Dispute at Pillings

[Tacet]

 

 

4) QMP's head lease is secured by a mortgage from the owner (Steadman)

 

It is (always) the owner, in this case the lessee who grants the mortgage - not the financier.

 

I believe that if a head lease is determined for any reason, the any sub leases survive this, and revert to being leases from the owner, unless and until he assigns them (such as by granting a new head lease incorporating the sitting tenants)

I don't think so. All subsidiary interests fall with the headlease although the Court can, and often will, grant relief from forfeiture on the application of an interested parties. Considerations include whether the subsidiary interest was granted with the knowledge of the superior interest and/or properly registered. In the case of a building lease for more than 40 years (was the lease a building lease?), landlord's consent for most forms of alienation is not usually required, regardless of the terms of the lease.

[Theo]

 

Actually you're right. I saw a post by new user 'Phantasm' ten minutes ago, critical of PL.

 

Didn't seem to me any worse than a lot of other stuff in the thread though. Can't really see why it was pulled.

 

My best guess is that PL has been issuing threats and the mods have buckled.

 

MtB

I have not has time to follow this as closely as some of the other mods but when I last looked Daniel was taking a robust stance. If we had done as instructed by a number of people the whole thread would have been pulled. At 1,701 posts it must be breaking records. Must be better than Holly way back.

 

Nick

Edited January 29, 2014 by Theo
Got the post count wrong!

[MtB]

I have not has time to follow this as closely as some of the other mods but when I last looked Daniel was taking a robust stance. If we had done as instructed by a number of people the whole thread would have been pulled. At 1,701 posts it must be breaking records. Must be better than Holly way back.

 

Nick

 

Excellent, pleased to hear it.

 

Still puzzled about why that particular post was pulled, it seemed no worse than many other posts critical of Mr L.

[Ex- Member]

 

Excellent, pleased to hear it.

 

Still puzzled about why that particular post was pulled, it seemed no worse than many other posts critical of Mr L.

 

Agreed

[matty40s]

This topic has been a credit to this forum.

It has allowed moorers in Pillings access to much information they would otherwise possibly have missed or been denied. It has allowed parties directly connected to give their sides of the story, whether under aliases or not.

It has seen most of Pillings staff join as members, and perhaps they may take a slightly different view of their employer if they have managed to stay with it.

And most of all, it has managed to stay on topic, be mostly well behaved, detailed and interesting..... and has also spawned two other threads, one also 17 pages long.

Well done CWDF.

[Alan de Enfield]

The 'pulled' post did make some specific allegations / accusations regarding what he had done with the company money

[FadeToScarlet]

The 'pulled' post did make some specific allegations / accusations regarding what he had done with the company money

Yes, it's under discussion now. Whilst a couple of specific allegations were made, they were apparently supported by documents that are publically available, so it's being looked into.

[MtB]

The 'pulled' post did make some specific allegations / accusations regarding what he had done with the company money

 

AH yes, it alleged PL had taken a personal loan from the company right at the beginning, and that this information is available in published company accounts.

 

Maybe the allegation is fiction, or is under test at the moment.

 

 

MtB

[Alan de Enfield]

 

AH yes, it alleged PL had taken a personal loan from the company right at the beginning, and that this information is available in published company accounts.

 

Maybe the allegation is fiction, or is under test at the moment.

 

 

MtB

 

You'll be on the Norty-Step !!!!!

[MtB]

 

You'll be on the Norty-Step !!!!!

 

Well the post concerned stated it as a fact. I just said it was an allegation.

 

Not that this matters since the change in the libel law on Jan 1st. I wonder if the mods are aware.

 

 

MtB

Edited January 29, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Phantasm]

Message to Phantasm,

 

Thank you for your recent post - -

 

I have taken the unusual decision to temporarily withdraw it in order that we may check through it, and ensure that it doesn't cause you, or CWDF, any problems with any person(s) with a particular interest in the finer points of any legal arguments it may raise

Nothing in my post can cause any legal problems because a) it contains personal opinions that seem to coincide with a lot of other people on this forum and/or the information is available to any member of the public who does as I did and obtains a copy of the accounts from Companies House. Please assure me that the administrators are not still banning posts that are critical of Paul Lillie or PLM.

[johnlillie]

As one who was in at the outset, and familiar with Most, NOT ALL, that went on financially, I can verify that the paper transaction to enable paul to increase his share holding from 8.6% to 25% involved a loan of £130k.Initially this was a transfer from our (my wife and I)'s capital input to paul, he then paid us interest on the loan.When we left, Steadman took over the loan repayments. Complicated I know, but that is the best way I can think of to explain it. As far as I know, up to when I left in 2009, no other loans had been made by him from the company, but I could be wrong.....

[Leo No2]

Nothing in my post can cause any legal problems because a) it contains personal opinions that seem to coincide with a lot of other people on this forum and/or the information is available to any member of the public who does as I did and obtains a copy of the accounts from Companies House. Please assure me that the administrators are not still banning posts that are critical of Paul Lillie or PLM.

Well I'll give a greenie to Grace and Favour. He and the other mods moderate this forum free of charge (and IMHO do a very good job) and out of the goodness of their hearts and because they have an interest in the forum and boating. All that's happening is that G&F is temporarily withdrawing the post in order that it can be sense checked with the other mods along with any other information for the benefit of the original poster and the forum as a whole. I think the suggestion that the mods are banning posts is a bit strong - they have let this thread run a very long course for the benefit of all and if the odd post is withdrawn on their collective agreement then I for one would support them 100%.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Leo No2

[Coojay]

This topic has been a credit to this forum.

It has allowed moorers in Pillings access to much information they would otherwise possibly have missed or been denied. It has allowed parties directly connected to give their sides of the story, whether under aliases or not.

It has seen most of Pillings staff join as members, and perhaps they may take a slightly different view of their employer if they have managed to stay with it.

And most of all, it has managed to stay on topic, be mostly well behaved, detailed and interesting..... and has also spawned two other threads, one also 17 pages long.

Well done CWDF.

thank you Matty40, It is the only way I can find out anything! still unsure what the outcome will be there. so hoping the access is not blocked as we also love the marina - I have never met Paul so cannot comment on him but there is certainly a film to be made here - any producers who wish to pay for the rights- we can give the money to the CRT:-)

[deckhand]

I think the suggestion that the mods are banning posts is a bit strong - they have let this thread run a very long course for the benefit of all and if the odd post is withdrawn on their collective agreement then I for one would support them 100%.

Me too

[Phantasm]

As one who was in at the outset, and familiar with Most, NOT ALL, that went on financially, I can verify that the paper transaction to enable paul to increase his share holding from 8.6% to 25% involved a loan of £130k.Initially this was a transfer from our (my wife and I)'s capital input to paul, he then paid us interest on the loan.When we left, Steadman took over the loan repayments. Complicated I know, but that is the best way I can think of to explain it. As far as I know, up to when I left in 2009, no other loans had been made by him from the company, but I could be wrong.....

Accounts year ending June 2008

[LoneWolf]

As one who was in at the outset, and familiar with Most, NOT ALL, that went on financially, I can verify that the paper transaction to enable paul to increase his share holding from 8.6% to 25% involved a loan of £130k.Initially this was a transfer from our (my wife and I)'s capital input to paul, he then paid us interest on the loan.When we left, Steadman took over the loan repayments. Complicated I know, but that is the best way I can think of to explain it. As far as I know, up to when I left in 2009, no other loans had been made by him from the company, but I could be wrong.....

 

blimey, are you saying you lent him £130k ?

to buy shares in the company?

[Geoff Taylor]

I have read all the posts and probably forgot 95% of them and may be repeating something that has already been mentioned,but here goes, quite a few years ago a company went into voluntary liquidation owing me and many others money and from this I can deduce the following which may or may not be of help to anyone who moors at Pillings or has monies owed to them.

Upon forced ,voluntary liquidation or bankruptcy, any assets (money,property,directors guarantees) will be paid to the preferential creditors,that being the Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise, the bankers and liquidators and then with anything that is left divided by the figures claimed by the non preferential creditors and a dividend arrived at of so many pence in the pound paid out to them,this could be zero and I gather that this will be the case as somewhere it will be proved that the company was operating insolvently. I have seen many company set ups like this one and technically they are legal entities in one sense and an easy get out should the shxt hit the fan in another showing complete disregard to the many innocent parties affected by it.

[johnlillie]

 

blimey, are you saying you lent him £130k ?

to buy shares in the company?

'fraid so, but we got it back when we left, as Steadman had to pay it off as part of the settlement

Accounts year ending June 2008

well, there you go, I knew even less than I thought I did!

[Tuscan]

As one who was in at the outset, and familiar with Most, NOT ALL, that went on financially, I can verify that the paper transaction to enable paul to increase his share holding from 8.6% to 25% involved a loan of £130k.Initially this was a transfer from our (my wife and I)'s capital input to paul, he then paid us interest on the loan.When we left, Steadman took over the loan repayments. Complicated I know, but that is the best way I can think of to explain it. As far as I know, up to when I left in 2009, no other loans had been made by him from the company, but I could be wrong.....

Apologies for being personnel why would Steadman take over the loan that was the responsibility of your son who was the nenificiary of the shares. Was this loan repaid or are you still a creditor?

[Dangerous Dave]

 

blimey, are you saying you lent him £130k ?

to buy shares in the company?

 

 

I can tell all that an ex moorer,very much anti P.L. who is /was a professional reseacher informed me back in 2009 ish that PL had taken a personal loan out from the company for £30000,all in information black & white from companies house apparently.

What it was for the informant didn't know ..

[Grace and Favour]

Nothing in my post can cause any legal problems because a) it contains personal opinions that seem to coincide with a lot of other people on this forum and/or the information is available to any member of the public who does as I did and obtains a copy of the accounts from Companies House. Please assure me that the administrators are not still banning posts that are critical of Paul Lillie or PLM.

As you have read my post, and, I assume, at least some of this thread - - you will immediately realise that we/CWDF has maintained a very light hand on this subject.

 

We certainly haven't 'buckled' to anyone for any reason.

[MtB]

Just a point, back in the day it was not unusual for directors of a start-up to lend their company cash from their own resources as part of the funding arrangements. These loans to the company are known as 'Directors' Loan Accounts'.

 

I'm just wondering if PL lent the new company this £30k, not the other way around, and people have read the label "Directors' Loan Account" on the balance sheet and made a wrong assumption.

 

 

MtB

As you have read my post, and, I assume, at least some of this thread - - you will immediately realise that we/CWDF has maintained a very light hand on this subject.

 

We certainly haven't 'buckled' to anyone for any reason.

 

Very pleasing to hear. Thank you.

 

MtB

[LoneWolf]

'fraid so, but we got it back when we left, as Steadman had to pay it off as part of the settlement

oh good. i thought he still owed it you from your post before

 

[FredDrift]

[snip]

Upon forced ,voluntary liquidation or bankruptcy, any assets (money,property,directors guarantees) will be paid to the preferential creditors,that being the Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise, the bankers and liquidators and then with anything that is left divided by the figures claimed by the non preferential creditors and a dividend arrived at of so many pence in the pound paid out to them,this could be zero and I gather that this will be the case as somewhere it will be proved that the company was operating insolvently. I have seen many company set ups like this one and technically they are legal entities in one sense and an easy get out should the shxt hit the fan in another showing complete disregard to the many innocent parties affected by it.

 

Slightly off topic but HMRC is not, since 2003, a preferential creditor...

 

36A.61 HM Revenue and Customs not a preferential creditor

Following the implementation of EA2002 HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is not a preferential creditor and its debt(s) (irrespective of the nature of the tax owed), will rank with all other unsecured creditors

http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/technicalmanual/Ch25-36/Chapter%2036A/Part%205/Part%205.htm