Dispute at Pillings

[loubyscooby]

If all that money is owed to Mr Steadman why would he continue to do business with Paul Lillie?

[Swallowman]

The debt is only written off by the creditor, not the debtor. The first duty of the liquidator is to the creditors and make every effort to settle all outstanding debts from the assets of the business.

 

Sorry, but the first duty of the liquidator is to find enough left to pay his fees. After that, anything left over may be applied to the creditors. When Ownerships went t**s up, the liquidator even tried to sell shares in boats back to the people who already owned them and in a few rather naive cases, succeeded! as a parrot!

Of course, the rest of us owners lost whatever monies had been paid that season to the company at the moment it went into liquidation.

[johnlillie]

Steadman put up the £2.6m to buy the site (mortgage), shareholders put in £800k for 800 shares, of which most are owned now by Steadman as he paid us off to get hold of our shares. PL borrowed £150k off Steadman to continue development when funds ran out some time in 2008 I think, by the looks of the total debt, some of that £150k may have been paid off.

[Mike Tee]

If all that money is owed to Mr Steadman why would he continue to do business with Paul Lillie?

Its all a technicallity - QMP had a lease with Steadman for the land the marina is on. The £3.odd million was the amount (less C&RT 180k) that was outstanding on the lease. QMP goes into liquidation and cannot pay on the lease. The land then reverts to Steadman, he has lost nothing, and will now lease the land again to a new company. This game could run forever.

The only financial loser is C&RT. Most of the previous 2000 posts have said this.

I know I said I was done with this thread, I mean it now. Really.

[Jerra]

Sorry, but the first duty of the liquidator is to find enough left to pay his fees.

Is that the liquidators first duty or their first action?

 

To say it is their first duty implies to me somebody somewhere set up the liquidation laws saying your first job is to look after yourself rather than anybody else.

[RLWP]

Is that the liquidators first duty or their first action?

 

To say it is their first duty implies to me somebody somewhere set up the liquidation laws saying your first job is to look after yourself rather than anybody else.

What kind of liquidator would manage things so they didn't get paid!

 

An unsuccessful one, I guess

 

Richard

[tillergirl]

 

Keep up at the back!

 

It's widely believed to have been spent on holidays and expensive cars. Why else would the company have been inserted between PLM and the marina investors?

and a nice shiney hotel boat that made an appearance last year..............

[carlt]

What kind of liquidator would manage things so they didn't get paid!

 

An unsuccessful one, I guess

 

Has a liquidator ever had to call in the liquidator?

 

[Jerra]

What kind of liquidator would manage things so they didn't get paid!

 

An unsuccessful one, I guess

 

Richard

There is a difference between that and it being a duty.

[MtB]

 

I thought the £3.4 million was a paper debt, but anyway, I don't see a rash of marinas going into liquidation to avoid paying NAA which was my whole point.

 

Not sure what other type of debt you think there can be. All debt is 'paper debt'. You get a bank loan? Paper debt. Does this mean you have no obligation to pay it and there will be no consequences if you can't be bothered to pay it back??

 

I'm wondering if you actually misunderstand the term 'writing off the debt' and think somehow when a debt it written off, nobody gets hurt. Well not so. CRT (and by extension, all us boaters) get hurt, because writing off the debt is accountancy code for 'failing to pay it'. we have been denied £180k that should have gone towards fixing the leaky locks.

 

MtB

[Ray T]

Advert on the back page of Towpathtalk for February 2014

 

Join us "On the water"

Weekend of 3rd to 5th May 2014

Free boat trips

Boats for sale

Holiday Hire boats Kids activities

Hog Roast & Band

etc etc........

 

Guess where for?????

[RLWP]

There is a difference between that and it being a duty.

 

Ahh, I see the point you are making

 

Do they have a duty to the liquidators shareholders to not make a loss

 

Richard

[carpet wallah]

Its all a technicallity - QMP had a lease with Steadman for the land the marina is on. The £3.odd million was the amount (less C&RT 180k) that was outstanding on the lease. QMP goes into liquidation and cannot pay on the lease. The land then reverts to Steadman, he has lost nothing, and will now lease the land again to a new company. This game could run forever.

The only financial loser is C&RT. Most of the previous 2000 posts have said this.

I know I said I was done with this thread, I mean it now. Really.

Here we go again ! QMP don't have have a lease from Steadman, they OWN the freehold of the Marina.

However, Mr Steadman, has a legal charge over the property, having loaned the money to buy it. So, the liquidator has to hand the deeds back to him.

Effectively, the result is as you describe.

[John Holden]

 

Not sure what other type of debt you think there can be. All debt is 'paper debt'. You get a bank loan? Paper debt. Does this mean you have no obligation to pay it and there will be no consequences if you can't be bothered to pay it back??

 

I'm wondering if you actually misunderstand the term 'writing off the debt' and think somehow when a debt it written off, nobody gets hurt. Well not so. CRT (and by extension, all us boaters) get hurt, because writing off the debt is accountancy code for 'failing to pay it'. we have been denied £180k that should have gone towards fixing the leaky locks.

 

MtB

 

Is there any indication that floods of other marinas are going to stop paying their NAA as a result of PLs machinations?

[One sheet]

Where's Mr Dank ???

[MtB]

 

Is there any indication that floods of other marinas are going to stop paying their NAA as a result of PLs machinations?

 

Yes. The CRT man at the creditors' meeting expressed exactly this fear.

 

Now can you do me the courtesy of answering the questions I have asked you, please. Thank you.

 

 

MtB

[Phantasm]

Steadman put up the £2.6m to buy the site (mortgage), shareholders put in £800k for 800 shares, of which most are owned now by Steadman as he paid us off to get hold of our shares. PL borrowed £150k off Steadman to continue development when funds ran out some time in 2008 I think, by the looks of the total debt, some of that £150k may have been paid off.

Plus the cash injection by the leaseholders 25x£28,000 (average) = £700,000

[George94]

But in all fairness allowing access to the network hasn't cost CRT a penny, it's a newly invented way of getting more money out of a marina or to be more specific the boaters in the marina as they will be paying it. Had CRT actually incurred any costs in supplying some goods or services for the money then they would have lost out but unlike other creditors who have supplied goods they will still have to pay for CRT aren't out of pocket on the deal other than they haven't got some money for nothing they were hoping for. Why anyone opens a new marina with a 9% levy on the main source of income is a mystery to me it's a massive commercial disadvantage your customers having to pay a the connection fee.

K

 

Exactly.

[adam1uk]

Exactly.

Not this again!

[matty40s]

Advert on the back page of Towpathtalk for February 2014

 

Join us "On the water"

Weekend of 3rd to 5th May 2014

Free boat trips

Boats for sale

Holiday Hire boats Kids activities

Hog Roast & Band

etc etc........

 

Guess where for?????

 

I wonder if all his Day boats have licences now......???? I am sure CRT will be watching to make sure they do ...

[MtB]

 

I wonder if all his Day boats have licences now......???? I am sure CRT will be watching to make sure they do ...

 

Hang on though, George94 might argue it costs CRT nothing for his day boats to float in the water, so why should they pay a licence?

 

[LoneWolf]

 

Not sure what other type of debt you think there can be. All debt is 'paper debt'. You get a bank loan? Paper debt. Does this mean you have no obligation to pay it and there will be no consequences if you can't be bothered to pay it back??

 

I'm wondering if you actually misunderstand the term 'writing off the debt' and think somehow when a debt it written off, nobody gets hurt. Well not so. CRT (and by extension, all us boaters) get hurt, because writing off the debt is accountancy code for 'failing to pay it'. we have been denied £180k that should have gone towards fixing the leaky locks.

 

MtB

 

not quite right on the accountancy code there mike. 'Writing off the debt' is acknowledging (via accounting entries) that you're unlikely to receive it

 

 

Re the CRT chaps 'fear' mentioned at the meeting. I didn't think it referred to other marinas going into liquidation to avoid paying the NAA. (what business would do that!) I took it to mean that it was unfortunate that it went all the way to liquidation but that that CRT had to pursue the debt & force the liquidation (rather than any other options eg negotiating a lower NAA so they would get something) because they didn't want to set a precedent for other marinas to do the same thing as PL and try and lower their NAA by not paying it

[NigelMoore]

 

Hang on though, George94 might argue it costs CRT nothing for his day boats to float in the water, so why should they pay a licence?

 

 

 

Of course, the argument as to whether it actually costs CaRT anything for what they charge for is largely irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether they have any right to the charge – whether that be by right of statute, or by right of voluntary contract. The larger, and most pertinent point of the current issue, could be said to be whether the approach to resolution of the problem of payment failure was that best suited to the interests of the waterways.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Can somebody who knows more about these things clarify for me. As I understand it NAA is applied to a national formula so the only negotiation possible should be can we have access yes/no and if yes what is the current rate.

I can answer that.

 

NAA stands for Network Access Agreement and was introduced about 2006. It is rather more than an agreement that the marina operator will pay BW/CaRT 9%. For example the marina owner agrees that all boats in the marina will be licensed and that BW/CaRT wil have acess to marina and records to check this. He also agrees to keep the marina in good watertight condition (for obvious reasons).

 

According to BW/CaRT, NAA-

 

Has a standard payment to CRT of 9% of the gross mooring capacity multiplied by the mooring rate (net of VAT) charged at the marina. This will be paid by equal 3 monthly payments in advance. It will be reviewed annually to reflect any increases in the marina mooring rate. Interest is payable on late payments.

The gross mooring capacity is a measurement in metres initially agreed which can be changed by mutual agreement.

 

Mooring rate is notionally set by the marina (i.e. the marinas published rate per metre) but I suspect this is also subject to mutual agreement.

NAA also has a dispute resolution procedure.

 

As such, the amount payable is negotiable.

 

What this forum should perhaps be asking is why, with payments three monthly in advance, it has taken BW/CaRT so long to initiate court action when early dispute resolution so obviously failed.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

 

What this forum should perhaps be asking is why, with payments three monthly in advance, it has taken BW/CaRT so long to initiate court action when early dispute resolution so obviously failed.

 

 

How long did it take for them to initiate court action then? Do we know this?

 

When I've needed to sue people it has taken six months for my day in court to arrive, and that's after all attemptsmy to resolve by negotiation have failed. And that's just a 'one-off' hearing in the relatively quick County Court.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if CRT had to wait for a full trial hearing in the high court, as the amount claimed was high and the case defended. I suspect they haven't been overly dragging their heels other than perhaps with their own dispute resolution procedure, most of the delay was caused by the exceeding slow court process.

 

MtB