james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651 
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Dec 31, 2017 17:05:51 GMT
Here is another 2nd charge I should have avoided. Valued in May 2015 (yes 2015!) £575k. Not currently for sale on Rightmove
Was up for auction July 2017 valued £425k+ and withdrawn before the auction
Made live Feb 2017 and not revalued at that time; why not?
Previously marketed through estate agent for £499k but cant tell the date of this
Current Zoopla estimate £547k
Last sold 2008 £230k
If anyone wants the full address then message me
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Dec 31, 2017 17:14:58 GMT
One investor is in for £90k on this one, and the same investor in the Lodge loan defaulted is in for £100k
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 1, 2018 13:01:16 GMT
wow - braver chap or chappesse than I!
Not sure yet if this is going to me a mega-disaster or not as per Wimbledon etc although it annoys me that FS use an estate agent's asking price as a valid valuation. The agents in this case are F***ons and what I think of them can be reduced to 2 words which if I quoted would get me banned from the forum! It is one thing to put a house to market with an optimistic asking price and wait for a year if you don't need a sale - it is quite another to quickly shift a property at auction where you can easily suffer a 30% reduction in price.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 1, 2018 17:39:58 GMT
not sure what is wrong here but something clearly is!
Firstly the lease seems OK as about 95 years
The valuation is a joke when compared to other properties in the same block- I would guess £450K is more acccurate
Thus about £47K to cover all expenses and unpaid first charge interest - well not as bad as some other loans but ,if my figure is correct, probably not enough to recover all of the capital
However there is a reason why this flat has not sold - I can't see the first charge holder being too bothered about anything else then recovering his debt i.e. he would accept any reasonable offer. This seems a nice flat in a good area and close to 2 main hospitals etc
Wonder if there is a problem neighbour or similar?
Has anybody any idea how much the ground rent/maintenance charges are- I was unable to download the legal pack. I know that for some London properties this can be astromonical.
I am glad this one was highlighted because I may well have invested in it - note to self - don't be a slaphead adrian77 and do your own DD ref valuations etc...
Maybe FS should not have kept throwing money at this one and stopped after the initial loan...
Hopefully this is not in the Wimbledon disaster league but another interesting one to watch.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 2, 2018 8:24:39 GMT
wow - braver chap or chappesse than I! Not sure yet if this is going to me a mega-disaster or not as per Wimbledon etc although it annoys me that FS use an estate agent's asking price as a valid valuation. The agents in this case are F***ons and what I think of them can be reduced to 2 words which if I quoted would get me banned from the forum! It is one thing to put a house to market with an optimistic asking price and wait for a year if you don't need a sale - it is quite another to quickly shift a property at auction where you can easily suffer a 30% reduction in price. I'm looking at a bungalow right now that was for sale for £235,000 that just failed to sell at auction for £180,000. In fact I was just going to put an offer in this morning for £170,000. And this is an estate sale, not someone speculating. I have seen properties that have been for sale for two years and if the asking price is a valuation then I'm a duck.
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Jan 2, 2018 19:26:47 GMT
The original 3 FS loans that should have been for 6 months ran for over a year. To renew Jan 2017 FS took the estate agents valuation from 2015 that was supplied from the home owner, they did not seek their own valuation to renew the loan. Had they have done so they would probably found a valuation less than £475k which would not have worked for the home owner or FS who needed the value to stay at £475k to keep the LTV at the acceptable level close the original 3 loans and pay the interest. This avoided the nastiness of defaulting the 3 original loans and bought time to market the property to sell it at a price (over £400k) to settle the mortgage and FS loan. The property was marketed and did not sell. The property was put up for auction and withdrawn. The only option now is to sell the property at auction as remarketing would be a delay of up to 6 months to see it sold while interest is accruing. The first charge holder will likely recover all capital and interest and costs (not sure how it works regarding costs). There should be some recovery on the FS loan costs but I doubt it will all come back and no interest
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on Jan 2, 2018 20:44:16 GMT
...... To renew Jan 2017 FS took the estate agents valuation from 2015 that was supplied from the home owner, they did not seek their own valuation to renew the loan..... Any idea if: - FS has any "duty of care" or any other legal obligation to have obtained a professional valuation? - In the circumstances does FS have any legal liability to its lenders in the event of any shortfall?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jan 3, 2018 2:33:23 GMT
Combining the Rightmove & Zoopla histories shows a bizarre record of switches between estate agencies and pricing over what is now 27 months. It was advertised at £500k Sept 15, £499.5k Jan 2016, £560k Mar 16, £530k Apr 16, £535k July 16, £499k Sep 16, £575k Nov 16, £500k Jan 17, £499,950 Mar 17
During 2017 (exact dates not clear) it was advertised for £459k (reduced from £489,950)
And as already noted it was withdrawn prior to auction July 17, Guide price £425k+
Links to each of these price records are on DD Central.
Decent sized 3 bed properties are very rare, and it does seem surprising that its taking so long to sell, so there is probably something we are missing here.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 3, 2018 9:44:13 GMT
agreed - maybe there is a divorced couple fighting over it - whatever I just don't see why it did not sell...
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Apr 30, 2018 13:01:49 GMT
Last updated 28th March. Come on FS!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 11, 2018 21:40:58 GMT
Agreed - time this was updated !
I think there is something seriously wrong here as it just does not sound right to me with all these agents, withdrawn sales and the price going up and down like a yo-yo. Maybe e.g a bad divorce rather than a problem with the flat?
My understanding is that the second charge holder can force a sale - granted the first charge holder will still need repaying first.
"First charge holder has taken no action" - interesting!
I just don't believe there has been no communication between FS and the main charge holder. Possibly yet more misleading PR spin rubbish - we weren't asked what the first charge holder had done but what is the damn situation.
Hang on I have a theory - the borrower is paying all or part of the first charge holder's interest. If correct then why should they care about FS - in my experience they won't! Thus if FS want to reposses the flat they will have to pay for it all themselves AND then repay the main charge holder (plus possible back-dated interest) which probably won't cover the second charge - that will be an FS first - NOT! If this is correct (and it may well be rubbish) then FS will have all the legal expense of getting an Eviction Notice which may be very problematic and will be if there are children involved, then either waiting at least 6 months unless they get an expensive High Court Order before it can be enforced. And then the owners could make an offer to keep the flat and around we all go again!
Well this one sounds yet another possible disaster...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 11, 2018 22:24:36 GMT
Agreed - time this was updated ! I think there is something seriously wrong here as it just does not sound right to me with all these agents, withdrawn sales and the price going up and down like a yo-yo. Maybe e.g a bad divorce rather than a problem with the flat? My understanding is that the second charge holder can force a sale - granted the first charge holder will still need repaying first. "First charge holder has taken no action" - interesting! I just don't believe there has been no communication between FS and the main charge holder. Possibly yet more misleading PR spin rubbish - we weren't asked what the first charge holder had done but what is the damn situation.Hang on I have a theory - the borrower is paying all or part of the first charge holder's interest. If correct then why should they care about FS - in my experience they won't! Thus if FS want to reposses the flat they will have to pay for it all themselves AND then repay the main charge holder (plus possible back-dated interest) which probably won't cover the second charge - that will be an FS first - NOT! If this is correct (and it may well be rubbish) then FS will have all the legal expense of getting an Eviction Notice which may be very problematic and will be if there are children involved, then either waiting at least 6 months unless they get an expensive High Court Order before it can be enforced. And then the owners could make an offer to keep the flat and around we all go again! Well this one sounds yet another possible disaster... second charge holder can appoint, first charge holder has right to supercede the appointment with receiver of their choice if the want to have more influence AIUI. Unfortunately the expert in this area is apparently no longer with us.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 8, 2021 17:04:07 GMT
Today's update:
Currently 3 properties for sale at this postcode.
One GndFlr 2Bed at £385k
Two 2ndFlr 3Bed at £430k and £450k
1st Charge holders loan £240k + arrears (possibly since late 2017)
FS' 2nd Charge loan is for £163k
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,570
Likes: 6,563
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 8, 2021 20:07:57 GMT
Ah ties in with my thread on FS DDC as I couldn't work out the loan.
The borrower made a witness statement for the hearing in January 2021. She explained that she had been made bankrupt 13th Oct 2017, post the granting of security.
The judge took issue with making the order requested as this would have meant "all her interest in rents etc and equity will form part of the estate" that's now vested with the official receiver. The Judge explained "Unless you can satisfy me she has an interest there is nothing this order can bite against. Any excess from [first charge holder] will go to receiver and then pro-rata"... to the other two charge holders.
The borrowers witness statement explained how she had explained the situation to the FS Administrators in Mid-2019.
Counsel for Fundingsecure Ms Camilla Whitehouse however said the bankruptcy was "Absolutely new information to us" with the judge enquiring whether she had been "badly briefed". The judge directed that FS should serve a "Witness Statement to explain what if any correspondence with Official Receiver otherwise nothing for order to serve to bite upon"
Ms Whitehead explained that her "Client anxious to deal with it due to reducing equity".
As for the most recent hearing a few days ago, which was heard in person, I rely upon the update provided by FS
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 8, 2021 20:32:48 GMT
Ah ties in with my thread on FS DDC as I couldn't work out the loan.
The borrower made a witness statement for the hearing in January 2021. She explained that she had been made bankrupt 13th Oct 2017, post the granting of security.
The judge took issue with making the order requested as this would have meant "all her interest in rents etc and equity will form part of the estate" that's now vested with the official receiver. The Judge explained "Unless you can satisfy me she has an interest there is nothing this order can bite against. Any excess from [first charge holder] will go to receiver and then pro-rata"... to the other two charge holders.
The borrowers witness statement explained how she had explained the situation to the FS Administrators in Mid-2019.
Counsel for Fundingsecure Ms Camilla Whitehouse however said the bankruptcy was "Absolutely new information to us" with the judge enquiring whether she had been "badly briefed". The judge directed that FS should serve a "Witness Statement to explain what if any correspondence with Official Receiver otherwise nothing for order to serve to bite upon"
Ms Whitehead explained that her "Client anxious to deal with it due to reducing equity".
As for the most recent hearing a few days ago, which was heard in person, I rely upon the update provided by FS
is interesting given this FS update: 13/06/2019 Borrower has now been bankrupted - we await settlement from receiver and trustee. Follow up to be end June. This bit is also curious. Is there a third secured creditor somewhere in the mix with a charge which ranks pari-passu to FS'? (But perhaps I'm reading too much into the 'pro-rata' element and there is some degree of seniority in there.)
|
|
