Dispute at Pillings

[David Mack]

I am struggling to think of any other cost which is totally fixed irrespective of usage

If your business rents a factory, office or shop, you pay a rental charge based on the square footage of space taken, which is fixed for the duration of the lease period, regardless of the number of widgets you make in the factory, the number of desks occupied in the office or the amount of goods on your shop's shelves. Why is that any different from a marina paying for access to CRT's waters based on the capacity of the marina regardless of occupancy?

[JerryP]

We passed Stanilands several times last year and it looked quite full so I wonder why it's gone down. At least one member who posts regularly on here had a blacking there last year.

Bob

 

 

Maybe it's PLM's sister company ?

[boathunter]

If the marina trade is such a hard unthankful slog and PL can only manage £6k profit (without paying NAA) I don't quite understand why PL claims they have no problem finding the funds to pay future NAA and it's CRT's fault for not getting on with issuing a new agreement.

 

I don't see anything has changed at this marina to make this NAA suddenly a thing that's no problem at all. He really can't make up his mind can he? There's no way on earth I'd be dealing with any of the "3 companies that are one reality" if I were CaRT. I can see why they think the best way forward is to cut off the marina and wait patiently for the whole thing to be sold on to an unconnected party. After all, they're not loosing anything by doing this as they weren't being paid anyway and if past performance is a guide etc...

[Alan de Enfield]

If your business rents a factory, office or shop, you pay a rental charge based on the square footage of space taken, which is fixed for the duration of the lease period, regardless of the number of widgets you make in the factory, the number of desks occupied in the office or the amount of goods on your shop's shelves. Why is that any different from a marina paying for access to CRT's waters based on the capacity of the marina regardless of occupancy?

 

I guess I'm blinkered by the way we ran our business - despite the accountants 'insistence' that we borrow, and use 'other peoples money' to fund our business we - from our own funds -

 

Bought the land

Had a 4000 sq ft 2 storey building built

Bought all the machinery

Bought the cars

Paid cash for virtually everything (Electricity, Phone etc on Direct Debit)

Paid for goods 'on receipt' (not in 60 days)

Paid the two Directors (wife and self) £100 each per week for 12 - 18 hour days

Paid staff weekly

 

Didn't owe anybody anything so if the worst came to the worst nobody but us would be 'hurt'

Have now closed the business after 8 years (kids didnt want it), sold off the assets and everything is 'ours' nothing to pay out and no debts.

[Hawkmoth]

 

I guess I'm blinkered by the way we ran our business - despite the accountants 'insistence' that we borrow, and use 'other peoples money' to fund our business we - from our own funds -

 

Bought the land

Had a 4000 sq ft 2 storey building built

Bought all the machinery

Bought the cars

Paid cash for virtually everything (Electricity, Phone etc on Direct Debit)

Paid for goods 'on receipt' (not in 60 days)

Paid the two Directors (wife and self) £100 each per week for 12 - 18 hour days

Paid staff weekly

 

Didn't owe anybody anything so if the worst came to the worst nobody but us would be 'hurt'

Have now closed the business after 8 years (kids didnt want it), sold off the assets and everything is 'ours' nothing to pay out and no debts.

You are unusual. If more businesses did this there would be fewer problems in the world, but less progress of course.

All power to your arm, enjoy retirement. (if that's what's happening)

Bob

[The Lockie]

I think PL's latest attempt at garnering sympathy may be due to the fact that the penny is beginning to drop that CRT may play hardball over the new NNA, If they do then his best laid plans will go awry without the NNA his "new"business just does not exist, he obviously thought he had all the bases covered and is now worried that the gravy train is about to hit the buffers!! Can't see him getting much sympathy if that is the case

[FredDrift]

PL (well, it says he wrote it but it doesn't really sound like him) has put a long message on the dark side at http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/6669-pillings-marina-debacle

 

The figures just don't seem to add up somehow..

 

haggis

If whining was PL's core business I suspect that he would be very successful...

[Naughty Cal]

He really is a top class knob isn't he?

[chazzy]

On NBW stated that "Phil Spencer at CaRT has had 12 letters over five years from us explaining where we are".

If PL hasnt been able to resolve this over the last 5 years what chance is there for him to resolve it in the next 5 years?

[Naughty Cal]

 

On NBW stated that "Phil Spencer at CaRT has had 12 letters over five years from us explaining where we are".

If PL hasnt been able to resolve this over the last 5 years what chance is there for him to resolve it in the next 5 years?

I'm fairly sure had he needed too he would have resolved it with in those five years. Now he needs to I'm sure he will find a way.

[Mike Todd]

see NBW for the latest on Pilling , looks like in years 3 and 4 Pilling made a net profit of £7k and £22k without factoring in the CRT costs.

 

This can't be right or the directors would be trading knowing the company was insolvent.

 

Looks like continuous cruisers and to blame

It is important to understand that PLM (which operates the marina day-to-day) takes the turnover/profits from operations such as moorings, sales, restaurant etc.

 

The NAA was undertaken by QMP, a separate company, which does not trade other than to hold the mortgage for the property. Its turnover is not much nor its profitability.

 

Some of the statements issued by Paul Lillie coveniently confuse information about PLM and QMP. It is the latter that has been liquidated, leaving PLM still trading. The ability of QMP to meet the NAA is nothing to do with the trading profitability of QMP (its does very little) but whether the profits of PLM are transferred to QMP, rahther than to the parent company QMH.

 

For PLM not to be making sufficient profit to cover the NAA is unlikely unless it has an incredibly bad business model (It seems to have achieved pretty good occupancy at times in comparison with other marinas, those in BWML or private ownership alike). All the issues about mooring etc is rather irrelevant to QMP's ability to pay the NAA which is more about the relative priorities placed by its directors on distributing the trading profits from PLM.

 

It is also important to understand the PL's view is that the NAA should be abolished (or at least the charges bit of it) and that the resultant shortfall in income to CaRT should be met by increased licens fees to all boaters.

[steven wilkinson]

 

On NBW stated that "Phil Spencer at CaRT has had 12 letters over five years from us explaining where we are".

If PL hasnt been able to resolve this over the last 5 years what chance is there for him to resolve it in the next 5 years?

 

 

He has 5 weeks - or the access will be closed!

[Naughty Cal]

 

He has 5 weeks - or the access will be closed!

What's the odds on him suddenly finding a solution in the next five weeks?

[GUMPY]

It is also important to understand the PL's view is that the NAA should be abolished (or at least the charges bit of it) and that the resultant shortfall in income to CaRT should be met by increased licens fees to all boaters.

WTF why should we "other boaters" subsidise some oiks business.

I started a new business a year ago and will just turn over £15k this year that's not profit.....

I already pay my landlord a FF/EOG fee why should people like me subsidise people like him.

Just maybe CRT will go through with this an put the little S**t out of bussines for good.

Now I'm angry.

[steven wilkinson]

Someone fetch Loddon his angry trousers!

[Naughty Cal]

Quick!

[JerryP]

What's the odds on him suddenly finding a solution in the next five weeks?

He's such a devious b*****d I wouldn't put anything past him.

[Mike Todd]

Am still not sure how you get to that point either!

 

IF you mean, that a marina, with only a 50% occupancy (figure chosen at random) , will then increase their mooring fees to compensate for the NAA element that they have to find for the unlet berths - - then that IS an option. Other options are that the marina reduces the numbers of berths, or staffing levels, or wages, or borrows more from their bank until such time as business improves.

 

Boaters are in an excellent position to 'vote with their feet', of course, and if they feel that their marina with only 50% capacity is either too expensive, or doesn't fulfil their needs, then they can move their boat to somewhere better/cheaper.

 

Another alternative, of course, would be for the marina to open other facilities up to a wider audience, say - open a restaurant, and then the diners can hopefully swell the profits so they are subsidising the unlet berths' NAA fees. (A ridiculous example - but no less facile than your contention)

And if the mooring fees are raised then the payable charges also increase . . .

[Mike Todd]

If it is BW and/or CRT bashing in any way shape or form whatsoever, then publication is almost guaranteed.

Accuracy is certainly not required, as long as the target is the "right" one.

That is not fair My preceding article was hardly flattery.

[johnlillie]

 

I guess I'm blinkered by the way we ran our business - despite the accountants 'insistence' that we borrow, and use 'other peoples money' to fund our business we - from our own funds -

 

Bought the land

Had a 4000 sq ft 2 storey building built

Bought all the machinery

Bought the cars

Paid cash for virtually everything (Electricity, Phone etc on Direct Debit)

Paid for goods 'on receipt' (not in 60 days)

Paid the two Directors (wife and self) £100 each per week for 12 - 18 hour days

Paid staff weekly

 

Didn't owe anybody anything so if the worst came to the worst nobody but us would be 'hurt'

Have now closed the business after 8 years (kids didnt want it), sold off the assets and everything is 'ours' nothing to pay out and no debts.

he did something similar on one front. When his mum left her job at the LRI to work at the marina, doing anything up to 50 hours a week and more, he paid her £100 a week.

[Peter X]

 

 

CRT have stated their intention to make sure marina holders cough up the NAA fees; I'm paraphrasing but I think that accurately summarises their thinking. So what if CRT were to really grow a pair and announce, or maybe merely just put the word about, that nobody will be granted a new NAA for Pillings Lock, or any other marina in future, unless any outstanding debts to CRT from that site are paid in full, even if there's a genuinely new and unconnected owner who's bought it from a liquidator?

 

 

I doubt CRT is able to hold responsible other (unconnected) business for the debit incurred by one marina. The business has been liquidated at the debt has gone. There appears to only be sufficient equity left in the business to pay the secured creditor.

 

...

 

 

 

The second paragraph here is what costalot said in reply to me. This wasn't made clear in his post, but I accept that was not an attempt to mislead anyone

 

I disagree with it. First, the debt has not quite gone. QMP cannot pay the debt, and it is very unlikely that the liquidator can sell the freehold to a third party while PLM holds a very advantageous lease (see my post #3565 for my reasons for believing PLM does). But if, as seems possible, Paul Lillie is found to have traded while insolvent and/or shown unfair preference to other creditors, my understanding of the relevant law is that the liquidator (or maybe CRT?) can then sue him personally for the debt. See http://www.iod.com/guidance/briefings/cgbis-directors-duties-and-responsibilities for this.

 

While I am sure that CRT cannot sue an unconnected business for the debt, that's not what I meant. Under my suggested CRT policy, they would merely rely upon their powers under the Transport Act 1962 to add a new pre-condition to their guidance document for any marina seeking a new NAA. In the worst case, when the liquidator has finished checking the accounts and handed back the freehold to Mr Steadman, Mr Steadman could then shut down Pillings Lock Marina Ltd in such a way that he can sell the freehold unencumbered by anything except the stop planks, the QMP 20 and perhaps a harmless lease to the boat repair company. He sells that freehold to a new owner unconnected to the history of the site, but under what law could that new owner compel CRT to grant a new NAA without payment of the £215,000? I'm assuming of course that the CRT will have done everything possible to protect their position, by changing their guidance and publicising it widely before Mr Steadman sells the freehold. A suitable banner posted on the cut outside the entrance should alert any potential purchaser nicely too. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a marina/lake with no NAA without talking to the CRT about it.

[johnlillie]

You are unusual. If more businesses did this there would be fewer problems in the world, but less progress of course.

All power to your arm, enjoy retirement. (if that's what's happening)

Bob

I did similar when I closed riverview narrowboats, paid all my dues, owed nobody anything.

And if the mooring fees are raised then the payable charges also increase . . .

no they don't the figure is based on an average for the area.

[tupperware]

 

AdeE. You may well be right although if this person is indeed a representative employed by CRT to handle their end of the liquidation then describing your employer as not making "commercially sensible decisions" may not be the smartest career move. No doubt "csh" or his partner will clarify the identity of the individual in question.

 

I've been have a further think as to the question of this "Liquidation Agent". Given that QMP are in liquidation and its winding-up the responsibility of the Insolvency Practitioner and not that of Mr Lillie junior, is it credible that a representative of CRT would meet with this gentleman after an IP had been appointed? It is, of course, possible that this social event took place prior to recent events but, once again, it seems somewhat odd that CRT would send a representative who was naïve enough to make the remark as claimed at a time when discussions regarding the non-payment of a substantial bill was the burning issue.

 

The article also contains the following:

 

"Do CaRT really not realise that it may have the legal and moral high ground, but customers here think they are the Devil Incarnate and are now plotting and scheming all sorts of plans to disrupt any action or works that CaRT may foolishly try to undertake to block us up.Do CaRT really not realise that it may have the legal and moral high ground, but customers here think they are the Devil Incarnate and are now plotting and scheming all sorts of plans to disrupt any action or works that CaRT may foolishly try to undertake to block us up."

 

So, despite CRT having the "legal and moral high ground", a point which Mr Lillie appears to concede in explicit terms, the "customers" (what all of them?), are hatching plots to prevent CRT carrying out their intention of preventing access to the marina on the stated date. Mr Lillie then goes on to remark "This is not my doing" which is, of course, the only view possible of someone who is on record as believing CRT to have the "legal and moral high ground".

 

You really could not make this up.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I've been have a further think as to the question of this "Liquidation Agent". Given that QMP are in liquidation and its winding-up the responsibility of the Insolvency Practitioner and not that of Mr Lillie junior, is it credible that a representative of CRT would meet with this gentleman after an IP had been appointed? It is, of course, possible that this social event took place prior to recent events but, once again, it seems somewhat odd that CRT would send a representative who was naïve enough to make the remark as claimed at a time when discussions regarding the non-payment of a substantial bill was the burning issue.

 

 

 

Pure speculation - as much of this is, - but could the C&RT representative (either before, during or after the liquidation) have been having 'off the record' discussions with a view to resolving the 'closing off' issue, or could it just be the delusions of a Walter Mitty character and the meeting never took place ?

[tupperware]

 

The second paragraph here is what costalot said in reply to me. This wasn't made clear in his post, but I accept that was not an attempt to mislead anyone

 

I disagree with it. First, the debt has not quite gone. QMP cannot pay the debt, and it is very unlikely that the liquidator can sell the freehold to a third party while PLM holds a very advantageous lease (see my post #3565 for my reasons for believing PLM does). But if, as seems possible, Paul Lillie is found to have traded while insolvent and/or shown unfair preference to other creditors, my understanding of the relevant law is that the liquidator (or maybe CRT?) can then sue him personally for the debt. See http://www.iod.com/guidance/briefings/cgbis-directors-duties-and-responsibilities for this.

 

While I am sure that CRT cannot sue an unconnected business for the debt, that's not what I meant. Under my suggested CRT policy, they would merely rely upon their powers under the Transport Act 1962 to add a new pre-condition to their guidance document for any marina seeking a new NAA. In the worst case, when the liquidator has finished checking the accounts and handed back the freehold to Mr Steadman, Mr Steadman could then shut down Pillings Lock Marina Ltd in such a way that he can sell the freehold unencumbered by anything except the stop planks, the QMP 20 and perhaps a harmless lease to the boat repair company. He sells that freehold to a new owner unconnected to the history of the site, but under what law could that new owner compel CRT to grant a new NAA without payment of the £215,000? I'm assuming of course that the CRT will have done everything possible to protect their position, by changing their guidance and publicising it widely before Mr Steadman sells the freehold. A suitable banner posted on the cut outside the entrance should alert any potential purchaser nicely too. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy a marina/lake with no NAA without talking to the CRT about it.

 

The timing on this seems interesting. At any point in the last four years or so, given the timescale of the discussions between QMP and CRT claimed in the referenced article, BW/CRT would have been able to pursue a legal avenue to recover the debt. Had they done so and the court ruled much as they did recently, then one presumes QMP, finding itself unable to liquidate the debt, may have entered liquidation rather sooner than they did. BW/CRT may have been dilatory or may just have been leaning over backwards to avoid legal action but there do seem to be some grounds for supposing that, had BW/CRT pursued legal means earlier, the wheel would have fallen off QMP shortly afterwards. The abbreviated accounts do, of course, make reference to long-term financial support from Mr Steadman although this seems to have evaporated at the point at which QMP were actually called upon to pay a debt incurred over some years. This qualification to the accounts was, of course, the basis on which it could be claimed that QMP were a "going concern". For QMP to represent itself as a "going concern" was also rather dependent on it not being required to pay one of its major suppliers according to the contract it had signed with BW/CRT. per the contract between themselves and BW/CRT. Quite why Mr Steadman has decided to withdraw his support at this time is unclear although this may, of course, be entirely coincidental to CRT's recent legal victory.

 

Pure speculation - as much of this is, - but could the C&RT representative (either before, during or after the liquidation) have been having 'off the record' discussions with a view to resolving the 'closing off' issue, or could it just be the delusions of a Walter Mitty character and the meeting never took place ?

 

Quite so AdeE - as you say, pure speculation. If this was an "off the record" comment it has, nonetheless, found its way into print. We shall probably never know the circumstances unless either the gentleman concerned or his alter ego release details here or elsewhere, the likelihood of which seems vanishingly small. Whether this enhances the credibility of the person in question or damages it still further is a matter on which everyone will form their own view.

he did something similar on one front. When his mum left her job at the LRI to work at the marina, doing anything up to 50 hours a week and more, he paid her £100 a week.

 

JohnLillie. I'm not sure of the rules in terms of how far back one can claim but £2 an hour seems someway south of the National Minimum Wage. Employers who fail to pay their employees according to the rules can be required to reimburse the underpayment and can also be fined a maximum of £5,000 which may have risen to £20,000 recently. Just a thought.

Edited March 2, 2014 by tupperware