|
Post by overthehill on Apr 23, 2021 19:49:45 GMT
Interested in the below Am I missing something as I don't make 10% of £756K = £70K? Plannning and lease within 18 months for the £250K - don't believe it will happen but how is that going to be dealt with? How the hell can an insured asset said by FS to be worth £2.5m going to realise a maximum gross price of about £1m (including insurance). I was in this one but ditched it - from memory this mystical £2.5m was the completed valuation which (if true) as I have said before is crazy if not duplicitous At least FS aren't getting 5% of this one but I wonder just how much all this legal work is going to cost as there are both Quantuma and CG fees to pay - 40% quoted for the main capital return is a perfectly sensible estimate - yes the 4 secondary loans are going to be yet another 100% wipeout. Yet another total bloody horlicks with yet more small investors being shafted - total, total disgrace
The purchaser is the new investor, the FS borrower put in a higher offer and then guess what ? nothing? Luckily for us , sort of, and unluckily for the FS borrower, the new investor was still interested and did the deal.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Apr 24, 2021 7:12:59 GMT
Interested in the below Am I missing something as I don't make 10% of £756K = £70K? Plannning and lease within 18 months for the £250K - don't believe it will happen but how is that going to be dealt with? How the hell can an insured asset said by FS to be worth £2.5m going to realise a maximum gross price of about £1m (including insurance). I was in this one but ditched it - from memory this mystical £2.5m was the completed valuation which (if true) as I have said before is crazy if not duplicitous At least FS aren't getting 5% of this one but I wonder just how much all this legal work is going to cost as there are both Quantuma and CG fees to pay - 40% quoted for the main capital return is a perfectly sensible estimate - yes the 4 secondary loans are going to be yet another 100% wipeout. Yet another total bloody horlicks with yet more small investors being shafted - total, total disgrace
The purchaser is the new investor, the FS borrower put in a higher offer and then guess what ? nothing? Luckily for us , sort of, and unluckily for the FS borrower, the new investor was still interested and did the deal.
There was a new company registered last month coinciding with the purchase I think, same name as this property, there were a couple of names mentioned. Shouldn't be hard to find as I don't have full access, think it was just a Google search.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 24, 2021 10:48:01 GMT
brilliant - have found the new purchaser at Companies House - can't see any connection whatsoever to the original borrower.
Speaking of the original borrower who has played fast and loose with millions of our money I hope this marks the end of his house of cards and he ends up losing his manor house currently valued at about £3.6m by a desktop - go for it CG ! Does he care how much pain and loss he has caused pensioners etc to lose their limited hard-earned savings - answers on a digital postcard.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 24, 2021 12:30:49 GMT
There was a new company registered last month coinciding with the purchase I think, same name as this property, there were a couple of names mentioned. Shouldn't be hard to find as I don't have full access, think it was just a Google search. There's a company created January this year and has a charge against it on a property addressed the same as this one, but with a different LR Title to that which FS referenced on the charge over their borrower. Perhaps the site was split. The sole director of that January company has history with P2P loans and the other person identified in the PSC section seems well-connected within those circles, too. The chances of there not being some kind of connection between the old and new owners seems remote given how these property developer types have a habit of all swimming in the same pond sewer.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 24, 2021 13:47:42 GMT
on my searched the above is pure suppostion - happy to be told of some facts I have missed. I actually drew the same conclusion but one has to be careful - if I were this developer (I'm not) and was accused of swimming in a sewer I would be taking legal action for libel....
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,868
Likes: 2,762
|
Post by michaelc on Apr 25, 2021 11:15:57 GMT
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Apr 25, 2021 13:53:20 GMT
There was a new company registered last month coinciding with the purchase I think, same name as this property, there were a couple of names mentioned. Shouldn't be hard to find as I don't have full access, think it was just a Google search. There's a company created January this year and has a charge against it on a property addressed the same as this one, but with a different LR Title to that which FS referenced on the charge over their borrower. Perhaps the site was split.If the site was split then we should have been told about it. Is there any way you can verify this? What exactly has been sold? In my opinion the property has been considerably undersold. The fact the borrower was prepared to pay more for it supports this.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,851
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 25, 2021 14:32:18 GMT
There's a company created January this year and has a charge against it on a property addressed the same as this one, but with a different LR Title to that which FS referenced on the charge over their borrower. Perhaps the site was split.If the site was split then we should have been told about it. Is there any way you can verify this? What exactly has been sold? In my opinion the property has been considerably undersold. The fact the borrower was prepared to pay more for it supports this. Land registry. Not sure they are the same property. The security title registered against the borrower is described as O*****d H***e on the LR, with 5 related titles, which would coincide with the structure of the accommodation. The property secured by the new company is Angle*** L***e. Appear to be next door to each other. There is something somewhat odd here. Did FS secure the wrong title? Edit. LR gives different descriptions based on different search, our title is land at AL which is OH, AL itself is on a separate title.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Apr 25, 2021 19:30:22 GMT
I haven't got a clue. I just noticed that the new company with same name as our property was created on the 2nd mar, the same date as the deadline for bids. The original borrower made the highest bid but then did not complete. Maybe this new company is our original borrower, I don't know his name so I can't say.
The other bidder subsequently completed the sale 8 apr.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,851
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 25, 2021 20:55:40 GMT
I haven't got a clue. I just noticed that the new company with same name as our property was created on the 2nd mar, the same date as the deadline for bids. The original borrower made the highest bid but then did not complete. Maybe this new company is our original borrower, I don't know his name so I can't say.
The other bidder subsequently completed the sale 8 apr.
Its in DD Central but the name of the borrower is the patron saint of Scotland, surname of the author of Guns of Navarone. He has a lot of entries but you want the one on page two with 3 directorship at address in Bury St Edmonds, company with an 8 in it is our borrower
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Apr 26, 2021 9:29:18 GMT
From the update of 8/10/20: “A non-refundable deposit had been paid to Quantuma, with £165,402 attributed to this company”.
Does this mean that the total received thus far for the property is £165,402 plus the £700k from the new buyer, with the prospect of getting another £100k from the insurance claim and the “shortfall” from the director’s PG?
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Apr 26, 2021 10:25:47 GMT
From the update of 8/10/20: “A non-refundable deposit had been paid to Quantuma, with £165,402 attributed to this company”. Does this mean that the total received thus far for the property is £165,402 plus the £700k from the new buyer, with the prospect of getting another £100k from the insurance claim and the “shortfall” from the director’s PG? That's my understanding.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jul 30, 2021 14:54:32 GMT
Update 30/07/21
"As per the previous update, the property has sold and a breakdown of the costs, to include the return to investors will be provided in due course"
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Feb 25, 2022 14:45:53 GMT
As a country bumpkin, please excuse me for having the temerity to bring this up but I note that the "illustrative" recoveries recently provided by CG & Co on this and various other 'resolved' loans, carry the following note attached:-
"Please note that the above calculation is being provided for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change. The Joint Administrators and the Creditors’ Committee are currently finalising a sum to be deducted from all loans in order to fund the ongoing expenses of the Administration for the benefit of all Investors and Creditors which will be applied to the above calculation. The final sum available to Investors will be confirmed in due course, once both the position is resolved with the Creditors’ Committee and funds are able to be released back to Investors."
That being the case, are CG & Co's 2.5% Fees + unrecoverable (to lenders) VAT merely a 'cut' of any recoveries and are not representative in any shape or form of the true cost involved. In which case why was 2.5% +VAT agreed in the first place ? Maybe I've been asleep at the wheel (very likely) but I also note that The Directors Cut (no, not the fillum) of 5%? was it, is also missing from these latest projections. I seem to remember that the FS 5% insult was seemingly awaiting adjudication and had been set aside pending legal judgement. Has that been resolved. ? Wasn't there a request on this platform once to 'shout out' and notify the CC where this had been levied against previous loans settlements and if so, will there be any retrospective accounting for this ? As for this particular loan I see that in excess of a cool £1/4million has vapourised on three particular costs..Borrowers Administrator costs & disbursements ..say what ! £70K and "Security" of £107K ..remind me , wasn't this the property that spontaneously ignited with security allegedly on site ? 'Other Property Costs' £50K
I'll get back to my turnips.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,851
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 25, 2022 16:03:42 GMT
As a country bumpkin, please excuse me for having the temerity to bring this up but I note that the "illustrative" recoveries recently provided by CG & Co on this and various other 'resolved' loans, carry the following note attached:- "Please note that the above calculation is being provided for illustrative purposes only and is subject to change. The Joint Administrators and the Creditors’ Committee are currently finalising a sum to be deducted from all loans in order to fund the ongoing expenses of the Administration for the benefit of all Investors and Creditors which will be applied to the above calculation. The final sum available to Investors will be confirmed in due course, once both the position is resolved with the Creditors’ Committee and funds are able to be released back to Investors." That being the case, are CG & Co's 2.5% Fees + unrecoverable (to lenders) VAT merely a 'cut' of any recoveries and are not representative in any shape or form of the true cost involved. In which case why was 2.5% +VAT agreed in the first place ? Maybe I've been asleep at the wheel (very likely) but I also note that The Directors Cut (no, not the fillum) of 5%? was it, is also missing from these latest projections. I seem to remember that the FS 5% insult was seemingly awaiting adjudication and had been set aside pending legal judgement. Has that been resolved. ? Wasn't there a request on this platform once to 'shout out' and notify the CC where this had been levied against previous loans settlements and if so, will there be any retrospective accounting for this ? As for this particular loan I see that in excess of a cool £1/4million has vapourised on three particular costs..Borrowers Administrator costs & disbursements ..say what ! £70K and "Security" of £107K ..remind me , wasn't this the property that spontaneously ignited with security allegedly on site ? 'Other Property Costs' £50K I'll get back to my turnips. I think the 2.5% relates specifically to work being done to realise the individual loans but there will be other more general costs incurred by the administrators to carry out the work ie operating the platform, distributing funds to investors, non-specific legal costs. I suspect that the admin had intended for these costs to come out of the fees due to the platform but following the directions hearing determining that the 5% ranks behind distributions to lenders there needs to be a different mechanism for covering these from the loan recoveries. The 5% doesnt appear in the calculations as it ranks behind lenders so is only relevant if lenders have been repaid in full. The admin will indeed have to account for any 5% that was deducted from previous loans and adjust the calcs accordingly, otherwise, AIUI, FS would be in breach of its fiduciary duties as agent (Lendy case) Mucho will probably correct any errors in this interpretation when he gets time. Cant comment on the loan specifics.
|
|