Dispute at Pillings

[kevinl]

Not sure this is an awfully good idea! According to the CRT web site, you only get a % refund if you cancel your licence - it varies from getting 80% back if you cancel in month 1 to only getting 10% back if you cancel in month 8. After that you get nothing back. When a solution is found and the entrance reopened, boats will need to be licensed again. Boaters will need to work out if what they get back, and the length of time they may not need a licence, and how much a new licence will cost, makes it cost effective to cancel their licence. Apparently, if your licence still has 6 months to run, instead of the 50% which you might expect to get back, you will probably get about 32% back. A big difference.

 

haggis

I'm not sure they could make that stick, if you surrender your licence then they deduct a fee for admin but in the case where they have deprived you access to the system I don't see they do other than refund 100% of the money owed. I even think the post on here from CaRT said as much.

K

[mayalld]

 

Quite right - they are called Group Actions

 

Richard

 

Which aren't actually the same thing at all.

 

When I say that class actions are alien to UK law, I mean that waht would in the US be a class action simply could not be brought here in the UK.

 

A group action is simply a group of people litigating against a particular party. A class action implies that having reached a certain threshold, the parties that are litigating then do so on behalf of all interested parties, even those who didn't choose to join in.

[john6767]

I'm not sure they could make that stick, if you surrender your licence then they deduct a fee for admin but in the case where they have deprived you access to the system I don't see they do other than refund 100% of the money owed. I even think the post on here from CaRT said as much.

K

CRT have not denied you access to the system, where does that come from?

[Paul G2]

 

I'm not attempting to quote you out of context, and paraphrasing what has gone before is often essential if the conversation is to continue at all!

 

I try to avoid using absolutes, even when I am absolutely certain about what I am saying. When I am speculating, I avoid them entirely. You said, that I said something was impossible then proceeded to deride me for saying it. I would not have said something was impossible in the UK because I don't know what is possible and what is not. So, don't do that, it really is being a twat!

 

However, the US chose to not be part of this realm some time ago, and since that time, its legal system and ours have developed along separate tracks, to the extent that they are now different.

 

How patronizing of you. Sadly, it doesn't quite stand up to historical scrutiny. Our property laws, like yours, were, for the most part, written hundreds of years ago. You write property laws once, that's it, you're done. They generally don't get re-written a whole lot.

 

Now, just for fun, guess where the people who wrote our property laws, way back when, were educated?

 

Clearly, there are aspects of land ownership and use that will remain very similar at a distance, simply because there aren't that many ways that one could construct it. However, as soon as you get down to the detailed level, there are major differences.

 

Those major differences mean that most of what you have said about what is and isn't going on with regard to ownership etc, whilst entirely true if PLM were in the US is entirely false in this case.

 

 

To begin with, little of what I have said here has anything to do with ownership as it relates to a freehold interest in an estate of real property.

 

Your main objection to everything I have said seems to go back to where I was trying to answer someone's question about what the possible rationalization for subdividing Pillings as a car park might be. I tried to explain how a car park might possibly be the simplest means to an end vis-a-vis subdivision law. I tried to make it quite clear in everything I said that I was speculating and that I am not familiar with UK law. Speculation about the rationalization as to why it was subdivided as a car park has no connection whatsoever to my remarks about the corporations, leases or a hostile takeover.

 

Our countries have, for many years, been party to trade agreements that attempt to standardize a lot of things between participating nations. One of those things is standardized corporate structure so that corporations can operate seamlessly on a multi-national level. This means that similarities in many of our laws are greater than the differences. Regardless, my most oft iterated advice has been to get a good solicitor who really knows his/her stuff because, in a liquidation, the liquidator has all kinds of power and they just might be able to take this lemon and make some good lemonade - if they get good legal and business advice from someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

I have bent over backwards to qualify everything I have said and it's really quite pissy of you to try to be the big know-it-all at my expense, by misrepresenting what I have said. Quite honestly, I am wrong so often that you don't need to mischaracterize what I have said. Plenty of what I say is so far wrong that you can quote me accurately and have a field day making me appear the fool.

 

So try to stick to the facts, okay.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Paul G.

[junior]

 

 

A stiff letter to CART demanding that they refund all licences from the day the block is put up would be a start.

Cart are ALREADY OFFERING to refund licence fee's from NOW, not when the block goes in. The NAA has been cancelled so those not wanting to go out onto the cut don't need to be licensed inside the marina, from now!

[Paul G2]

 

Only in Paul G's legal system.

 

Class actions are a concept alien to UK law.

 

Now you're just being a complete arsehole, Dave.

 

I didn't mention anything about "class action" and there is no reason other than your jingoism to drag my name into it.

 

It's now time to invoke one of my primary forum rules - "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."

 

Please, take your small mind and your pettiness elsewhere.

[BruceinSanity]

 

Agreed there are some spaces at Mercia, but I think it's very much dependent on the size of narrowboat you have. From memory, moorings in the most popular 50'-60' range are pretty hard to come by. Strange that you say there's a waiting list for residential moorings - as far as I'm aware there is no distinction between liveaboard and part time boaters at Mercia at present, but they are negotiating with the local authorities to set something up.

 

Pillings Lock to Mercia Marina can be done in one day in the height of summer, though it does mean being up with the morning chorus and getting in at dusk. In the winter it's a two day trip and heavily dependent on the good behaviour of the Soar and the Trent. By car, Loughborough to Willington takes about 40 minutes.

 

Mercia is a well-appointed Marina but consequently not the cheapest. However, unlike Pillings, you do get what you pay for.

 

 

The marina management are reasonably confident that they will have 180 residential moorings from the start of the next moorings year on 1 Sept. Existing moorers have already over-subscribed those, but that's on the basis of putting names down without commitment. Almost certainly some will choose not to proceed when asked for the estimated £150 to convert the expression of interest to a firm booking, probably in May.

 

It's expected to cost an extra £150 pa on top of the current charges if you are prepared to shuffle berths twice a year, or the full Band A Council tax (currently £1,100 for Willington) if you want to stay put.

[Guest]

 

Now you're just being a complete arsehole, Dave.

 

I didn't mention anything about "class action" and there is no reason other than your jingoism to drag my name into it.

 

It's now time to invoke one of my primary forum rules - "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."

 

Please, take your small mind and your pettiness elsewhere.

 

Funny innit how things can be read differently. I simply read Dave's post as saying 'Class actions are an American thing which BTW is where Paul comes from, they don't exist in the same form over here'

[gaggle]

 

Funny innit how things can be read differently. I simply read Dave's post as saying 'Class actions are an American thing which BTW is where Paul comes from, they don't exist in the same form over here'

Leave them to play

[deckhand]

Is it possible to keep the "discussion" a) on topic and non personal ?

 

This has been a long but very interesting discussion to follow up until now

[Guest]

Is it possible to keep the "discussion" a) on topic and non personal ?

 

This has been a long but very interesting discussion to follow up until now

 

Precisely -

[kevinl]

CRT have not denied you access to the system, where does that come from?

CaRT have stated that if the marina do not block the access they will and have given a date after which they will do it and post 1301 says

 

The issue of boat licences has also been a concern to some and I hope the following provides some clarity on this issue. It was a condition of the Network Access Agreement ("NAA") that QMP ensured that all boats in the Marina held a valid CRT boat licence. Now that we have revoked that agreement, this obligation has fallen away, however, boats that do come out of the Marina are required to hold a valid licence and, clearly, any unlicensed craft using the waterway will be liable to enforcement action in the normal way. We very much hope that we can rely upon your co-operation in this respect.

I am sorry that at present there remains a lot of uncertainty for you but we will try and keep you informed of developments over the coming weeks. It is our sincere hope, before we are forced to sever the Marina from the waterway, that we will be able to conclude a new standard NAA with those who eventually have ownership and control of the Marina, and that they will be committed to complying with its terms and conditions in the future.

Please be assured that the Trust is very sympathetic to the position in which you now find yourselves and we will always have regard to your interests in so far as we are able in deciding our future actions.

Please feel free to email me or call me on either of the numbers shown below.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Phil Spencer

Head of Business Boating

[Machpoint005]

 

Funny innit how things can be read differently. I simply read Dave's post as saying 'Class actions are an American thing which BTW is where Paul comes from, they don't exist in the same form over here'

Yes, that's how I read it too.

[john6767]

CaRT have stated that if the marina do not block the access they will and have given a date after which they will do it and post 1301 says

 

The issue of boat licences has also been a concern to some and I hope the following provides some clarity on this issue. It was a condition of the Network Access Agreement ("NAA") that QMP ensured that all boats in the Marina held a valid CRT boat licence. Now that we have revoked that agreement, this obligation has fallen away, however, boats that do come out of the Marina are required to hold a valid licence and, clearly, any unlicensed craft using the waterway will be liable to enforcement action in the normal way. We very much hope that we can rely upon your co-operation in this respect.

I am sorry that at present there remains a lot of uncertainty for you but we will try and keep you informed of developments over the coming weeks. It is our sincere hope, before we are forced to sever the Marina from the waterway, that we will be able to conclude a new standard NAA with those who eventually have ownership and control of the Marina, and that they will be committed to complying with its terms and conditions in the future.

Please be assured that the Trust is very sympathetic to the position in which you now find yourselves and we will always have regard to your interests in so far as we are able in deciding our future actions.

Please feel free to email me or call me on either of the numbers shown below.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Phil Spencer

Head of Business Boating

Quite, so CRT have not denied access, the NAA have been cancelled due the QMP not having paid. It is the failure to pay for the NAA that ultimately will have denied access to any boat that decides to stay in the marina. It is in the hands of the marina to decide the destiny here.

[Beaker]

Is it possible to keep the "discussion" a) on topic and non personal ?

 

This has been a long but very interesting discussion to follow up until now

 

I totally agree, have a greenie!

[mayalld]

 

 

I'm not attempting to quote you out of context, and paraphrasing what has gone before is often essential if the conversation is to continue at all!

 

I try to avoid using absolutes, even when I am absolutely certain about what I am saying. When I am speculating, I avoid them entirely. You said, that I said something was impossible then proceeded to deride me for saying it. I would not have said something was impossible in the UK because I don't know what is possible and what is not. So, don't do that, it really is being a twat!

 

However, the US chose to not be part of this realm some time ago, and since that time, its legal system and ours have developed along separate tracks, to the extent that they are now different.

 

How patronizing of you. Sadly, it doesn't quite stand up to historical scrutiny. Our property laws, like yours, were, for the most part, written hundreds of years ago. You write property laws once, that's it, you're done. They generally don't get re-written a whole lot.

 

Now, just for fun, guess where the people who wrote our property laws, way back when, were educated?

 

Clearly, there are aspects of land ownership and use that will remain very similar at a distance, simply because there aren't that many ways that one could construct it. However, as soon as you get down to the detailed level, there are major differences.

 

Those major differences mean that most of what you have said about what is and isn't going on with regard to ownership etc, whilst entirely true if PLM were in the US is entirely false in this case.

 

 

To begin with, little of what I have said here has anything to do with ownership as it relates to a freehold interest in an estate of real property.

 

Your main objection to everything I have said seems to go back to where I was trying to answer someone's question about what the possible rationalization for subdividing Pillings as a car park might be. I tried to explain how a car park might possibly be the simplest means to an end vis-a-vis subdivision law. I tried to make it quite clear in everything I said that I was speculating and that I am not familiar with UK law. Speculation about the rationalization as to why it was subdivided as a car park has no connection whatsoever to my remarks about the corporations, leases or a hostile takeover.

 

Our countries have, for many years, been party to trade agreements that attempt to standardize a lot of things between participating nations. One of those things is standardized corporate structure so that corporations can operate seamlessly on a multi-national level. This means that similarities in many of our laws are greater than the differences. Regardless, my most oft iterated advice has been to get a good solicitor who really knows his/her stuff because, in a liquidation, the liquidator has all kinds of power and they just might be able to take this lemon and make some good lemonade - if they get good legal and business advice from someone who knows what they are talking about.

 

I have bent over backwards to qualify everything I have said and it's really quite pissy of you to try to be the big know-it-all at my expense, by misrepresenting what I have said. Quite honestly, I am wrong so often that you don't need to mischaracterize what I have said. Plenty of what I say is so far wrong that you can quote me accurately and have a field day making me appear the fool.

 

So try to stick to the facts, okay.

 

 

I am not being patronizing.

 

I am simply pointing out that no matter how similar you think our property laws may be, when it comes down to the specifics that you suggest may be of use to people in this case, you rely upon laws that do not exist in the UK (or which exist in such a different form as to be of no use for the purposes that you seek to use them (the UK does not have such a thing as "subdivision law" by that name or any other. If I wish to sell my garden off in plots that are smaller than the paper that the registry entry occupies, I can do so)

 

The company that "runs" the marina isn't in liquidation.

 

The company that owns the marina isn't in liquidation.

 

The company that sits between them is in liquidation, and the corporate structure is such that the assets of the trading arm and the assets of the owner are safe. only the assets of the bit that has no net assets are at risk.

 

Nobody else can hope to take over the middle bit that functions only to move money and absorb risk.

[mayalld]

 

Now you're just being a complete arsehole, Dave.

 

I didn't mention anything about "class action" and there is no reason other than your jingoism to drag my name into it.

 

It's now time to invoke one of my primary forum rules - "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience."

 

Please, take your small mind and your pettiness elsewhere.

 

Do you feel better for venting?

 

No, I'm not being a complete arsehole. I never said that YOU mentioned class actions, merely commenting that another poster was starting to import US legal concepts into a case that is not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts.

 

Bringing your name into it is just one way of saying that, and of no particular consequence.

 

The Jingoism bit is a little rich, particularly as my Father holds dual UK/US nationality.

 

I take no issue with your nationality, simply with your (and that is your singular, I don't tar all your fellow citizens with the same brush) assumption that everybody in the world does (or ought to do) things the same way that your country does.

 

As you are not (so far as I know) a moderator here, I will accord your instructions the respect which their intemperacy and lack of official sanction affords them, and in the spirit of transatlantic goodwill express the hope that you "have a nice day"

[RLWP]

Who said that 'Two nations divided by a common language' thing?

 

Richard

Edited January 27, 2014 by RLWP

[Pilly]

 

Only in Paul G's legal system.

 

Class actions are a concept alien to UK law.

Quite right Dave

 

I'm not a legal bod but I had heard of similarities between ‘class action‘ US style and UK Group Action. Thanks for making that distinction.

 

More info here http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=9ac6c285-4ce7-da11-8a10-00065bfd3168 if anyone needs it.

[One sheet]

Who said that 'Two nations divided by a common language' thing?

 

Richard

The USA landed on the Moon(yer right)CRT turns PLM into the moon

[Dominic M]

Who said that 'Two nations divided by a common language' thing?

 

Richard

George Bernard Shaw.

[RLWP]

George Bernard Shaw.

 

Near enough

 

Richard

[MtB]

Quite, so CRT have not denied access, the NAA have been cancelled due the QMP not having paid. It is the failure to pay for the NAA that ultimately will have denied access to any boat that decides to stay in the marina. It is in the hands of the marina to decide the destiny here.

 

I don't think so. CRT have exhausted all avenues available to them and revoked the NAA. It is in the hands of CRT to decide the marina's destiny now, by entering into a new NAA,or not.

 

I can see no reason for them to enter into one with a company controlled by Paul Lillie and I doubt CRT do either. They have terminated negotiations.

[Athy]

George Bernard Shaw.

To which nations was he referring? He was Irish, was he not?

[RLWP]

 

 

The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language

 

Richard