seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 30, 2017 21:47:48 GMT
PBL004 does indeed make interesting reading -
this is from the valuation document discussing the land for DFL001.
Access is to be approved through the current access lane to the north of the site, connecting with O** R**** L***. Based on your customer’s current title boundary, it is our view this will not be wide enough unless an agreement is reached with B******* C****** to utilise a slice of land on their western boundary. Alternatively, as part of the proposed outline consent a condition is placed on your customer’s land to provide two east to west access roads to the south of the site. These roads are to connect up with adoptable roads to be constructed by adjoining land owners as part of their planning consent. This will provide an alternative means of access to the site, however is reliant upon adjoining land owners developing their land in accordance with the outline consent. It is therefore subject to some uncertainty.
As per our assumptions above, we have assumed sufficient land will be included in the sale price to enable the proposed north access route.
You have informed us that you currently have a ‘firm’ offer on the table for £3,000,000. We understand from you that this offer includes sufficient land to effect the north access route.
DATED; 21 January 2015 - 18months before my time on Lendy, hence I regret I didn't know about this. Could have saved a lot of effort!
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 30, 2017 16:54:49 GMT
developer stated "Lendy’s knee jerk reaction by quickly appointing receivers over the Exeter projects instead of trading out of the default situation caused by the liquidation of the main contractor is compounding an unfortunate situation." What caused the main contractor to go into liquidation? He presumably signed a contract to undertake work on DFL001/2 , DFL002 is almost complete (little problem there except the proposed selling prices are too high) and in respect of DFL001, it is roughly half built and all the money has gone? Who is at fault? Certainly Lendy didn't seem to undertake proper appraisals during the site build or else the over spend would have been spotted earlier. But who did the overspending and failed to undertake proper project costing and control? Not the first time developers have had a starry eyed view of how much their developments should be worth, but it doesn't usually end up in this sort of mess?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 29, 2017 9:41:55 GMT
That's presumably an opaque joke?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 28, 2017 10:19:12 GMT
"........reassuring to see MT managing this loans exit strategy closely from here on in."
You could say that about some others including MT's Bollywood - in case it is at risk of turning into another Exeter (each have ten houses?)
MT used to be the platform of choice for a sound investment. Recently we have had Birkenhead, Prestbury and others, not to mention a loan in Bradford that should arguably never have been offered without far more detail of saleability of the proposed end product.
BC have a large number of defaulted or soon to be defaulted loans too.
None of this makes for comforting reading.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 28, 2017 9:55:00 GMT
Only bought what I knew I likely couldn't get rid of for a long time.......
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 28, 2017 9:51:02 GMT
Interesting to watch this one and see who does buy the land. Even more interesting to document the full series of events, once the veil of legal obscurity is lifted. There may be some hard (albeit basic) lessons for P2P platforms, and for investors.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 27, 2017 14:07:05 GMT
Part of recent update:
"We are also currently reviewing an offer to acquire the property from a third party."
Do they mean:
"We are also currently reviewing an offer from a third party to acquire the property."
I wonder if the third party is one who can exercise or grant access rights?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 25, 2017 12:31:07 GMT
I can well appreciate the issues surrounding non-release of information during sensitive legal periods.
What concerns me more is the apparent lack of proper supervision of building projects - that is, Lendy really knowing what is going on as opposed to a tick box approach using what may be largely valueless IMS reports and similar. If anyone qualified had kept a close eye on Exeter DFL001 (for example) I doubt we would be in the position we are now. Maybe DFL001 was the start of a learning curve.
Also, something went seriously amiss on the Isle of Wight. Whilst it may be imprudent to tell us exactly what at this stage, the nagging feeling is that Lendy go into loans with a far too blasé attitude, and then don't really look after them. Builders and developers need to know they are being closely watched - this aspect is what in my view has led to a loss of some confidence on the platform. There has also been a blasé attitude towards answering perfectly reasonable questions. Instead of a polite reply people have been almost brushed aside. Big investors especially, and people with knowledge of the building industry, do not wish to be treated in this manner.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 24, 2017 16:50:35 GMT
Spot the difference: "We will not make any further comments on the situation while the recovery is underway." ".....and we will keep lenders informed throughout the process." OK, a woman is entitled to change her mind. SophieThing Given the 'repay and take back' process has become well established, why all the fuss about it. It's only a flaky process, not a disaster.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 24, 2017 16:32:24 GMT
The borrower (let's call him Mr Woeful) paid £2.75million plus a sum for the ransom strip that runs across the end of W******* View . The sum paid for the ransom strip is undisclosed according to the land registry. But there may also be a problematic access issue along part of W View itself.
If this is indeed the case then there are questions for the valuers, for Lendy's DD, and not least for all those 'connected' people on the Island who have had their fingers in various pies and parcels of land for decades. Many people knew full well every issue surrounding access to this land. One day we shall be told, until then we can speculate (albeit largely in private) about who knew what, who didn't tell whom, etc.
The Oxford college that sold the land did very well (£2.6 million net proceeds show in their accounts for 11 marshy acres), the three people who sold the ransom strip to Mr Woeful did perhaps exceedingly well. One of the three is a local builder who probably knows every inch of Ryde land and who has control over it.
There is a long history to the ransom strip - back as far as 2002 when its initial purpose was to control further development of W View.
In the meantime we await a few words of illumination from Lendy - the case is likely 'in legals' for a while yet.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 23, 2017 17:39:57 GMT
The issue of the borrower was foremost at the beginning but rapidly faded. Many would have supported the borrower and this loan if the basic economics had stood up - which they did not.
A rundown area of a decaying city, uncertainty around the type of accommodation to be constructed, and the market to be addressed, a 'missing ' £1.2m, optimistic selling prices year or more down the line, a derelict listed building - nothing felt right.
Mind you it couldn't have been such a disaster as the Isle of Wight on Lendy. They managed to mess up a mere building plot.
What an afternoon this has been.
I echo comments about the gathering storm for property based P2P. Too many duff valuations, too little proper DD by platforms. A time of reckoning may not be far away......
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 23, 2017 15:32:11 GMT
Ahoy there Lendy Support Did you know that for a £5 million building development scheme it can be a good idea to check the LR titles for all the surrounding land? This could have been done for around £20.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 23, 2017 14:55:49 GMT
OK, things seem to be becoming clearer. If you access the Land Registry documents for land in this area, the last few houses along W******* V*** seem not to be built along what is a normal adopted 'public' road, although it looks like one. They all have specific rights of access over the last bit of this road - a bit like living along a private or unmade road. (I used to, and no-one knew who owned the road, but rights of access were granted via 'long user' and statutory declarations to that effect. All a long time ago.....). What seems to have happened here is that the borrower bought the land either knowing or not knowing that access along W******* V*** was problematic (to say the least). He applied for PP and sketched out a scheme - but he should have checked (or did he know) that the land would have little value unless there could be full vehicular and other access. The valuation depended on this of course. Access for the scheme was debated in planning meetings - so it was hardly an 'unknown' factor. indeed it is obvious - and extra 180 dwellings accessed via a tiny little cul-de-sac road? It's actually more complicated still - not sure how much can be said here. Anyone looking at the LR titles for the last bit of the 'access' road should have been alerted to possible problems - see diagram. It is one for the lawyers now - who knew what, who said what, who ought to have known.......
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 23, 2017 12:55:14 GMT
These might be duplicates. Same recorded opening message on each one.. t: +44 (0) 800 779 7706 t: +44 (0) 203 303 3146 e: support@lendy.co.uk w: www.lendy.co.ukThe woman who did Cowes week - "International marketing manager ! " phone: +44 (0)7480 051 617 email: pamela.guillamon@lendy.co.uk communications@lendy.co.uk
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 23, 2017 12:32:30 GMT
Please be reasonable.
MT needed to allow investors time to fill the Bradford and Newcastle loans before they received this good news - otherwise they might have been flocking to invest in even more solid securities.
To be fair on updates, BC do them monthly and in no great hurry even then.
|
|