Dispute at Pillings

[tupperware]

 

According to "Company Check" list of Directors - Mr Steadman was never a Director in either QMH or QMP

 

It appears he is only a financier and major share holder with no responsibility for the running of the companies.

 

QMH

In 2007 the original 'founding directors' was a company called Harvey Ingram Directors Ltd, they were dismissed 16th March 2007 when John Lillie and Paul Lillie were appointed, John Lillie was dismissed 3/7/2009

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

QMP

Exactly the same people and same dates, and again Steadman was never listed as a Director

Steadman was not a Director (according to company house)

 

 

Was Steadman involved in (or a Director of) Harvey Ingram ?

 

From your post, AdeE, it seems clear that Mr Steadman did not occupy a formal directorship in the companies named. This is, not of course, the same as not being involved in the management of those companies and the term "Shadow Director" is the recognised term covering such activities. The HMRC website makes it clear that acting in this way can be entirely legitimate although it does mean that an individual so operating is subject to the same investigations in the case of a liquidation as someone whose directorship has been explicitly stated.

[tupperware]

How about considering that the CRT representative is not daft and in fact was leading PL along with such matey remarks to see what he could glean as to PL's general attitude to this whole fiasco. Good cop/bad cop style. The effusive PL probably doesn't take much ego tickling to get him to spill the beans.

 

I was intrigued by the use of the term "Liquidation Agent". This is, essentially, the American equivalent of Insolvency Practitioner for a corporation which is in Chapter11 bankruptcy protection. I suspect this is why I interpreted the quote from the article as referring to the IP although, as Alain de Enfield quite rightly pointed out, this could be a reference to a CRT-appointed representative. The quote is, of course, the only "evidence" we have that such an individual participated in a pleasant visit to the pub and made the attributed remark.

[Tim]

Surely in negotiating any new access agreement there would be no requirement to give the first year 'free' and the second at 50% as the marina has no set up costs?

Then surely the NAA payment must be paid in advance with a condition that if cleared funds not received within 'x' days then the access will be closed. All of us marina dwellers have to pay our fees in advance, so the money should be available to pay.

[DeanS]

All of us marina dwellers have to pay our fees in advance, so the money should be available to pay.

 

you would think eh?

[costalot]

Surely in negotiating any new access agreement there would be no requirement to give the first year 'free' and the second at 50% as the marina has no set up costs?

Then surely the NAA payment must be paid in advance with a condition that if cleared funds not received within 'x' days then the access will be closed. All of us marina dwellers have to pay our fees in advance, so the money should be available to pay.

I suspect you are correct and CRT will want monthly payment in advance (if they are sensible). The new owners of QMP (Mk2) will not have received any money in advance from PLM as they will (hopefully) have been paying the IP who is managing QMP. Therefore the new owners of QMP (Mk2) will have to invest some capital into the business.

 

However I also suspect that CRT will be most unwilling to enter into a renewed NAA if the former director is involved in any of the three linked companies (QMH, QMP, PLM). My guess is Steadman will either purchase the remaining 25% from PL or sell his 75%. Prior to this he will have worked out whether the business is viable with a different manager.

[LoneWolf]

on a completely personal note. Is it legal for someone to register more than one business (each providing different services to the public) and for each business to trade with each other...even though they are run by the same person. Not LTD......sole proprietor.

 

Register with whom?

 

I don't believe there is any compulsory register for non Ltd 'businesses' in this country

 

It is also impossible, if you think about it, for a sole trader to do business with himself so your question makes no sense in that respect either

What did you mean to ask?

[Swallowman]

the situation of £100 a week lasted for about a year, from January 2008 to approx. March 2009, when I insisted she went up to approx. £14k a year. Shortly after, Steadman visited, queried the increase, and asked Carol "what she thought she was worth" and at the same meeting, doubled our rent. In june, we were given notice to quit, and threatened with dismissal, the compromise of us going quietly and getting our money back was reached shortly after.

when the three companies were formed in march 2007, we were all directors of all three, PL, the steadmans, and me and Carol. For some unexplained reason, Carol was removed a few months after.

 

Has it occurred to anyone else that Mr Steadman is not as blameless for the whole sorry affair as most folk seem to believe? Is he pulling PL's strings and setting him and his partner up for the fall?

[Swallowman]

Another thought about any new NAA for Pillings Lock Marina - does the discount apply to a new owner/operator, call it what you will, if a discount had already been applied to a different owner/operator for the same pond?

 

I would certainly hope not.

[MtB]

 

Has it occurred to anyone else that Mr Steadman is not as blameless for the whole sorry affair as most folk seem to believe? Is he pulling PL's strings and setting him and his partner up for the fall?

 

 

The thought has occurred but for me, it holds no water. Mr Steadman seems to take no interest in the affairs of Pillings Lock beyond protecting his investment in the land.

 

Mr Steadman must know how Lillie junior behaves but as this appears to have no impact on his decisions (i.e. he allowed the debacle to develop and persist). I think he must have a bigger plan for the site we know nothing about. Probably has bigger fish to fry and the outcome of this temporary difficulty makes little difference to him.

 

MtB

[johnlillie]

 

Has it occurred to anyone else that Mr Steadman is not as blameless for the whole sorry affair as most folk seem to believe? Is he pulling PL's strings and setting him and his partner up for the fall?

at last, someone else has twigged, Steadman is far from remote, believe me, he knows all that is going on. On the subject of directors, on startup, I was led to believe that there were 5, three lillies and two steadmans, I always thought that Carol's removal as a director was to "balance things up". But then a lot went on that I knew nothing about until after the event.......

[matty40s]

Has it occurred to anyone else that Mr Steadman is not as blameless for the whole sorry affair as most folk seem to believe? Is he pulling PL's strings and setting him and his partner up for the fall?

 

I see pillie as being quite able to pull his own strings and fail.

[Phantasm]

 

 

The thought has occurred but for me, it holds no water. Mr Steadman seems to take no interest in the affairs of Pillings Lock beyond protecting his investment in the land.

 

Mr Steadman must know how Lillie junior behaves but as this appears to have no impact on his decisions (i.e. he allowed the debacle to develop and persist). I think he must have a bigger plan for the site we know nothing about. Probably has bigger fish to fry and the outcome of this temporary difficulty makes little difference to him.

 

MtB

Matt Steadman's visits to the marina became more and more infrequent and he was kept away from anyone who might voice an opinion to him. He was evidently given glowing reports from PL and his team. But he certainly became aware of how PL was behaving, and the feelings of some of the moorers because quite a few moorers, myself included, have e-mailed him or tried to contact him via facebook. But he chose to believe PL. IMO, once PL obviously started to get out of control Mr Steadman chose the simplest option and let things take its course knowing that what ever happened his investment in the land would be safe.

 

It is a shame that PL believed the concept "build it and they will come". He forgot that he needed to put some effort into attracting and keeping clients. The man simply has no personality or charisma.

Another thought about any new NAA for Pillings Lock Marina - does the discount apply to a new owner/operator, call it what you will, if a discount had already been applied to a different owner/operator for the same pond?

 

I would certainly hope not.

I wouldn't have thought so because the discount is for new marinas not new operators. It's to allow for set up and to give the marina time to attract clients, and they are already there in this case.

I suspect you are correct and CRT will want monthly payment in advance (if they are sensible). The new owners of QMP (Mk2) will not have received any money in advance from PLM as they will (hopefully) have been paying the IP who is managing QMP. Therefore the new owners of QMP (Mk2) will have to invest some capital into the business.

 

However I also suspect that CRT will be most unwilling to enter into a renewed NAA if the former director is involved in any of the three linked companies (QMH, QMP, PLM). My guess is Steadman will either purchase the remaining 25% from PL or sell his 75%. Prior to this he will have worked out whether the business is viable with a different manager.

I do believe that the business would be viable with a new management team.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Phantasm

[Peter X]

While Mr Steadman's Plan A may well have been that John Lillie would build a marina and Paul Lillie would operate it successfully, yielding him a nice dividend income from his 75% of QMH on top of the mortgage interest, the dodgy triumvirate of companies shows that his plan B was to cover himself if the marina failed. It's unclear to me whether he planned from the start to elbow out John & Carol Lillie once the marina was open, but reasonable to think that Mr Steadman will have kept an eye on the accounts and approved the non-payment of the NAA fees.

 

After Mr Steadman gets the freehold back from the liquidator, we may expect him to do the following in this order:

 

Sack Paul Lillie as director of PLM, using his voting power as majority shareholder of QMH which owns 100% of PLM

Suck out any money in PLM, by any route other than dividends to QMH so that it all goes to himself or friends.

Cancel PLM's lease then liquidate it.

Liquidate QMH which by then is just a shell; PL gets 25% of nothing. Bye bye Paul Lillie.

Negotiate the best deal he can with the CRT to get a new NAA, because without one he'll never make much money out of the land; his chances of getting planning permission for housing seem remote, and anyway it's built as a marina.

Has the first triumvirate really worked out all that well for him? Losing the NAA has been costly, or very soon will be.

Then set up a new company to own and run the marina, or maybe another triumvirate instead if it makes sense.

Having got a properly managed marina up and running, sell it as a going concern.

[mayalld]

 

 

The thought has occurred but for me, it holds no water. Mr Steadman seems to take no interest in the affairs of Pillings Lock beyond protecting his investment in the land.

 

Mr Steadman must know how Lillie junior behaves but as this appears to have no impact on his decisions (i.e. he allowed the debacle to develop and persist). I think he must have a bigger plan for the site we know nothing about. Probably has bigger fish to fry and the outcome of this temporary difficulty makes little difference to him.

 

The thing that needs to be foremost in our minds when we consider this is;

 

Matthew Steadman is by any measure at the rich end of "comfortably off"

 

Now let us consider how he might either get to be that way and/or ensure thet he remains that way. Perhaps he inherited money. But to remain rich whilst reaping the rewards of potential 18% ROI investments means only one thing.

 

It means that your involvement is to invest money that is then ring-fenced from the effects of any financial disaster, and to take the profits. You aren't about to get your hands dirty, or to run the risk of losing your money.

 

So, he sets up QMH, and ensures that he isn't personally a shareholder of any of the operating entities, and loans the money on a mortgage to the operating end.

 

If the business works, he gets his mortgage money, plus some extra. If it doesn't, he gets his mortgage money until the business fails, plus he gets the property.

 

He can't lose!

[raymondh]

I may have missed it but how many on here are going to attend the "On the Water" weekend at Pillings Lock Marina 3rd to 5th May 2014

for the free boat trips, hog roast etc?

Ray

[Dangerous Dave]

I may have missed it but how many on here are going to attend the "On the Water" weekend at Pillings Lock Marina 3rd to 5th May 2014

for the free boat trips, hog roast etc?

Ray

 

I think the boat trips have been altered to "pedola" use now!

 

I would think it only polite for anyone on here to introduce themselves to the management team

[Swallowman]

 

I think the boat trips have been altered to "pedola" use now!

 

I would think it only polite for anyone on here to introduce themselves to the management team

 

And then duck!!!!!

[Dangerous Dave]

Who is going to be first in publishing the latest letter from Phil Spencer of C&RT

[JerryP]

Who is going to be first in publishing the latest letter from Phil Spencer of C&RT

 

 

You might as well have the glory Dave.

[Peter X]

I may have missed it but how many on here are going to attend the "On the Water" weekend at Pillings Lock Marina 3rd to 5th May 2014

for the free boat trips, hog roast etc?

Ray

It'll be a pig to get to

[dor]

 

Has it occurred to anyone else that Mr Steadman is not as blameless for the whole sorry affair as most folk seem to believe? Is he pulling PL's strings and setting him and his partner up for the fall?

I would consider it remarkable if he is not involved in the whole sordid affair. Just the way the companies have been set up, along with allowing P Lillee, and possibly his partner, to take significant incomes and benefits out of the business whilst not paying a rather important to the business supplier, suggests he is far from innocent uninvolved. And certainly not someone I would want to do business with.

[gaggle]

Its not just love that may make people blind to what is in front of thier eyes , GREED can have the same effect on people , people promised a pot of gold is within thier reach have been known to put anything else , including family , out of the way and out of mind ,

[Ssscrudddy]

Well I reckon I should take a mooring there, just think, no licence to have to pay (not connected to the system) & by their own admission it is ok to not pay for 4 years despite any contract that may be signed...

So 4 years free mooring & no licence to pay, win win all around

[carlt]

So 4 years free mooring & no licence to pay, win win all around

and after the four years are up you can rename your boat and start all over again.

[MtB]

and after the four years are up you can rename your boat and start all over again.

 

But first send a cheque for 25% of the amount due, conditional on it being banked only 'in full and final settlement'....

 

 

MtB