Dispute at Pillings

[George94]

 

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.

 

 

I suspect that CART knew that it was unrealistic to enforce such outlandish charges in the early days, but hoped that as the marina filled up the cash flow would improve and permit the arrears to gradually be reduced.

 

Of course, that didn't happen, and "pour encourager les autres" CART felt obliged to take a much harder line than it might have done has this been a one-off case.

 

CART's position is not good. If a couple more marinas default, what is it going to do? Keep taking legal action and closing them down? If that happens, it is going to look pretty stupid.

 

In their shoes, I would be renegotiating the NAA on a much more rational basis, to allow for reduced payments in the event of less than full occupancy. Yes, it will hit their cash flow initially, but closing marinas down is hardly going to encourage people to come into the industry.

 

They need to take a long view.

 

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?

 

 

There can be no objection to CART charging people who use CART's water (and locks, etc.). The problem is with them charging boats that AREN'T in their water, and charging extra because a licensed boat is moored in a marina.

 

As a plumber, you probably have no objection to these cowboy charges.

[Hawkmoth]

 

I suspect that CART knew that it was unrealistic to enforce such outlandish charges in the early days, but hoped that as the marina filled up the cash flow would improve and permit the arrears to gradually be reduced.

 

Of course, that didn't happen, and "pour encourager les autres" CART felt obliged to take a much harder line than it might have done has this been a one-off case.

 

CART's position is not good. If a couple more marinas default, what is it going to do? Keep taking legal action and closing them down? If that happens, it is going to look pretty stupid.

 

In their shoes, I would be renegotiating the NAA on a much more rational basis, to allow for reduced payments in the event of less than full occupancy. Yes, it will hit their cash flow initially, but closing marinas down is hardly going to encourage people to come into the industry.

 

They need to take a long view.

 

There can be no objection to CART charging people who use CART's water (and locks, etc.). The problem is with them charging boats that AREN'T in their water, and charging extra because a licensed boat is moored in a marina.

 

As a plumber, you probably have no objection to these cowboy charges.'

 

Much as I'm sure most of us don't want to see more miles of on line moorings, C&RT shouldn't flinch from pursuing marina owners.

It won't shut down marinas, they'll pay up, or maybe C&RT will end up owning them cheaply as another income source.

I think the NAA is legitimate. We would all like our boating to be free! But at the same time, anyone with an ounce of sense will see that it costs a huge amount to keep the network going and boaters are the major benefactors of the maintenance.

Bob

[MtB]

As a plumber, you probably have no objection to these cowboy charges.

 

Leave out the personal insults. They don't put you in a good light.

 

 

MtB

[Nightwatch]

I can tell when someone starts to lose, personal comments sneak in.

 

I wrote earlier that if I were a moorer in this marina I would be chasing to get my money back. They all should. The right thing yo do is then pay CRT the money, but that's not going to happen.

[NigelMoore]

 

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.

 

 

If the annual charge was £44,000 in this case, payable quarterly in advance, then the claim would have been for £11,000 within say a month of default.

 

At that early stage, the claim could most definitely have been brought in the County Court.

 

From the start of April 2013, reforms to the Civil Justice System in England and Wales meant an extension to the cases which automatically fall into the small claims branch of the County Court. But the County Court generally handles claims for less than £50,000, with those over that threshold being dealt with by the High Court. The County Court divides its cases into three broad tranches:

 

Straightforward small claims matters [at the initial stage of this dispute, those under £5,000] would have a hearing 6 to 9 months after issue, depending on Court availability.

 

Fast track claims in the County Court could have handled this dispute at the time, the limit then being £25,000, and again, you can expect a normal fast track matter to take 9 to 12 months after issue to come to hearing, depending on Court availability.

 

Multi-track cases up to £50,000 take longer, but would not have been necessary, even less taking it into the High Court.

 

In brief, BW/CaRT would have to have allowed the situation to have carried on for over a year, through more than 4 successive defaulted payments, before the situation required High Court intervention.

[RLWP]

I can tell when someone starts to lose, personal comments sneak in.

I wrote earlier that if I were a moorer in this marina I would be chasing to get my money back. They all should. The right thing yo do is then pay CRT the money, but that's not going to happen.

They can't pay CRT, there's no mechanism. The NAA is with the insolvent company, not the moorers

 

Richard

[matty40s]

 

 

In their shoes, I would be renegotiating the NAA on a much more rational basis, to allow for reduced payments in the event of less than full occupancy. Yes, it will hit their cash flow initially, but closing marinas down is hardly going to encourage people to come into the industry.

 

.

Hang on.....from no rational reason for charging the NAA to a reasoned forward plan........has someone hacked your account George??

 

No other marina paying the NAA is struggling to meet it, they have either paid it in full because they are succesful, or have succesfully negotiated a slightly reduced figure to reflect their lower occupancy.

This present situation has arisen because young Lillie decided to pay himself and friends rather than pay any bills. When push came to shove he offered a pittance and this was returned as unacceptable..

Edited February 4, 2014 by matty40s

[cloggy]

 

I suspect that CART knew that it was unrealistic to enforce such outlandish charges in the early days, but hoped that as the marina filled up the cash flow would improve and permit the arrears to gradually be reduced.

 

Of course, that didn't happen, and "pour encourager les autres" CART felt obliged to take a much harder line than it might have done has this been a one-off case.

 

CART's position is not good. If a couple more marinas default, what is it going to do? Keep taking legal action and closing them down? If that happens, it is going to look pretty stupid.

 

In their shoes, I would be renegotiating the NAA on a much more rational basis, to allow for reduced payments in the event of less than full occupancy. Yes, it will hit their cash flow initially, but closing marinas down is hardly going to encourage people to come into the industry.

 

They need to take a long view.

 

There can be no objection to CART charging people who use CART's water (and locks, etc.). The problem is with them charging boats that AREN'T in their water, and charging extra because a licensed boat is moored in a marina.

 

As a plumber, you probably have no objection to these cowboy charges.

Cant be bothered to trawl back through this thread, but i seem to remember reading that the NAA was not payable in the first year and only 50% in the second year, which in my view gives the marina plenty of time to fill up

[matty40s]

aye, but George lives in his own little monopoly world where real time rules don't exist.

[Charles]

And he loves to make snide remarks!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

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

It is a matter of written record that BW threatened to take court action in 2011 but the case was dropped.

[DeanS]

threatened to take court action in 2011 but the case was dropped.

 

why? That seems to imply that CRT were legally in the wrong.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

why? That seems to imply that CRT were legally in the wrong.

It simply implies that BW (not CaRT) had a good reason for for not proceeding.

[MtB]

 

why? That seems to imply that CRT were legally in the wrong.

 

No it doesn't. It implies PL undertook the settle the debt in return for them dropping the case, then he reneged on the promise.

 

If CRT were legally in the wrong they wouldn't have won their case when they eventually DID take court action, would they?

 

 

MtB

[luctor et emergo]

I can't find an entire page three, will this do?:

 

 

Richard

Your cropping skills need work...

[johnlillie]

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

it cost about £1.6m to develop the site, i.e., moorings, buildings etc

[stickleback]

 

Yes it has.

 

CRT cancelled/removed 30 online moorings as their side of the NAA deal.

 

MtB

And as well as that, it has had to ensure the integrity of the canal system in order to provide the water to allow the boats in the marina to float / access the canal system. Not a cheap of free undertaking.

[mayalld]

I sincerely hope CRT can see that by letting PL get away with it they are surely opening themselves up to every other marina doing exactly the same & not paying whats due,thereby a massive loss to CRT coffers?

 

That implies that CRT have some choice in the matter.

 

They don't

But in all fairness allowing access to the network hasn't cost CRT a penny,

 

 

Yes it has.

 

CRT closed down a number of its own moorings, and gave up that revenue.

[RLWP]

 

That implies that CRT have some choice in the matter.

 

They don't

 

Well, they do really. They can choose to take marinas to court, get a judgement in their favour, issue a removal of NAA notice, get a lot of publicity, tip the marina into liquidation and have moorers leaving

 

Apart from the loss of money and the court costs, it looks pretty successful. I'd like to see more of this behaviour from CRT, firm but fair

 

Richard

[mayalld]

It's been said more her that the online moorings or at any rate not the 30 have been closed, if that's correct then where have CRT actually incurred cost anything like £180,000?

K

 

A list of moorings closed was provided earlier.

[mayalld]

 

Well, they do really. They can choose to take marinas to court, get a judgement in their favour, issue a removal of NAA notice, get a lot of publicity, tip the marina into liquidation and have moorers leaving

 

Apart from the loss of money and the court costs, it looks pretty successful. I'd like to see more of this behaviour from CRT, firm but fair

 

Richard

 

Sorry, my comment was in respose to the suggestion that CRT had allowed them to get away without paying.

 

On that point, they had little choice.

 

They could either force them into liquidation, and take the £180k hit, or continue to prevaricate and potentially allow the debt to escalate further.

[RLWP]

 

Sorry, my comment was in respose to the suggestion that CRT had allowed them to get away without paying.

 

On that point, they had little choice.

 

They could either force them into liquidation, and take the £180k hit, or continue to prevaricate and potentially allow the debt to escalate further.

 

Yes. It's not clear what they have 'got away with'. The expectation seems to be that a new agreement will just happen - no evidence to support or disprove that yet

 

Richard

[MtB]

 

They could either force them into liquidation, and take the £180k hit, or continue to prevaricate and potentially allow the debt to escalate further.

 

This is probably the root of why CRT took so long to bring the debt to court. Their 'prevarication' was fueled by:

 

1) A valid wish not to force the company into liquidation thus losing ALL the money

 

2) PL cynically playing them for more and more time whilst continuing to collect the NAA from moorers and trousering it

 

 

Eventually CRT recognised they were just being taken for fools and pressed the nuclear button. Good on them.

 

The problem was rooted in BW making the network agreement with a company with no ability or intention to pay. Hopefully CRT won't make the same mistake again if/when the marina re-opens.

 

MtB

[Leo No2]

 

Well, they do really. They can choose to take marinas to court, get a judgement in their favour, issue a removal of NAA notice, get a lot of publicity, tip the marina into liquidation and have moorers leaving

 

Apart from the loss of money and the court costs, it looks pretty successful. I'd like to see more of this behaviour from CRT, firm but fair

 

Richard

 

I agree 100% with firm but fair as, IMHO, it is right for 'everyone'. How often have you done a special favour for someone and found that everyone wants the same treatment or the favour is twisted a little - if you are firm but fair 'one' should know exactly where 'one' stands. Of course there will be a very small number of notable exceptions but if they are seen as exceptions and not 'it's OK if you can get away with it' then I think it is better for all of us.

[stickleback]

 

I agree 100% with firm but fair as, IMHO, it is right for 'everyone'. How often have you done a special favour for someone and found that everyone wants the same treatment or the favour is twisted a little - if you are firm but fair 'one' should know exactly where 'one' stands. Of course there will be a very small number of notable exceptions but if they are seen as exceptions and not 'it's OK if you can get away with it' then I think it is better for all of us.

Totally agree and was going to make the same comment but you have done it so much more succinctly than I would have managed!