Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Sept 27, 2017 11:56:59 GMT
I wonder if FS still stand by their update on 02/08/17. Specifically that in 16 weeks the building is expected to be up to roof height. The borrower has 9 weeks left!!!!!! From the last pictures I personally don't believe a word the borrower says to FS and, even worse, I doubt the ability of FS to manage this loan.
Perhaps FS should forget about managing the loan in-house and hire someone with a modicum of expertise in this area as the reputational damage FS are suffering must be becoming embarrassing. Yup. nine weeks to get to the roof height as promised. While I could of course be wrong, I don't think this guy has the slightest intention of getting this done and he also almost certainly does not have the money, spent elsewhere. And while the weather in Whitehaven is indeed perfect right now, it won't be much longer and Cumbrian winters are rarely kind to the building profession. Not that there seems to be a professional in sight, or on site for that matter. I too can't see any building work being completed under the current "regime"
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,861
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 27, 2017 12:13:30 GMT
FS = Funding Secure which is at www.fundingsecure.comI know we all know that but good to remind Googlebot of the fact.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1,087
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 27, 2017 12:39:07 GMT
I used the chat tool to ask about the state of play yesterday. I was advised that (and I'm sorry I don't have the exact words) a man with a camera is dropping in today (the 26th) and we will update our records when we see them. Thank god for that reassurance! I'm feeling better already!
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Sept 27, 2017 13:06:28 GMT
Well, hopefully fundingsecure will be able to look at these pictures when the borrower gives his next untrue progress "update", and say to him, "Stop telling us lies". That should be followed by an immediate request for all interest up to date for forwarding to lenders, and demand he refinance with another lender (some hopes!!!), give him Liam Brooke's phone number. I suspect, assuming he did win that court case, that the money will not appear because the defendant will declare poverty or bankruptcy or some such legal get-out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2017 13:09:52 GMT
I used the chat tool to ask about the state of play yesterday. I was advised that (and I'm sorry I don't have the exact words) a man with a camera is dropping in today (the 26th) and we will update our records when we see them. Thank god for that reassurance! I'm feeling better already! Then you'll love this, similar question today, it will take a couple more days before FS will publish..... (fingers druming) :-)
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on Sept 27, 2017 14:00:32 GMT
I think many people on this site know that the borrower has "scammed" FS . When will FS wake up to this - obviously they still believe investors will be paid in full, despite the evidence of the lies and assurances that are obviously worthless.
I can accept that FS were misled and I can even understand why they have displayed such incompetence as they are pretty inexperienced in property loan lending. What I can't understand is their present level of denial and their assumption that all borrowers are honourable.
It would be good if FS explained to lenders why they have such faith in the borrower (preferably before the borrower declares themselves bankrupt).
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 27, 2017 15:37:15 GMT
If the borrower becomes bankrupt, how long does he have to wait before that's all settled and behind him?
If he can get to that point before the court case proceeds arrive, would he be able to keep those?
|
|
phil
Posts: 190
Likes: 165
|
Post by phil on Sept 27, 2017 18:17:42 GMT
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 27, 2017 22:05:46 GMT
No, the borrower has not scammed FS. Any scamming which may have been done has been done to the lenders. I bet FS are really keen to have the drains up on this and blame properly apportioned. Did they take a fee from the money borrowed? I was looking for other places to place some ex FC money, and on the basis of this thread, it's not going to be FS. This is a disgrace to P2P.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Sept 28, 2017 9:22:08 GMT
No, the borrower has not scammed FS. Any scamming which may have been done has been done to the lenders. I bet FS are really keen to have the drains up on this and blame properly apportioned. Did they take a fee from the money borrowed? I was looking for other places to place some ex FC money, and on the basis of this thread, it's not going to be FS. This is a disgrace to P2P. This was tranche FIVE. "The fifth tranche (£200,000) of a facility of £800,000 for the development of 9 apartments and 1 house with a gross development value of £1,200,000 (67% LTV).This tranche is to fund the external masonry, roof and windows. Timber frames have been paid for out of the last tranche. However, borrower does not want to schedule delivery until funds are available to line up materials and contractors for the external materials." Funds to line up materials and contractors. After four previous tranches we didn't(and still don't) even have a cleared demolition site and clearly FS were taking the borrower at his word and hadn't checked a single thing. If I was cynical at all, I might suggest that he didn't want to get anything or anyone lined up, he just wanted another couple of hundred grand and couldn't quite believe it when he actually got it. Rightly or wrongly, at tranche five, I was happy that I was investing in a project going nicely and had (unwisely, we live and learn) assumed that FS had at least checked the site. I'm sure some will say that ultimately we chose to lend the money and they may well be right, but if this turns out as expected, I see that tranche five as gross negligence by FS and I will not be simple shrugging my shoulders and walking away when FS tell us that "the loss of capital is regrettable" and I doubt the other big hitters in some of these tranches will be doing that either. So yea, I personally suggest you find somewhere else for your funds.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 28, 2017 10:37:40 GMT
Whether the fault lies with the borrower or the platform, or both, it's the lenders who lose. I have only read the thread (and know Whitehaven and Cumbrian developers/builders) and from my reading this is an inadequate model. P2P works on the basis of the operator taking a fee rather than having cash at risk, and the fees reflect the service given, a small proportion of the return on the cash lent. The problem is that development projects like this, with phased release of money, rely not only of proper initial assessment, but also proper monitoring. To do this takes work by the operator, as well as cost in needing to pay for professional advice at critical stages, and the general model does not really provide for that - because when you subtract that cost there may not be enough left to attract the lender. FC tried to bolt property onto a platform designed for SME loans, where loans are amortising and failure of the business is generally a serious personal failure for the owner. With these projects the cash is at risk until the end, and you have to assume that the borrower is out to maximise the profit on the project. FS can't assume a developer in West Cumbria is going to play fair - they will be using the cash on other projects or none, and will settle for losing the site if that's the most profitable course, and will move on. So it is essential that at every stage of drawdown the operator must be sure that there is sufficient security - and that costs money to establish independently. I think that FC tried to provide a good level of supervision (pace adrian) but they failed on at least one large project. I rather think that they realised that they could not make any money out of their model applied to property, due to the high cost of project supervision (though they have not said that). Also I am involved with Ablrate, which specialises in asset-backed loans, including property. It seems that here we have had a similar problem, but different in that many of the loans went to a borrower held against security of the assets of third parties, to whom the borrower was itself making loans. Cost here were much reduced by relying on that borrower to supply valuations and do legal work on which the platform needed to depend. This reduced costs, but at a risk, imo. Recent problems (not losses) have caused Ablrate, in communication with their lenders (to their credit), to take a more direct and hands-on relationship with individual projects. But Ablrate now take more from the borrower, in up front fees and significant monthly fees. That does mean that the borrower is paying much more than the headline rate would suggest, and you have to worry about risk in the project. Ablrate is very nichey, and you have to do your own DD carefully. But I think the model can work financially. I do not know what FS take from these projects, but it seems that do not have the funds (or inclination?) to supervise a project such as this. Lenders want to get their capital and interest back, not to get even with whoever is to blame.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,861
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 28, 2017 13:15:00 GMT
This was tranche FIVE. "The fifth tranche (£200,000) of a facility of £800,000 for the development of 9 apartments and 1 house with a gross development value of £1,200,000 (67% LTV).This tranche is to fund the external masonry, roof and windows. Timber frames have been paid for out of the last tranche. However, borrower does not want to schedule delivery until funds are available to line up materials and contractors for the external materials." Obviously if we lose money in this many will go to court (small claims track in my case unless we can get a group together for a class action) but even if this is fully repaid haven't Funding Secure (www.fundingsecure.com) broken regulatory rules already by posting such misleading information? Maybe they haven't ?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 28, 2017 14:46:24 GMT
It may be true. FS may have seen confirmation of a paid invoice for the frame. The borrower may be waiting for contractors to become available. They may have a large balance of cash in hand (or they may have spent it on another project and plan to do this one with the proceeds - the idea of having separate pots of cash for separate projects is not very Cumbrian). But I think the security is not there because the site has little value in its present state, even adding the frames.
|
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Sept 28, 2017 18:38:55 GMT
If it does turn out that FS have given misleading information, then that is definitely fraud.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 28, 2017 18:48:42 GMT
If it does turn out that FS have given misleading information, then that is definitely fraud. Couldn't FS hide behind the fact that they only reported what they were told, so they didn't do anything fraudulent? Doesn't 'intent' have anything to do with it? (As in knowing something is untrue at the time you report it.) Please note: I'm not trying to defend FS. If they made no attempt to verify what they were reporting then IMHO that is a major failure to act appropriately.
|
|