Dispute at Pillings

[mayalld]

There are many provisions of subdivision law that are written to prevent unscrupulous developers from selling off small lots with no infrastructure as this is a sure recipe for a slum.

 

Subdivision law almost always pre-supposes that the land being subdivided is going to be developed, hence there are a lot of restrictions and conditions in subdivision law and waiving all of those provisions is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

 

Then there are the local zoning laws that have to be contended with...

Your post seems to deal with the way US law works rather than UK law

[Roxy]

So I've paid a years worth of mooring, 2months in the said marina goes bust, I look for another mooring in a different Marina, do I get the money I've paid up in advance back? or is this now lost?

[Robbo]

So I've paid a years worth of mooring, 2months in the said marina goes bust, I look for another mooring in a different Marina, do I get the money I've paid up in advance back? or is this now lost?

 

If you paid by Credit Card then you contact the credit card company. It's the main advantage to use a credit card for anything over £100.

[steven wilkinson]

you become a creditor of the now defunct company - and are way down the list of people to be paid anything

[Paul G2]

If I were an energetic entrepreneur in England right now, I would be heading down to PLM and organizing the occupants and I would have a good chance of becoming the General Partner in a really nice marina. Paul Lillie is not a good businessman. The Steadmans are like zombies. Any good businessman/woman would eat P.Lillie for lunch.

 

Looking at what has taken place here at PLM, maybe CRT and future marina developers should both learn a few lessons from this debacle at PLM.

 

First off, I would think, is the abandonment of the ten on-line moorings. Ten moorings is not statistically significant to a marina with 300 moorings, except maybe when the marina is 97% full and going for 100% occupancy. The abandonment of the on-line moorings, as I understand it, is for the benefit of boaters, not the marina. Other than the benefit of other boaters, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of "benefit to other boaters", but, putting it aside for the moment, and considering that more CRT income should translate to better canal maintenance, I would think that it would be a better business plan on CRT's part to keep those ten on-line moorings until such time as a new marina was up and running. A formula could possibly be worked out where a portion of the on-line rental/lease income offsets some of the NAA fees in the early years if a marina gets off to a bad start. Obviously this would need a lot of thought, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that CRT shouldn't be trading "for sure" income for "maybe" income

 

Equally importantly, unless they are fully subscribed from the start, large marinas should open in phases. It has been stated in this thread that CRT was willing to go along with a phased opening at PLM, but that the developers/operators declined. How stupid is that? If you open in phases it's not that hard to maintain close to full occupancy, and only pay the NAA on moorings that are actually rented or leased.

 

CRT basing their NAA on 100% occupancy is insane and they need to change that policy real quick. Hellllooooo CRT - anybody home? If nothing else a marina needs transient moorings to be successful. Allot a certain number/percentage of transient moorings to each marina and collect your fees they same way the operator does, when transient boaters rent the moorings. What moron dreamed up that 100% occupancy scheme? That's just plain stupid!

[magnetman]

Transient berths aren't really that relevant on uk canals - people want to be ON the cut not in a lay by, when they are boating. Its completely different to European canals and rivers where boaters head for marinas to get electric etc as visitors.

 

All imo

[Paul G2]

 

 

Interesting.

 

But

 

Where does having the upper hand come into the theory then?

 

By having the upper hand I mean that one has the advantage, that one is in more control of the situation. Putting aside all animosity, one certainly has a distinct advantage in the reasoning department.

 

Having the upper hand is not a bad thing, in and of itself. It depends on how one uses their advantage that makes it good or bad.

[RetiredLady]

Sorry I haven't replied sooner to all the nice welcoming posts on here, it has just taken so long to catch up with everything.

 

So I've paid a years worth of mooring, 2months in the said marina goes bust, I look for another mooring in a different Marina, do I get the money I've paid up in advance back? or is this now lost?

 

As I understand the way that the businesses here are organised, we pay our cheques / cash / direct debits to Pillings Lock Marina LTD, which is still a trading company. If / when we move our boats to a new mooring, then we will be refunded by PLM. PLM cannot now be paying 'fees' to QMP, as that is now in liquidation. Unless PLM goes into liquidation too, then any over payment outside of the notice period should be refunded without a problem.

 

I really hope I'm right about this situation.

 

RL

[Roxy]

So my daughter's mama has lost out then, as many others that moor there no doubt.....thanks PL! She's worked hard to live her dream and now you've destroyed it

 

However as a wannabe liveaboard, I have no credit card and want to be based in a marina how to I go about payment of my moorings? and if they go bust having paid in advance is there anyway I can claim my monies back?

[Paul G2]

Your post seems to deal with the way US law works rather than UK law

 

I've tried to be quite upfront about the fact that I know nothing about UK law.

 

I would posit, though, that the planning/zoning/subdivision processes are quite similar in most industrialized nations. The whole process of land use and development, as tedious as it might be, is a quite logical process and there isn't whole lot of reason that it would vary much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[Pilly]

 

By having the upper hand I mean that one has the advantage, that one is in more control of the situation. Putting aside all animosity, one certainly has a distinct advantage in the reasoning department.

 

Having the upper hand is not a bad thing, in and of itself. It depends on how one uses their advantage that makes it good or bad.

But grasshopper, who determines what is bad and what is good? Surely, there is no bad and no good, there simply ‘is’

Edited January 26, 2014 by Pilly

[Mike Todd]

If I were an energetic entrepreneur in England right now, I would be heading down to PLM and organizing the occupants and I would have a good chance of becoming the General Partner in a really nice marina. Paul Lillie is not a good businessman. The Steadmans are like zombies. Any good businessman/woman would eat P.Lillie for lunch.

 

Looking at what has taken place here at PLM, maybe CRT and future marina developers should both learn a few lessons from this debacle at PLM.

 

First off, I would think, is the abandonment of the ten on-line moorings. Ten moorings is not statistically significant to a marina with 300 moorings, except maybe when the marina is 97% full and going for 100% occupancy. The abandonment of the on-line moorings, as I understand it, is for the benefit of boaters, not the marina. Other than the benefit of other boaters, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of "benefit to other boaters", but, putting it aside for the moment, and considering that more CRT income should translate to better canal maintenance, I would think that it would be a better business plan on CRT's part to keep those ten on-line moorings until such time as a new marina was up and running. A formula could possibly be worked out where a portion of the on-line rental/lease income offsets some of the NAA fees in the early years if a marina gets off to a bad start. Obviously this would need a lot of thought, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that CRT shouldn't be trading "for sure" income for "maybe" income

 

Equally importantly, unless they are fully subscribed from the start, large marinas should open in phases. It has been stated in this thread that CRT was willing to go along with a phased opening at PLM, but that the developers/operators declined. How stupid is that? If you open in phases it's not that hard to maintain close to full occupancy, and only pay the NAA on moorings that are actually rented or leased.

 

CRT basing their NAA on 100% occupancy is insane and they need to change that policy real quick. Hellllooooo CRT - anybody home? If nothing else a marina needs transient moorings to be successful. Allot a certain number/percentage of transient moorings to each marina and collect your fees they same way the operator does, when transient boaters rent the moorings. What moron dreamed up that 100% occupancy scheme? That's just plain stupid!

Would you be happier if CaRT changed the charging formula to 12.5% on all occupied moorings, being all moorings occupied for at least one day a year?

[LoneWolf]

I think it was dreamed up back in the days when moorings were in scarce supply - certainly advice on this forum back in 2008 was to secure a mooring before getting a boat - so any new marina could expect to see high demand.

 

I'm not sure the BW connected marina 'negotiating' the NAA had much choice in the way it was calculated (apart from not creating the moorings until they had sold them)

[Pilly]

I think I would have to see a copy of the contract before commenting on what redress might be available, or not, as the case may be.

[dor]

 

 

First off, I would think, is the abandonment of the ten on-line moorings. Ten moorings is not statistically significant to a marina with 300 moorings, except maybe when the marina is 97% full and going for 100% occupancy. The abandonment of the on-line moorings, as I understand it, is for the benefit of boaters, not the marina. Other than the benefit of other boaters, and I don't mean to minimize the importance of "benefit to other boaters", but, putting it aside for the moment, and considering that more CRT income should translate to better canal maintenance, I would think that it would be a better business plan on CRT's part to keep those ten on-line moorings until such time as a new marina was up and running. A formula could possibly be worked out where a portion of the on-line rental/lease income offsets some of the NAA fees in the early years if a marina gets off to a bad start. Obviously this would need a lot of thought, but the bottom line, IMHO, is that CRT shouldn't be trading "for sure" income for "maybe" income

 

I think you have misunderstood the "1for 10" on line moorings agreement. BW originally offered to remove 1 on-line mooring for every 10 created in a marina. This was supposed to encourage moorers off on-line moorings into marinas. In practice, it didn't really work as people have on-line moorings for a reason, the biggest of which is that they don't want to be in a marina. Many just became bridge-hopping "continuous" cruisers.

 

 

Regarding "transient" moorings - as magnetman said, very few people cruising the canals look for a marina mooring for an overnight stop. They may look for a few days in a marina if they need to leave their boat unattended in an area with a bad reputation or one they are unfamiliar with, but again it is very uncommon.

 

As for charging for all berths, BW took the view that a well-run marina should be close to full if it is built in the right place and run properly. A considerable sweetener was given by allowing the first year free and the second year at 50% to give the marina time to build up its moorer base. The fact that there are many marinas around the system that are full with waiting lists shows that this is not totally unreasonable.

[Paul G2]

Would you be happier if CaRT changed the charging formula to 12.5% on all occupied moorings, being all moorings occupied for at least one day a year?

 

Are you still dating your sister?

 

See how questions like that work? I can do it too.

[LoneWolf]

I think I would have to see a copy of the contract before commenting on what redress might be available, or not, as the case may be.

 

but that would be letting facts get in the way of wild speculation

 

Actually, i think treatment will be different depending on whether you have rented a mooring or you are one of those who have taken a long lease on a car park space with mooring thrown in

Those with a car park lease still have what they paid for

[Willber G]

...

 

CRT basing their NAA on 100% occupancy is insane and they need to change that policy real quick. Hellllooooo CRT - anybody home? If nothing else a marina needs transient moorings to be successful. Allot a certain number/percentage of transient moorings to each marina and collect your fees they same way the operator does, when transient boaters rent the moorings. What moron dreamed up that 100% occupancy scheme? That's just plain stupid!

 

The agreement was drawn up in collaboration with APCO and BMIF, not just imposed by BW.

[Thorfast]

Transient berths aren't really that relevant on uk canals - people want to be ON the cut not in a lay by, when they are boating. Its completely different to European canals and rivers where boaters head for marinas to get electric etc as visitors.

 

All imo

 

There is perhaps a small need for transient berths.

Last year we left our home mooring in Cheshire in May and cruised through the summer, arriving at our new home mooring in Oxfordshire at the end of October. The pattern was 2 or 3 weeks boating, 2 weeks at home, 2 or 3 weeks boating, 2 weeks at home etc. etc. Most times we left the boat at marina or boatyard rather than just somewhere on the cut. We were happier leaving the boat at a managed site with all the facilities - parking - water - elsan point - security - power hookup etc.

We cant be the only people doing this - hence some need for transient moorings.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Thorfast

[Paul G2]

 

I think you have misunderstood the "1for 10" on line moorings agreement. BW originally offered to remove 1 on-line mooring for every 10 created in a marina. This was supposed to encourage moorers off on-line moorings into marinas. In practice, it didn't really work as people have on-line moorings for a reason, the biggest of which is that they don't want to be in a marina. Many just became bridge-hopping "continuous" cruisers.

 

 

Regarding "transient" moorings - as magnetman said, very few people cruising the canals look for a marina mooring for an overnight stop. They may look for a few days in a marina if they need to leave their boat unattended in an area with a bad reputation or one they are unfamiliar with, but again it is very uncommon.

 

As for charging for all berths, BW took the view that a well-run marina should be close to full if it is built in the right place and run properly. A considerable sweetener was given by allowing the first year free and the second year at 50% to give the marina time to build up its moorer base. The fact that there are many marinas around the system that are full with waiting lists shows that this is not totally unreasonable.

 

As you and magnetman have pointed out, the transient moorings aren't a factor and I stand corrected on that. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm just tossing around some ideas that people might want to consider. Just because something is done a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that is the right way.

 

Obviously I'm math impaired this morning too because it should be 30 moorings, not ten. Nevertheless, I still contend CRT should not give up the on-line mooring spaces and income until the income from the marina is a sure thing.

[Stilllearning]

Have just read an article on Narrowboatworld : "Victor: surely not that stupid", about this topic (and others) . Unfortunately upon reading the first bit, he does appear to be that stupid after all.

[benfordboy]

Does the practice of removing 1 on-line mooring for every 10 marina moorings apply specifically to the locality of the new marina ?

 

I cannot think of any on-line moorings removed off the River Soar since PLM was built apart from those at the top of Ratcliffe lock that were relocated not removed to below the lock after bad flooding.

 

There has been a few boats gone from the Cranfleet cut over the past yrs - rumoured due to licence enforcement.

[Roxy]

Sorry I haven't replied sooner to all the nice welcoming posts on here, it has just taken so long to catch up with everything.

 

 

Unless PLM goes into liquidation too, then any over payment outside of the notice period should be refunded without a problem.

 

I really hope I'm right about this situation.

 

RL

 

Should be refunded by whom??

[junior]

Does the practice of removing 1 on-line mooring for every 10 marina moorings apply specifically to the locality of the new marina ?

 

I cannot think of any on-line moorings removed off the River Soar since PLM was built apart from those at the top of Ratcliffe lock that were relocated not removed to below the lock after bad flooding.

 

There has been a few boats gone from the Cranfleet cut over the past yrs - rumoured due to licence enforcement.

I THINK Matty40s covered this earlier in the thread, but good luck finding it. I don't think the LTM's that were removed were nessaseraly from the Soar itself but more from the general East Mids area.

[sianimelyn]

Hello all.. New here. We have a boat at PL . We knew absolutely nothing about all this until a friend who also keeps her boat there informed us. No letters or e-mails...nothing! So we have been trying to glean as much info as we can and found this website and topic.A lot to read through and quite frankly I`m lost! Can anyone spare the time to give a quick run down of the facts as they stand without the speculation? Any advice as to what we should do? My 1st instinct is to get out of there fast, but there are no moorings available locally, so wonder whether others have beaten us to it.I noticed on the PL FB page that someone mentioned that mooring fees will have to rise to compensate the company being in trouble..Are they serious when there is the threat of the access being closed to the river? Why would I pay more for a boat that I cannot use? I feel dreadfully sorry for all those who actually live down there..their worries far outway ours, as our boat is just for pleasure.

Bit gutted about all this to be honest. I love it at the marina :/