Dispute at Pillings

[Bettie Boo]

wouldn't say storm in a teacup however I don't think outcome is what the majority want on here.

OK, I'll bite..........Are you really suggesting any member on here Wants to see the moorers at Pillings Lock loose their home?

 

Exactly where in these 75 pages of posts have you come across anyone suggesting anything less than empathy & best wishes for the unfortunate people, who currently find themselves moored at Pillings Lock?

 

On a forum as large as this one, with so very many different members and their opinions; I believe after reading this thread you will find pretty much a unanimous agreement for the well being and concern of the uncertain future for those boaters who have paid money to PL so they can call Pillings Lock Marina their home. Whereby it be for residential or safe mooring for their leisure boats.

 

Just because you don't agree with the posts that suggest or question the unethical running practices in place; and that those people responsible should be held accountable, does not mean those same posts wish ill will on the moorers. There is only one person IMO, who should be held accountable and that is the person who has placed the moorers in this situation in the first place. The person making the decisions of how the business is run!

[George94]

So, I make a buisness plan. I know the fixed costs and have to budget my return on capital expenditure versus return. There will be a contingency built into the calculations.

 

If the buisness fails, I blame a portion on the fixed costs imposed at the outset?

 

Methinks the original model was flawed!

 

Indeed. The model was flawed for two reasons. First, unrealistic expectations about occupancy (and to be fair, although many people foresaw a downturn in the housing market, few realised how bad an economic mess we would soon be in); and second, it was lunacy for BW to impose and the marina to accept a high fixed charge.

 

For both of these, BW and its successor must accept some responsibility.

 

Somebody mentioned a projected ROI of 8%. That is a figure I would associate with a relatively safe investment, not with a marina business.

[carlt]

 

and second, it was lunacy for BW to impose and the marina to accept a high fixed charge.

The fixed charge is the standard charge.

 

The vast majority of operating marinas know about the charge and, like most business expenses, grudgingly pay it.

 

Are they all lunatics too?

[Paul G2]

OK, I'll bite..........Are you really suggesting any member on here Wants to see the moorers at Pillings Lock loose their home?

 

Exactly where in these 75 pages of posts have you come across anyone suggesting anything less than empathy & best wishes for the unfortunate people, who currently find themselves moored at Pillings Lock?

 

On a forum as large as this one, with so very many different members and their opinions; I believe after reading this thread you will find pretty much a unanimous agreement for the well being and concern of the uncertain future for those boaters who have paid money to PL so they can call Pillings Lock Marina their home. Whereby it be for residential or safe mooring for their leisure boats.

 

Just because you don't agree with the posts that suggest or question the unethical running practices in place; and that those people responsible should be held accountable, does not mean those same posts wish ill will on the moorers. There is only one person IMO, who should be held accountable and that is the person who has placed the moorers in this situation in the first place. The person making the decisions of how the business is run!

Have a greenie!

[Willber G]

^{re number of leases, originally it was planned to try to sell 25. And despite what has been said, and maybe we were naïve, but the costs of the NAA were not in the original business plan! At least not in specific numbers. As far as I am aware, the leases were drawn up so that whoever owned the site, the leases would still be valid. What was not taken into consideration at the time, was the threat of the entrance being cut off!}

Unbelievable!

[George94]

Unbelievable!

 

Not at all. In view of what has happened, it's eminently believable.

[Willber G]

 

Not at all. In view of what has happened, it's eminently believable.

It was an exclamation of incredulity from someone who has written many business cases. I don't doubt that it's true.

[Graham Davis]

 

Indeed. The model was flawed for two reasons. First, unrealistic expectations about occupancy (and to be fair, although many people foresaw a downturn in the housing market, few realised how bad an economic mess we would soon be in); and second, it was lunacy for BW to impose and the marina to accept a high fixed charge.

 

For both of these, BW and its successor must accept some responsibility.

 

Somebody mentioned a projected ROI of 8%. That is a figure I would associate with a relatively safe investment, not with a marina business.

 

But that was the charge agreed to, and apparently suggested, by the Trade Organisation for the marinas nationally!

[johnlillie]

oh it gets worse! paul was the "expert" at spreadsheets etc, and he did all the calculations based on what he had learned. I gave one of his original business plans a cursory glance, and said to him, "what about VAT?" He had failed to factor into his calculations paying VAT on mooring charges. In hindsight, I suppose that should have set alarm bells ringing, but rose tinted glasses and all that.........

[Willber G]

oh it gets worse! paul was the "expert" at spreadsheets etc, and he did all the calculations based on what he had learned. I gave one of his original business plans a cursory glance, and said to him, "what about VAT?" He had failed to factor into his calculations paying VAT on mooring charges. In hindsight, I suppose that should have set alarm bells ringing, but rose tinted glasses and all that.........

Didn't you have an accountant?

[Alan de Enfield]

oh it gets worse! paul was the "expert" at spreadsheets etc, and he did all the calculations based on what he had learned. I gave one of his original business plans a cursory glance, and said to him, "what about VAT?" He had failed to factor into his calculations paying VAT on mooring charges. In hindsight, I suppose that should have set alarm bells ringing, but rose tinted glasses and all that.........

 

What chance did the business have with someone as uninformed at the helm - did you ( or Paul) not take any advice from Banks, business advisors etc.

 

No wonder the business plan looked 'rosy if you had no idea that you had to pay 9% of mooring fees and 17.5% ( round figures) in VAT.

I'm guessing that HMRC didnt have to wait 4 years to be paid.

[MtB]

oh it gets worse! paul was the "expert" at spreadsheets etc, and he did all the calculations based on what he had learned. I gave one of his original business plans a cursory glance, and said to him, "what about VAT?" He had failed to factor into his calculations paying VAT on mooring charges. In hindsight, I suppose that should have set alarm bells ringing, but rose tinted glasses and all that.........

 

Truly shocking. A rank amateur.

 

MtB

[Mac of Cygnet]

I know it's going back a few (!) posts, but Pillingsmoorer seems to think that CRT will not seal off the entrance altogether, but allow boats to exit but not enter. In which case there's no need for people to remove their boats - they can just sit there, paying no licence, and leave in their own good time, if at all.

 

I queried this at the time, and Junior said it was in the CRT e-mail, but I don't think so. So is this the case, or even feasible? Such an arrangement would need supervision 24/7.

 

Edited to say that this was asserted back in post #1452

Edited January 28, 2014 by Mac of Cygnet

[Willber G]

Sounds like a complete clusterf*ck from the start and hardly the careful plotting of an evil financial genius.

I'm feeling increasingly worried for the people who have invested in long-term moorings (whatever they were sold as). I wonder how stable a footing the restaurant and other services are based on?

[matty40s]

 

What chance did the business have with someone as uninformed at the helm - did you ( or Paul) not take any advice from Banks, business advisors etc.

 

No wonder the business plan looked 'rosy if you had no idea that you had to pay 9% of mooring fees and 17.5% ( round figures) in VAT.

I'm guessing that HMRC didnt have to wait 4 years to be paid.

 

 

...HMRC.......who are they then??

[Willber G]

 

Truly shocking. A rank amateur.

 

MtB

Absolutely.

[Guest]

Such an arrangement would need supervision 24/7.

 

Either that or supervised time slots in a day when boats wishing to leave are allowed to. Then the entrance re-secured, still not very practical though.

[bigcol]

Just wondering what he done as a living before ?

I suppect he was a banker for RBS

They just lost 8 billion!!

Unbelievable !

 

Who pays for these mistakes. Customers and the general public

 

£180,000 is nothing to lose, in fact in they losted money all the time,maybe they see £180.000 loss as a vast improvement

 

they started this business on the back of a fag packet.

 

Surely they had accountants that would have gone through business plans and accounts,when they first thought of this ideal

 

Col

Edited January 28, 2014 by bigcol

[Stilllearning]

 

Just remember what makes a marina desirable.

 

Location, location, location.

Hmmmm, address: Flesh Hovel Lane....

[johnlillie]

Ignorant-yes, naïve-yes, but corrupt? That was certainly never my intention. As I stated before, I ran Riverview Narrowboats for 12 years no problem,sometimes convincing paul that he had got things wrong was difficult, even for an extremely violent man like me!

[carpet wallah]

[Phew…. 3½ hours to read this thread]

 

For simplicity sake there appear to be two companies involved with the marina. A hold company that owns all the assets and which has an agreement with CRT that an agreement for access to the canal network will not be unreasonably withheld to another company owning the operating lease to the marina. A second company has a lease to operate the marina and which has failed to pay CRT for access to the network during the previous 4 years and which has failed to comply with a court ruling to pay CRT £180,000 owed. The second company has no assets. Paul Lillie is the person most associated with the operating company.

 

The operating company is being placed into voluntary liquidation by the owners. Because it is a voluntary liquidation the owners will likely appoint the liquidators. The only asset the operating company has is the operating lease.

 

The liquidators will try to maximize the value of the former operating company by finding a new owner. It is unlikely CRT will provide access to any new owners of the operating lease if Paul Lillie is associated with the business. CRT may decide this also extends to the holding company of which Paul Lillie is a part owner.

 

One assumes the boaters had a legal agreement with the operating company. Given that it has been liquidated one assumes their legal agreements are null and void and any money paid in advance has been lost. They are unsecured creditors. If some paid by credit card they may be able to recover part of their money.

 

One would also assume that as the company has been liquidated electricity, water, sewage, etc may shortly be cut off as the utilities companies will be waiting to see if the liquidator is going to pay them. I assume the liquidators will attempt to avoid this as they will want an income stream from the boaters and businesses on site to keep the business running whilst they attempt to find a buyer. But the liquidators will be seriously attempting to save costs so residents should anticipate a degrading of services and facilities.

 

If the marina becomes a lake then I would assume the owners of the new operating lease will want to increase the mooring fees on the basis that council tax is now applicable. Although this may not adversely affect boaters as they will no longer require a CRT boat license.

 

It is not in CRT’s interests to close off the marina, but they will not want to have anything to do with the previous management/owners of the operating lease. Moreover, I would expect they would be ensuring the new lease owners are required to pay the access fee quarterly in advance. Well I hope they would!

 

If I had a boat in the marina I would immediately remove it until the dust settled. I would not make any further mooring payments and would become ‘incommunicado’ when receiving correspondence from the liquidators (they are not on your side... you are a source of money) until after the matter was resolved. That is; when the new operating lease owner took over the business and presented their new terms and conditions.

 

All users of the canal network have just lost £180,000. The problem originated back when the network was owned by BW and CRT have inherited the problem. Hopefully the lesson CRT takes from this is to in future act more promptly. If I were the CRT financial controller my commercial attitude would be you pay your access fee on time or you’ll find yourself cut off within a week and have to pay an additional fee to get reinstated. The previous operating company hit the soft target (BW) knowing what would happen if they attempted the same strategy with the utilities companies etc.

 

Well done on reading the whole thread from scratch in 3.5 hours! Unfortunately, you have come to the wrong conclusions, because various assumptions have been made and disseminated in many of the posts.

 

There are three companies involved:

QUORN MARINA HOLDINGS LTD. QMH does not have any fixed assets, it owns all the share capital in the other two companies:-

 

QUORN MARINA PROPERTIES LTD. QMP has fixed assets of £2.57 million (The marina?) It also has long term borrowings of £2.75m and current liabilites of £1.91m. On paper, it is worth minus £2m approx.

This, therefore is the company that owns the marina and this is the company that is going into voluntary liquidation.

There is a legal charge over the freehold of the marina by Mr Steadman, the money man.

 

PILLINGS LOCK MARINA LTD. presumably runs the services on site and has the contracts with the moorers. One would assume it has some sort of lease from QMP.

 

All this is based on the last filed accounts. If there is any evidence that any of this is wrong, please put me right.

 

It is pointless, IMHO, putting together all sorts of proposals and scenarios about the future of the marina, without understanding the correct company structure.

[MtB]

Sounds like a complete clusterf*ck from the start and hardly the careful plotting of an evil financial genius.

 

'Cclusterf*ck', lol!

 

I initially took Mr Lillie to be a sharp, wily operator able to strategically out-think everybody he did business with. CRT, his moorers, the Steadmans, etc. But now I think the opposite. Overlooking VAT in a business plan has made me revise my assessment of him completely. Clusterf*ck indeed.

[dor]

Just wondering what he done as a living before ?

I suppect he was a banker for RBS

They just lost 8 billion!!

Unbelievable !

 

Who pays for these mistakes. Customers and the general public

 

£180,000 is nothing to lose, in fact in they loosed money all the time,maybe they see £180.000 loss as a vast improvement

 

they started this business on the back of a fag packet.

 

Surely they had accountants that would have gone through business plans and accounts,when they first thought of this ideal

 

Col

Still say it would be interesting to know what income the directors took out of this business whilst apparently being unable to afford £45K a year for a known expense.

[Tuscan]

How can you accrue liabilities of £1.9M without trading when knowingly insolvent which is illegal ,there must be some substantial guaranties in place. It looks like most of the other creditors were being paid or this would be a compulsory winding up not a voluntary one. If I was CRT I would want confirmation that the company had not been preferentially paying creditors (like an associated company)

[bigcol]

If the company gos into liquidation

 

Will we find out what Paul was taking out of the business as in wages shares, bonuses, wages and director bonus dividenstax free ?

 

Be intersting to find out if it's more than the £180,000, or maybe he wasn't taking any monies, knowing the company couldn't pay their debts for the past 4 years.? Or couldn't survive

 

 

Col