sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on Feb 16, 2018 9:46:16 GMT
Having read the VR, not sure if the current valuation is based on: A. the current position i.e. without planning permission or B. Assuming that planning permission will be granted.
Presumably a valuation is expected to be based on the current situation so it is 'A'? (I am not an expert in reading VRs so may have missed some obvious clues)
Also, any thoughts on how easily resaleable such a plot would be (at the current valuation) if planning permission is denied?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on May 13, 2019 17:41:17 GMT
Looks like "here we go again" - again!
Haven't time to check but I guess still no planning
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on May 20, 2019 11:03:12 GMT
I have had a good look at the Stoke on Trent City Planning interactive map which shows no sign of any recent relevant application.
The adjacent land at the end of Whitcombe Road included in the proposal is showing an application in 1986 for 3 bungalows which was withdrawn, and another in 1987 for 1 bungalow with no evidence of a decision. Google Earth as at September 2018 shows no building.
EDIT The building is still there on Google Earth at Sept 2018
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Jul 11, 2019 13:55:45 GMT
"We have issued the borrower with a formal demand with the potential for further action. We have not had a response from the borrower so far, however we are also looking into additional avenues to make progress. We are in contact with our solicitors and have been in touch with receivers, should we need to appoint them. As we move forward with this loan, investors will be updated."
In my view a date should be set when, if there is no response, the next action is to be taken.
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Aug 15, 2019 11:58:04 GMT
Running for year and FS admit there never was a planning application, so why didnt they check 3 months after issuing the loan? or at least ask the borrower? We all know the answer; because they are totally incompetent
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 8, 2019 19:57:47 GMT
Photos taken 12:30 yesterday (7th Sept). The immediately obvious thing is that the fire damaged social club has been demolished, so some progress that has not been reported by FS. W***** Road is a very busy road, so some noise pollution is inevitable. There is a small estate agent's board detailing its a 2.3 acre plot (link to advertising is on DDC for those with access).
The social club was where the raised area is on the 3rd photo.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 12, 2019 17:16:41 GMT
Loan has been defaulted on the website.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Sept 5, 2020 13:09:16 GMT
"Loan Updates
15/04/2020
The Receivers have undertaken a further review of this matter in respect of the offer received in the sum of £500,000. The Receivers have confirmed that the buyer is still present and willing to proceed as soon as possible. The Receivers have strongly recommended that the sale at £500,000 be accepted for the following reasons:
The longer the vacant site is held in management the higher the risk of trespassers and having to deal with the same which would incur a further cost.
It would also run the risk of further encroachment on the possessory title which may impact upon any further agreed sale down the line.
The current offer at £500,000 was submitted and recommended for acceptance some time prior to the Covid-19 pandemic when the market was stronger than it is now, and stronger than it is anticipated to be for some time.
It is the Receivers opinion that we are extremely unlikely to find another buyer in 6 months’ time over and above the current agreed sale price of £500,000. Over this time costs will continue to accrue, as well as interest on the Land Charge in favour of the Council. Therefore, the overall position will only worsen.
The Receivers have also agreed to reduce the sales fee by £6,000. The Administrators have therefore accepted the Receivers recommendations and confirmed that they are to proceed with the sale. A further update will be provided once exchange and completion dates are known, and an estimated outcome provided. But as previously advised, due to the Land Charge registered against the title there will be a shortfall on capital.
01/04/2020
The Receivers have received counsel's advice in relation to the land charges on the property. Counsel has advised that it will be required to pay the council in respect of the land charge. The land charges amount to the sum of £276,475.31 which will hugely impact on the potential realisation. The Receivers are suggesting this will therefore have a net realisation of £193,524.69 prior to costs and fees. We are therefore not giving the authority to proceed with the sale.
10/03/2020
Further to our previous update, title issues are ongoing and the Receivers are seeking counsels advice. An update will be provided in due course."
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT A LAND CHARGE HAS SURFACED? WAS IT NOT VISIBLE AT THE LAND REGISTRY? IT SEEMS PERHAPS NOT SINCE MRCLONDON DOES NOT MENTION IT IN THE DD ?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 5, 2020 18:07:19 GMT
Well this is good news I don't think!
I have checked this borrower out - he is a "consultant" that helps with propery funding etc- well we have already had dealings with a couple of them and although this bloke clearly has the alleged moral fibre of Mother Teresa the others ones we dealt with were clearly wide boys. This bloke has at least 3 dissolved companies - his co-director has over 10,000 appointments and is an administrator - so what the hell is going on here?
I have checked - there is a local authority register of land charges but the local authority are not yet on it - that said surely it should have been on the title deed and I just don't believe it has just surfaced - pound to a penny the valuer has a let-out clause over this. Why the hell didn't FS pick this up - or maybe they did?
Given this is not exactly the first time we have had such a farce and that the new directors are/were also in this type of "consulting" business and are creditors with this tantalising 5% fee it does seem a happy coincidence that such loans have been freely granted and now the directors are hoping for 5% or OUR money- so they totally screwed-up (at best) with the results a lot of investors are going to take a hefty loss and we pay them for the privilege! Looks to me as if they are more than enough grounds to take legal advice with a view to a criminal prosection here.
Mrc warned us about this one - l00% correct yet again - after mega legal expense and the Council interest charges I wonder of 50% will be recovered
Sometimes I read about the latest FS farce and I wonder if I have lost my marbles as this is just bizarre...
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 5, 2020 21:23:39 GMT
I can't see this loan - thankfully - but the charge has to be registered in the local charges register or it can't be enforceable, how would a search pick it up otherwise. If it is there then it's been ignored, question is who is complicit in the deception ? What would such a large amount be for, did the council install solid gold sewers?
If you went through every P2P company's loan book and listed all the shady deals it would be a much shorter list than FS' crooked deals. 5% my arse ? The more examples that keep coming like this the more I'm convinced the 5% has got serious ethical and legal issues ahead. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the conflict of interest between a 5% fee and a loan book full of actionless defaults where the fee is also based on the loan amount not the recovered amount.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 6, 2020 9:58:26 GMT
his co-director has over 10,000 appointments and is an administrator - so what the hell is going on here? Hint: Take a look at the companies' filings. eg: P******S DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED: Company Incorporated 15th Jan / " co-director" termination of appointment 15th Jan / appointment of 'main' director 15th Jan R** G***P LTD: Company Incorporated 14th Oct / " co-director" termination of appointment 14th Oct / appointment of 'a n other' director 14th Oct F***Y M***S LIMITED: Company Incorporated 5th Nov / " co-director" termination of appointment 5th Nov / appointment of 'a n other' directors 5th Nov and the pattern repeats This is typical when a bureau is engaged to create the Limited Company entity for a fee. The "co-director" is simply an agent - in this case, job title 'Administrator' - of that bureau. One of that "co-director's" colleagues has over 20,000 'directorships'
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 6, 2020 11:52:05 GMT
that said surely it should have been on the title deed Not normally, apparently Most VRs I've read say something similar to: We have inspected documents of title and for the purposes of this valuation we have assumed that the subject interest is unencumbered and free from any unduly onerous or unusual easements, restrictions, outgoings, covenants or rights of way and that it is not affected by any local authority proposals. We recommend that your solicitors be instructed to verify the position.
.. so I'd expect this to be picked up by FS' solicitor and not the valuers. It appears there two types of searches: LLC1 and Con29 - the former showing known / registered LLCs and the latter showing " more detailed information only the local authority holds" including " very recent statutory notices raised against a property that may later incur financial charges". [source]Logically, that suggests that as time passes, something may happen which causes the LA to raise a statutory notice which subsequently incurs a charge. Therefore, the LLC written about by the Administrators may not even have existed when this loan was launched in early 2018. Might it be that the LA mandated the demolition and removal of the burned out Social Club (as per mrclondon 's Sep 2019 report above) and that's what the fee relates to? (No doubt swollen by accrued interest in the intervening period given it's a bill owing to an LA and presumably attracts interest at a pretty rate.)
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,846
Likes: 11,075
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 6, 2020 12:22:46 GMT
Might it be that the LA mandated the demolition and removal of the burned out Social Club (as per mrclondon 's Sep 2019 report above) and that's what the fee relates to? (No doubt swollen by accrued interest in the intervening period given it's a bill owing to an LA and presumably attracts interest at a pretty rate.) Indeed. A quick google brings up the press coverage of the council funded demolition in Jan 19. The final line 'The city council hopes to recoup the cost of the demolition from the landowner' would appear to support the contention.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 6, 2020 15:45:57 GMT
i never thought of that... what I was getting at (and I thought it was bleeding obvious) is that bloke is clearly a fixer and just like the last fixer we talked about has set-up and dissolved loads of companies. This borrower has himself down as a director on his linkedIn profile - and guess what that company is also in administration 07 Jan 2020 Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off. He also invited me to link-up with him - I don't think so!
from mrc :
mrc was bang on the money - be interested to know who owned this property before the current bloke and if there is any connection between this borrower and the latest person making the offer.
Yet again FS appeared to have shown total lack of experise in this market and presented a wholly unrealistic VR - that said it is "only" about double the actual value which is pretty good compared to some others!
interesting - never knew that but love this forum - given the valuer doubltess has a let-out clause and as I said FS should have picked this up I wonder what sort of search their soliictors did.
I have bought a fire-damaged property in the past and never had any such council charges whatsoever - so curious as to what is going on here - one theory I have (and I stress a theory so doubtless somebody will demolish it) is that this was judged a safety hazard and the council wrote to the owner to demolish it - as he has no money he did not do this so they did it for him and hence the charge. And this bloke kindly dumped this problem onto FS.
looks to me as this one was bought as a punt which may get residential planning permission so instead of selling us a SECURED asset we were sold a junk bond
As I said being in this busines all this is very interesting to me - although I feel for all investors whom I feel have been had over this one.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,846
Likes: 11,075
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 6, 2020 16:13:52 GMT
I have bought a fire-damaged property in the past and never had any such council charges whatsoever - so curious as to what is going on here - one theory I have (and I stress a theory so doubtless somebody will demolish it) is that this was judged a safety hazard and the council wrote to the owner to demolish it - as he has no money he did not do this so they did it for him and hence the charge. And this bloke kindly dumped this problem onto FS. As I said just google the asset and the info is there. No need to speculate. The council demolished it under powers in the Building Act 1984 because it was dangerous, and a drain on the emergency services due to all the incidents it was causing, and attempts to get the borrower to do it failed. Obviously all this happened after the FS loan was drawndown so I dont quite get all the criticism that they have missed something. Was this loan renewed after the demolition? Given it appears to have sold for £500k which AIUI is above the valuation Im struggling to see the basis for the criticism as an outsider.
|
|