taffy
Posts: 148
Likes: 360
|
Post by taffy on Dec 22, 2020 13:25:37 GMT
And FS directors potentially £47K richer out of the misery of investors..beggars belief Almost £60K being eaten away in attempting to get our own money back Meanwhile, I receive the 10th monthly update on my FCA complaint. "I am sorry to say that we are still unable to finalise our work but we are on course to be able to give you a more detailed update before the end of January 2021". They should have been working for FS at this rate.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Dec 22, 2020 16:22:50 GMT
Update 22/12/20 Can't find any reference to this in the loan particulars, maybe someone in the loan(s) from the outset has better memory and can comment? FS extracting their 12.89%-sized pound of flesh because, in-spite of Receivers and Administrators being involved, this is classed as a 'Borrower Settlement'. Come the New Year; Come the Day of ReckoningNope, never mentioned in the loan particulars. Was always advertised as a "first legal charge on a property in Warrington, supported by a personal guarantee."
However, mrclondon posted the land registry title in DD Central: So the assumption was always that C7 swapped the priority ordering to give FS the first charge. So did the Receivers miss this or did FS cock-up the deed of priority? Or if C7 was never what we assumed, why did FS advertise this loan as a first legal charge? Unless it's the Receivers' mistake then either way you look at it it's misrepresentation and gross incompetence from FS. And their reward for all their diligent work... £47,000 ![>:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png) . Mucho P2P can we add this to the growing list of loans to be explained at the next CC meeting, please.
Other points to note: - the first house sold for £181,500, so in theory there was £544,500 in security left with the remaining three houses. How CG's valuation of £420,000 came about I'd like to know.
- assuming for a second that a settlement was better than sale after factoring in the £70,000 other charge, then it's actually only FS' misrepresentation and gross incompetence that meant settlement was the better option, which conveniently means they get a (contested) 13% fee rather than a (contested) 5% fee. So even more reward for their appalling conduct. - once again, lenders in the senior loan are effectively being charged FS' fees and default interest from supplemental loans they were never in.
- the 27/03/20 update from CG mentioned the potential for a second charge to be put in place to cover the shortfall, this was not covered in today's update. Is this still the case?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 945
Likes: 1,632
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Dec 22, 2020 16:43:59 GMT
Update 22/12/20 Can't find any reference to this in the loan particulars, maybe someone in the loan(s) from the outset has better memory and can comment? FS extracting their 12.89%-sized pound of flesh because, in-spite of Receivers and Administrators being involved, this is classed as a 'Borrower Settlement'. Come the New Year; Come the Day of ReckoningNope, never mentioned in the loan particulars. Was always advertised as a "first legal charge on a property in Warrington, supported by a personal guarantee."
However, mrclondon posted the land registry title in DD Central: So the assumption was always that C7 swapped the priority ordering to give FS the first charge. So did the Receivers miss this or did FS cock-up the deed of priority? Or if C7 was never what we assumed, why did FS advertise this loan as a first legal charge? Unless it's the Receivers' mistake then either way you look at it it's misrepresentation and gross incompetence from FS. And their reward for all their diligent work... £47,000 ![>:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/superangry.png) . Mucho P2P can we add this to the growing list of loans to be explained at the next CC meeting, please.
Other points to note: - the first house sold for £181,500, so in theory there was £544,500 in security left with the remaining three houses. How CG's valuation of £420,000 came about I'd like to know.
- assuming for a second that a settlement was better than sale after factoring in the £70,000 other charge, then it's actually only FS' misrepresentation and gross incompetence that meant settlement was the better option, which conveniently means they get a (contested) 13% fee rather than a (contested) 5% fee. So even more reward for their appalling conduct. - once again, lenders in the senior loan are effectively being charged FS' fees and default interest from supplemental loans they were never in.
- the 27/03/20 update from CG mentioned the potential for a second charge to be put in place to cover the shortfall, this was not covered in today's update. Is this still the case?
Yes Brainer its added to my list to investigate, as I too had funds in this one.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,672
Likes: 2,467
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 22, 2020 18:59:14 GMT
Can't find any reference to this in the loan particulars, maybe someone in the loan(s) from the outset has better memory and can comment? FS extracting their 12.89%-sized pound of flesh because, in-spite of Receivers and Administrators being involved, this is classed as a 'Borrower Settlement'. Come the New Year; Come the Day of Reckoning<snip> Other points to note: - the first house sold for £181,500, so in theory there was £544,500 in security left with the remaining three houses. How CG's valuation of £420,000 came about I'd like to know.
- assuming for a second that a settlement was better than sale after factoring in the £70,000 other charge, then it's actually only FS' misrepresentation and gross incompetence that meant settlement was the better option, which conveniently means they get a (contested) 13% fee rather than a (contested) 5% fee. So even more reward for their appalling conduct. - once again, lenders in the senior loan are effectively being charged FS' fees and default interest from supplemental loans they were never in.
- the 27/03/20 update from CG mentioned the potential for a second charge to be put in place to cover the shortfall, this was not covered in today's update. Is this still the case? Thanks for the comprehensive reply Brainer - appreciated. I can't for the life of me see how this will stand up to scrutiny when challenged and nor how any self-respecting organisation worthy of their accreditations can expect it to. Just beggars belief...
|
|
|
Post by defaultinator5000 on Dec 23, 2020 1:05:51 GMT
I am totally speechless at this blatant FCA-approved robbery of retail investors. Not only are the investors expected to pay for the administration (so much for the promised ring fencing), but now FS gets 13% from a 12% interest loan. How exactly is any investor supposed to turn a profit when the fees charged by the platform are higher than the interest???
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,908
Likes: 4,138
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 23, 2020 11:18:34 GMT
yet another appalling result - time for a cup of tea and will then add to my list of 100% losses - wonder how many of us are still making a postive return with these idiots
updated my list - please tell me if I have missed any to date but I have confirmed 30 projects (not loans) that have returned one or more loans with a 100% loss and have 4 more that will be in this category and we are nowhere near finished yet
How the hell can any "professional" company lose 100% in any SECURE property and other loans let alone all these!
Good job the FCA were regulating them or we might have been taken for a ride....
Please note I have pulled my back so please feel free to point out any errors but do it politely as I get the odd painful twinge.
|
|