|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 19, 2019 15:45:09 GMT
What I do now is imagine a given loan proposition wasn't being window'd by FS and was actually a pitch directly from the borrower with no implied endorsement or checks whatsoever. If this guy offered me this on his own website or down the pub, would I put money into it ? Well articulated.
I feel FS are doing this guy a major disservice in the totally unprofessional approach they have adopted. Its a real shame the original concept of p2p of prospective borrowers pitching directly to prospective lenders and answering their questions has been lost.
fundingsecure, if you want this loan filling fast(er) please confirm the address of the security, and confirm the exact status of all existing charges against the security.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 22, 2019 9:28:20 GMT
fundingsecure just a reminder at the start of the working week, that some of your lenders have questions that need answering in respect to this loan. There is no point sticking your head in the sand, as soon as your legal team start the drawdown process an alert will appear on LR alert service confirming the property's address.
a) why does the asset tab say 'semi' and the realtime valuation 'end terrace' ? (The photo is of an end terrace)
b) why does the property whose photo you have attached to the listing have 1st and 2nd charges noted at the land registry along with a deed of priority ? (Or is this the wrong photo as on the Burnley loan ?)
c) is this loan actually a 3rd charge ? if so what is the split in outstanding debt between 1st and 2nd charges ?
d) There is no sale record of this property in 2005 at the LR. What is the basis of the 2005 valuation figure of £175k you used to generate the realtime valuation ? This is over double the 2000 sale price of 5 years earlier (not impossible but needs an explanation).
e) Is the property ex-council ? Has there been any subsidence or structural movement ? (Issues which would be commented on by a RICS surveyor)
f) is the lack of a RICS survey really just another move to shore up FS finances by pocketing a larger slice of the fees from this loan rather than paying for a survey ?
g) have you already received consent from the prior charge holder(s) for your new charge ?
I had hoped my formal complaint at the end of last year concerning inadequate loan descriptions would have shown the futility of attempting to redact details on the valuations. Clearly FS as an organisation is failing to learn lessons from its past mistakes.
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jul 23, 2019 11:22:04 GMT
Now 80% filled. This will get over the line without anyone answering these awkward questions. Fingers crossed he pays up!
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on Jul 23, 2019 15:53:04 GMT
Perhaps we should be betting on which loans will be defaulted or at least be recorded as active by FS over 3 years after they should have been repaid. Seems it would be more lucrative than putting money into the loans FS are offering.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 26, 2019 17:46:26 GMT
Now 80% filled. This will get over the line without anyone answering these awkward questions. Fingers crossed he pays up! Exactly as you predicted.
An absolute disgrace.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 26, 2019 18:25:13 GMT
Now 80% filled. This will get over the line without anyone answering these awkward questions. Fingers crossed he pays up! Exactly as you predicted.
An absolute disgrace.
I take it you asked FS these questions directly and they won't answer?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 26, 2019 19:12:21 GMT
Exactly as you predicted.
An absolute disgrace.
I take it you asked FS these questions directly and they won't answer? As it happens no I haven't asked FS directly.
Its certainly possible that they haven't read this thread, although they have read many other threads on the forum this week, amid concern at the slow pace at which loans are filling. If they have read this thread, then they may not have noticed that my post on Monday has so far received 12 likes.
Irrespective, it doesn't alter my conclusion "An absolute disgrace".
We are reaching the point where the issues at FS appear to be far wider than "the historic loanbook", and in my opinion really should focus minds on whether it is sensible to invest in any further loans on this platform.
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 26, 2019 19:38:56 GMT
I take it you asked FS these questions directly and they won't answer? As it happens no I haven't asked FS directly.
Its certainly possible that they haven't read this thread, although they have read many other threads on the forum this week, amid concern at the slow pace at which loans are filling. If they have read this thread, then they may not have noticed that my post on Monday has so far received 12 likes.
Irrespective, it doesn't alter my conclusion "An absolute disgrace".
We are reaching the point where the issues at FS appear to be far wider than "the historic loanbook", and in my opinion really should focus minds on whether it is sensible to invest in any further loans on this platform. Few months ago I've decided to stop investing in FS property loans and the introduction of new variable "minimums" galvanised my decision. Since then I was still keen on pawn (despite some recoveries were very poor, Italian got stuck etc.). Now I'm thinking of giving up on pawn too. There's hardly any new pawn coming in anyway and UB is perfectly fulfilling my appetite and available budget for this type of loans. I think the main p2p risk is a collapse of platform - I don't want to speculate, but my confidence in FS bright future is very low atm.
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Jul 31, 2019 16:00:16 GMT
Latest FS update below. Misselling?
"This loan will be secured on a 2nd legal charge* basis for business cash-flow. The short term reflects the fact that the borrower has a business project in place which is due to release funds in 3-4 months time. The existing charge is for £108,000, giving an overall LTV of 54.49%.
* NOTE: Although the existing charge does amount to £108,000 it is split into two separate charges - making our charge a third legal charge. Apologies for the incorrect information, however it does not affect the LTV of this loan, which remains at 54.49%."
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jul 31, 2019 16:14:35 GMT
Latest FS update below. Misselling?
"This loan will be secured on a 2nd legal charge* basis for business cash-flow. The short term reflects the fact that the borrower has a business project in place which is due to release funds in 3-4 months time. The existing charge is for £108,000, giving an overall LTV of 54.49%.
* NOTE: Although the existing charge does amount to £108,000 it is split into two separate charges - making our charge a third legal charge. Apologies for the incorrect information, however it does not affect the LTV of this loan, which remains at 54.49%." There have been some clear candidates for misselling, but let's not throw the accusation around so much that it loses all meaning. This doesn't feel like the loan was materially misrepresented in terms of the underlying risk. I'd be more interested in knowing the interest rate and if the account is in good standing of any prior charge than having this update.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 1,937
Member is Online
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 6, 2019 7:20:30 GMT
second charge holder doing well to get out and leave a bigger second charge to FS lenders.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 10, 2019 11:17:17 GMT
fundingsecure - the exit strategy as disclosed when you listed this loan on 19th July, was that it was to be repaid from business proceeds within 3 to 4 months. In just over a weeks time we will have reached 3 months since you listed the loan, and by inference the funds due to the borrower for repayment of this as yet undrawn loan should be available during the next 5 weeks.
It seems odd that the borrower should persist with this loan given it will only last for a few weeks given both the fees due to FS for the loan, and the minimum one month loan term.
Unless, of course, the exit strategy was a mere hope not a firm expectation.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Jul 28, 2020 13:38:41 GMT
Update on the FS website just now:
"The administrators had received no further correspondence from the borrower, Receivers have therefore been appointed and we await their initial report and recommendations. The appointment of Receivers has prompted the borrower to make contact."
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Dec 3, 2020 6:35:13 GMT
Some goodish news on this one. Update on website yesterday:
"The receivers have agreed a repayment proposal with the borrower, which should result in payment in full (inclusive of interest) by 31 March 2021. The first instalment of £20,000 has now been received, which will be allocated to repay capital only. Due to the nature of the agreement, no funds will be distributed to investors until full repayment has been received, to ensure the correct application of fees is applied. Please also note, as the final figures will depend on what sums are actually received (and when) we will not apply any fees to the loan until repayment has been satisfied in full. Further updates will be posted upon receipt of additional monies."
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Dec 3, 2020 10:57:16 GMT
"to ensure the correct application of fees is applied"
|
|