|
Post by wightknight on Oct 15, 2017 12:50:10 GMT
Where is it being marketed? Trying to track down some details as I am in this for more than I'd like. Check your inbox Thanks for that. Disappointing isn't it. Although not unexpected as development land even with planning seldom goes for large amounts on the Island. I've been way to trusting on Lendy's loan particulars, screening and most of all valuations. I can only assume that Lendy was/is instructing valuations based on the finished development and not on the liquid value - hence there would not be a comeback against the valuer. I now need to go through all my loans and do my own valuations to check against Lendy's particulars. I'm really not a happy punter right now, I'll actually need to keep money in Lendy to offset these losses - but can I trust them to stay afloat?
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 15, 2017 12:13:02 GMT
It's the silence that is getting to me. I'm not in this loan and have been lucky enough to avoid getting stuck with any lemons apart from a small piece of DF 02 which I'm not too worried about. However, the complete lack of information being supplied to lenders yet again shows complete and utter disregard for Lenders. Hell fire, if they can't say any more for some sort of legal reason then at least say that! This is indeed up for sale for £900,000 with nothing more offered to lenders in the way of an explanation other than there are some issues impacting the value. Personally I think P2P platforms with no money of their own to lose in individual loans is opening up a whole new avenue of making money for some, and I'm not talking about the interest offered to lenders either. Where is it being marketed? Trying to track down some details as I am in this for more than I'd like.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 13, 2017 12:04:48 GMT
Thanks. Hopefully there will be an update by the end of today then. Not the easiest website to find this kind of information. Update > "The LPA receiver is continuing to work on this matter and has met with numerous related parties over the last few weeks. In addition to this, Lendy has met with the Borrower and following those meetings an offer on the property has been received. As soon as the LPA Receiver has reviewed all prospective recovery and build out options, and the cost implications of the same, it will provide its final report and make a recommendation on the best way to proceed with the matter. In the interim, the property remains on the open market for sale"Thanks for the heads up. As usual with these things it raises more questions than it answers. I.e no mention of access issues. Also, odd that an offer should come out of meetings with the borrower, the same borrower who can't meet the loan repayments. Maybe since the offer has not been accepted it can be assumed the offer was below security valuation and below the loan value - phase 2 of the ransom strip plan I assume.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 13, 2017 9:01:00 GMT
Being Thursday today and 2 weeks since the last update day, I was expecting the same today. However, I can't find any updates on any of the loans that I have checked and I've checked about 10 of them. Normally, updates are provided on a Friday, every two weeks We're due for an update tomorrow (unless LY deem there is "no change") Thanks. Hopefully there will be an update by the end of today then. Not the easiest website to find this kind of information.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 12, 2017 12:28:43 GMT
Anyone spotted a Lendy update on this loan yet, I'm sure there should be one by now?
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 5, 2017 22:08:45 GMT
Is there any documentation anywhere detailing what the TCs the loans are currently on? Edit: Scrap that, found it, T&Cs are still listed as what I assume to be the old TCs being referenced in this thread (as newer loans are different and not as good from a lender perspective). Would that it were so simple (trippingly ) You can click on the loan terms in the particulars tab and it shows you the terms either old or new. Unfortunately. Lendy have never bothered to change the terms for those loans that have been migrated to the new terms from the old that they have told us as much eg PBL37-9. The other problem is that the old terms were for the boat loans and werent changed for the PBLs so in many cases have inapplicable terms ie max 7 months, no SM and are effectively meaningless when it comes to actually knowing what the actual terms are. Edit Changing the terms isnt a breach of contract because lenders agreed that Lendy had the right to amend terms and restructure loans as required in theory IMNPO. One for the lawyers etc when the issue actually arises which as yet it hasnt because Lendy fulfilled the old T&Cs in the one case that has arisen so far PBL020 Thanks for that, great info. I would have thought there would be some issues with reselling those migrated loans under the old TCs. I vaguely remember something about limits in clauses that allow a party to unilaterally change TCs, might look into that tomorrow. I wonder if Lendy's reticence in confirming the TCs is because they themselves are not sure which TCs apply and/or the legal status of this they have unilaterally redrawn? I really hope it doesn't ever become an issue.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 5, 2017 21:36:42 GMT
I've asked through the support page and the answer is not satisfactory. I've threatened that if I don't receive a definite answer I'll escalate my query into an official complaint. I assume you just got a vague reply? Wouldn't migrating the terms of an existing loan be a breach of contract?
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Oct 5, 2017 20:57:43 GMT
Is Lendy considering transferring DFL 01 & DFL 02 to the new terms thereby absolving themselves of responsibility for repayment? I certainly hope not. If this action occurs, then we should all consider reporting the matter to the FCA. I doubt if this action would be legal, considering that Lendy suspended trading in the loans thereby preventing lenders from exiting the loans. They need to remember that without their lenders they would not exist. Is there any documentation anywhere detailing what the TCs the loans are currently on? Edit: Scrap that, found it, T&Cs are still listed as what I assume to be the old TCs being referenced in this thread (as newer loans are different and not as good from a lender perspective).
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 28, 2017 9:46:05 GMT
All of this legal easement discussion is outside my fields of knowledge, but I can say that from the planning documents the cottage (large house with the new turf laid) has been in whole or part in the name of business associates of the borrower (name of P******) for some time and the bungalow that was demolished was I recall in the name of the borrower. It was located about where houses 2/3 are now situated. So I recall when I looked at the planning some months ago. The adjoining large field was also the subject of linked planning applications at one time (total 60+ dwellings) but with a new access road proposed out onto O** R****L**. The small access route used to the present development was only ever intended to serve the 10/14 houses, as a gated community. if the adjoining field was to be built out this would detract from the views (such as they are) from houses 1 to 4 and make them less attractive. At the moment the views from upper windows (and balconies!) are across this field and to the delights of the M5 and industrial units. crossed with post above. Interesting couple of posts above. I think it may have been me that first brought up easements as a solution for access, but by the looks of the above two posts its a red herring. 1. Because it looks like there are other potential ways to build an access to the site and 2. Because I get the impression that the cottage and security site were never part of the same title, albeit owed by the same person at some point. I suspect there still could be legal redress for Lendy to use that access if a commitment to it exists in all the contractual and legal documents. Hopefully Lendy will give an update with something concrete they hang a legal action on.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 28, 2017 8:06:49 GMT
Re Access: I would have thought this meets the criteria for an Easement by necessity, presuming the development has no other access to the highway. Regardless, it seems that the access has been created and used during the course of the development, my understanding is that the Courts would likely recognise an access due to the facts on the ground. ie. if Lendy was denied access by the 'son' it should be able to seek an injunction granting access and thereafter a permanent easement across the 'son's land'. That's not even considering the contractual element. The 'son' will have to be careful here, in not granting access he might make himself personally liable for damages - who knows? PS. Hi - just joined because I found this thread and unfortunately I'm an investor I wouldn't hang your hat on an easement by necessity being provable / obtained via the Courts. Ransom strips have high value for a reason. Also, you normally have to have had unopposed use over land for 20 years+ to obtain a legal right by prescription. This case seems very muddled. At the very least I'd expect very big legal costs. Well, I'm not hanging my hat on this one that's for sure - more clutching at straws! Didn't suggest an easement by prescription, that doesn't apply here. I don't know how developers usually establish a ransom strip to be legally separate from the accessed development - I assume they pick an adjacent property that has always been on separate title so as not to create an implied easement, not sure if that is the case here or not. From the background it seems there may well be an easement created in equity/contract somewhere but there just isn't any information out there. My confidence in Lendy is pretty shaken by this, I'll want to see a solid way ahead quickly if I'm to carry on investing there.
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 27, 2017 21:30:52 GMT
Yes, quite right, although I haven't quite followed the various land transfers. Were the development title and the cottage owned by the same legal person at any time?
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 27, 2017 20:57:09 GMT
I expect Lendy to go in with full legal force in order to recover the due monies as borrower can't fulfil the obligations at the end of the term. No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it? Re Access: I would have thought this meets the criteria for an Easement by necessity, presuming the development has no other access to the highway. Regardless, it seems that the access has been created and used during the course of the development, my understanding is that the Courts would likely recognise an access due to the facts on the ground. ie. if Lendy was denied access by the 'son' it should be able to seek an injunction granting access and thereafter a permanent easement across the 'son's land'. That's not even considering the contractual element. The 'son' will have to be careful here, in not granting access he might make himself personally liable for damages - who knows? PS. Hi - just joined because I found this thread and unfortunately I'm an investor
|
|