The Pillings Marina débâcle

MUCH as been written, by many people about the Pillings Marina débâcle, so here is the story from the 'horses mouth'—its Managing Director, Paul Lillie:

ONLY one of the 20 British Waterways Marinas Ltd (BWML) marinas were on the same Network Access Agreement (NAA)  as QMP Ltd [Pillings Lock Marina] and many pay little or nothing. 13 sites pay a 'Market Rent' but get the NAA fee included. Now how much is that Market Rent?

And if so why do they then not pay 9% of GMC at PAC per annum too? Is this to support the high salaries of its managers? Or to increase the dividend? Someone tell me please as I am dying to know! (Photo by permission of Leicester Mercury.)

[GMC = Gross Moorings Capacity—the total number of metres of moorings in a marina (ours is 4,072m total) and CaRT usually divide this up into 12m lengths as that is the average length of boats on the system. PAC = Published Annual Charge. If you have a price list (as all marinas do) then CaRT take this as the gospel rate you are getting for all of your moorings at PAC.]

Not contested High Court action

QMP Ltd told CaRT in November 2013 that it would not contest their High Court action—we did not even submit a defence. There was no point as the NAA contract was so watertight that trying to defend it would have just escalated everyone's legal costs by another £100k and CaRT had already won the minute they got me to sign it in March 2007. But it was a case of sign it or there is no marina.

Then came the onslaught of new marinas being constructed—thousands of new berths.

5,600 new berths were constructed and put on-line in 2007 to 2012. Yet only 2,341 new boats to fill them. Get the gist now? There simply is not income coming into the marina industry to support high rents and service charges as issued by CaRT and thought up by CaRT in 2006. CaRT/BW claim that the NAA was given 'Approval' by the British Marine Federation (BMF)—ask anyone at the BMF if they saw it and approved it? No one will admit to this, because no one did approve it. I have the word of ex BMF staff that the BMF did not see this as a reasonable charge or system as it was far too different from existing agreements.

Providing a 'free ride'

A conservative guess is also that there are 6,000 Continuous Cruisers, although we all know what that term means in most cases. A well publicised article in September 2013 said 67 boats per month were registering as Continuous Cruisers—that means at a conservative £2k per boat in mooring fees, £1.6m per year was leaving the marina industry and going onto the towpath. Where is the compromise from CaRT for providing a free ride for our formerly paying clients?

I have lost £4,837 in annual mooring fees in 2014 alone to three boats that were for many years moored with me, but now being sold and going directly onto the London towpaths as homes for working professionals in the City.

Unprofitable Waterway Network

How long can this carry on? Why should we pay £38,329 plus VAT per year to be connected to an Unprofitable Waterway Network?

And as a compromise, in a year we made £7k profit—I paid CaRT £6k. In a year we made £22k profit I paid CaRT over £11k. Plimsol state that the average profit margin in UK Marinas is currently under 5%—so why do CaRT feel it is appropriate to take twice the UK profit margin (9%) from a small business? And bear in mind with average marina occupancy at 80% this 9% then becomes 11.25% of the actual mooring fees in most marinas on the new NAA.

We are not running Pilling's as a hobby—it is a business that must stand on it's own two feet. Current investment stands at £3.97m. CaRT have invested zero yet take £150k a year plus in boat licence fees from the moorers here—some of these boats don't even have engines! CaRT make more profit from this marina than the owners do via the boat licence, yet they want another £38,329 Plus VAT that we more often than not have not had to give them.

Not kept moorers' money

There has been no foul play here either. We have not 'kept' moorers money that should have been passed on to CaRT—we have only ever managed to generate revenues that are barely sufficient to keep the main bills paid. We have had to be more competitive on pricing and we have had to cut our running costs to a bare minimum to survive a recession and a national trend that shows a drop in the numbers of licenced boats. More boats on the towpath than ever before too.

So is it fair my clients pay a boat licence and 9% of their mooring fees to CaRT? Whilst a Continuous Cruiser just pays for a boat licence and uses the waterways every day of the year? How can that be fair? Because it ultimately is the client that is paying and this whole débâcle—that was well publicised by Phil Spencer [of Cart] to all my clients—has shown what raw deal a guy in a marina now gets from a financial perspective.