Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 1, 2021 18:30:55 GMT
NB..Does this tie in with an unknown hearing mentioned recently ? Indeed FS were at the County Court in Nuneaton this afternoon - a brisk 10 miles up the road.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jul 30, 2021 15:41:22 GMT
Update 30/07/21
6 Bedroomed house in Coventry.."The borrower has failed to disclose a specifically requested file, which is being pursued by solicitors. Exchange of witness evidence is due in August 2021 and the matter is due to be listed for trial in the autumn"
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Dec 1, 2021 9:23:34 GMT
"UPDATE: The trial of this matter was listed to commence on 3 November 2021 for three days. Prior to the trial, a last minute offer of settlement was received from the defendants; however, this did not provide any certainty of payments, and the decision was therefore made to continue to trial. On the first day of the trial, settlement was negotiated and reached with the defendants, which was subsequently approved by the Court. This settlement necessitates a lump sum payment of £646,300 being due by late January 2022. If payment is not received by the relevant date, the defendants will incur various penalties. Counsel advice was sought with regard to settlement, and it was agreed that this would provide the best outcome for investors in the circumstances, due in particular to the defence that had been raised by the defendants surrounding the existence of a commission payment that was not fully disclosed during the lend."At first glance this is a good outcome, the £646k settlement should cover lenders' initial £503k of invested capital, a markedly better situation than most defaulted loans. However, this was one of FundingSecure's seemingly safer loans, £503k lent against a £1.2 million residential home with a full valuation document. The last interest payment was over 3 years ago and so the total amount oustanding to lenders on this loan is in excess of £750k. It would seem likely that a forced sale of the property would recover far in excess of the £646k settlement, especially with house prices rising significantly since the £1.2 milllion valuation was noted, which makes it infuriating that such an action has been advised against due to an undisclosed commission payment that FundingSecure was presumably aware of at time of loan draw down.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Dec 1, 2021 10:14:25 GMT
"UPDATE: The trial of this matter was listed to commence on 3 November 2021 for three days. Prior to the trial, a last minute offer of settlement was received from the defendants; however, this did not provide any certainty of payments, and the decision was therefore made to continue to trial. On the first day of the trial, settlement was negotiated and reached with the defendants, which was subsequently approved by the Court. This settlement necessitates a lump sum payment of £646,300 being due by late January 2022. If payment is not received by the relevant date, the defendants will incur various penalties. Counsel advice was sought with regard to settlement, and it was agreed that this would provide the best outcome for investors in the circumstances, due in particular to the defence that had been raised by the defendants surrounding the existence of a commission payment that was not fully disclosed during the lend."At first glance this is a good outcome, the £646k settlement should cover lenders' initial £503k of invested capital, a markedly better situation than most defaulted loans. However, this was one of FundingSecure's seemingly safer loans, £503k lent against a £1.2 million residential home with a full valuation document. The last interest payment was over 3 years ago and so the total amount oustanding to lenders on this loan is in excess of £750k. It would seem likely that a forced sale of the property would recover far in excess of the £646k settlement, especially with house prices rising significantly since the £1.2 milllion valuation was noted, which makes it infuriating that such an action has been advised against due to an undisclosed commission payment that FundingSecure was presumably aware of at time of loan draw down. Cant stop...MOT on car in an hour but...in the unlikely situation Funding Secure ever told the truth, it was stated by them that the borrower made some interim payments against this loan. As I know where this property is, and noting the point above re: house prices, do the CC have any thoughts before this saga is concluded ? It's a substantial property and if accurate, received one of the better valuations at the time.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 1, 2021 11:39:44 GMT
As I said the house strikes me as a bodge and will need a lot of work - may be wrong but it worries me so I think £646K is quite possibly a reasonable settlement
But what the hell are FS playing at here - they lend over over £0.5m and spend months and months doing nothing effective whilst the investors' position is weakened (granted the value may have gone up) and I bet this sum is not paid by late Jan 2022. If they had repossessed this one earlier I suspect it would have realised a lot more...
And the final comment
Gordon Bennett!
|
|
|
Post by harryvederci on Dec 1, 2021 12:30:17 GMT
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 1, 2021 13:01:36 GMT
what a fascinating article - surely this is worrying for all FS investors as we don't want loans cancelled!
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Dec 1, 2021 14:44:14 GMT
what a fascinating article - surely this is worrying for all FS investors as we don't want loans cancelled! Under the circumstances, I would be delighted to just get my capital back.
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Dec 1, 2021 14:55:19 GMT
What a wheez! If he Farmers had had full knowledge of the commission arrangements they would still have taken the loan.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 2,439
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 1, 2021 20:48:08 GMT
ISTM there's a subtle but vitally import nuance to the Administrators update: "Counsel advice was sought with regard to settlement, and it was agreed that this would provide the best outcome for investors in the circumstances, due in particular to the defence that had been raised by the defendants surrounding the existence of a commission payment that was not fully disclosed during the lend." Not that the commission 'was not disclosed' but that the commission 'was not fully disclosed'. If that wording is as notable as it seems, then it would appear to place this into the 'half-secret commissions' category which - from harryvederci 's linked article above - would possibly attract the following consideration: " Terms and conditions stating that commissions will be paid – but which do not specify the amount of the commission to be paid – may or may not prevent the contract from being rescinded. These cases are considered by the Court as "half-secret commissions" and the Court then has a discretion to award the most appropriate remedy in the particular circumstances of the case, which could (but would not necessarily) include rescission of the contract." Consider the following: # the Borrower was in Court with a three-day hearing at their disposal # the Borrower attempted a settlement ahead of the hearing # the Borrower agreed a settlement of some £150k above the loan amount early on in the hearing. To me, that doesn't sound like a Borrower who's counsel has a great deal of faith in their position. Had they been confident they could have allowed the Court to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to have the contract overturned. Of course, the Court may have found against them and the Borrower would have been looking at a Court order for the full redemption sum. That the Borrower felt OK about settling for (effectively) around £150k is quite telling, in my opinion. The other side of the equation is that the Administrators were also prepared to settle. Theirs is probably the easier decision. ~ there's the risk of losing the Court hearing and with it the c. £150k settlement that was otherwise agreed ~ 3rd party costs would rise and some would inevitably erode any additional monies awarded ~ CG&Co's Administration costs would rise and given they're effectively capped at 2.5%, there'll be a tipping point where it's no longer in their financial interest to continue racking up billable hours To echo rogerthat 's comment, I do hope the CC ( Mucho P2P ) are able to get chapter-and-verse on this one and it can be adequately demonstrated that the Administrators haven't simply opted for the 'path of least resistance' with more than half-an-eye on protecting their own interests ahead of all other parties.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 2,439
|
Post by iRobot on Dec 1, 2021 20:51:05 GMT
what a fascinating article - surely this is worrying for all FS investors as we don't want loans cancelled! Just in case anyone is unduly confused / concerned, it's possibly worth reiterating a point made in the linked article: " The effect of the contract being overturned is not that the loan does not need to be repaid, but instead is that any fees, interest (which could be significant) or other charges cannot be enforced. Only the principal sum of the debt must be repaid."
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Dec 2, 2021 1:24:27 GMT
24/03/2019 The borrower, and their solicitor, have continued dialogue regarding the expected refinance - but no funds and no final date has yet been made. In the meantime, the borrower has continued to pay small amounts - insufficient to renew the loan but made as a sign of good faith. These funds are held in our client account pending the final outcome. Separate to this we are in discussion with the receiver as to the best way to proceed.
28/07/2018 Although a further payment has been made it still does not bring the loan up-to-date. We are waiting for independent proof of the refinancing, failing which additional steps will be taken by the receiver to formally recover the debt.
05/07/2018 We have received an update from the receiver - confirming further payments will be forthcoming from the borrower - who is still progressing with alternative funding. All the while the borrower continues to pay down the interest due, the receiver recommends allowing additional time for the refinance to be arranged.
25/05/2018 Three things are happening in parallel: Borrower has paid part of the interest due and has committed to continual payments Borrower is progressing with alternative financing Receiver is working with valuer and agent to market the property. Further updates will be made as soon as information is available.
Of course, like the 'Client Account' it could all be codswallop but that is what I have.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 2, 2021 3:42:48 GMT
These borrowers are seeking alternative finance - we have heard that one before - e.g. the speedboats etc etc I never said such loans would be rescinded ... but having a court order to repay the capital is pretty useless if the borrower goes bust or whatever - the next time won't be the first.
Hopefully I am proved wrong but this one really worries me...
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 11, 2022 12:36:19 GMT
I have now received the Court documents
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Jan 11, 2022 16:58:54 GMT
|
|