agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,623
Likes: 4,194
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 31, 2021 19:34:34 GMT
More likely to be their underestimate but what happens when your builder gets his sums wrong? He has to work harder and suffers a loss!! He defaults and you suffer a loss? He cuts corners and bodges things up, leaving you to sort out the mess when it all goes t*ts up at some point in the future.
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Mar 31, 2021 21:00:39 GMT
He defaults and you suffer a loss? As a Contractor (Est 1979) with 50 employees and a signed contract that is not a viable option So CG requested court direction over the 5% fee claiming to be neutral. However now the judgement has gone in favour of the lenders, they claim there is no money left. If that is true then they have not ring fenced the funds and have pre-supposed the outcome of the court judgement. That strikes me as incredibly reckless.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 6,568
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 21:14:24 GMT
So CG requested court direction over the 5% fee claiming to be neutral. Para 9 of their Skeleton Argument:
The Administrators are essentially neutral as to the outcome of the present application, though they will, naturally, seek to defend any allegations of wrongdoing
Para 10: Whilst the Administrators, without undermining that neutrality and as part of the assistance they give to the Court on this application, might observe that the meaning of the Ts&Cs is clear and that the requisite elements of any estoppel are not made out on the evidence, they accept that R1-3 have formed a different view to their own and thus make this entirely proper application for directions. It will be for the Court to decide whether there is any merit in R1-3’s or R4’s position. Where the Administrators need to supplement this skeleton argument (having seen or heard what Rs have to say), they will do so.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Mar 31, 2021 21:34:47 GMT
As a Contractor (Est 1979) with 50 employees and a signed contract that is not a viable option So CG requested court direction over the 5% fee claiming to be neutral. However now the judgement has gone in favour of the lenders, they claim there is no money left. If that is true then they have not ring fenced the funds and have pre-supposed the outcome of the court judgement. That strikes me as incredibly reckless. At no time during the 5% case do I recall any such emphasis on "no money left", or "who will pay" for all the legal advice that the administrators sought pre hearings. Clearly the advice they received was either incorrect, or they decided to ignore it and proceed with the High Court action regardless. Now its pay up time, they have no cash. Why go to the courts in the first instance?? Pressured by ex-directors comes to mind. This statement of "no money left" appears to be fully premeditated.
|
|
|
Post by masher on Mar 31, 2021 22:13:21 GMT
So CG requested court direction over the 5% fee claiming to be neutral. However now the judgement has gone in favour of the lenders, they claim there is no money left. If that is true then they have not ring fenced the funds and have pre-supposed the outcome of the court judgement. That strikes me as incredibly reckless. At no time during the 5% case do I recall any such emphasis on "no money left", or "who will pay" for all the legal advice that the administrators sought pre hearings. Clearly the advice they received was either incorrect, or they decided to ignore it and proceed with the High Court action regardless. Now its pay up time, they have no cash. Why go to the courts in the first instance?? Pressured by ex-directors comes to mind. This statement of "no money left" appears to be fully premeditated. At least we get the ring fenced funds back and no further funds will get deducted, even if some money is gone. I still have a lot of funds outstanding, so hope we can get most of these loans sorted ASAP.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 1, 2021 6:55:13 GMT
Didn't the administrators say at the start of this that if they didn't get the 5% there wouldn't be enough funds to run the administration? Lenders seem to have been in a no win situation, have an extra 5% but no one getting the actual funds in (ie, potentially 5% more of nothing) or lose 5% but have a 'functioning' administration and get 5% less of a pittance in some/many cases.
|
|
foolsgold
Member of DD Central
Posts: 159
Likes: 194
|
Post by foolsgold on Apr 1, 2021 8:58:46 GMT
Is the hourly rate for these administrators not about £200 an hour?...is that not enough for them ...seems like a feeding frenzy of greedy people to me
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Apr 1, 2021 9:01:07 GMT
Seems to me the lenders gain to the extent of the 5%, and may have to pay some more admin costs, but I would have thought amounting to less than the 5%. It is the secured creditors (ex Directors) who will suffer most, and so it should be.
My concern is that these administrators are biased in favour of the former directors, who appointed them.
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Apr 1, 2021 9:10:24 GMT
C&G agreed a fee of 2.5% + VAT. There must be rules and a code of conduct for administrators. Where has the money collected from the 5% fee gone? How much does the 5% fee applied so far amount to? I've had 3 loans so far where the 5% has been charged amounting to £120k. C&G have a lot of questions to answer!
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Apr 1, 2021 9:57:08 GMT
Is the hourly rate for these administrators not about £200 an hour?...is that not enough for them ...seems like a feeding frenzy of greedy people to me
Is that all? I was under the impression that the top cheeses bill their time at around £600-700 an hour, but I have no proof to back up that assertion.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 1, 2021 9:57:37 GMT
C&G agreed a fee of 2.5% + VAT. There must be rules and a code of conduct for administrators. Where has the money collected from the 5% fee gone? How much does the 5% fee applied so far amount to? I've had 3 loans so far where the 5% has been charged amounting to £120k. C&G have a lot of questions to answer! I will be asking for a complete reconciliation of the 5% account at the next creditors meeting.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Apr 1, 2021 10:10:29 GMT
C&G agreed a fee of 2.5% + VAT. There must be rules and a code of conduct for administrators. Where has the money collected from the 5% fee gone? How much does the 5% fee applied so far amount to? I've had 3 loans so far where the 5% has been charged amounting to £120k. C&G have a lot of questions to answer! I will be asking for a complete reconciliation of the 5% account at the next creditors meeting. Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs.Yes good thank you, and I hope you will also be asking to approve the reallocations of the 5%.
|
|
foolsgold
Member of DD Central
Posts: 159
Likes: 194
|
Post by foolsgold on Apr 1, 2021 10:22:30 GMT
Is the hourly rate for these administrators not about £200 an hour?...is that not enough for them ...seems like a feeding frenzy of greedy people to me
Is that all? I was under the impression that the top cheeses bill their time at around £600-700 an hour, but I have no proof to back up that assertion. Shocking if thats the case.......no way will they walk away then until we are all bled dry
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 1, 2021 10:27:28 GMT
I will be asking for a complete reconciliation of the 5% account at the next creditors meeting. Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs.Yes good thank you, and I hope you will also be asking to approve the reallocations of the 5%." Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs." <- If that is the case, over runs should have been referred to the CC for approval as and when they were becoming obvious, not once all the funds have purportedly been depleted. This is a professional administration firm, not a local tradesperson who is not so mathematically savvy and adds to his invoice at the end of the job! " Yes good thank you, and I hope you will also be asking to approve the reallocations of the 5%." <- the way forward is being actively considered and discussed in preparations for the next CC meeting.
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Apr 1, 2021 10:44:02 GMT
Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs.Yes good thank you, and I hope you will also be asking to approve the reallocations of the 5%. " Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs." <- If that is the case, over runs should have been referred to the CC for approval as and when they were becoming obvious, not once all the funds have purportedly been depleted. This is a professional administration firm, not a local tradesperson who is not so mathematically savvy and adds to his invoice at the end of the job! " Yes good thank you, and I hope you will also be asking to approve the reallocations of the 5%." <- the way forward is being actively considered and discussed in preparations for the next CC meeting. """Unfortunately I think we will find that the 2.5%+VAT was not a fixed number and subject to over runs." <- If that is the case, over runs should have been referred to the CC for approval as and when they were becoming obvious, not once all the funds have purportedly been depleted. This is a professional administration firm, not a local tradesperson who is not so mathematically savvy and adds to his invoice at the end of the job!"" Yes, what I mean is it will have to be approved by the CC, or if disputed will be subject to the Court's decision. In this case where C&G quoted 2.5% plus VAT as opposed to a time based charge, there would need to be good grounds for any increase. The circumstances of FS operations are a bit unusual I would think.
|
|