GLA suing to evict London Marina

[Horace42]

My simplistic views on the matter stem from being the owner of a factory unit that belongs to my company's pension fund. All we want is a good tenant who pays the rent and looks after the premises. All this is embodied in the lease drawn up in accordance with UK laws - the The Landlord and Tenant Act.

In fair world the Act protects the tenant from exploitation. As landlords, we cannot ask the tenant to leave except in terms of what is embodied in the lease - ie the end of the agreed period, but the tenant can decide to stay by exercising a right to extend the lease for a new period and a new rent.(the amount of (which can be set by a rent tribunal based on sound commercial rates prevailing in the area for that type of business).

As I see it,the sitting tenant at Albert Island can stay put if they pay the commercial rent - which is something they might not agree to - then they can be given due notice to quit. But generally speaking I imagine any plans for the area will want tenants capable of exploiting the potential - so I guess there is no desire to evict for them just to get vacant possession.

It is said a lawyer is needed to advise pretty quick. But that is only to advise them of their rights. They equally need some good business advice on what to do to expand their business to make it viable to pay the higher rent .

In other words they should be looking to work with their new masters to promote the global plans for the area.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Horace42

[NigelMoore]

My understanding is that bewilderment; lack of knowledge; simple fear, and feelings of unfairness, dominates the mindset, so that communication between them and the GLA is not what it needed to be.

[LJM@GPM]

I am the owner of Gallions Point Marina Ltd. Having read some of the posts I would like to confirm that we are tenants and the GLA own the land but they DO NOT own the business which we started in 1992 before the GLA even existed. We have always paid our rent on time and have never been in breach of our lease terms. There is every intention of retaining a marina here but they just don't want the 'little people' who started it up from nothing back when the Royal Docks were entirely derelict. Originally we were contracted out of the Landlords and Tenants Act 1954 but since lease expired end of 2009 they have continued to take the rent so we have become periodic tenants. Yes of course we would have liked to obtain legal representation but could not afford it. The GLA directed a concrete batching plant company to the Thames House site next door to us, Corbyn Construction have been operating without planning consent since April 2014. This has severely damaged our business with the constant noise and dust. I am convinced that this was a blatent attempt by the GLA to destroy our business without directly 'getting their hands dirty' but although it almost worked we somehow managed to cling on,so now they are taking us to court on 21st November at Bow County Court. Please wish us luck. If the GLA were allowed to get away with this then NO privately owned small business would be safe. Thank you.

Miss Leigh-Jayne Miller

Gallions Point Marina Ltd

Gate 14

Basin South

London

E16 2QY

Tel: 07852 200916

leighjayne.miller@googlemail.com

[NigelMoore]

Thank you for contributing here Leigh-Jayne, and of course best of luck come Monday. If I can, I will attend for moral support if nothing else.

 

I trust you will be going armed with such material as has been discussed - and I think it would be valuable to have a copy of the BRN Policies as well, to indicate - if you get the opportunity - that getting rid of established marine businesses is contrary to the landlord's own stated planning policies, such that peremptory eviction is contrary to your legitimate expectations of continuity, for no ascertainable good reason.

 

Without professional representation, the larger picture based on an appeal to fair play and common sense is possibly your best bet at this stage.

[Tim Lewis]

Thank you for contributing here Leigh-Jayne, and of course best of luck come Monday. If I can, I will attend for moral support if nothing else.

 

I trust you will be going armed with such material as has been discussed - and I think it would be valuable to have a copy of the BRN Policies as well, to indicate - if you get the opportunity - that getting rid of established marine businesses is contrary to the landlord's own stated planning policies, such that peremptory eviction is contrary to your legitimate expectations of continuity, for no ascertainable good reason.

 

Without professional representation, the larger picture based on an appeal to fair play and common sense is possibly your best bet at this stage.

 

 

There was a letter from Del Brenner in the Evening Standard last night about the Royal Docks development complaining about lack of boatyard facilities under the new development. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy to hand or find it on the ES Web Site.

 

Tim

[Tim Lewis]

 

 

There was a letter from Del Brenner in the Evening Standard last night about the Royal Docks development complaining about lack of boatyard facilities under the new development. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy to hand or find it on the ES Web Site.

 

Tim

 

Found it!

 

http://www.pressreader.com/uk/london-evening-standard-west-end-final-a/20161114/282286729846976

 

Tim

[NigelMoore]

All I could find via a search in the Evening Standard was the 24 October article: -

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/marina-owner-plans-court-battle-with-sadiq-khan-over-order-to-leave-site-a3376881.html

[LJM@GPM]

Dear all, thank you indeed for your support! Here is the actual letter Del sent in; I also am in possession of an interesting admission from the GLA but can't attach here. Would anyone mind supplying an email address and I will forward?

 

The Editor

Evening Standard

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

SOLD DOWN THE RIVER

 

In your brief article about a Chinese investor buying up Albert Island in the Royal Docks for a property development (May seals £5bn of investment, 10.11.16), it is not revealed that important Thames facilities are being sacrificed.

 

There was a grand launch with promises by GLA for provision of a much needed boatyard (large enough to service the Thames Clippers, for instance), re-establishment of a marine skills and education centre in the vacated Thames House, and an extended marina. It seems that all these essential facilities will be lost, for ever, as this is the only remaining site left on the Thames in London for such vital marine facilities, which need a waterside location, obviously. Expensive flats do not need to be waterside, except to boost the developers profits by 25%.

 

Financial dealings are a sign of short-termism, but it is the long-term future of the Thames, and the active use of Londons waterways that should be considered.

We need to bring our waterways back to life, even though they are being degraded by canyonisation with excessive property development.

 

We have been seriously let down by government as well as the Mayor, who seem to be swayed by £notes waved in front of them, rather than taking responsibility for Londoners and the next generations to breathe life into the Heart of London, our famous river.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

DEL BRENNER

Regents Network and

a member of the London Waterways Commission

 

Tel: 020 8390 2954

 

P.S. I have attached some details of Albert Island, for your information.

[NigelMoore]

I had forgotten to post this on here as well: -

 

[WotEver]

I wish you all the best of luck on Monday, Leigh-Jayne. I hope you will return here to keep us all updated.

[Horace42]

I am the owner of Gallions Point Marina Ltd. Having read some of the posts I would like to confirm that we are tenants and the GLA own the land but they DO NOT own the business which we started in 1992 before the GLA even existed. We have always paid our rent on time and have never been in breach of our lease terms. There is every intention of retaining a marina here but they just don't want the 'little people' who started it up from nothing back when the Royal Docks were entirely derelict. Originally we were contracted out of the Landlords and Tenants Act 1954 but since lease expired end of 2009 they have continued to take the rent so we have become periodic tenants. Yes of course we would have liked to obtain legal representation but could not afford it. The GLA directed a concrete batching plant company to the Thames House site next door to us, Corbyn Construction have been operating without planning consent since April 2014. This has severely damaged our business with the constant noise and dust. I am convinced that this was a blatent attempt by the GLA to destroy our business without directly 'getting their hands dirty' but although it almost worked we somehow managed to cling on,so now they are taking us to court on 21st November at Bow County Court. Please wish us luck. If the GLA were allowed to get away with this then NO privately owned small business would be safe. Thank you.

Miss Leigh-Jayne Miller

Gallions Point Marina Ltd

Gate 14

Basin South

London

E16 2QY

Tel: 07852 200916

leighjayne.miller@googlemail.com

I wish you well. I have so little information to go on, but from my previous comment #26, with my landlord's hat on, I would feel on shaky grounds to make a case to evict you (I assume that is the purpose of the Court case), unless I could produce clear evidence of a my detailed planned use of the site.

 

All that exists at the moment is a general plan for the whole area, which to proceed to a specific contract stage, would no doubt need appropriate planning permission - I doubt the GLA have the faintest idea about the detail needed for a planning application - in which case they will not be able to put together a firm proposal for a new tenant, or evaluate an alternative use of your site.

 

They would not be able to give the court a date for vacant possession. So it is back to the words of you existing lease, which has been extended by default since 2009 and automatically covered by the L & T Act. They have no good reason to evict you. You are a sitting tenant - so stay sat.

 

If it was me I would fight my case any way possible - letting them know they would have to evict me by force, and go in a blaze of bad publicity telling the whole World how the GLA and Chinese treat small businesses.

 

On the other hand they might offer to buy you out. How much would you take to go quietly!

 

Good luck on 21st, we are all interested in the outcome.

[cuthound]

I wish you all the best of luck on Monday, Leigh-Jayne. I hope you will return here to keep us all updated.

Seconded.

 

Good luck on Monday.

[Tacet]

Thank you for contributing here Leigh-Jayne, and of course best of luck come Monday. If I can, I will attend for moral support if nothing else.

 

I trust you will be going armed with such material as has been discussed - and I think it would be valuable to have a copy of the BRN Policies as well, to indicate - if you get the opportunity - that getting rid of established marine businesses is contrary to the landlord's own stated planning policies, such that peremptory eviction is contrary to your legitimate expectations of continuity, for no ascertainable good reason.

 

Without professional representation, the larger picture based on an appeal to fair play and common sense is possibly your best bet at this stage.

 

Nigel

 

It rather depends on whether the hearing is concerned with whether the landlord can make-out one of the statutory grounds within s30(1) OR whether it is an application for an order for possession, the tenant having already lost any protection of the Act by (for example) not following the statutory procedures.

 

If it's the latter, the Court has no authority to order the grant of a new tenancy, no matter how "unfair" it might be.

[NigelMoore]

Yes. I simply do not know the details of the action, so can only make such general suggestions as I have.

 

The recommendation to bring up the planning policies of the Landlord is not trying to win a sympathy vote from the court, but to establish reasonable opposition to any potential attempt to show statutory grounds on the basis of redevelopment with different uses.

 

However, as a litigant in person [presumably] without the ability to direct argument at the legal issues [again, presumably] and especially if pre-emptive measures and steps have not been taken [and I suspect they have not been], then it can still be worth trying to persuade the judge of the justice of doing anything that he can do, within his discretion, to assist the defendant. That might not necessitate ordering any grant of a new tenancy, and in any event, judicious judicial recommendations could help sway the Mayor to take a fairer course of action, even if only with an eye to the PR.

 

Coincidently, I was looking for details of a roughly similar case for someone else, which they fortunately were able to find. It involved a planning authority too - but in that case they were the tenant objecting to termination of their tenancy, which their landlord [bW] claimed was necessary to enable their redevelopment of the land [Paddington Basin]. Westminster Council objected on the grounds, in part, that the reason was invalid; BW would not get planning permission for what they wanted to do - which the tenant could confidently assert because they WERE the planning authority!

 

BW won that case.

[David Mack]

I doubt the GLA have the faintest idea about the detail needed for a planning application

 

On the contrary, the GLA will be very well aware of the planning issues. I would be very surprised if the Chinese investors have not already had extensive discussions with the GLA and the London Borough of Newham as to what is or is not acceptable in planning terms, before they committed to buying the site.

[NigelMoore]

Do we know if they are buying the site? The early article said the GLA were looking for development partners, so I presumed the GLA would be retaining the freehold.

[Tim Lewis]

Horace42, on 15 Nov 2016 - 4:02 PM, said:

I doubt the GLA have the faintest idea about the detail needed for a planning application

 

On the contrary, the GLA will be very well aware of the planning issues. I would be very surprised if the Chinese investors have not already had extensive discussions with the GLA and the London Borough of Newham as to what is or is not acceptable in planning terms, before they committed to buying the site.

 

The GLA know an awful lot about Planning Applications and have the power to 'call in' and make the ultimate decision on any scheme in the London Boroughs. Details:

 

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning

 

Tim

[Horace42]

 

On the contrary, the GLA will be very well aware of the planning issues. I would be very surprised if the Chinese investors have not already had extensive discussions with the GLA and the London Borough of Newham as to what is or is not acceptable in planning terms, before they committed to buying the site.

I fear you might be right, but the devil is in the detail, and the 'weight' that can be attached to the detail, to sway the court one way or the other. Unfortunately, the court usually gives weight to 'precedent' - and the GLA with all the legal power (the money) at their disposal will be able to dig up all the precedents they need, leaving the defendant to mount a legal answer with counter precedents - that without powerful counsel, and similar amounts of money, will be hard to come by.

 

I have a feeling the 'principles' underlying the L&A Act might be the way for the novice to go, hoping to make a case for protection that the Act intended for the tenant.

 

One can but hope.

[Horace42]

 

Horace42, on 15 Nov 2016 - 4:02 PM, said:

 

The GLA know an awful lot about Planning Applications and have the power to 'call in' and make the ultimate decision on any scheme in the London Boroughs. Details:

 

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning

 

Tim

 

Yes it sounds a hopeless case for Gallions, but GLA can only make planning decisions on established planning principles all published the the pubic domain. Decisions on planning applications can be challenged by the applicant by calling in the Government Planning Inspector, who will make a ruling on the merits of the case - by giving an alternative 'weight' to the various arguments - to arrive at a different decision.

This is all along way off. But ownership of the land is not an issue that concerns the planners that can be taken into account. There is a presumption of ownership, which is critical otherwise the plan cannot be implemented.

 

I guess ownership is the underlying reason for the court case next week, where vacant possession (an eviction order- if granted) might depend on details embodied in the time scale and planned use of the land.

 

Fingers crossed for Gallions..

[Tim Lewis]

Yes it sounds a hopeless case for Gallions, but GLA can only make planning decisions on established planning principles all published the the pubic domain. Decisions on planning applications can be challenged by the applicant by calling in the Government Planning Inspector, who will make a ruling on the merits of the case - by giving an alternative 'weight' to the various arguments - to arrive at a different decision.

This is all along way off. But ownership of the land is not an issue that concerns the planners that can be taken into account. There is a presumption of ownership, which is critical otherwise the plan cannot be implemented.

 

I guess ownership is the underlying reason for the court case next week, where vacant possession (an eviction order- if granted) might depend on details embodied in the time scale and planned use of the land.

 

Fingers crossed for Gallions..

 

It sounds a bit dodgy as not only do the GLA set the Planning Guidelines for London via the London Plan but also appear to be the land owners in this case!

 

Tim

[Horace42]

 

It sounds a bit dodgy as not only do the GLA set the Planning Guidelines for London via the London Plan but also appear to be the land owners in this case!

 

Tim

i have been trying to inject a degree of hope for Gallions. It must be a a very depressing situation for them.

Yes, GLA might be the planning authority and owner of the land - but Gallions are the sitting tenant - and they can stay there until their lease expires - and if they refuse to leave they will have to be given a date to vacate - that can be backed up by the use of 3rd party force - that will need a court order - perhaps the reason for the hearing next week.

It depends on how far one is prepared to go to make a stand - and the fuss it can cause..

All very messy - the publicity of which, I guess, GLA will want to avoid if they win their case.

[NigelMoore]

 

. . . not only do the GLA set the Planning Guidelines for London via the London Plan but also appear to be the land owners in this case!

 

Both are true. Regardless of rights or wrongs, moral or legal, when - as reported to be the case in this instance - £1.7 billion deals hinge on the outcome, then the authority will do whatever it takes to close the deal.

 

I have been in the High Court today discussing case management over a case against Hounslow Council, They were mistakenly registered with title to a small parcel of land, that has recently acquired value because in the centre of recent planning approval for the town centre - again, a scheme worth hundreds of millions.

 

There is absolutely no question but that this was a mistake [the Land Registry admitted as much], but they are prepared to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at lawyers to argue that it doesn't matter; that their title is indefeasible under the law because a fait accompli, such that nobody can challenge it.

 

It would be difficult to imagine anything more morally bankrupt. To my mind, it counts as fraud once the Council were notified of the mistake and yet sought to profit from it, but that is the harsh reality illustrating the "insolence of office". Where that is true of a local borough council, it will hold double for a central authority such as the GLA. Throw in the pecuniary stakes that are operating here and at Albert Island, and the combination spells damaging odds for the marina.

 

Public outcry is the only real hope in such situations, but that appears muted in this instance sadly.

[Mike Todd]

 

Both are true. Regardless of rights or wrongs, moral or legal, when - as reported to be the case in this instance - £1.7 billion deals hinge on the outcome, then the authority will do whatever it takes to close the deal.

 

I have been in the High Court today discussing case management over a case against Hounslow Council, They were mistakenly registered with title to a small parcel of land, that has recently acquired value because in the centre of recent planning approval for the town centre - again, a scheme worth hundreds of millions.

 

There is absolutely no question but that this was a mistake [the Land Registry admitted as much], but they are prepared to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at lawyers to argue that it doesn't matter; that their title is indefeasible under the law because a fait accompli, such that nobody can challenge it.

 

It would be difficult to imagine anything more morally bankrupt. To my mind, it counts as fraud once the Council were notified of the mistake and yet sought to profit from it, but that is the harsh reality illustrating the "insolence of office". Where that is true of a local borough council, it will hold double for a central authority such as the GLA. Throw in the pecuniary stakes that are operating here and at Albert Island, and the combination spells damaging odds for the marina.

 

Public outcry is the only real hope in such situations, but that appears muted in this instance sadly.

Although Local Authorities are often also the Planning Authority, these roles are slightly distinct and - I think - there are rules which indicate a degree of firewall that is needed. For example, LA's have to apply tot he Planning Authority just as does any other building developer/modifier.

[Horace42]

 

Both are true. Regardless of rights or wrongs, moral or legal, when - as reported to be the case in this instance - £1.7 billion deals hinge on the outcome, then the authority will do whatever it takes to close the deal.

 

I have been in the High Court today discussing case management over a case against Hounslow Council, They were mistakenly registered with title to a small parcel of land, that has recently acquired value because in the centre of recent planning approval for the town centre - again, a scheme worth hundreds of millions.

 

There is absolutely no question but that this was a mistake [the Land Registry admitted as much], but they are prepared to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at lawyers to argue that it doesn't matter; that their title is indefeasible under the law because a fait accompli, such that nobody can challenge it.

 

A rhetorical question. What evidnece does the Land Registry have that causes them to admit a mistake has been made.

But only the real owner can mount a challenge. Is the owner known, being the only party to suffer from this, and what proof do they have ie. the Title Deeds.

And can the council demonstrate they have had exclusive use of this land (for twelve years or more) so that they can claim Possessory Title.

 

A similar situation affects me at the moment. I need to claim possessory title for a little piece of land that I do not own. Not a problem, but it seems that even if successful with my claim, the real owner can come back at any time.to challenge the decision, but only on clear evidence,that my claim was based on a false premise. eg. by me saying I had exclusive use when this was not true (these claims are made under sworn oath).. Can the council claim exclusive use in your case. Mind you, this is all very basic stuff, and hardly needs a court to decide.

 

It would be difficult to imagine anything more morally bankrupt. To my mind, it counts as fraud once the Council were notified of the mistake and yet sought to profit from it, but that is the harsh reality illustrating the "insolence of office". Where that is true of a local borough council, it will hold double for a central authority such as the GLA. Throw in the pecuniary stakes that are operating here and at Albert Island, and the combination spells damaging odds for the marina. But with all the money involved, I would have thought it would have made commercial sense to explore the possibility of a deal to suit Gallions. Maybe the court hearing will set down precise parameters for possible negotiation.

 

Public outcry is the only real hope in such situations, but that appears muted in this instance sadly. Yes, adverse publicity is not the way forward for GLA. Especially in the eyes of the Chinese. Operating under a 'dictatorial regime' in their own country they will have problems understanding how best to handle our citizens who have rights in our democracy.

 

I think Gallions refusal to cooperate with any scheme not to their own liking (and making it known in a subtle and tactful way) is probably their strongest weapon.

Hopefully the salient points of their court case will be made known to us.

[NigelMoore]

A rhetorical question. What evidnece does the Land Registry have that causes them to admit a mistake has been made.

But only the real owner can mount a challenge. Is the owner known, being the only party to suffer from this, and what proof do they have ie. the Title Deeds.

And can the council demonstrate they have had exclusive use of this land (for twelve years or more) so that they can claim Possessory Title.

A similar situation affects me at the moment. I need to claim possessory title for a little piece of land that I do not own. Not a problem, but it seems that even if successful with my claim, the real owner can come back at any time.to challenge the decision, but only on clear evidence,that my claim was based on a false premise. eg. by me saying I had exclusive use when this was not true (these claims are made under sworn oath).. Can the council claim exclusive use in your case. Mind you, this is all very basic stuff, and hardly needs a court to decide.

 

Answering this here would take us way off topic. I mentioned it only as an example of the lengths these authorities will go to to achieve their ends with wealthy development partners. If you want me to answer this, send me a PM. I guarantee little by way of response just now, because my head is full of too much else, but I will do what I can.