Dispute at Pillings

[Mike Todd]

Thanks Nigel I have no knowledge of the Transition Order. So yes, the people posting above are probably right.

CaRT directors have nothing to lose personally and also know that if business decisions prove to be turkeys the govt will pick up the pieces ...phew!

It is a worry for a boat owner wondering if we will have a canal system in years to come, lots of scaremongering from all quarters.

Good to know about the Transition Order.

I think that this line of thinking about having an interest does a major disservice to all professional people, many of whom do a quality job without being financially involved.

 

Do you think that surgeons should have a financial interest? What if you turn out to be more valuable dead than alive?

 

One of the more horrendous aspects of modern government political philosophy is to assert that all people are best/only motivated by greed. There are plenty of people who have a variety of motives even including altruism.

[Tuscan]

I think that this line of thinking about having an interest does a major disservice to all professional people, many of whom do a quality job without being financially involved.

Do you think that surgeons should have a financial interest? What if you turn out to be more valuable dead than alive?

One of the more horrendous aspects of modern government political philosophy is to assert that all people are best/only motivated by greed. There are plenty of people who have a variety of motives even including altruism.

You have a point , I guess the problem comes as you try and equate professionalism with public service as a given. Most surgeons do in fact have a financial interest as the majority also have private clients as well working with the NHS are you saying they are less professional because of this?

[Penelope]

Yes Mike it is very early days for the new organisation and I should certainly be optimistic and hope that everyone will do the best they can. I certainly wish them good luck.

 

I think these days with the Internet, every detail of a business is known about and knowing all the nitty gritty can cause alarm!

 

Nigel I think you are right, CaRT need to fundraise, I think they need to access EEC money or Lottery awards really as money from a collectors bucket isn't going to go very far.

[Peter X]

I think that this line of thinking about having an interest does a major disservice to all professional people, many of whom do a quality job without being financially involved.

 

Do you think that surgeons should have a financial interest? What if you turn out to be more valuable dead than alive?

 

One of the more horrendous aspects of modern government political philosophy is to assert that all people are best/only motivated by greed. There are plenty of people who have a variety of motives even including altruism.

 

Everyone who's paid by the hour or any other period of time, whether they be a surgeon or a street cleaner, is indirectly financially involved in doing a good job in the long run, because someone is watching how they do and that can affect their future earnings. A surgeon wants to achieve the best possible outcomes for patients partly for the job satisfaction that gives, but also for the very pragmatic reason that it helps his/her career. Conversely if too many patients do badly the GMC will take notice and that career could come to an end. If a street cleaner doesn't do the job, sooner or later a supervisor is going to realise it and they can lose the job.

 

Sadly in all walks of life there are duffers doing their jobs badly who get away with it, often for a long time, but they all run the risk that someone will rumble them, and it does happen. The trouble at senior management level, not just in government quangos, is that all too often the duffers are in a position to cover up their failings, and have somehow got deals where if they're sacked for failure they get paid lots of money to go away. I'm not necessarily saying that this applies to people in BW/CRT, because I don't know, but if I were Richard Parry I'd want to know how Pillings Lock got away with non-payment for so long.

[GoodGurl]

And if CRT carry on letting marina's get away with non payment of NAA they will soon be in trouble.

[AndrewIC]

What will be interesting to see is what happens with the "closed" jetty at Pillings. Someone said (somewhere in the last 280+ pages) that CRT would require physical removal of jetties to effect a reduction in capacity for NAA purposes, which would require considerable effort and cost on the part of the operator. More recent postings have only referred to moorings being "closed" or "taken out of use", which suggests a much less permanent arrangement. If this is so then CRT would seem to have conceded that the "capacity" of a site for NAA purposes is in effect negotiable. That is something which could well have implications for other locations, even those whose operators have been less fortuitous/careful with their company structure.

[Ray T]

 

 

Sadly in all walks of life there are duffers doing their jobs badly who get away with it, often for a long time, but they all run the risk that someone will rumble them, and it does happen. The trouble at senior management level, not just in government quangos, is that all too often the duffers are in a position to cover up their failings, and have somehow got deals where if they're sacked for failure they get paid lots of money to go away. I'm not necessarily saying that this applies to people in BW/CRT, because I don't know, but if I were Richard Parry I'd want to know how Pillings Lock got away with non-payment for so long.

 

I have just been listening to Book at Bedtime about Kim Philby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby .

He was hardly a duffer but he did manage to con the system and betray Britain for many, many years.

[Peter X]

 

I have just been listening to Book at Bedtime about Kim Philby http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby .

He was hardly a duffer but he did manage to con the system and betray Britain for many, many years.

 

My apologies, I try to choose my words carefully and here I slipped up. I used duffer, which covers incompetence and perhaps laziness, when what I needed was a word encompassing all the various other ways in which people fail to do their jobs properly.

Even now I can't think of the right word, except that I could have just used "people".

[Mike Todd]

What will be interesting to see is what happens with the "closed" jetty at Pillings. Someone said (somewhere in the last 280+ pages) that CRT would require physical removal of jetties to effect a reduction in capacity for NAA purposes, which would require considerable effort and cost on the part of the operator. More recent postings have only referred to moorings being "closed" or "taken out of use", which suggests a much less permanent arrangement. If this is so then CRT would seem to have conceded that the "capacity" of a site for NAA purposes is in effect negotiable. That is something which could well have implications for other locations, even those whose operators have been less fortuitous/careful with their company structure.

But BW (CRT) advised that a very long time back in the saga!

[AndrewIC]

But BW (CRT) advised that a very long time back in the saga!

Was it definitely from CRT, or was it attributed to them by someone associated with Pillings? I haven't the energy to trawl back and check, but in the recent postings from both Pillings and CRT this requirement seems to be being somewhat played down from outright removal to some form of taking out of use. My point (and I wasn't very clear, sorry) was that CRT may not have thought through properly the precedent of allowing the "reduction" of a site's capacity for NAA purposes to be effected at minimal cost to the site operator.

[Paul G2]

Was it definitely from CRT, or was it attributed to them by someone associated with Pillings? I haven't the energy to trawl back and check, but in the recent postings from both Pillings and CRT this requirement seems to be being somewhat played down from outright removal to some form of taking out of use. My point (and I wasn't very clear, sorry) was that CRT may not have thought through properly the precedent of allowing the "reduction" of a site's capacity for NAA purposes to be effected at minimal cost to the site operator.

 

If memory serves me correctly.....

 

Originally CRT said the float had to be removed. The last I recall hearing from RR, as regards CRT's requirement, is that the float "could not be accessible from land", or words pretty close to that.

 

Recently, RR has referred to something along the lines of "closing" the float. It does seem that he is being purposely unclear about PLM's intentions as far as decommissioning the float goes. If one were cynical, one might be tempted to speculate that the float is being positioned as the next reason/excuse PLM will use for not paying their NAA fees.

 

You make a very good point, though. CRT has now set a precedent with PLM. Every marina operator on the system has to be looking at the concessions CRT made to PLM regarding occupancy, and thinking of how they can lower their capacity to what their actual occupancy is. If CRT lets PLM do this on the cheap, they have to let every marina do it on the cheap. If CRT allows PLM to simply declare a lower maximum occupancy, that decision will most likely come back to bite them in the arse.

[ReneArtois]

CRT did the sensible thing here. A new agreement starts the income stream again, whereas blocking just costs them money and staff time and annoys the ultimate users. The final lost revenue + court fees is over 200k, why increase this just to make an example to other marinas; that can be done by better/faster enforcement in the future. CRT and their predecessors acted from a soft heart or just plain laziness, maybe they learn from this catalogue of mistakes. They can begin to chip away at the loss by reinstating online moorings, if they are nearby, I don't think they will be short of interest.

 

Don't think this has gone all PL's way, they mistook strength of CRT's resolve which has cost them bad press and moorers. They assumed that they would get a new NAA as before with the free first year etc. and they have been made to pay an unprecedented time up front. The capacity reduction maybe not even be in their control, and CRT could have looked at how PLT would be funded and told them to cut their coat to match their cloth. Sure the mortgager lost paper money, but probably just written off to tax. Presumably the new company has a similar arrangement to the land as before, and so is a similar debt hole to QMP, especially after paying stamp duty. One would hope that CRT has examined the agreement between PLT and PLM to see that this time there is sufficient income to meet PLT's fixed costs, or have a system to hold the directors/owners personally liable in the event of future default. Even then the new NAA payment terms should allow action to happen immediately after missed payments, rather than the previous system (1st year in advance, then 3 months in advance, with a notice to the day after missed payment to severe access in 3 months) . This incident could ensure that future NAAs cannot be avoided by poor management or deliberate phoenix tricks again. Let's hope CRT hasn't failed its stakeholders in these negotiations.

[Tuscan]

I thought all NAA's are based on potential capacity , so any marina could legitimately expand or contract and therefore amend it's payments up or down accordingly .

[Alan de Enfield]

I thought all NAA's are based on potential capacity , so any marina could legitimately expand or contract and therefore amend it's payments up or down accordingly .

 

Surely 'Potential Capacity' is the amount of space that the marina has and the maximum number of pontoons / berths that can be

accommodated.

(The potential capacity of a factory, is the factory being 'full' of machines & the output of all machines running 24 hours per day)

 

If the NAA is based on the 'Potential Capacity' then it would be non-variable and based on the maximum number of berths that could fit in the Marina.

 

I think you mean that the NAA should be based on 'Actual Capacity' or actually available berths.

[MtB]

I thought all NAA's are based on potential capacity , so any marina could legitimately expand or contract and therefore amend it's payments up or down accordingly .

 

They are (or were until now) based on the total berthing length present in the marina, whether or not it was occupied.

 

This raises an interesting question about Barby and their low cost winter moorings reported on CWF a year or two ago, where the boats were said to be being stored rafted up in large clumps rather than on formal individual pontoons. I wonder how that affected their NAA.

 

 

MtB

Edited April 22, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Tuscan]

Exactly that's why I assume Barby didn't install the pontoons just the fixings when they ran out of cash.

[MtB]

CRT did the sensible thing here. A new agreement starts the income stream again, whereas blocking just costs them money and staff time and annoys the ultimate users. The final lost revenue + court fees is over 200k, why increase this just to make an example to other marinas; that can be done by better/faster enforcement in the future. CRT and their predecessors acted from a soft heart or just plain laziness, maybe they learn from this catalogue of mistakes. They can begin to chip away at the loss by reinstating online moorings, if they are nearby, I don't think they will be short of interest. Don't think this has gone all PL's way, they mistook strength of CRT's resolve which has cost them bad press and moorers. They assumed that they would get a new NAA as before with the free first year etc. and they have been made to pay an unprecedented time up front. The capacity reduction maybe not even be in their control, and CRT could have looked at how PLT would be funded and told them to cut their coat to match their cloth. Sure the mortgager lost paper money, but probably just written off to tax. Presumably the new company has a similar arrangement to the land as before, and so is a similar debt hole to QMP, especially after paying stamp duty. One would hope that CRT has examined the agreement between PLT and PLM to see that this time there is sufficient income to meet PLT's fixed costs, or have a system to hold the directors/owners personally liable in the event of future default. Even then the new NAA payment terms should allow action to happen immediately after missed payments, rather than the previous system (1st year in advance, then 3 months in advance, with a notice to the day after missed payment to severe access in 3 months) . This incident could ensure that future NAAs cannot be avoided by poor management or deliberate phoenix tricks again. Let's hope CRT hasn't failed its stakeholders in these negotiations.

 

You really are the king of wishful thinking aren't you?

 

The behaviour of BW and CRT to date suggests few, if any, of the possibilities you describe will actually come to pass.

 

These is scant evidence from information put out by either side that having finally forced Pilling Lock to stump up a (reduced) NAA fee for one year out of eight, CRT have learned anything or will do things differently when future NAA payments are withheld.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong but my fear is that now the marina is open again, Pillings Lock will revert to its old behaviour and cease making NAA fees in future order to test what CRT do about it, and that CRT will fail the test by doing the same as last time, i.e. passing it to their legal dept to fiddle about with for a further six years.

 

I've seen very little to suggest it will pan out any differently. Pillings certainly haven't changed their spots. I predict in another six years there will be threads on here asking "why did CRT learn nothing last time around?"

 

 

MtB

[PaulG]

If this is so then CRT would seem to have conceded that the "capacity" of a site for NAA purposes is in effect negotiable.

It's not a concession as it always has been negotiable.

BW stated in their 2005 "Summary of Terms" that the official Marina gross mooring capacity can be changed "by mutual agreement".

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/266.pdf

[costalot]

Mike,

I don't believe CRT would fall for the same strategy twice. Actually they have stated that they wanted certain guarantees before issuing a new NAA. This includes annual payment in advance.

 

My guess is that BW attempted to be very accommodating when PL first advised them he had financial difficulties and was offering BW only part payment. BW didn't want to set a NAA precedence and suggested PL remove some of the unoccupied moorings thereby reducing the NAA fee. For some unknown reason he refused and the matter escalated. PL has now done what BW suggested back at the beginning.

 

Everything I've read from CRT suggests they were concerned about the PLM moorers, but were determined not to set a precedence with special NAA arrangements for PLM. They appear to have gained the necessary guarantees to ensure the same financial loss doesn't reoccur. The PLM Group may have gotten away with non payment for several years but the price is that they will live under the CRT microscope for many years to come!

[KenK]

What will be interesting to see is what happens with the "closed" jetty at Pillings. Someone said (somewhere in the last 280+ pages) that CRT would require physical removal of jetties to effect a reduction in capacity for NAA purposes, which would require considerable effort and cost on the part of the operator. More recent postings have only referred to moorings being "closed" or "taken out of use", which suggests a much less permanent arrangement. If this is so then CRT would seem to have conceded that the "capacity" of a site for NAA purposes is in effect negotiable. That is something which could well have implications for other locations, even those whose operators have been less fortuitous/careful with their company structure.

I met a chap on his boat whilst sharing a lock at Shardlow last week, he moors at Pillings on the jetty which is to be closed and he had received an

e mail from PL telling him he would be relocated on his return.

Talking to him he was totally unaware of the issues relating to the NAA problem other than having received reassuring e mails from PL.

He also said he'd never had a problem with PL or RR who he described as the deputy manager, in fact RR was described as extremly helpful and a very nice person.

I pointed him in the direction of this saga, so by now he should be a little wiser.

 

Ken

[MtB]

Mike,

I don't believe CRT would fall for the same strategy twice. Actually they have stated that they wanted certain guarantees before issuing a new NAA. This includes annual payment in advance.

 

My guess is that BW attempted to be very accommodating when PL first advised them he had financial difficulties and was offering BW only part payment. BW didn't want to set a NAA precedence and suggested PL remove some of the unoccupied moorings thereby reducing the NAA fee. For some unknown reason he refused and the matter escalated. PL has now done what BW suggested back at the beginning.

 

Everything I've read from CRT suggests they were concerned about the PLM moorers, but were determined not to set a precedence with special NAA arrangements for PLM. They appear to have gained the necessary guarantees to ensure the same financial loss doesn't reoccur. The PLM Group may have gotten away with non payment for several years but the price is that they will live under the CRT microscope for many years to come!

 

Do you have any evidence for saying this? The only evidence I can see is that PL paid up one year in advance on the day the workboats arrived to put the blockade in place.

 

In what way do they appear to have gained the necessary guarantees? What will make Pillings pay the next installment on 15th April 2015?

 

 

MtB

[PaulG]

 

In what way do they appear to have gained the necessary guarantees? What will make Pillings pay the next installment on 15th April 2015?

 

 

MtB

Phil Spencer says that they have.

(Don't expect me to trawl back through 283 pages to see where he said this.)

 

"Boating BusIness" also report that "Because the CRT has not been able to recover the £185,000 owed by the former owners of Pillings Lock Marina, new applications for Network Access Agreements will now require a level of financial security for the CRT to prevent similar situations occurring in the future."

http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/pillings-lock-marina-the-bmf-statement

 

So it appears that there are new arrangements in place as a result of the Pillings debacle in that future new applications will need to provide financial security.

[MtB]

Phil Spencer says that they have.

(Don't expect me to trawl back through 283 pages to see where he said this.)

 

"Boating BusIness" also report that "Because the CRT has not been able to recover the £185,000 owed by the former owners of Pillings Lock Marina, new applications for Network Access Agreements will now require a level of financial security for the CRT to prevent similar situations occurring in the future."

http://www.boatingbusiness.com/news101/industry-news/pillings-lock-marina-the-bmf-statement

 

So it appears that there are new arrangements in place as a result of the Pillings debacle in that future new applications will need to provide financial security.

 

 

Ok thanks! That's mildly reassuring.

 

The devil is in the detail though when it comes to taking up 'financial security' obtained. A personal guarantee is only of value if the person giving the guarantee is of sufficient net worth, and this can change. Let's speculate wildly and imagine Paul Lillie himself gave a personal guarantee that satisfied CRT. He was able to prove he has sufficient net worth.

 

Next, imagine Mr Lillie takes a personal loan for £1m and wastes it in the betting shop resulting in him being on the verge of personal bankruptcy. Now the 'financial security' CRT have obtained is worth nothing, and CRT have no idea!

 

Got any idea what sort of 'financial security' has been obtained?

 

MtB

[PaulG]

 

 

Ok thanks! That's mildly reassuring.

 

The devil is in the detail though when it comes to taking up 'financial security' obtained. A personal guarantee is only of value if the person giving the guarantee is of sufficient net worth, and this can change. Let's speculate wildly and imagine Paul Lillie himself gave a personal guarantee that satisfied CRT. He was able to prove he has sufficient net worth.

 

Next, imagine Mr Lillie takes a personal loan for £1m and wastes it in the betting shop resulting in him being on the verge of personal bankruptcy. Now the 'financial security' CRT have obtained is worth nothing, and CRT have no idea!

 

Got any idea what sort of 'financial security' has been obtained?

 

MtB

I think it is unlikely that CRT would have sought personal guarantees from any of the main protagonists.

 

More likely to be a bank guarantee, or possibly a charge over property or other assets.

[MtB]

I think it is unlikely that CRT would have sought personal guarantees from any of the main protagonists.

 

More likely to be a bank guarantee, or possibly a charge over property or other assets.

 

Well I hope you are right. I would feel mightily reassured if you were but my point remains we still don't know, and CRT don't have much of a track record when it comes to protecting their interests effectively.

 

 

MtB