Dispute at Pillings

[FadeToScarlet]

What's more, this is a cost that falls ultimately on marina berth-holders. CCers don't have to pay it.

 

So what? CCers also don't in general pay council tax, or for a parking space, or for an electrical service charge, or.... They don't pay marina's electricity bills, water bills, or business rates either. The NAA is just one of Marina's necessary costs of operation, that have to be paid for by berth holders.

 

It's just one of the necessary financial outlays people pay so as to have the comfort and security of a home mooring, and not have to worry about the difficulties of CCing.

[Graham Davis]

 

Hardly.

 

It's CART's choice to close on-line moorings. If the NAA charge doesn't lead to an equal amount of additional revenue that the marina wouldn't otherwise have got, it's just an extra cost that the marina has to bear - and pass on to the berth-holders.

 

Furthermore, not every displaced boat will go to a marina. Some may decide to pack it in, others to CC.

 

And what about those marinas that DON'T pay the NAA, but will benefit (according to you) from the withdrawal of moorings?

 

What's more, this is a cost that falls ultimately on marina berth-holders. CCers don't have to pay it.

 

So it's not a level playing field.

 

I am grateful for the respect, but that closing statement was aimed at everybody, not you particularly. Some of the flak that has come my way has done so because of an erroneous perception that I am here to support P Lillie, Esq.

 

Let us hope that the economy improves sufficiently that no other marina will default.

 

My understanding was that it was part of the agreement between the Trade Assoc and BW.

[kevinl]

So what? CCers also don't in general pay council tax, or for a parking space, or for an electrical service charge, or.... They don't pay marina's electricity bills, water bills, or business rates either. The NAA is just one of Marina's necessary costs of operation, that have to be paid for by berth holders.

 

It's just one of the necessary financial outlays people pay so as to have the comfort and security of a home mooring, and not have to worry about the difficulties of CCing.

How do we start a poll on here? We could ask "Are NAA's an unfair tax on new marinas?". Bearing in mind they are technically 9% but as was pointed out a long time back on here that a good business plan would work on about 75% occupancy so in reality would be about 12%. God forbid we should start one about CCer's not paying their way they're be hell to pay. For the record against NAA's and lay off the CCer's I'm in a marina.

K

[costalot]

The NAA is part of the fixed costs based on the number of berths (or mooring footage). When a new marina opens they get 12 months free before having to pay the NAA and the second year is at 50%. This seems very generous of CRT and gives the management/owners time to attract the number of boaters they require to meet their business model.

 

It would be a poor business plan that expected 100% occupancy. Would a restaurant expect to sell 100% of the food they purchased, or a florist expect to sell 100% of the flowers they purchased.

[MtB]

 

PL is just (still, inexplicably) the director of PLM which operates the marina. Until, in the dream scenario, Mr Nelson the liquidator of QMP makes his report on the conduct of directors, which by law he must although I don't know what his deadline is, and we may hope that report is critical enough of Paul Lillie to prompt the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to prosecute him for wrongful trading under the Insolvency Act 1986. The report ought to be critical; if I were Phil Spencer I think I'd be gently nudging Mr Nelson to press on with his job and do the decent thing. In the real world I suspect this won't happen.

 

I agree.

 

It seem highly unlikely Mr Nelson will make any such report when you consider who is paying him for his 'work'.

[George94]

 

My understanding was that it was part of the agreement between the Trade Assoc and BW.

 

It was an agreement in the sense of a person held up at pistol point by Dick Turpin agreeing to part with much of his hard-earned gold to a highway robber.

So what? CCers also don't in general pay council tax, or for a parking space, or for an electrical service charge, or.... They don't pay marina's electricity bills, water bills, or business rates either. The NAA is just one of Marina's necessary costs of operation, that have to be paid for by berth holders.

 

It's just one of the necessary financial outlays people pay so as to have the comfort and security of a home mooring, and not have to worry about the difficulties of CCing.

 

Irrelevant.

[costalot]

 

It was an agreement in the sense of a person held up at pistol point by Dick Turpin agreeing to part with much of his hard-earned gold to a highway robber.

 

Irrelevant.

It was a small price developers were prepared to pay to join what appeared to be a gravy train of marina construction when there was a shortage of moorings during the boom years.

[furnessvale]

It was a small price developers were prepared to pay to join what appeared to be a gravy train of marina construction when there was a shortage of moorings during the boom years.

I fail to see any problem with NAA.

 

As a private individual, BW/CRT have been bleeding me for years with over inflation rises in licence and EOG mooring fees. They have the unenviable problem of chasing every penny, where expenditure (potentially) exceeds income.

 

In an ideal world they would also be getting income from EVERY canal user including ramblers and cyclists but somehow this doesn't seem possible.

 

NAA is simply BW/CRT getting their fair slice of commercial activity on waterways they control. Anyone who doesn't wish to pay a supplier a fair, nationally agreed price for a service, can simply look at some other business other than operating a marina.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[BruceinSanity]

I fail to see any problem with NAA.

 

As a private individual, BW/CRT have been bleeding me for years with over inflation rises in licence and EOG mooring fees. They have the unenviable problem of chasing every penny, where expenditure (potentially) exceeds income.

 

In an ideal world they would also be getting income from EVERY canal user including ramblers and cyclists but somehow this doesn't seem possible.

 

NAA is simply BW/CRT getting their fair slice of commercial activity on waterways they control. Anyone who doesn't wish to pay a supplier a fair, nationally agreed price for a service, can simply look at some other business other than operating a marina.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

I've run out of greenies, but well said that man, spot on.

 

PS why can't we have more than two greenies a day?

[Hawkmoth]

 

It was an agreement in the sense of a person held up at pistol point by Dick Turpin agreeing to part with much of his hard-earned gold to a highway robber.

 

What a load of b******s. He saw a money making opportunity and didn't do his sums or due diligence.

It may also be that he never intended to pay it, but that is pure speculation.

Bob

ETA Well said Furnessvale

Edited May 8, 2014 by lyraboat

[mayalld]

 

It was an agreement in the sense of a person held up at pistol point by Dick Turpin agreeing to part with much of his hard-earned gold to a highway robber.

 

Oh, well when you put it like that.

 

I had been labouring under the misapprehension that people decided to open a marina of their own free will.

 

Now that you have shown me the error of my ways and explained that BW forced them to do it, that changes everything.

 

If the costs of doing something mean that you can't make a profit, don't do it.

[johnlillie]

hindsight being the wonderful thing that it is, looking back I can see we were somewhat naïve when planning for the future, but that is not to say that PLM could, and should , with good management, be a success even allowing for payment of the NAA. It is still a really nice place to be, apart from the café!

[MtB]

hindsight being the wonderful thing that it is, looking back I can see we were somewhat naïve when planning for the future, but that is not to say that PLM could, and should , with good management, be a success even allowing for payment of the NAA. It is still a really nice place to be, apart from the café!

 

 

And the power lines...?

 

 

MtB

[johnlillie]

good point, forgot about them. Which brings up the question, has anyone who moors close to them noticed any excess corrosion under the waterline that could be attributed to that?

[AndrewIC]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but details of some new charges over PLT and No750 Leicester Ltd are now on the Companies House website. No.750 has two charges over PLT, one over the land and a floating charge over pretty much everything, and Mr Steadman has a floating charge over No.750.

[Alan de Enfield]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but details of some new charges over PLT and No750 Leicester Ltd are now on the Companies House website. No.750 has two charges over PLT, one over the land and a floating charge over pretty much everything, and Mr Steadman has a floating charge over No.750.

 

So when PLT goes 'bump' No750 is the 'old QMH' and is the major creditor, having the charge over the land means the other creditors will get nothing. Mr Steadman holds the charge over No750 and gets everything - loses nothing

 

Its just a roundabout - when will C&RT decide its time to 'get off'

[PaulG]

 

So when PLT goes 'bump' No750 is the 'old QMH' and is the major creditor, having the charge over the land means the other creditors will get nothing. Mr Steadman holds the charge over No750 and gets everything - loses nothing

 

Its just a roundabout - when will C&RT decide its time to 'get off'

CRT did say that they have taken additional security. What form this takes is not in the public domain as far as I can see.

But I'm sure I hope that, in the light of their previous experiences, the security that CRT holds takes account of inter-company charges.

You do have to keep your eye on the pea under the thimble...

Edited May 8, 2014 by PaulG

[Alan de Enfield]

CRT did say that they have taken additional security. What form this takes is not in the public domain as far as I can see.

But I'm sure I hope that, in the light of their previous experiences, the security that CRT holds takes account of inter-company charges.

You do have to keep your eye on the pea under the thimble...

 

Unless C&RT have got a "non-refundable" deposit as security the 'additional security' could be worthless. If PLT goes 'bump' and the 'land' is worth less than the 'security on the land (mortgage) then any guarantees to C&RT would be worthless as they wouldnt get a penny (ala QMP/QMH and C&RT)

It may also be argued by a Liquidator that if C&RT did hold a 'deposit' that this should be returned to pay the holder of the land security (mortgage)

 

Yet another Triumverate (or is it now a quadumvertate - PLM, PLT, QMH, No750) to protect the guilty and 'cost' the innocent.

[PaulG]

Yet another Triumverate (or is it now a quadumvertate - PLM, PLT, QMH, No750) to protect the guilty and 'cost' the innocent.

You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

[MtB]

 

Unless C&RT have got a "non-refundable" deposit as security the 'additional security' could be worthless.

 

Even if they have, it will probably turn out to be worthless as it seems unlikely to represent more than a year's payments.

 

By the time the penny drops at CRT that payments are still not being received, several will have been missed (judging by their past record). The the legal department will swing into action and five years later we'll be back to square one, with five years of missing payments secured on one advance payment of 12 months.

 

Just wait and see!

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Even if they have, it will probably turn out to be worthless as it seems unlikely to represent more than a year's payments.

 

By the time the penny drops at CRT that payments are still not being received, several will have been missed (judging by their past record). The the legal department will swing into action and five years later we'll be back to square one, with five years of missing payments secured on one advance payment of 12 months.

 

Just wait and see!

 

MtB

 

What we do not know (and are making assumptions about) is if the 12 month payment in advance was to be used as a 'deposit' in lieu of any failure to pay, and that PLT would continue to make quarterly payments, or if it was in fact 12 months payment in advance with no further payments due until May 2015.

[Jerra]

 

Even if they have, it will probably turn out to be worthless as it seems unlikely to represent more than a year's payments.

 

By the time the penny drops at CRT that payments are still not being received, several will have been missed (judging by their past record). The the legal department will swing into action and five years later we'll be back to square one, with five years of missing payments secured on one advance payment of 12 months.

 

Just wait and see!

 

MtB

What a touching faith you have in CRT!

[Mike Todd]

 

Thanks for that.

 

Actually, several people HAVE claimed that the NAA is justified (largely, if not solely) by on-line closures ; most recently PaulG in post 5769.

 

"However, the facts are very simple. If you want to open a new marina, you must compensate CRT for the income that they lose by taking moorings off line.

If you don't like it, don't open a marina."

 

Taking one of your points, I am not sure how it encourages people to open marinas if they are going to be charged for doing so. If the NAA works to increase a marina's revenue sufficiently to offset the charge, then fair enough, but you seem to be agreeing with me that the NAA (as far as I can see) doesn't do that.

 

 

Usual disclaimer: I am not a fan of Mr P Lillie. I am simply trying to understand whether his claims have any validity.

As I understand it, as a private landowner CRT would not be **obliged** to allow a free access to their property by someone building an independent commercial activity next door without a commerical contract to 'buy' the right of access. Even electricity companies have to buy a wayleave for poles. Canals have an arcane legal history (pace Nigel Moore) and I guess that they have some degree of obligation to enter into an agreement on reasonable terms. Since the NAA is set a priori on a scale agreed by industry reps and paid by others, it is hard to establish an unreasonableness test.

 

Of course, reasonable does not mean that the person paying has to like payint it!

[Graham Davis]

 

It was an agreement in the sense of a person held up at pistol point by Dick Turpin agreeing to part with much of his hard-earned gold to a highway robber.

 

 

Really?

Were you privy to the discussions?

Are you implying that the Trade Association just accepted the first demand that BW made and didn't have their own opinion, and just rolled over and accepted things?

[Paul G2]

By virtue of removing on-line moorings as they do for new marinas, CRT has made the addition of new marinas a revenue-neutral proposition for themselves. This doesn't really seem like the greatest business plan in the world, for CRT or the marinas. Few people are going to make their mooring/lifestyle choices based on the CRT action, so it really does little to affect marina occupancy.

 

It has been explained that some boaters feel there are too many moorings on the canals and reducing the number of on-line is sometimes desirable. That is a good argument for efficient management of on-line moorings, however, it is not an argument to have efficient canal traffic and mooring management tied to marina development. The two have nothing to do with each other.

 

If CRT abandoned the practice of closing on-line moorings near new marinas, that would make it possible to charge a smaller NAA, or an NAA based on actual occupancy, AND this would mean that all NAA income was new/additional income and not just a substitution for something they lost. Giving up the online moorings was a clobberheaded idea, it needs to be abandoned. Aesthetics and navigational concerns should govern where there are on-line moorings. If CRT needs to designate part of their income from their own marinas as NAA fees, maybe they should do so, not only for the sake of quieting the critics, but also because it would give them a taste of their own medicine in respect to how their fees affect marina budgets.

 

Of course, in the case of PLM, a smaller NAA would have simply meant PL would have owed CRT a little less when he went insolvent. He still wouldn't have paid. There's simply not enough income from the moorers to pay his absurd salary and support the losses from the cafe.

 

I've done a bit of investment analysis in my time, and, if I were looking at PLM as an investment, I would think that what PLM needs is to get highest and best use from the facilities it has on site. That means for-sure rents, not iffy cafe profits. If it would be possible, the highest and best use for that marina would be to lease the cafe/apartment building and a significant number of moorings to a boating club of some kind. The club could make good use of the facilities (building) for club activities and PLT/PLM could just kick back, collect the rents and manage their section of the marina. If not a boating club then lease the cafe to someone who knows what they're doing, and convert the apartment to office space and put a couple nice offices in there. There are probably a lot of good uses for that space, whatever happens it should be used in the manner that produces the most rental income to PLT/PLM.