Dispute at Pillings

[Pillingsmoorer]

1164 says:

 

"PL visited my profile on the 23rd too. Can't say I'm flattered."

 

Fail!

 

MtB

Do you seriously think I am going to look for the post if it is not one of the ones that have been deleted! Just picked a random number to see if you would bite!

Don't really understand that comment, but if or when I do return I will keep an eye out. Perhaps you could enlighten me ...by pm to protect the individual.... Which boat I should be looking for?

Don't actually know how to do that lol!! Tell me how and I will.

[Ally]

Don't actually know how to do that lol!! Tell me how and I will.

Tap my name by my post and it will offer you an option to send me a message.

[Graham Davis]

There were very few BOATS ever created and I think legislation a few years ago knocked that whole concept on the head.

 

Sorry, but there have been Byways Open to All Traffic for a long time, and new ones are still being created. You are possibly thinking of what used to be RUPP's (Roads used as public paths) which are now Resricted Byways.

 

Carl,

if you check your OS map you will still find they use the full description as above in the Key, but agreed it is generally shortened to just the first word. The full 5 words appear on the Definitive Maps and in legislation.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Graham Davis

[Alan Saunders]

Sorry, but there have been Byways Open to All Traffic for a long time, and new ones are still being created. You are possibly thinking of what used to be RUPP's (Roads used as public paths) which are now Resricted Byways.

 

Carl,

if you check your OS map you will still find they use the full description as above in the Key, but agreed it is generally shortened to just the first word. The full 5 words appear on the Definitive Maps and in legislation.

I believe the status of the access road to the marina (said to be a bridleway) is probably irrelevant. If it is a public highway or a BOAT then everyone has full access. In all other cases vehicular access can be granted or denied by the owners of the land that the lane traverses. It is likely that the gravel pit deeds granted access and also possible that they (and now PLH) own(ed) the lane.

 

e.g. I owned a cottage that could only be accessed by half a mile to the North and a mile to the South of unmade farm track. The whole length was (is) defined as a Public Footpath. The deeds granted me vehicular access and I could grant access to our visitors. The two farms that owned the track had no obligation to maintain it other than as a footpath. When we wanted to maintain/improve the surface we sought and received verbal approval from our friendly farming neighbours.

 

Definition as a footpath or bridleway does not deny access rights to the land owner or his tennants etc.; it does allow access on foot, horse or cycle to his private property.

 

Alan

[Pilly]

What I see in the NAA is -

 

"Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for maintenance purposes"

 

Since there is no risk to the waterway (no protection or maintenance needed) I don't understand why CRT need to ‘step in’

 

I don't see anything in NAA that gives CRT ‘step in rights’ for the purpose of protecting their financial interests!

 

More specifically, what the clause is not saying, nor do I think intended to mean, is that CRT may seal off the access in case of financial default.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Pilly

[costalot]

 

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.

Whilst I accept your point about there being three companies. I believe the salient point is that the companies have been structured to ensure the 'assets' are not in the company being liquidated. The Steadman's (and P Lillie) have ensured they are 'financially firewalled' from any responsibility/liability for the failure of the company that has almost no assets and huge liabilities.

The Steadman's will keep a low profile leaving Lillie as the high profile target (which as it should be because he is the one actively managing the business). My guess is when the dust settles and the new company starts up any potential new moorers would be rather naivre to trust a marina being managed by P Lillie. Moreover I don't envisage CRT being willing to negotiate with a new company having Lillie as one of it's directors or in a management position. My guess would be that Steadman's will buy out Lillie's 8% and appoint a new manager.

[costalot]

 

I don't think it's always that simple. Several years ago there was an episode when a Very Large Hire Company couldn't afford to renew its licences on time. BW handled it carefully, gave them a bit of leeway, and in time, the hire company paid what was owing. The said company continues to trade profitably today.

 

Had BW insisted on the money right here, right now, the Very Large Hire Company would almost certainly have collapsed. That would have been Watchdog-type stuff and would, I suspect, have caused a knock-on loss of confidence in the industry. Certainly other hire fleet proprietors who I spoke to at the time were very alarmed by the prospect of VLHC going under.

My assumption would be that during this same period VLHC was paying those creditors it knew wouldn't accept an extension. Eg, their electricity supplier. So VLHC made a decision to not pay creditors who could least afford to lose their business. They obviously traded their way out of the mess. But not every business can trade it's way out. Certainly it doesn't appear as if the marina went to CRT to explain their position and demonstrate how they were going to trade their way out of the problem. Instead they decided the pain of their failed business plan should be shared by some of their creditors.

 

Some 20 years ago I joined a new government corporation established to take over a state enterprise that was losing serious money. The customers weren't paying their bills on time and were treating the government enterprise as a source of working capital. Our new MD appointed a credit manager who was a mongrel. For the first couple of months I would regularly receive emails telling me to refuse customer "X" business unless it was accompanied by a bank cheque. The customers squealed, but they changed their ways and paid on time. I guess we were a bit like the marina electricity supplier. We had the power (no pun intended) and they paid because they knew the immediate consequences. The marina management decided CRT didn't have the necessary mongrel in them and have managed to avoid paying CRT for four years.

 

IMHO CRT need to act more like an electricity supplier. They are providing a service marinas need, and wayward marina managers and owners need to be reminded of that fact. At the end of the day, if BW had acted sooner they would be missing £10,000 rather than £180,000.

Edited January 29, 2014 by costalot

[magnetman]

Does anyone know why Kingfisher Marina at Yardley Gobion was closed off by BW?

 

That was a while ago but it might be a useful precedent in terms of the navigation authority's right and ability to close an entrance/exit to the network. ?

 

Don't know if it was an NAA problem or planning permission

[magnetman]

Or canal maintenance maybe?

[MtB]

Do you seriously think I am going to look for the post if it is not one of the ones that have been deleted! Just picked a random number to see if you would bite!

 

 

What you really mean is you made it your accusation that poster on here want moorers to lose their moorings. I challenged you to find a post where this had been said and you can't find one.

 

How about manning up, admitting you made it up and apologising to the board instead of jerking everyone about?

 

I suggest your other claim that most moorers are happy with the management is made up rubbish too. You have a hidden agendum in my opinion, with your fabrications on here.

 

MtB

[mayalld]

Excellent!

 

I've run out of greenies for today though.

 

Allow me to oblige!

[Ronniesonic]

page 81 & counting. As on page 1, the problems at Pillings are purely down to Mr Lillie Junior. End of!

I do sometimes struggle with all the fannying around a subject, when the basics smack you straight in the face from the outset.

I hope this person gets what he deserved as many people are obviously concerned & upset.

 

Am I the only one fed up with this now? If the owed money is not paid forthwith, then shut him / it down & close access!

£180k FFS!

[mayalld]

What I see in the NAA is -

 

"Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for maintenance purposes"

 

Since there is no risk to the waterway (no protection or maintenance needed) I don't understand why CRT need to ‘step in’

 

I don't see anything in NAA that gives CRT ‘step in rights’ for the purpose of protecting their financial interests!

 

More specifically, what the clause is not saying, nor do I think intended to mean, is that CRT may seal off the access in case of financial default.

 

That describes what CRT can do within the scope of the NAA. Essentially, it says that even when there is an agreement to allow a connection, CRT can close that connection when it is operationally necessary.

 

The situation now is that the agreement has ended. CRT don't rely on the agreement to permit them to close off the access. They rely on the absence of any agreement to allow them to maintain the canal as they see fit without reference to somebody who has no rights to a connection.

[costalot]

I’m not sure if this has been previously mentioned (the thread is now so long) but a Google search revealed a failed PLM planning application in January 2011 for Formation of access road, 6 carpark spaces and extend berths to 54. The applicant was Mr Paul Lillie (link here)

 

This occurred 3 years ago; after the GFC and the downturn in the inland marine industry. It is difficult to understand how PLM could state they couldn’t pay their NAA because of a downturn in the industry, and a lack of demand for moorings, when they had made an application to increase the number of moorings. Obviously you couldn’t trade your way out of a problem by proposing to increase the number of moorings when you have already identified there was a lack of demand?

 

Someone's business plan was seriously flawed and it looks (as usual) as if the "little guys" (in this case the moorers) are going to bear the brunt of the company directors failures. CRT would have known by the end of year 2 that they had a problem. However it wouldn't surprise me if the PLM moorers were unaware until very recently.

 

One wonders how many other outstanding BW "issues" have yet to come to light!

[Jerra]

What I see in the NAA is -

 

"Gives CRT step in rights in case of default and to seal off the access if necessary in order to protect the waterway and allow for de watering of the waterway for maintenance purposes"

 

Since there is no risk to the waterway (no protection or maintenance needed) I don't understand why CRT need to ‘step in’

 

I don't see anything in NAA that gives CRT ‘step in rights’ for the purpose of protecting their financial interests!

 

More specifically, what the clause is not saying, nor do I think intended to mean, is that CRT may seal off the access in case of financial default.

What is it with a largish section of posters, who try at every opportunity to find why CRT shouldn't be allowed to act in the way they do. Strangely it is always ways they raise money (or get debts paid) that they want to prevent..

 

I know nobody wants to pay more for their boating but the sad fact remains unless CRT continue to raise more money the canal system will not improve. In fact it will probably degenerate.

 

Do the posters who continually oppose every move CRT makes want that?

[Ronniesonic]

 

I’m not sure if this has been previously mentioned (the thread is now so long) but a Google search revealed a failed PLM planning application in January 2011 for Formation of access road, 6 carpark spaces and extend berths to 54. The applicant was Mr Paul Lillie (link here)

 

This occurred 3 years ago; after the GFC and the downturn in the inland marine industry. It is difficult to understand how PLM could state they couldn’t pay their NAA because of a downturn in the industry, and a lack of demand for moorings, when they had made an application to increase the number of moorings. Obviously you couldn’t trade your way out of a problem by proposing to increase the number of moorings when you have already identified there was a lack of demand?

 

Someone's business plan was seriously flawed and it looks (as usual) as if the "little guys" (in this case the moorers) are going to bear the brunt of the company directors failures. CRT would have known by the end of year 2 that they had a problem. However it wouldn't surprise me if the PLM moorers were unaware until very recently.

 

One wonders how many other outstanding BW "issues" have yet to come to light!

 

This is the 'money shot' post that proves Mr L is full of BS!

[DeanS]

page 81 & counting. As on page 1, the problems at Pillings are purely down to Mr Lillie Junior. End of!

I do sometimes struggle with all the fannying around a subject, when the basics smack you straight in the face from the outset.

I hope this person gets what he deserved as many people are obviously concerned & upset.

 

Am I the only one fed up with this now? If the owed money is not paid forthwith, then shut him / it down & close access!

£180k FFS!

 

It's winter.

no ones cruising.

Everyone's bored.

This thread popped up.

We have months of it yet.

 

taptap tappetytap

[carpet wallah]

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.

Whilst I accept your point about there being three companies. I believe the salient point is that the companies have been structured to ensure the 'assets' are not in the company being liquidated. The Steadman's (and P Lillie) have ensured they are 'financially firewalled' from any responsibility/liability for the failure of the company that has almost no assets and huge liabilities.

The Steadman's will keep a low profile leaving Lillie as the high profile target (which as it should be because he is the one actively managing the business). My guess is when the dust settles and the new company starts up any potential new moorers would be rather naivre to trust a marina being managed by P Lillie. Moreover I don't envisage CRT being willing to negotiate with a new company having Lillie as one of it's directors or in a management position. My guess would be that Steadman's will buy out Lillie's 8% and appoint a new manager.

You really aren't getting it, are you? The company that is going bust IS the one that owns the marina !

Read it again, slowly, it's all there. Mr Steadman is protected to a large degree because he has a legal charge over the freehold of the marina.

Edited January 29, 2014 by carpet wallah

[RLWP]

It's winter.

no ones cruising.

Everyone's bored.

This thread popped up.

We have months of it yet.

 

taptap tappetytap

I.e. It doesn't interest Deans, so it must be trivial

 

I thought you were a marina dweller at the moment

 

Richard

[mayalld]

You really aren't getting it, are you? The company that is going bust IS the one that owns the marina !

Read it again, slowly, it's all there. Mr Steadman is protected to a large degree because he has a legal charge over the freehold of the marina.

 

And you know this because?

 

I am fairly sure that QMP has a lease on the marina. Whether the Freehold is owned by QMH or Mr Steadman personally is open to conjecture.

[carpet wallah]

And you know this because?

 

I am fairly sure that QMP has a lease on the marina. Whether the Freehold is owned by QMH or Mr Steadman personally is open to conjecture.

It's all in the companies' balance sheets.

I'll say it again:

QMH have no fixed assets.

QMP have fixed assets of £2.57m

QMP has a long term liability (mortgage?) of £2.75m

Find the lady!

[carlt]

 

Sorry, but there have been Byways Open to All Traffic for a long time, and new ones are still being created. You are possibly thinking of what used to be RUPP's (Roads used as public paths) which are now Resricted Byways.

 

Carl,

if you check your OS map you will still find they use the full description as above in the Key, but agreed it is generally shortened to just the first word. The full 5 words appear on the Definitive Maps and in legislation.

Historical BOATS are indeed still marked on the definitive maps and still appear in legislation (to save the poor ROW officer from having to change all the maps) but the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was amended (section 54A) to prevent any new path being designated "BOAT" and whenever CROW 200 refers to "byway open to all traffic" it always adds the proviso (subject to section 54A).

 

I'm rather glad that I got out before every mention of a BOAT had to be preceded with (subject to section 54A) as I would have worn out quite a few keyboards.

 

OS maps are pretty worthless as far as identifying rights of way are concerned (see their disclaimer) and you should always check the Definitive Map and amend your OS map accordingly. There is no legislation that prevents them from using the term "BOAT" on their maps either.

[RLWP]

Historical BOATS are indeed still marked on the definitive maps

 

Is that because they never move due to mechanical problems?

 

Richard

[mayalld]

It's all in the companies' balance sheets.

I'll say it again:

QMH have no fixed assets.

QMP have fixed assets of £2.57m

QMP has a long term liability (mortgage?) of £2.75m

Find the lady!

 

Or to paraphrase - You don't KNOW.

 

The figures that you give are ENTIRELY consistent with Steadman personally owning the marina.

[carlt]

Does anyone know why Kingfisher Marina at Yardley Gobion was closed off by BW?

Yes

 

The owner of the marina bought the title "Lord of the Manor" (I forget which manor) and claimed that this gave him ancient mooring rights so he was within his rights to dig a marina but was exempt from the connection charge.

 

BW blocked the marina with a couple of work flats and chains and said if the rights were even valid it would give him no more rights than to more a boat up online.

 

BW won and he now pays his connection charge.

 

As I (and Nigel) have failed to acquire a copy of the actual judgement my brief summary is about as accurate as it can get.

 

I vaguely recall WW printing either the judgement or a precis but have been unable to locate that either.