longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
I first saw mention of this when looking at the reasons given by Fowey Harbour Commissioners for increasing their berthing costs. I didn't take much notice of it then, but today received a newsletter from Dart Harbour saying much the same. Seems there's a £180m+ deficit which is payable by all Competent Harbour Authorities, which seems to cover just about all harbours in the UK. Below is an extract from the Dart newsletter published today.
Issue 4 : 20 May 2013
Part 1
PILOTS NATIONAL PENSION FUND (PNPF)
It is minuted in our harbour board meetings that a potential liability is lurking regarding the above fund. I will not be able to explain the full issue in this newsletter (which has to cover other items) as it would take too much space. In brief, Dart Harbour faces a legal, if not necessarily fair, share of a liability to repair the above poorly performing pension fund. I would hasten to add at this point that most harbours in the UK are liable, and we will all have to pay something to bale out this fund – I have been advised that there is no legal way of avoiding it. Here come the numbers - the PNPF is in deficit to the tune of £180 million, and likely to rise! Dart Harbour’s share of it is likely to be of the order of £500,000! The immediate question is, what is the impact for all of you who pay hard earned money to use the harbour? Your harbour board, equally shocked, are considering a multitude of options. This is running alongside a lobbying package with the MP, Ministers, and professional associations to get across that at Dart Harbour we have virtually no pilotage / commercial business on which to place a levy to recover the debt. We are also in a negotiation process with the PNPF Trustees to gain some info on how long we may be able to pay the liability over, but I have to tell you that, legally, it is all due now.
Clearly this item will be of great concern to you all – but rest assured I am working very hard to gain the best outcome for all of us. I am striving hard to ensure that immediate price rises are not necessary, and there are possibilities that we may achieve this. It depends on how flexible PNPF are prepared to be. The one thing I will say is that, in this environment, you will not see any Dart Harbour originated development in the river for the next 5 years or so. Frustrating, but the ultimate aim is to meet any legal liability that is imposed upon us, and to continue to manage the river safely and effectively. I will issue a separate bulletin dedicated to this subject alone in due course, but negotiations are in progress at the moment. This subject is taking up most of my time, and I am fighting our corner, as you should expect me to do.
If you Google PNPF there is a huge amount of information available. Seems that we might all be expected to pay higher fees to pay for this deficit regardless of whether our port actually has a pilot or not. So maybe when faced with increased mooring charges we should bear this in mind. It certainly puts the Fowey increases in a different light, although they are very much a commercial working port so hopefully will take more from the commercial operations rather than their leisure users. Seems extremely unfair on most smaller non commercial harbours/ports but it's already been decided and all legal challenges have been made and rejected.
Issue 4 : 20 May 2013
Part 1
PILOTS NATIONAL PENSION FUND (PNPF)
It is minuted in our harbour board meetings that a potential liability is lurking regarding the above fund. I will not be able to explain the full issue in this newsletter (which has to cover other items) as it would take too much space. In brief, Dart Harbour faces a legal, if not necessarily fair, share of a liability to repair the above poorly performing pension fund. I would hasten to add at this point that most harbours in the UK are liable, and we will all have to pay something to bale out this fund – I have been advised that there is no legal way of avoiding it. Here come the numbers - the PNPF is in deficit to the tune of £180 million, and likely to rise! Dart Harbour’s share of it is likely to be of the order of £500,000! The immediate question is, what is the impact for all of you who pay hard earned money to use the harbour? Your harbour board, equally shocked, are considering a multitude of options. This is running alongside a lobbying package with the MP, Ministers, and professional associations to get across that at Dart Harbour we have virtually no pilotage / commercial business on which to place a levy to recover the debt. We are also in a negotiation process with the PNPF Trustees to gain some info on how long we may be able to pay the liability over, but I have to tell you that, legally, it is all due now.
Clearly this item will be of great concern to you all – but rest assured I am working very hard to gain the best outcome for all of us. I am striving hard to ensure that immediate price rises are not necessary, and there are possibilities that we may achieve this. It depends on how flexible PNPF are prepared to be. The one thing I will say is that, in this environment, you will not see any Dart Harbour originated development in the river for the next 5 years or so. Frustrating, but the ultimate aim is to meet any legal liability that is imposed upon us, and to continue to manage the river safely and effectively. I will issue a separate bulletin dedicated to this subject alone in due course, but negotiations are in progress at the moment. This subject is taking up most of my time, and I am fighting our corner, as you should expect me to do.
If you Google PNPF there is a huge amount of information available. Seems that we might all be expected to pay higher fees to pay for this deficit regardless of whether our port actually has a pilot or not. So maybe when faced with increased mooring charges we should bear this in mind. It certainly puts the Fowey increases in a different light, although they are very much a commercial working port so hopefully will take more from the commercial operations rather than their leisure users. Seems extremely unfair on most smaller non commercial harbours/ports but it's already been decided and all legal challenges have been made and rejected.
