Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,566
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 8, 2021 20:58:49 GMT
I understand the first charge holder is Mortgage Express and the FS charge is "in the middle"
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 8, 2021 21:19:15 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
This 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.) "Badly briefed" is an understatement. Although in judgespeak it is quite damning.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 9, 2021 7:42:01 GMT
Here we go again - another complete FS horlicks - so they never knew she was bankrupt- it is not diffciult to check these things and I think you can sign up to get automatic updates if your debtors go bust
This block has clearly come down in price since the 2018 peak as stated in Rightmove Nearest comparable I can find is £250K which sold in Oct 2020 (not sure if this is also a 3 bed flat) - a 3 bed flat sold for £360K in Aug 19
Wonder if this one will be yet another 100% FS loss - I hope not but I am not convinced there is going to be anything left over once the first charge holder has had his capitial and expenses etc I don't understand what this actually means - could somebody please clarify
I thank you
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Mar 9, 2021 13:40:16 GMT
Here we go again - another complete FS horlicks - so they never knew she was bankrupt- it is not diffciult to check these things and I think you can sign up to get automatic updates if your debtors go bust This block has clearly come down in price since the 2018 peak as stated in Rightmove Nearest comparable I can find is £250K which sold in Oct 2020 (not sure if this is also a 3 bed flat) - a 3 bed flat sold for £360K in Aug 19 Wonder if this one will be let another 100% FS loss - I hope not but I am not convinced there is going to be anything left over once the first charge holder has had his capitial and expenses etc I don't understand what this actually means - could somebody please clarify I thank you I think that means all her property investments and income are now controlled by the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in which case the Judge can not make the requested order to allocate them to anyone else. EDIT The reference to correspondence with the Official Receiver would appear to mean that if there is appropriate correspondence giving her rights to the property in some way then the Judge can make the order.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 9, 2021 14:52:19 GMT
thanks for the reply above- that makes sense to me now - mind you I don't think it is good news for FS investors...
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Mar 9, 2021 23:11:33 GMT
thanks for the reply above- that makes sense to me now - mind you I don't think it is good news for FS investors... The bad news is mostly that FS are wasting time and money by going to court badly briefed. The pro rata point is a bit puzzling but could just be the legal term used when the situation is unclear, i.e. pro rata covers all eventualities - everyone gets their proportionate share. So in practice in this case from the thread above it seems FS is 2nd out of 3 charges and on a pro rata basis will have 100% of the dibs after the first charge holder has been satisfied, until FS charge has been satisfied. Whereupon the 3rd charge kicks in. All subject to massive deductions for fees. The usual professionals' party.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 13, 2021 11:29:53 GMT
Originally I missed this anomoly - maybe because it seems so stupid. This one worries me not least because we are doubtless paying for it - surely this is CG rather than FS who actually took this "badly briefed" legal action? I have looked-up the barrister she seems well-qualified and experienced to me so what the hell is going on here? She sure as hell won't come cheap! So not only do we appear to be clocking up wasted legal bills but we are going to get 5% taken in FS fees of the loan amount - a tad annoying if you ask me...
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 365
|
Post by mah on Mar 16, 2021 20:10:15 GMT
So CG don't talk to FS anymore, nor do CG check all the updates pertaining to the Loan they are going to Court against ?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 17, 2021 8:33:10 GMT
A very fair question - what concerns me is that a large fee has been earned here for whatever reason and somehow I doubt whether we are going to get a full explanation of how this fee was generated...
|
|