r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2017 9:11:44 GMT
Hi fundingsecure , despite you having sent the usual e-mail, the loan details of this one don't appear to have been made available on your website as of yet. Despite the apparent low LTV, I suspect there may be a number of concerns around the property, so would you consider delaying the posting of the loan in order to give us time to review the details once uploaded? Edit: Now available. |
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Dec 7, 2017 9:50:24 GMT
Many concerns. The valuation has been based on the rebuilding of the house to a value of £350k and the redundant workshop unitsbeing rebuilt too.....(See 12.3 VR)
Real value? @ 30%!
Would state more, but late going out.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2017 9:58:28 GMT
Many concerns. The valuation has been based on the rebuilding of the house to a value of £350k and the redundant workshop unitsbeing rebuilt too.....(See 12.3 VR) Real value? @ 30%! Would state more, but late going out. Whilst the VR also states "Whilst the planning refusal for the Telehouse dates back over 10 years, in the absence of any change in planning policy, we would anticipate that such a comprehensive redevelopment of the site that does not use the rail link may continue to prove unacceptable to the local planning authority". It's fine that it's some rather rough commercial land IMV, and I'm happy to entirely disregard the prospect of rebuilding the house (who'd want to live there?), but as FS have said - "The site is understood to have been vacant for in excess of 20 years". Beyond some of the borrower's apparent informal discussions with the planning council (as per VR), I just can't see how the exit plan for this loan works. However fundingsecure state that the loan will be repaid through the sale of the property and that there are "several parties already interested" . Which seems remarkable to me given the lack of any activity for some 20 years, and the apparent requirement for the land to be used for railway based activity. What's changed? Edit: One further quote from the VR "In the light of the 2002 planning refusal and current policy designation relating to the site, there must be some doubt as to those uses which may be acceptable on the land going forward. Indeed, we are of the opinion that this may well be a principle reason as to why the site has remained vacant and undeveloped for such a significant period of time"
|
|
|
|
Post by badboyyardy on Dec 7, 2017 10:07:25 GMT
Another one for s**ty stick /bargepole  Gonna shove it all on bitcoin instead probably more chance of recovery even if it crashes.... |
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 7, 2017 10:50:37 GMT
As far as I can ascertain - from the FS information supplied '....The loan is being made to a company so we will have a PG in place....'
So does the company actually own this asset?
Unable to find any further details but there is a PG in place so that's okay then.
Still at 30% it will fill in nanoseconds although not with my pennies.
As a side-note, more and more loans are being filled with fewer and fewer details being supplied. Cannot see this trend being reversed until or if the funding supply starts drying up.
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Dec 7, 2017 10:53:03 GMT
I notice the VR is also a year old. That’s probably OK in one respect as I doubt that the value of this would leap up and down a lot. However, the VR was done for a purpose and I assume this has been hawked around various lenders for a year with a negative response. Now the borrower is “under time pressure to complete” so FS accept an old VR, presumably to help the borrower.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Dec 7, 2017 10:56:47 GMT
Not for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 7, 2017 11:06:39 GMT
I understand the need to bring this to lenders without an up to date VR because the client may need access to our funds as soon as possible, but what I don't understand is the rate at 10%. It's priced for liquidity not risk IMO.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2017 12:06:45 GMT
I notice the VR is also a year old. That’s probably OK in one respect as I doubt that the value of this would leap up and down a lot. However, the VR was done for a purpose and I assume this has been hawked around various lenders for a year with a negative response. Now the borrower is “under time pressure to complete” so FS accept an old VR, presumably to help the borrower. It doesn't have the recent Sep 2017 PP (seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness) which was refused with clarification of the current status of the site "It is the local planning authority's view that residential use of the site and its use as builder's yard have been abandoned"
Although, the VR does a good job of addressing this £975k? Well, I'm not buying that but land with possible rail link is going to be attractive even if there is no PP in place, so defiantly going to cover the £280,000 and accrued interest. Only slight concern is that the previous PP does note concern about enlarging the neighbouring site, but those PP where very week (unless there is a bunch of paperwork missing) and 13years old 10% takes the biscuit You say it's going to be attractive, but if it is I don't understand why has it been left derelict for 20 years with several failed attempts at gaining PP? What has changed recently to convince us that this time is different? Commercial property valuations are always more difficult, but the VR even notes that the site is "subject to greater uncertainty than...usual commercial property". Unless there's some serious substance to FS's claims about 'several' buyers being interested, this has all the hallmarks of being the next Rishton IMHO. I think this is the ropiest loan we've seen since the Edinburgh airport flood plain development plot, and 10% is a (bad Christmas) joke. Edit: I should say, I do agree dude that if it sells then yes it would cover it. I just have significant doubts about how many Christmases this will be on the books for, with 'interest continuing to accrue'
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 7, 2017 13:46:39 GMT
Direct links to the planning applications (all refused), and assumed borrower CH records are now available, along with a link to a load more photos of the site, on DD Central. For those without DDC access search West Berkshire Planning with the street address from the VR (not the postcode), and look for the entry "Land at former ....". The planning applicant is named on the "Further Info" tab of the 2017 application. For the extra photos simply google the name of the loan - the link will be one of the top entries. CH records show the planning applicant had a legal mortage from Northern Rock charged against the site from late August 2001 which remains as far as CH records show, outstanding. |
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 7, 2017 14:06:10 GMT
93% funded at 10%.
Go figure me time!!!
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Dec 7, 2017 14:10:13 GMT
93% funded at 10%. Go figure me time!!! It's pretty simple really. 30% LTV so will easily sell on the SM.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 7, 2017 15:49:18 GMT
I just don't see nearly £1m quid here - it this were me I would take the money
and say thank you and goodnight FS. But clearly this is not the case here.
|
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Dec 7, 2017 16:11:47 GMT
I just don't see nearly £1m quid here - it this were me I would take the money and say thank you and goodnight FS. But clearly this is not the case here. Are you sure!? 
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Dec 7, 2017 17:00:49 GMT
I just don't see nearly £1m quid here - it this were me I would take the money and say thank you and goodnight FS. But clearly this is not the case here. Are you sure!? It doesn't need to be nearly £1m, say £350k should cover. The problem is I'm not convinced that this wasteland is worth that much. I probably just don't understand the security, so have passed(again).
|
|
