweb will correct me if that is wrong.

 

Tim

 

My view of what a Tort Notice is coincides with what you say above.

 

It is a notice to the owner of goods to remove them from your property. If the owner fails to do so, you can sell them.

 

It is not something that gives the property owner the right to damage the goods.

 

A tort notice is nothing to do with exercising a lien over the vessel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bettie Boo Experienced

Bettie Boo

Posted
Posted

 

This is factually incorrect and Slander.
The vessel in question had a Tort Notice on it as there was a marina bill of over £1500 outstanding and the owner went AWOL - we even contacted the Police as we assumed he was dead!
The vessel had the drive linkage disabled at our request as we had to protect the vessel from any potential theft (keys were in the house where the owner lived and later missing) and also we had a Tort notice to recover our owed money which was considerable. Redwood Collections dealt with this matter formally.
The owner eventually re-appeared and paid his outstanding bill in instalments, but payments were never up to scratch.
The owner departed the Marina last week (still owing a few hundred quid) - there was still a Tort notice in place and had an unpaid bill. The owner actually couldn't pay the bill and therefore offered us a used Generator as payment which we accepted as it was better than nothing!!!
This person quoting this is damaging the reputations of the businesses involved and any post that refers to this matter incorrectly needs to be removed.
Thank you
Paul Lillie Director, Pilling's Lock Marina
pillingsbackoffice@btconnect.com

 

Is this statement for real, or a wind up?

 

I would suggest the past dealings of the marina and it's association with the one owing C&RT a vast sum of money, in unpaid debts and the shenanigans which have since ensued, would far outweighed any personal views posted on this discussion forum could do to "damage the reputation" of the marina.

 

I think you may find as we speak (or type), he is offering CRT an old generator in settlement of the NAA debt...

 

biggrin.png

 

MtB

Brilliant - LMAO

 

greenie to you

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

PL are you speaking for Pillings Lock Marina or Pillings Lock Trading???

A point well made. Communications from Limited Companies are required to clearly and fully identify the company that it is being sent on behalf of.

 

"Company details (country of registration, company registered number, and registered office address) must appear on all the company's electronic communications and websites."

 

Source: http://www.vas.org.uk/UserFiles/File/Legal/Guide_to_incorporating_social_enterprise_companies_limited_by_guarantee.pdf

 

I'm sure that a post on this site falls under the category of an "electronic communication".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MtB Veteran II

MtBDonate to Canal World

Posted
Posted

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/6810-still-threats-to-close-pillings

 

 

I have to ask...does PL write or own Narrowboatworld? Its a very one sided view that it takes?

 

NBW delights in CRT-bashing. Anyone who is an enemy of CRT (e.g. Pillings) by definition gets their support.

 

That's all there is to it. Pathetic publication, in my opinion.

 

 

MtB

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulG Experienced

PaulG

Posted
Posted

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/leatest/6810-still-threats-to-close-pillings

 

 

I have to ask...does PL write or own Narrowboatworld? Its a very one sided view that it takes?

I believe that the policy of the Editor is to be as controversial as possible.

 

This attracts a response from the other party, which generates more content for the website.

 

Unfortunately this results in much of the content being pure drivel, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.