iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 23, 2020 10:48:02 GMT
<snip>
circumstances change. If that does happen are we still in line? in theory yes - but unlikely to occur.<snip> Questions that springs to mind are: Just how theoretical is that "in theory", and If it's actually quite tangible, what have CG&Co done to protect lenders rights for redress going forward? My thinking is that when FS finally dies (ok, ok - save the cheering 'til later! ) does that ' being in line for repayment' die with them? So can the right to claim against the loan be transferred to an entity that will survive, in perpetuity? (Preferably with minimal administrative overhead as possible, but I suspect there will be some.) At the very least getting something added to the leasehold to reflect a potential claim will inconvenience the borrower when it does finally come time to sell, but I have no idea if that's viable. There may be no financial benefit, but sometimes revenge is a dish best served by the legal system. It's all well and good, CG washing their hands of this with an update running to a couple lines, but it does seem to me that lenders have been sold short by CG's (in)actions - if only through a lack of communication over the exact situation and options left for lenders to pursue in CG's absense..
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 23, 2020 10:55:55 GMT
Is there a charge against this property if not then there is zero chance of adding one when FS ceases to be Also I am pretty sure any charge would die when FS does and I really don't see how FS could add one now if there isn't one Would appreciate a valid legal opinion on this one
As a legal slap-head I think our position is very simple viz we have all been had...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 23, 2020 11:08:39 GMT
Well the Law Society might be very interested in a Solicitor playing funny games and basically misappropriating £200K - do we know which firm of solicitors it is? I only have - sorry, had - £25 in this, but the principle here seems worth pursuing if only via a complaint to the Law Society that the Solicitor will have then to address.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 23, 2020 11:10:57 GMT
And in terms of keeping the debt alive, surely given a zero return the administrators would have to accept ANY offer - say a tenner (or their administrative costs for transferring the debt) - for the debt? Could we buy it? Just a thought.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 23, 2020 11:14:09 GMT
Well the Law Society might be very interested in a Solicitor playing funny games and basically misappropriating £200K - do we know which firm of solicitors it is? I only have - sorry, had - £25 in this, but the principle here seems worth pursuing if only via a complaint to the Law Society that the Solicitor will have then to address. The Solicitors letter of 'Legal Undertaking' - complete with address and SRA number (as well as the scope of their undertaking) - is in the 'asset' details tab on the platform. Read it, and I think you may find you are a bit off the mark with the " Solicitor playing funny games and basically misappropriating £200K" comment. If it had been that easy, I would have hoped even CG could have pursued the matter successfully!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 23, 2020 11:21:10 GMT
Well the Law Society might be very interested in a Solicitor playing funny games and basically misappropriating £200K - do we know which firm of solicitors it is? I only have - sorry, had - £25 in this, but the principle here seems worth pursuing if only via a complaint to the Law Society that the Solicitor will have then to address. The Solicitors letter of 'Legal Undertaking' - complete with address and SRA number (as well as the scope of their undertaking) - is in the 'asset' details tab on the platform. Read it, and I think you may find you are a bit off the mark with the " Solicitor playing funny games and basically misappropriating £200K" comment. If it had been that easy, I would have hoped even CG could have pursued the matter successfully! OK, I hadn't read it. So just another FS mess up then. EDIT: just read it. Agreed, not much wrong with that undertaking. The issue is with the arrangement with the borrower which seems woefully inadequate - I wonder if they took any legal advice on that though?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 23, 2020 11:28:54 GMT
I mean really - there has to be a simple way to keep this alive so that if they ever want to sell it in the future they have to repay loan plus interest. That way the longer they don't sell, the higher the interest due.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 23, 2020 11:42:55 GMT
OK, I hadn't read it. So just another FS mess up then. EDIT: just read it. Agreed, not much wrong with that undertaking. The issue is with the arrangement with the borrower which seems woefully inadequate - I wonder if they took any legal advice on that though? At the risk of sounding like an FS apologist, this was basically an unsecured loan and in fairness to FS they didn't dress it up as being anything else. About the only other thing they could have done is put "UNSECURED" in the loan title as they did with 6880139253 I mean really - there has to be a simple way to keep this alive so that if they ever want to sell it in the future they have to repay loan plus interest. That way the longer they don't sell, the higher the interest due. You'd hope so, but lenders will need to take that up with CG, they have all the background including copies of the various agreements between Borrower / Platform / Lender as well as other documentation / correspondence relating to the case - including the finding of the 'specialist law firm' FS were (purportedly) using to pursue the Trust / Borrower.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 23, 2020 12:01:41 GMT
OK, I hadn't read it. So just another FS mess up then. EDIT: just read it. Agreed, not much wrong with that undertaking. The issue is with the arrangement with the borrower which seems woefully inadequate - I wonder if they took any legal advice on that though? At the risk of sounding like an FS apologist, this was basically an unsecured loan and in fairness to FS they didn't dress it up as being anything else. About the only other thing they could have done is put "UNSECURED" in the loan title as they did with 6880139253I mean really - there has to be a simple way to keep this alive so that if they ever want to sell it in the future they have to repay loan plus interest. That way the longer they don't sell, the higher the interest due. You'd hope so, but lenders will need to take that up with CG, they have all the background including copies of the various agreements between Borrower / Platform / Lender as well as other documentation / correspondence relating to the case - including the finding of the 'specialist law firm' FS were (purportedly) using to pursue the Trust / Borrower. you don't usually put an LTV on an unsecured loan though!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 23, 2020 12:27:29 GMT
you don't usually put an LTV on an unsecured loan though! Yep - good point, well made!
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Oct 23, 2020 14:00:50 GMT
I don't know where investors stand legally or the background to yet another FS specially appointed borrower with no other traceable assets but remember the loan contract is between the borrower and the investor (not FS). Depends how much money you've lost, how many legal friends you know, how many debt collectors you know. Should there be any sympathy for these people, what would life be like if they were the norm.
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on Oct 23, 2020 15:08:55 GMT
I cannot see at the outset that it was made clear that the trustees had not yet agreed to sell the property. But in the light of what shimself has been told, we now have a very clear idea of the meaning of paragraph six of the borrower's undertaking. I admit I had never previously known what to make of it, nor given it much thought. It seems to have been interpreted as meaning that the borrower can walk away from all liability both for principal and interest, 12 months after the inception of the loan. That is the practical effect. A real 'GOTCHA'! Looks like we're stuffed.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 689
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Oct 23, 2020 18:45:32 GMT
I wonder how a judge would interpret paragraph 6's "long stop" meaning. To suggest that any sane lender would have signed up to a loan agreement where the borrower is simply allowed to walk away after 12 months goes against any common sense. Particularly within the context of this being a loan from lenders who are "investors" expecting a return of 13% interest and are advised that the LTV is 36%.
Of course, who says the law is based on common sense. Hmmmm.
If there are any lenders with substantial amounts in this one (which thus make it worthwhile), legal action against FS or the directors/former-directors would not seem like an hard-to-make prediction.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 18, 2021 17:52:49 GMT
I wonder how a judge would interpret paragraph 6's "long stop" meaning. To suggest that any sane lender would have signed up to a loan agreement where the borrower is simply allowed to walk away after 12 months goes against any common sense. Particularly within the context of this being a loan from lenders who are "investors" expecting a return of 13% interest and are advised that the LTV is 36%.
Of course, who says the law is based on common sense. Hmmmm.
If there are any lenders with substantial amounts in this one (which thus make it worthwhile), legal action against FS or the directors/former-directors would not seem like an hard-to-make prediction.
I still think that since "The Trust fund [is] run by a large reputable law firm" then said reputation could be have been more publicly threatened by the fact the Trust fund has decided to interpret para 6 as a 12 month "we don't owe you anything" longstop (which is plainly absurd) rather than a 12 month "you have to pay us back by then" which is clearly what was meant, if poorly worded (was a lawyer involved? Do they have liability insurance?). The pragmatic issue I suppose is that it is "only" a £200K loan & legal fees will be large. And I can't believe that all appropriate avenues would not have been considered by the administrators. Nevertheless, as we are all party to the contract, if and when the property is sold we ought still to be owed the money plus reasonable interest. For the £25 I have lost I can (and will) leave it - but there must be people with much more in this. How about sending the solicitors an annual statement of capital and interest due on the loan?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 1,169
|
Post by shimself on Jan 19, 2021 21:20:00 GMT
Could one of us try small claims court for their share. (I don't live in UK so not me)?
|
|