Bargains at Peters Opal

[angelawild1]

Richard

Don't apologise ! it is a real possibility that we may have to do this - of course we won't be homeless it will just be a move back to a terrace from a semi-detached. we are not wealthy just ordinary working class. However if we do nothing we will be sure to get nothing, and as a matter of principle we cannot allow this to happen without a 'fight'. I do take heed of your comments and we are aware that we need to be sensible where legal costs are concerned but we absolutley must do everything we can. We are supposed to live in a civilised society where our rights are protected - we will have to wait and see if British justice prevails. In the meantime I am not going to be quiet !! Can't sleep too well at the moment anyway !

 

[rwoofer]

Richard, I fear that you might be right on the legal fees, based on my own experience of loosing a boat size sum to a company that was trading whilst insolvent.

Angela, you have my total sympathy and even as a bystander in this case I feel similarly about the people that are exploiting the situation. I hope that you are clubbing together with others in this unfortunate position to minimise the legal costs, as I'm sure that doing nothing is not good enough.

 

[Seven Spades]

Has there been a creditors meeting yet? Just about the only leverage you have is that the administrators have to be appointed/approved by a majority the creditors. It maybe that if there are enough creditors out there and you could organise a pre-creditors meeting(Opal Creditors Action Group perhaps?). Then you could try to appoint a different administrator if you feel that you could get a better deal for non-secured creditors, byappointing an administrator who will agree a much lower fee structure. If these things ever went out to a tender it would be a betterdeal for unsecured creditors. Usually the administrators are appointed in a suprise move bya large creditor bank. This is a very large exercise, and the fees are going to be considerable and thedownside with appointing a new administrator is that the fees to-date would have to be paid.

I appalled at what has happened to you Angela, but I will be very surprised if you have been given advice giving you any prospect of getting your old boat back. I believe that a court will hold that title was transferred to the buyer at the point when your agent received the money from the purchaser, unless it specifically says otherwise in the contract the purchaser signed. I am with Richard on this one and heartbreaking as it is I would caution against throwing good money after bad.

 

[savageseadog]

My experience of solicitors is similar to the others on here. They will promise a lot, write 2 or 3 letters, charge you £5 to £10 grand and tell you that you've no chance. The only possibility is that there is a flaw in the legal agreement between you and PO, why not post up what you have on here and we'll tell you.
I used to buy assets off administrators, receivers and liquidators on a regular basis and there is a definite tendancy to charge to the hilt and dispose of assets very quickly and cheaply, after all it keeps their cash flow going. Accountants always have a very narrow view of assets anyway, assets to them are virtually a liability, cash is king. They will be well aware that boats are a very vulnerable asset and they will be disposed of very quickly indeed.
Behind the admistrators there will be their own solicitors who will be advising (and charging) them, all of course ending up on the bill.

 

[rhinorhino]

I have every sympathy with your position. However, a word of warning if I may?

The words "it is a matter of principle" are the sweetest words a lawyer can hear.

Painful as it is, you should step back and try to look at the situation as a normal financial transaction; input, risk, outcome.

Best of luck

 

[Richard10002]

Given that I havent been shot down in flames, I'll make another suggestion - again based on my experience with a trustee in bankruptcy:

Angela,

I dont know how old you are, or what you do for a living, but faith in the british justice system is something which I lost a long time ago.

I cant stress highly enough how important it is to get a specialist barristers' opinion as soon as possible - if your solicitor suggests that it isnt a good idea, that might tell it's own story.

I remember a girlfriend of mine who was fighting a case against a bank, with a solicitors "help". After she had been presented with a bill for £1,000, which I had to pay, I got involved and got straight to a barrister.

The solicitor had been "relying" on a particular case which involved an old farmer and his bank. The first thing the barrister said was

"With respect Mr. Solicitor, and, having now met Ms. "X", she is a little bit smarter than an old farmer - you've got no chance, so we'll start from there". The barrister proceeded to give some practical advice, which meant that the solicitor was no longer needed, and she came out of the situation much better than had she taken the solicitors advice to follow a legal route.

Ever since then, I have sought a barristers advice in every matter where it has been appropriate, and things get cut to the chase pretty quickly. I have sometimes had to get pretty assertive with the solicitor to make this happen.

Again,

Good Luck

Richard

 

[Richard10002]

Another "cut to the chase" barrister incident involved a friend of mine who was getting divorced and spending big money fighting things using a solicitor.

Eventually he got in front of a barrister:

Barrister "How long have you been married?"

X "12 years"

barrister "How many kids have you got"

X "Two"

Barrister "How old are they"

X "2 and 4"

Barrister "Ok Mr. X..... You're f&c%ed, so we'd better start from there!"

 

[andymcp]

I was tempted to take a drive down to Kip and see what was around and on offer. But could I hold a conversation with anyone about picking up a boat that was only made available through the pain of someone else - whether that be a PO (ex-)employee or a customer who had lost stage payments? Erm.... no.

When we take delivery of our boat, I want to be able to sit on deck and feel like I earned it. Simple vanity perhaps, but that would be lost if it was achieved at someone else's expense.

Angela, best of luck with whatever you choose to do.

 

[savageseadog]

There really is no point in having a "conscience" about it. The boats will be sold whether you take part or not, the more they sell for the better things will be for everyone. At the end of the day buying a boat is a business matter and money is money.

 

[andymcp]

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of the day buying a boat is a business matter and money is money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh bugger. Here was me hoping that buying a boat might not remind me of work. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[davies]

"If I don't, then someone else will" - the excuse for lack of moral sense for thousands of years.

 

[rwoofer]

The problem is that Administrators don't typically go for the best price, because they want to get cash quickly.

Given the boat show is coming up and to get the best price, I would be working with Bavaria to sell stock boats at a small discount to genuine buyers at the show.

 

[Blueboatman]

One cannot advocate breaking the law...
Possession is 9/10 of the law-Peters/administrators have the deposits and the boats from some horribly unfortunate clients.
I would be querying the liklihood of just turning up with a hired lowloader and some muscle and taking what one has paid for one night.Might be told off for holding the night watchman in his teahut for a couple of hours,but f--- it,beat em at their own game and after all one is merely collecting what is a receipted and paid for moveable asset.
And how can you tell the difference between a 25 footer and a 32 footer at night. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[benjenbav]

As a solicitor who has spent a fair bit of his life working with insolvency practitioners I have read the above comments with some sadness.

I'm not going to try to change people's perceptions but here are a couple of facts:

1 No company ever went into administration because it had enough money to pay everyone out in full. It's like divorce: unless you're called Abramovitch or McCartney, there just isn't going to be enough to go round.

2 The law is that the administrators' fees and expenses come out first, then what's due to the banks and the government. All these have to be paid in full before anyone else gets a penny piece.

 

[gjgm]

I m rather with you in this sorry sorry case.
Angela, I too am worried by the emotion stated in "justice". The ugly truth is that what the administrators are doing is exactly that.. its the just and legal practice under law. Unfortunately, that isnt the same thing as"fair", as seen from your particular angle.
Barristers are very very expensive to be sure, but an hour, even at £500, is probably a good investment. There is a difference in proceeding if you have a 50pct chance of recouping 50pct, for example, but it is better to get a straight answer if the situation is that you have a 1pct chance in recouping 5pct (and meantime costing 50pct). I dont know what these numbers might really be, but personally, I would wish some harsh legal reality from someone unassociated before risking getting into a poker game that is hard to then exit.
And I wish for all concerned, that the chances are indeed high, but if they were in general, I guess the law would be different.

 

[Barr Avel]

[ QUOTE ]
As a solicitor who has spent a fair bit of his life working with insolvency practitioners I have read the above comments with some sadness.

I'm not going to try to change people's perceptions but here are a couple of facts:

1 No company ever went into administration because it had enough money to pay everyone out in full. It's like divorce: unless you're called Abramovitch or McCartney, there just isn't going to be enough to go round.

2 The law is that the administrators' fees and expenses come out first, then what's due to the banks and the government. All these have to be paid in full before anyone else gets a penny piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having written down your second point, do you really not understand the resentment felt by the victims which have been most affected by this: employees and customers. The fact that the law favours the corporations and the goverment is no surprise, but it doesn't stop people from expressing their unhappiness about this lack of fairness.

Marc.

 

[ex-Gladys]

Actually, the fees are pretty much restricted by the DTI as I understand it. It's not the usual consultancy/accountancy gravy train....

 

[benjenbav]

[ QUOTE ]
do you really not understand the resentment felt by the victims which have been most affected by this: employees and customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I do. I have sat in creditors' meetings with people who have lost their jobs and others who are looking at getting a penny in the pound of what they are owed and walked round warehouses where the few people left in work know that their job security is precarious. I was simply making a statement of fact, not saying how I would like things to be.

FWIW I had some work done recently by a contractor who I know has lost money in the P-O administration and I made sure his bill was paid on the same day as it was received.

 

[Richard10002]

[ QUOTE ]
As a solicitor who has spent a fair bit of his life working with insolvency practitioners I have read the above comments with some sadness.

I'm not going to try to change people's perceptions but here are a couple of facts: .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Cant dispute what you are saying, but to have people on £250 per hour, (and more), dealing with what is already a lost cause, and no real checks and balances on the bills they rack up, seems a bit back to front.

I know you will probably say that there are checks and balances, which is why I stressed the word "reasonable" in my posts - but there is reasonable and REASONABLE, such that there arent really any checks and balances.

I cant remember who the administrators are in this case, but they will have been over the moon to get the job, and they'll be rubbing there hands together all the way to the bank. It will be a "nice little earner" which will go a long way to keeping their partners in clover for another year.

Sorry, but that's my axperience of trustees and administrators, having dealt fairly closely with them as both a creditor, and a part owner of an asset.

Cheers

Richard

 

[benjenbav]

It's almost 10 years since I worked in the insolvency sector so I don't have an axe to grind, other than to say that whilst I like making money, I like to do it in a way where the people I deal with feel that they are getting value for money so that they come back for more.

IMHO, administration and the licensing of insolvency practitioners were two of the great hopes of the 1986 Insolvency Act. Whether they have worked out as planned is less clear. On the other hand, some of the things that went on under the previous regime (Companies Act 1948) would make your hair stand on end.