shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 1,169
|
Post by shimself on Jan 26, 2017 0:03:57 GMT
New loan , A 50%ltv 8.5%, B 57%ltv 10% both 24 month. Bridge. Can't fault it myself, the buildings aren't in great shape but even so. Am I wrong?
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 525
Likes: 243
|
Post by bababill on Feb 23, 2017 4:21:52 GMT
Seems like trance B 10.5% sold out before I could get to it.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 1,169
|
Post by shimself on Feb 23, 2017 9:56:42 GMT
Seems like trance B 10.5% sold out before I could get to it. I'm more of an A person myself, I can sho you the bruises
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 525
Likes: 243
|
worthing
Feb 23, 2017 21:57:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by bababill on Feb 23, 2017 21:57:08 GMT
😎. A separate trance c at 10.5 percent was just listed. Also sold out before I could get to it though it was a rollover
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on May 1, 2017 17:08:18 GMT
This is showing as "Bad standing" already. Anyone know what this means? Edit: Says Bad Standing in My Loans but Good standing in Property Loan Exchange. proplend?
|
|
|
Post by proplend on May 1, 2017 18:29:18 GMT
Not sure whats happened there, thanks for pointing out. To confirm the loan is NOT in 'Bad Standing', we will rectify that in the morning.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on May 1, 2017 21:29:29 GMT
Not sure whats happened there, thanks for pointing out. To confirm the loan is NOT in 'Bad Standing', we will rectify that in the morning. Thanks. have removed my part from the PE.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 6, 2019 17:21:11 GMT
Being refinanced tomorrow.
The main thing that struck me when reading the (new) VR is the EPC rating of F (verging on G) for half of the property, and E (verging on F) for the other half, both expiring July this year. See section 7 for the full details. If the loan had to be called in prior to planning for change of use being achieved, some (assumed minor ?) capital expenditure would be required otherwise the resale value would be hit (possibly significantly - fear of the unknown)
As well as the retained interest, it might have been sensible to retain £20k specifically to cover such works if the loan did have to be called in. Irrespective, PL have not felt this aspect was worth mention in their own risk anlaysis.
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 525
Likes: 243
|
Post by bababill on Feb 6, 2019 22:03:05 GMT
Not sure I can agree with this. Valuation is pretty much based on the value of number 7 which sold with an EPC rating of E.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 6, 2019 23:13:41 GMT
Not sure I can agree with this. Valuation is pretty much based on the value of number 7 which sold with an EPC rating of E.Can you explain what you mean .. I'm not sure what it is you don't agree with !
The half of the property with the F rating can not be let on new tenancies of 6mth or longer, and the VR cautions that the half with the E rating could easily be reassessed as a F next time.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Feb 7, 2019 0:09:28 GMT
Looking at the EPC Recommendation Reports, it seems there are some fairly low cost measures that would improve the EPC rating significantly, eg replacing lamps, adding window shading and secondary glazing. Other low cost measures with some benefit include adding a time control and other heating controls, and a more efficient water heater.
The intended exit is PP for change of use, so the EPC would not affect that. It is a fair point to note that sale in current condition would probably require EPC improvements, but these may not be too onerous.
Note that the loan amount includes a sum for internal alterations.
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 525
Likes: 243
|
Post by bababill on Feb 7, 2019 0:29:34 GMT
To rephrase I am not convinced the assertions mentioned above are correct. I will try and explain. We know number 7 sold for 465k and was in a worse condition then number 8 and 9 (see original valuation report) and hence the current valuation of 8 and 9 is based upon that premise. However to be cautious the valuer has already mentioned the EPC issue and discounted the valuations by 10k on each property to make way for repairs. So the suggestion that Proplend should have retained an additional 20k for potential repairs sounds like double counting. See appendix H "less estimated MEES improvement works."
|
|