davidej
Well-known member
Well there's telling you !
Gallions point marina repossessed
- Thread starter Outinthedinghy
- Start date
PaulRainbow
Well-known member
Then you should have insisted on a longer lease.
Rather than tell anyone anything, you'd rather rant and swear like a petulant child.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
The lease ended eight years ago, did it not?
steveeasy
Well-known member
If the lease ended 8 years ago why on earth have the Landore not obtained possession. If they gave an informal right to continue the tenants may have a valid claim.
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between a commercial business who didn't (want to?) understand the contracts into which they had entered and the underprivileged residents of Glasgow slums last century. Your grasp on the history of and the reasons behind the slum clearances is also pretty tenuous.
Last edited:
KINGFISHER 8
Well-known member
I felt sympathetic at the beginning of this thread but after reading the other side of the story and the near hysterical rantings of Leigh@Gallions I've changed my mind. It would seem the marina operators were in the wrong all along and deserve to be evicted. Tough old life innit?
DownWest
Well-known member
It is a bit difficult to figure out what is happening on the info supplied. So far, it sounds as if there is no case for Leigh, but she says she has one. If she would like to tell more, it would help (a lot!)
DW
DW
jordanbasset
Well-known member
This is the latest I can find on it
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/beckton-marina-owner-stages-sit-in-1-5729761
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/beckton-marina-owner-stages-sit-in-1-5729761
maby
Well-known member
It's not uncommon for landlords to allow a tenant to remain in a property on a short-term rolling basis after the lease has expired while they wait for the appropriate time to start new development plans.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
You clearly have no idea of the history of the docklands development. Millions were spent on developing the dock area (including places such as the Gallions Hotel in which I was originally involved) there was massive effort to maintain the history of the place. I was one of the contractors (I had a 3.5 year contract on the LDDA).
I worked on contracts from bridges such as Glamis Road, Blue bridge, Red bridge etc. Rebuilding he lighthouse to Limehouse, (Forget the proper name) The buildings along the side of the light railway. All along the Tobacco docks etc & dozens more.
( I forget most of them there were so many & I had other contracts elsewhere as well) I was sometimes frustrated at the extent to which the client insisted on maintaining historic landmarks & details. In the end I have to admit much of it was excellent.
Unfortunately the projects were finally handed over to the local authorities & that is where it may have gone wrong. At that point my contract finished so I was not so heavily involved. But to suggest that there has been failure to maintain our historic sites is clearly wrong.
I would further suggest that IF: note IF: (I have not done any work there for years, It was pretty low key then) the Gallions marina was managed as a dump, one cannot blame the client for wanting to take control & tidy the place up as part of the broader scheme of things. Clearly losing one's lively hood is difficult, but one might expect that the directors should have been aware of such an outcome. if they have been living on a dodgy lease for 8 years then one might ask why?
But it is too late now & they have to learn to deal with it. Feeling bitter will get them nowhere. The answer is to forget it & make new plans & move on as quickly as possible. Dwelling on the past will get them nowhere. Easy for us to say but they need to wake up to a new life & start again as difficult as that may seem.
But one needs to kick the attitude first.
PeterBoater
Active member
More recent:
https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/ne...evelop-royal-docks-opportunity-area-1-5748002
At least there will still be a marina.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
From the video posted, it sounds as if her position is that the eviction action named her and her father as tenants, but that the tenant was actually a company which they controlled. I have absolutely no idea if this is a good argument or not.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
That contains "if planning permission is given, building could begin in 2020", in which case it seems very harsh to evict the current businesses - including the marina - two years early.
Pavalijo
Member
I have great sympathy with Leigh and pass my best wishes to her and her father.
In my career as a commercial property consultant I have acted for developers, but prefered to act in the interests of tenants, occasionally protecting them from unscrupulous landlords.
I know no more of this case than is contained within this thread and linked material. I cannot be certain but the following is one possible scenario of events.
Whilst the lease expired 8 years ago it seems likely that the tenancy has continued by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (section 24). This relates to premises occupied by a tenant for the purpose of running a business. Under this legislation, where notice has not been served to end the tenancy at expiry of a lease the tenancy continues on the same terms and conditions until brought to an end by notice served under this act.
The landlord can serve a notice to terminate under section 25 of between 6 and 12 months. It must either offer a new tenancy or require possession under one of a number of grounds specified within the aforementioned act. One of those grounds is for redevelopment, which may well be the case here.
Except when the lease is specifically excluded from protection of this act by mutual agreement, the tenant is entitled to compensation. This is one times the rateable value of the premises if the tenant has been in occupation for less than 14 years, twice RV if more.
The original lease was granted in personal names but we are told that the limited company has paid rent in recent years. Whilst it is suggested that there has been no formal assignment of the lease, by a landlord accepting rent from a different entity we are taught that an assignment can take effect. If that is the case then if the company commenced paying rent less than 14 years ago it may be difficult to both claim that the court order is invalid (not served on the current tenant) AND seek double rateable value compensation, so the family may wish to give that some thought. That said I couldn’t find the RV online.
There may be circumstances whereunder compensation might be claimed for tenant’s improvements - but I have never seen such a claim or properly understood the relevant legislation and practice. That said, I have been involved in compulsory purchase order claims where compensation for loss of a business is available to a tenant. However CPO is not hinted at here.
Clearly I have very limited facts available to me and the tenant must not rely upon my comments as factual or as a correct interpretation, but hopefully they may assist better understanding by those reading this thread!
Last edited:
BelleSerene
Active member
It is a sound argument that that eviction order was not enforceable. The council would have to go back to court to get an order evicting the person (a company is a person at law) that has been occupying the land - and she states that's the company. But that's only going to take the council a day: either the company had the right to occupy the property or it didn't. Once there's a correctly served eviction order she'd have to make a case that the company was entitled to carry on operating on the property - and we have seen no argument for that amid all the verbiage.
However, given the misleading statements so far, it's possible that the eviction order in her name is valid. For example, if she had latterly been paying the rent in her own name, or if, say, she'd signed the original lease in her own name before incorporating the company, then she probably was at law the occupier, so a court's eviction order in her name would be correct. Without a more reliable source of information than we have seen, we cannot know.
[Edit:] I see that Pavalijo has confirmed that she was indeed the original lessee, so notwithstanding the contestable matter of whether the landlord's subsequent acceptance of rent from the company rather than from her constituted acceptance that she had transferred the lease to the company, the enforcement order was perfectly valid in her name. Here is another example of where we are being fed a slanted version of the facts.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Thanks. That's clear and interesting.
BelleSerene
Active member
Why does what a newspaper writes makes the slightest difference?!
maby
Well-known member
They have been fighting this for multiple years - perhaps the GLA has sufficient experience of them to anticipate that they would fight it whenever the eviction was served and they are allowing themselves plenty of time to get it completed before the scheduled start of the development. If they were more cooperative with the landlord, they may have been allowed to stay there longer.
steveeasy
Well-known member
Hi Maybe,
Really ?. Forgive me if im wrong and I may well be, but my understanding is a lease starts and stops. If after the lease ends the landlord has the right to vacant possession, he can enforce this through the courts. If a landlord just granted an informal right to continue while it suited his needs he might be granting a security of tenure perhaps. this is when the matter becomes not so black and white shall I say. I have to say these are only my view and my understanding having had a few leases and fbts. A landlord would be completely mad to grant any continuation of occupancy without correct paperwork in place or they might find they have little rights in regaining occupation.
Anyone trying to keep possession in such circumstances is sitting on a ticking time bomb so to speak.
Steveeasy
maby
Well-known member
Well, it would need to be all done legally, but in residential property, at least, once the original lease expires, it is possible to move the tenant onto a one month rolling lease. We have recently done exactly that - we know that we are going to want the property vacant in the not too distant future, the tenant has been good and is being cooperative, so rather than evict him and potentially have it empty for a period of months, we have allowed him to stay on on a one month rolling lease. Everything has been done openly and nobody is suffering - we would have been within our rights to ask him to leave as soon as the original lease ended.