Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 6,674
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 1, 2019 15:21:36 GMT
Or as the Italians would say "Aspettiamo un po' prima di cantare vittoria!" (Let's wait a bit before crying victory!).
As @mousey says, we may have got through this round, but it's not a knockout. This borrower is nothing if not persistent.
She's persistent with zero cost to her vexatious activities which I suspect have no run it's course; I assume her lawyers may have reached a limit of what they're prepared to do for no money. It's my understanding her lawyers have already been replaced since the hearing in January.
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Apr 1, 2019 15:22:12 GMT
So we need to wait for Lendy tomorrow to see if she has come up with the dosh
|
|
lilo955
New Member
Posts: 3
Likes: 2
|
Post by lilo955 on Apr 1, 2019 15:22:19 GMT
Although surely if the reason that the current claim has stalled is that the borrower could not lodge the necessary funds with court to provide for security for costs then a case against the lenders is most unlikely to succeed.
A claim against the lenders would have material costs implications were the borrower to lose and it seems, from some of the materials filed, that there are some difficulties on one of the loans at least in identifying exactly who the lenders are!!
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Apr 1, 2019 15:22:52 GMT
Well my solicitors confirmed that we will just apply for security of costs again and make her stump up the same amount if not more and it has precedent now - just trying to keep the positive vibes going a little longer. Not sure about the 'again' - AIUI, the SoC was for the action v Lendy, not us. So, no precedent? The facts of the claim will remain the same and the relative chances of success the same which are some of the key considerations for security of costs. The case will be the same just a different set of defendants claiming for the security (if she really were to start a fresh claim).
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 294
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Apr 1, 2019 15:28:17 GMT
Not sure about the 'again' - AIUI, the SoC was for the action v Lendy, not us. So, no precedent? The facts of the claim will remain the same and the relative chances of success the same which are some of the key considerations for security of costs. The case will be the same just a different set of defendants claiming for the security (if she really were to start a fresh claim). I would have thought the costs would be a lot higher if you were going to sue 5000 disparate, heterogenuous entities as opposed to just one or two.
|
|
jeremy12
Member of DD Central
Everything's frozen
Posts: 83
Likes: 38
|
Post by jeremy12 on Apr 1, 2019 15:31:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Apr 1, 2019 15:31:22 GMT
The facts of the claim will remain the same and the relative chances of success the same which are some of the key considerations for security of costs. The case will be the same just a different set of defendants claiming for the security (if she really were to start a fresh claim). I would have thought the costs would be a lot higher if you were going to sue 5000 disparate, heterogenuous entities as opposed to just one or two. Yep me too! The claim for security would 99% likely succeed but the amount a lot more. I am starting to be hopeful now that this could be the end. (dare i say it?)
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 1, 2019 15:42:27 GMT
Assuming that Lendy will hopefully recommence repossession and disposal proceedings, it is likely that the borrower never formally commenced work on the larger project (***** ***) e.g. Demolition or casting of foudnations, and consequently since the planning permission validity has ran out of time, the whole planning permission has now lapsed. This will seriously depress the site value. Only City of Westminster Council Planning/Legal Department can determine if this is the case or not. Please can as many people as possible contact Lendy on this point and ask them to find out the situation and if found to be so, then they must appoint a planning consultant to resubmit the exact same planning application again inorder to maximmise site value. Goodness knows how much the new CIL will further reduce the value. One of the problems with the site in my view has been the (historic) planning approvals mandate the use of the ground floor for a commercial gym, a facility that I suspect will have very little appeal from operators given the local population. My guess is some form of "community" amenity is covented for the site given its historic use, but a gym may not be the most appropriate to attract a buyer for the site.
So whilst seeking the advice of a planning consultant would seem sensible at this point, there should be scope for some creativity.
|
|
voss
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 84
|
Post by voss on Apr 1, 2019 15:58:13 GMT
It appears that we have not been joined to the claim by the deadline. But do we know yet if the SoC for the claim v Lendy has or has not yet been met?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 1, 2019 16:05:07 GMT
So just to confirm the deadline was to prevent us from being joined to an existing claim... we may well still be served a fresh claim. I await the Lendy update tomorrow with anticipation. Very correct. We need the full written update form Lendy as what I have is just hearsay at the moment. As Mousey states, she can still serve at any time in the future, and this was sanctioned by the Judge on the 22nd Jan. So let us have the confirmation ASAP from Lendy that the case has been finally settled out of court.
|
|
|
Post by faraday815 on Apr 1, 2019 16:48:11 GMT
What about the threatening letter from the unrelated fourth party law firm during Xmas, saying there was no reason to believe that lenders wouldn't be joined to the claim?
Lawyers!
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Apr 1, 2019 16:48:51 GMT
I expect lendy's update is to tell us that they've settled out of court on our behalf, and how much we now owe the borrower.
|
|
|
Post by vfr800 on Apr 1, 2019 16:57:44 GMT
What about the threatening letter from the unrelated fourth party law firm during Xmas, saying there was no reason to believe that lenders wouldn't be joined to the claim? Lawyers! I bet they made a tidy sum with lenders signing up after they received that.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 1, 2019 17:02:41 GMT
I expect lendy's update is to tell us that they've settled out of court on our behalf, and how much we now owe the borrower. " much we now owe the borrower " <--- nice one portland, she can come to get it from me if she dares, but she will need a better law firm before she tries
|
|
|
Post by faraday815 on Apr 1, 2019 17:07:58 GMT
So let us have the confirmation ASAP from Lendy that the case has been finally settled out of court. Do you have reason to believe this might be the case, or is that just the hopeful intended outcome or closure? Asking since you seem to have much more knowledge than most.
|
|