The End of Quorn Marina Properties Ltd (ex Pilling Lock Marina)

[Alan de Enfield]

Companies House – QMP "FINAL GAZETTE: DISSOLVED EX-LIQUIDATED" with effect 7^th October 2017

To me, it is wrong that a company can declare bankruptcy, void all of their huge debts and the same people set up operating the same business under a new name.

[JamesFrance]

I ran a plant hire company years ago and this happened all the time.   They even expected a credit account for the new name and seemed quite upset when we insisted on cash up front.

[furnessvale]

10 minutes ago, JamesFrance said:

I ran a plant hire company years ago and this happened all the time.   They even expected a credit account for the new name and seemed quite upset when we insisted on cash up front.

Very common in the road haulage industry where everything, except the debt, is transferred to a new company and they continue as if nothing has happened.

George

[Stilllearning]

Apparently it is a system that cannot be changed to make sure debts get paid, as this might deter those entrepreneurs from starting up new companies so that they can rip of more people...Again

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Stilllearning said:

Apparently it is a system that cannot be changed to make sure debts get paid, as this might deter those entrepreneurs from starting up new companies so that they can rip of more people...Again

 

Which is of course correct. No-one is forced to extend unsecured credit to a limited company, yet there is a never ending stream of idiots willing so to do. CRT being a good example.

Without limited liability being invented in (I think) 16th century, our economy and wealth now would probably be only about 1% of its current size. 

[furnessvale]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Which is of course correct. No-one is forced to extend unsecured credit to a limited company, yet there is a never ending stream of idiots willing so to do. CRT being a good example.

Without limited liability being invented in (I think) 16th century, our economy and wealth now would probably be only about 1% of its current size. 

I don't think anyone questions the concept of limited liability.

What is questionable is the ability of certain people to do pre-pack administrations, sometimes repeatedly, without sanction.

George

[Stilllearning]

35 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I don't think anyone questions the concept of limited liability.

What is questionable is the ability of certain people to do pre-pack administrations, sometimes repeatedly, without sanction.

George

This was exactly my point, but put more elequently.

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Which is of course correct. No-one is forced to extend unsecured credit to a limited company, yet there is a never ending stream of idiots willing so to do. CRT being a good example.

Without limited liability being invented in (I think) 16th century, our economy and wealth now would probably be only about 1% of its current size. 

It was the Limited Liability Act of 1855 in the UK, just about the time when industrial development in this country started to go downhill, with large sectors of management unable to keep up with or invest in modern technology. All limited liability does is to pass on debts to the general population - those careful with their money - through increased prices to cover debts. 

[Peter X]

There is an existing but under-used remedy for this problem in law; it's the Companies Act 2006 section 993 covering fraudulent trading (which replaced various earlier legislation)

Here's an article explaining it:

http://www.consumercrime.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ar3638

My understanding is that if a director knows a creditor isn't getting paid and should be, and goes on running up that debt, or allows a company to go on trading knowing that there's no reasonable hope of it paying its debts, that's an offence and the director can be disqualified from being a company director (of any company) as a result. And that the receiver of a company in administration can report such a director to the Department of Trade and suggest prosecution. It doesn't seem to happen often though.

[Peter X]

Re Pluto's comments, I suspect that most of the bad debts from failed companies are passed on to the general population indirectly, as the biggest unpaid creditor and the one which applies to have a company put into administration is often HMRC following a failure to pay VAT, PAYE or other taxes. In the case of QMP, I can't remember the details but certainly CRT was a big creditor and did too little too late to chase the ever-growing debt arising from the Network Access Agreement for Pillings Lock Marina. QMP signed the agreement then simply failed to make the payments and got away with it for years.

[Alan de Enfield]

26 minutes ago, Peter X said:

In the case of QMP, I can't remember the details but certainly CRT was a big creditor and did too little too late to chase the ever-growing debt

From memory £160,000- that could have mended some lock gates !!!

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Peter X said:

There is an existing but under-used remedy for this problem in law; it's the Companies Act 2006 section 993 covering fraudulent trading (which replaced various earlier legislation)

Here's an article explaining it:

http://www.consumercrime.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ar3638

My understanding is that if a director knows a creditor isn't getting paid and should be, and goes on running up that debt, or allows a company to go on trading knowing that there's no reasonable hope of it paying its debts, that's an offence and the director can be disqualified from being a company director (of any company) as a result. And that the receiver of a company in administration can report such a director to the Department of Trade and suggest prosecution. It doesn't seem to happen often though.

 

..........which is why they appointed the "marina elf" as the director....

[Laurie Booth]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

From memory £160,000- that could have mended some lock gates !!!

1.6 locks

[TonyDunkley]

12 hours ago, Peter X said:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I can't remember the details but certainly CRT was a big creditor and did too little too late to chase the ever-growing debt arising from the Network Access Agreement for Pillings Lock Marina. QMP signed the agreement then simply failed to make the payments and got away with it for years.

Without wanting to defend or condemn QMP, or the people who ran it, if non-payment of C&RT's Network Access Agreement fees was a significant factor in QMP's demise, then it does beg the question of why C&RT were charging NAA fees at Pilling's Lock Marina when every other marina connected to a C&RT controlled river navigation is exempted from them ?

[Neil2]

21 minutes ago, TonyDunkley said:

Without wanting to defend or condemn QMP, or the people who ran it, if non-payment of C&RT's Network Access Agreement fees was a significant factor in QMP's demise, then it does beg the question of why C&RT were charging NAA fees at Pilling's Lock Marina when every other marina connected to a C&RT controlled river navigation is exempted from them ?

IIRC that was the argument used by the owner when CRT threatened to blockade the entrance to the marina for non payment of fees.   It was claimed that CRT - or was it BW in those days - had not pointed out there were other marinas in the area not paying NAA fees which put Pillings Lock at a disadvantage.  Again, IIRC the real reason the marina went bust was they never reached the levels of occupancy to make it financially viable, but it would be interesting to know what criteria CRT use for deciding who is subject to CAA fees and who isn't - is it as simple as whether the location is on a river or canal?  Pillings lock is on a canalised section of the Soar isn't it? 

 

[Naughty Cal]

19 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

IIRC that was the argument used by the owner when CRT threatened to blockade the entrance to the marina for non payment of fees.   It was claimed that CRT - or was it BW in those days - had not pointed out there were other marinas in the area not paying NAA fees which put Pillings Lock at a disadvantage.  Again, IIRC the real reason the marina went bust was they never reached the levels of occupancy to make it financially viable, but it would be interesting to know what criteria CRT use for deciding who is subject to CAA fees and who isn't - is it as simple as whether the location is on a river or canal?  Pillings lock is on a canalised section of the Soar isn't it? 

 

I thought it was the case that all new marinas be it on rivers or canals would be subject to the connection charge?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Neil2 said:

IIRC that was the argument used by the owner when CRT threatened to blockade the entrance to the marina for non payment of fees.   It was claimed that CRT - or was it BW in those days - had not pointed out there were other marinas in the area not paying NAA fees which put Pillings Lock at a disadvantage.  Again, IIRC the real reason the marina went bust was they never reached the levels of occupancy to make it financially viable, but it would be interesting to know what criteria CRT use for deciding who is subject to CAA fees and who isn't - is it as simple as whether the location is on a river or canal?  Pillings lock is on a canalised section of the Soar isn't it? 

 

IIRC the reason it wasn't paid was that Paul Lillie had bought his boyfriend a new car and they had been on a number of expensive holidays. The Director was taking more money out in salary than the business could afford.

 

Maybe the other Marinas pre-date the NAA agreement implementation ?

But I think you are correct in that River Marinas do not pay it, Canal and Canalised River Marinas do.

 

3 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

I thought it was the case that all new marinas be it on rivers or canals would be subject to the connection charge?

 

I'm pretty sure they cannot charge the NAA for River Marinas as they have no authority outside of the MNC

[TonyDunkley]

1 hour ago, Neil2 said:

 . . . . . . . . .  is it as simple as whether the location is on a river or canal?  Pillings lock is on a canalised section of the Soar isn't it? 

 

As far as I'm aware, it is that simple. 

The marina entrance is in fact situated just inside Loughborough Cut, which is part of what was built as the Leicester Navigation. The important word there is "Navigation", as opposed to "Canal", and being a 'navigation' [ie. a river made navigable by way of canal sections/lock cuts] it escaped the extinguishing of the Public Right of Navigation [PRN] under the 1968 Transport Act - something acknowledged by BWB/C&RT in not demanding that pleasure craft using it must take out a standard Pleasure Boat Licence. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by TonyDunkley

[Naughty Cal]

8 minutes ago, TonyDunkley said:

As far as I'm aware, it is that simple. 

The marina entrance is in fact situated just inside Loughborough Cut, which is part of what was built as the Leicester Navigation. The important word there is "Navigation", as opposed to "Canal", and being a 'navigation' [ie. a river made navigable by way of canal sections/lock cuts] it escaped the extinguishing of the Public Right of Navigation [PRN] under the 1968 Transport Act - something acknowledged by BWB/C&RT in not demanding that pleasure craft using it must take a standard Pleasure Boat Licence. 

They don't use the same criteria everywhere on navigations then.

Burton Waters is on the Fossdyke Navigation which is vandalised river and has several other watercourse entering it yet pays the connection fee and all boats in there must hold a valid CRT licence whilst afloat. 

[Iain_S]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

(snip)

I'm pretty sure they cannot charge the NAA for River Marinas as they have no authority outside of the MNC

Although a recent court decision defines the MNC as being from bank to bank, if CaRT want it to ....

[Alan de Enfield]

25 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

Although a recent court decision defines the MNC as being from bank to bank, if CaRT want it to ....

& only when it is convenient.

If it involves any 'cost' (ie dredging) then the MNC is only 6 foot wide.

[Horace42]

Yes ! you are right. Directors can walk away from huge debts and start up again under a new name.

But not without legal restrictions to directorships; as others have said.

Anyone who was owed money in trading with Quorn will have got a share of the proceeds of the liquidated assets - that is, if anything was left after the administrators, preferred creditors, banks, HP compnies, HMRC etc (these people call the administarator early whilst there are some assets to sieze) - usually leaving only a few pence in the pound for luckless small traders. I don't know where CRT were in the queue for a pay-out.

If you was a victim and was asked to trade with the new company then get personal guarantees from the directors (tricky because banks don't like that). If you need to trade you make sure you get paid on time and do not supply them with anything cannot afford to lose in case it all goes wrong again.

But all this is basic stuff anyone should already know if they run their own business.

[Alan de Enfield]

18 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Anyone who was owed money in trading with Quorn will have got a share of the proceeds of the liquidated assets

But that was the problem, the assets (marina, buildings, stock, boats, equipment etc.) all appear to have been transferred or gifted (or maybe sold for £1 ?) to the new limited company.

[Richard T]

Having passed by recently all the moorings appear to be in use again. Has PL renegotiated his agreement with CRT?

[TonyDunkley]

Leaving aside any considerations as to the extent of the MNC and, post 1971, the attendant registration requirement on a river navigation, BWB/C&RT's authority to charge an access/connection fee has to be ultimately dependent on the PRN of the waterway in question having been extinguished under the 1968 Transport Act. It follows, therefore, that they have no authority so to do in respect of any of the River Waterways listed in Schedule 1 to the 1971 BW Act.