Dispute at Pillings

[RichardH]

He has signed a deal , he agreed to that and if he wanted to work to a different tune he should not have signed , dor had it right earlier , the fella is acting like a cowboy.

 

Indeed. We had a shocking year in 2012 - it was well documented that for many reasons holidaymakers chose to go places other than the canals. 2010 wasn't much better as the canal closed for most of the summer.

 

Did we blame BW and say that our hire licenses should be adjusted because in a 30 week season (not forgetting we pay for a license which is 52 weeks potential hiring) our boats only went out for 12 weeks?

 

Did we say that 'BW shouldn't have allowed that extra hire company down the cut'?

 

No of course we didn't. What we did was take a long hard look at the business, work out where savings could be made and moved forward.

[matty40s]

He has signed a deal , he agreed to that and if he wanted to work to a different tune he should not have signed , dor had it right earlier , the fella is acting like a cowboy.

......chaps are all the rage at Pillings...

[gaggle]

You seem quite comfortable to blame everyone else; C&RT, the economy, CC'ers, other long and well established marina's, for the lack of your company fulfilling it's contractual obligations. And reading between the lines you seem to be saying, well it didn't quite work out like I thought it would the first time round - I've found a loop hole so I don't have to pay what's owed, and can simply start over with a clean slate where you HOPE?? to be able to fulfill any future contract

Seems to me he knew exactly how he would play his game from the start , he has said himself he has been on the canals since he was a kid so it seems strange he now claims bw/ cart hoodwinked him.

[David Mack]

 

If you ignore visitors it should be a piece of cake for CRT to work out the number of boats moored because they have the information on the licence application

But CRT don't have all the information. They just have the declared home mooring locations at the time of licence renewal, but nothing on what happens thereafter as people change mooring etc. That approach would also require CRT to incur the cost of reconciling the home mooring declarations with the various mooring providers, only some of which have to pay the CRT fee. I imagine that if they did this, then some of the mooring operators would complain that CRT were overassessing them, leaving CRT with more cost and hassle to resolve the issues. Far easier to charge on the basis of capacity, which is a fixed amount and easy to bill.

 

The other point is risk transfer. When the current arrangement was set up (with the introduction of the BW New Marinas Unit a few years ago), the idea was that in exchange for a fairly modest fee (9% of the full occupancy income, compared with the 50% which for an end of garden or farmers field mooring, payable when occupied) the marina operator would be allowed to get on with operating their facilities as they chose. Why should BW/CRT (and by extension the rest of us) subsidise a marina operator who runs his business in such a way that few choose to do business with him?

[mayalld]

But CRT don't have all the information. They just have the declared home mooring locations at the time of licence renewal, but nothing on what happens thereafter as people change mooring etc. That approach would also require CRT to incur the cost of reconciling the home mooring declarations with the various mooring providers, only some of which have to pay the CRT fee. I imagine that if they did this, then some of the mooring operators would complain that CRT were overassessing them, leaving CRT with more cost and hassle to resolve the issues. Far easier to charge on the basis of capacity, which is a fixed amount and easy to bill.

 

The other point is risk transfer. When the current arrangement was set up (with the introduction of the BW New Marinas Unit a few years ago), the idea was that in exchange for a fairly modest fee (9% of the full occupancy income, compared with the 50% which for an end of garden or farmers field mooring, payable when occupied) the marina operator would be allowed to get on with operating their facilities as they chose. Why should BW/CRT (and by extension the rest of us) subsidise a marina operator who runs his business in such a way that few choose to do business with him?

 

There is also the small matter of the income that CRT give up when a new marina opens.

 

When a new marina opens, CRT close 1 towpath LTM per 10 marina berths that open.

 

Effectively, they are exchanging 100% of a towpath LTM mooring fee for 90% of a marina mooring fee, which (assuming that a CRT towpath mooring is priced at about 75% of a marina mooring) brings them a small increase in income.

 

If a new marina opens and only pays 25% of the agreed NAA fees, then CRT are exchanging 1 towpath mooring fee for 22.5% of a marina mooring fee, and are worse off than before.

[KevMc]

But CRT don't have all the information. They just have the declared home mooring locations at the time of licence renewal, but nothing on what happens thereafter as people change mooring etc. That approach would also require CRT to incur the cost of reconciling the home mooring declarations with the various mooring providers, only some of which have to pay the CRT fee. I imagine that if they did this, then some of the mooring operators would complain that CRT were overassessing them, leaving CRT with more cost and hassle to resolve the issues. Far easier to charge on the basis of capacity, which is a fixed amount and easy to bill.

 

The other point is risk transfer. When the current arrangement was set up (with the introduction of the BW New Marinas Unit a few years ago), the idea was that in exchange for a fairly modest fee (9% of the full occupancy income, compared with the 50% which for an end of garden or farmers field mooring, payable when occupied) the marina operator would be allowed to get on with operating their facilities as they chose. Why should BW/CRT (and by extension the rest of us) subsidise a marina operator who runs his business in such a way that few choose to do business with him?

 

It isn't rocket science to perform the calculation .... if the charge was assessed at a fixed point they simply take everyone that had said they used that marina on their latest licence application and work out the charge. They could send the details of who they think is there to the marina operator along with the bill so any dispute would be easily resolved.

 

I didn't say that was how they should do it though - I was just responding to someone saying it couldn't be done

[Swallowman]

 

 

 

Effectively, they are exchanging 100% of a towpath LTM mooring fee for 90% of a marina mooring fee, which (assuming that a CRT towpath mooring is priced at about 75% of a marina mooring) brings them a small increase in income.

 

If a new marina opens and only pays 25% of the agreed NAA fees, then CRT are exchanging 1 towpath mooring fee for 22.5% of a marina mooring fee, and are worse off than before.

 

Eh? I thought the fee in dispute is 9% of the mooring charge the boater pays to the marina, not 90%. If it were 90%, I am not surprised marinas are going pop.

Isn't that why CaRT takes away 1 in 10 of the linear moorings based on the new marina number of berths? They receive roughly an equivalent income that way.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Swallowman

[Tuscan]

I wonder why we still had even more marinas approved through planning in 2013? What do they know that this marina failed to understand?

[alan_fincher]

 

Eh? I thought the fee in dispute is 9% of the mooring charge the boater pays to the marina, not 90%. If it were 90%, I am not surprised marinas are going pop.

Isn't that why CaRT takes away 1 in 10 of the linear moorings based on the new marina number of berths? They receive roughly an equivalent income that way.

 

I think the way Dave has written that bit is a bit confusing, but you have removed the bit he said before.

 

What I think he is saying is....

 

"Effectively, they are exchanging 100% of a towpath LTM mooring fee for 10 times 9% of a marina mooring fee".

 

.... because CRT s only committing to give up one long term tow-path mooring for each ten new marina berths created.

 

Of course he same still applies - unless CRT actually get the 9% from each and every one of those new berths, they have quite possibly given up more income from the one they removed than the 10 new private ones created.

 

EDIT: But I see you have changed your response since I tried quoting it!....

Edited January 20, 2014 by alan_fincher

[mayalld]

 

Eh? I thought the fee in dispute is 9% of the mooring charge the boater pays to the marina, not 90%. If it were 90%, I am not surprised marinas are going pop.

Isn't that why CaRT takes away 1 in 10 of the linear moorings based on the new marina number of berths? They receive roughly an equivalent income that way.

 

Perhaps it could have been clearer.

 

CRT close 1 towpath mooring, and lose 100% of a towpath mooring fee.

They allow 10 new marina moorings, and collect 9% of the marina mooring fee for each mooring.

 

Overall, for each towpath mooring closed, CRT get 90% of ONE marina mooring fee.

[Swallowman]

Makes sense now!

[Hey Ho]

No one told us that there would be 3000 new empty marina berths built after we signed and no one could have guessed that so many people were going to exercise their right to Continually Cruise.

 

 

Can't help reading this in a Richard Burton, War of the Worlds stylee

[Tam & Di]

 

Indeed. We had a shocking year in 2012 - it was well documented that for many reasons holidaymakers chose to go places other than the canals. 2010 wasn't much better as the canal closed for most of the summer.

 

Did we blame BW and say that our hire licenses should be adjusted because in a 30 week season (not forgetting we pay for a license which is 52 weeks potential hiring) our boats only went out for 12 weeks?

 

Did we say that 'BW shouldn't have allowed that extra hire company down the cut'?

 

No of course we didn't. What we did was take a long hard look at the business, work out where savings could be made and moved forward.

 

Oh but surely PaulPilings was only paying himself a minimum wage as the business could not afford more and also meet its financial obligations, wasn't he?

 

I'd bet that in reality as Managing Director of Piling's Lock Marina Ltd he had a salary contract with them and would insist his salary was paid in full, whether or not they could afford it.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Tam & Di

[Willber G]

 

Can't help reading this in a Richard Burton, War of the Worlds stylee

"The chances of recompense coming to CART, are a million to one, he says"

[Paul G2]

 

The access charge has nothing to do with the boaters -- it's between the marina and CRT. The charge is payable even if there are no boats in the marina.

 

I understand that.

 

An assignment of rent clause is in almost every real estate mortgage. Although they are seldom enforced because it messes with the foreclosure process, what happens is that, if the property is rented and the owner doesn't pay the mortgage, the bank can step in and collect the rent from the tenants. This doesn't change the landlord/tenant relationship between the owner and the tenant, it merely (temporarily) removes the landlord as the middleman who collects the rent and then passes it on to the bank in the form of monthly payments.

 

If this were applied to Pillings, or any other CRT marina account, when Pillings owed, for example, £40,000 instead of £180,000, CRT could have collected all the marina rents for a few months, brought the account current and then turned rent collection back to Pillings. Next time Pillings defaulted they could do the same thing. Not only would this keep the CRT account current, but it has the additional benefit of totally humiliating a creep like Paul Lillie.

 

 

Exactly my thoughts - another Phoenix company on the waterways !!!

Just to keep the debate going I wonder :-

 

Does the agreement between Pillings Lock Marina and the 'moorers' solely give them mooring rights, or, does it give them mooring rights, and, access rights to the 'waterways'?

 

I'm pretty sure our Marina / mooring contract doesnt say it allows access to the Waterways.

 

 

It's a pretty basic tenet of Common Law that you can't rent or sell property to someone then deny them access to it.

[Southern Star]

 

Indeed. We had a shocking year in 2012 - it was well documented that for many reasons holidaymakers chose to go places other than the canals.

Out of curiosity, what were the reasons? I thought UK holidays had increased in popularity in the downturn?

[PaulG]

 

I understand that.

 

An assignment of rent clause is in almost every real estate mortgage. Although they are seldom enforced because it messes with the foreclosure process, what happens is that, if the property is rented and the owner doesn't pay the mortgage, the bank can step in and collect the rent from the tenants. This doesn't change the landlord/tenant relationship between the owner and the tenant, it merely (temporarily) removes the landlord as the middleman who collects the rent and then passes it on to the bank in the form of monthly payments.

 

If this were applied to Pillings, or any other CRT marina account, when Pillings owed, for example, £40,000 instead of £180,000, CRT could have collected all the marina rents for a few months, brought the account current and then turned rent collection back to Pillings. Next time Pillings defaulted they could do the same thing. Not only would this keep the CRT account current, but it has the additional benefit of totally humiliating a creep like Paul Lillie.

 

It's a pretty basic tenet of Common Law that you can't rent or sell property to someone then deny them access to it.

Except that CRT do not own Pillings Marina. The fees owed are, as I understand it, for "connection" of waters owned by Pillings to waters owned by C&RT.

Edited January 20, 2014 by PaulG

[kevinl]

Out of curiosity, what were the reasons? I thought UK holidays had increased in popularity in the downturn?

Whenever I've suggested a canal holiday to anyone it's the cost that seems to put them off. This is not a shot at boat hire companies, they have a business to run and in fairness their cost aren't too out of line compared to caravans, cottages or whatever. It's the cost of UK holidays and the cost of holidaying it the UK that put people off. British tourist to Spain were up 9.3% in 2013, Greece had a record year for tourism I don't know anyone who had a staycation in preference to a holiday abroad.

K

[johnlillie]

I personally disagree with the management structure implemented at Pillings Lock.

Edited January 20, 2014 by FadeToScarlet

[Nightwatch]

Mod edit to remove quoted post. Thanks.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Nightwatch

[Southern Star]

Whenever I've suggested a canal holiday to anyone it's the cost that seems to put them off. This is not a shot at boat hire companies, they have a business to run and in fairness their cost aren't too out of line compared to caravans, cottages or whatever. It's the cost of UK holidays and the cost of holidaying it the UK that put people off. British tourist to Spain were up 9.3% in 2013, Greece had a record year for tourism I don't know anyone who had a staycation in preference to a holiday abroad.

K

I've booked a week's hire of a narrowboat in August and that was about £1,450 which for five of us, I thought wasn't too bad, especially as we won't be off spending £100+ a day at theme parks etc and was cheaper than all but the grottiest foreign holiday.

[BEngo]

 

SNIP

 

It's a pretty basic tenet of Common Law that you can't rent or sell property to someone then deny them access to it.

 

 

If you rent someone property and they don't pay the rent or otherwise comply with the terms of the rental you can evict them, more or less easily depending on the tenancy agreement of course.

 

In this case CART are not renting out the property but enforcing an access agreement- and they have precedent for being able to do so, at Kingfisher Marina , Yardley Gobion where the marina owner failed in a bid to get an injunction preventing BW from closing off his entrance because there was no access agreement.

 

In this case I would expect the CART might expect a "phoenix" operator to either cough up a substantial deposit as part of any future access agreement, or to pay the arrears as a premium. It's only recent policy that says access agreements are pretty standardised for 'fairness', not any sort of legal requirement- hence the previous mish-mash.

 

N

[kevinl]

I've booked a week's hire of a narrowboat in August and that was about £1,450 which for five of us, I thought wasn't too bad, especially as we won't be off spending £100+ a day at theme parks etc and was cheaper than all but the grottiest foreign holiday.

Hiring became so expensive it was cheaper for me to buy a boat, at that kind of price have you ever thought of getting a share in a boat like the one below, £5K down and £85 a month for 4 weeks school holiday time, for 12th share in the boat which you can sell on when you buy. (this is one of many I picked at random, I'm not selling it)

K

http://www.ownasharecruising.co.uk/?q=node/10&boat=Minuet cruiser stern school holiday share with 4 peak weeks

[Paul G2]

Except that CRT do not own Pillings Marina. The fees owed are, as I understand it, for "connection" of waters owned by Pillings to waters owned by C&RT.

 

Not trying to argue with you, we just aren't communicating well - my fault no doubt.

 

I think you need to dispossess yourself of any thought of "ownership" for the moment. Actual ownership doesn't matter much in this case because Pillings has separated ownership and management vis-a-vis the various LLC's.

 

Essentially what I am saying is that the moored boats owe money to Pillings for rent and Pillings owes money to CRT for access fees. An assignment of rents would allow CRT to bypass Pillings and collect the rents directly from the boaters until the fees are paid. Who owns what doesn't really enter in the equation. Keep in mind, without canal/river access that marina is just a stopover for migratory water fowl.

 

There is also a big flaw in Paul Lillie's scam plan. There is a clause in these contracts that Mr. Lillie is relying upon heavily to carry forth his scam. That clause says that access to the marina cannot be "unreasonably withheld". The credit worthiness and character of the new marina operator could certainly be used by CRT to determine what would constitute "reasonably withholding" access. Since a new LLC would have absolutely no credit history, CRT could simply refuse to deal with them. Paul Lillie would be in no position to guarantee anything to CRT, having just burned them for £180k, so the owner of Pillings would have to find an operator acceptable to CRT before their pond could be turned back into a marina with canal access.

 

Of course, the people who are hurt the most in this are the boaters. If there were an assignment of rents, the marina could be kept open and the boaters remain mostly unaffected while the behind-the-scenes legal machinations were going on.

[Southern Star]

Hiring became so expensive it was cheaper for me to buy a boat, at that kind of price have you ever thought of getting a share in a boat like the one below, £5K down and £85 a month for 4 weeks school holiday time, for 12th share in the boat which you can sell on when you buy. (this is one of many I picked at random, I'm not selling it)

K

http://www.ownasharecruising.co.uk/?q=node/10&boat=Minuet cruiser stern school holiday share with 4 peak weeks

Well, I am actually planning to buy a nb to live aboard, in 2016 (I have other obligations until then) but if I was planning to holiday regularly then I would look at a share as they seem good value if you make the most of the allotted time. But even a week's hire didn't seem outlandishly expensive or anything, given that boats must have a fairly short hiring season.