sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 10, 2017 10:33:59 GMT
Day 391 of FC negligence
It is £1.7 m outstanding and no interest for 391 days. admin costs at £200 day.
A wonderful example of how to mismanage loans and simply delay taking action by FC
|
|
bosun
Posts: 13
Likes: 28
|
Post by bosun on May 10, 2017 10:50:17 GMT
FC are doing their best to wash their hands of this one and hope the investors, who are £2 m out of pocket, will just go away.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 10, 2017 13:07:49 GMT
Totally correct bosun.
That is one of the main reasons they became cowards and closed their FC Forum as investors were asking too many difficult questions which they could not answer such as "why have you delayed getting an Administrator involved" and "where is our cash"?
|
|
bosun
Posts: 13
Likes: 28
|
Post by bosun on May 10, 2017 15:46:51 GMT
And FC have the gall to tell us there will be an update from the administrators in 6 months... yea that makes me feel better.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 10, 2017 18:01:56 GMT
Maybe I am just a bit slow but I'm not clear on the following:
how we have gone from a stage where the loan was secured to the position where the administrator is saying there will be insufficient funds realised to repay investors, either: i) the initial valuation was wrong ii) there has been a material change in the condition of the property or market conditions which means the valuation is no longer valid iii) somebody else has a claim to the property which was not revealed at the stage loan was issued
If it it ii, fine that's the risk investors take when they make loans. But if it's i or iii then surely fc has marketed the investment incorrectly and we should be able to claim the investment was missold to the financial ombudsman.
What are others thoughts ?
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 10, 2017 18:59:00 GMT
Hi pip.
The Administrators report is available from the Companies House website which will give you a substantial insight of the incompetence / negligence and failure of FC to manage these loans and these suspect borrowers.
If you cannot find it send me a private message with your e mail details and I will copy it to you.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on May 10, 2017 19:57:02 GMT
Maybe I am just a bit slow but I'm not clear on the following: how we have gone from a stage where the loan was secured to the position where the administrator is saying there will be insufficient funds realised to repay investors, either: i) the initial valuation was wrong ii) there has been a material change in the condition of the property or market conditions which means the valuation is no longer valid iii) somebody else has a claim to the property which was not revealed at the stage loan was issued If it it ii, fine that's the risk investors take when they make loans. But if it's i or iii then surely fc has marketed the investment incorrectly and we should be able to claim the investment was missold to the financial ombudsman. What are others thoughts ? I would have thought that if the initial valuation was wrong that the valuer and whoever appointed them would have to agree liability. i.e. was the instruction to value in some way misleading and/or erroneous or was the valuer properly instructed but in some way did not carry out the valuation correctly. The valuer would presumably carry some form of professional indemnity insurance against such an eventuality. This matter may yet end in court. I don't see how a historical valuation can no longer be valid as its existence is a material fact. I would accept that the current price of the security may be lower than the valuation placed on it previously.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 10, 2017 20:02:19 GMT
Hi pip. The Administrators report is available from the Companies House website which will give you a substantial insight of the incompetence / negligence and failure of FC to manage these loans and these suspect borrowers. If you cannot find it send me a private message with your e mail details and I will copy it to you. Hi Sussexlender thanks for your message. I have seen and read the administrators report. The part which alarmed me was where it said there is likely the be insufficient funds to fully repay creditors. Now when we were sold the loan we were told it was secured against the property. My question is if the loan is not actually now fully secured, which it seems it wasn't and if this is not due to either a) market conditions (I don't suspect it was) or b) a material change in the condition of the property (no idea), then surely the original investment proposal was wrong. If this is the case can we not go to the financial ombudsman and claim that we were missold the investment?
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on May 11, 2017 13:14:17 GMT
I too have an exposure to this loan. Frankly I've lost track of the details over time such as they can be divulged. Any pointers on the name allowed now given that it is on the Companies House web-site ? Thanks ..............
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on May 11, 2017 14:04:53 GMT
I too have an exposure to this loan. Frankly I've lost track of the details over time such as they can be divulged. Any pointers on the name allowed now given that it is on the Companies House web-site ? Thanks .............. PM'd you.
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on May 11, 2017 15:22:10 GMT
Thanks I appreciate that.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 15, 2017 10:40:39 GMT
Now 396 days of FC negligence
Repayment of capital avoided and no interest for 396 days.
Administrators basic costs of £200 per hour.
A wonderful example of a smug "Superbrand".
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on May 15, 2017 12:06:24 GMT
Now 396 days of FC negligence
Repayment of capital avoided and no interest for 396 days.
Administrators basic costs of £200 per hour.
A wonderful example of a smug "Superbrand". So who is going to join me in complaining to the FOS regarding the missale of the loan due to the LTV clearly being wrong?
|
|
bosun
Posts: 13
Likes: 28
|
Post by bosun on May 15, 2017 14:07:43 GMT
I'm not much use in these complex shady deals but if you are looking for co-signatories I'm in.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on May 22, 2017 7:15:16 GMT
Now 403 days of glorious failure by FC and their incompetent property team.
|
|