sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Nov 22, 2018 8:52:02 GMT
fundingsecure
1) Did you forget to register the "first legal charge" with the Land Registry? 2) Is there any security actually in place for this loan at all? 3) In what capacity do the "receivers that are in contact with the borrower" act - i.e are they just receivers for the secured farmhouse loan? 4) Why is the photograph shown on the loan particulars of a house on the other side and at the opposite end of the street to the property subject to the loan? 5) Will FS ensure that lenders do not lose out financially from any gross negligence by FS in recovery of the loan? 6) Is the Borrower's Trustee in Bankruptcy aware of the FS claim of first ranking security on the property? 7) Why do I now feel very uncomfortable about this loan in particular and FS in general?
|
|
mullet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126 
Likes: 137
|
Post by mullet on Dec 9, 2018 21:35:15 GMT
fundingsecure
1) Did you forget to register the "first legal charge" with the Land Registry? 2) Is there any security actually in place for this loan at all? 3) In what capacity do the "receivers that are in contact with the borrower" act - i.e are they just receivers for the secured farmhouse loan? 4) Why is the photograph shown on the loan particulars of a house on the other side and at the opposite end of the street to the property subject to the loan? 5) Will FS ensure that lenders do not lose out financially from any gross negligence by FS in recovery of the loan? 6) Is the Borrower's Trustee in Bankruptcy aware of the FS claim of first ranking security on the property? 7) Why do I now feel very uncomfortable about this loan in particular and FS in general? Has anyone managed to get answers to any of the above questions from FS? I know they do monitor these forums, and if we were barking up the wrong tree with this they would have added a comment to the loan to put us straight on a question as clear cut as this ...which suggests we (thanks to mrclondon as always) could well be correct. The only glimmer of hope I have is that the borrower did renew the loan once - given his imminent bankruptcy it seems strange to pay interest to a company that had no registered charge on the property ...unless he didn't realise either.
|
|
mariner
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 338
|
Post by mariner on Dec 11, 2018 19:52:52 GMT
All will be revealed tomorrow
Latest update from FS
3 Hours ago
An update on this loan will be provided in the morning.
Heartwarming that we are in such capable hands
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Dec 11, 2018 20:57:39 GMT
Leaving aside that tonight's update is a little pointless I wonder what the morning holds.
FS will be posting updates on this terraced house and the one in Burnley. But not the substantial farmhouse that is also with the same bankrupt borrower.
I do hope that FS have this covered and won't try to shrug it off.
I understand that our capital is at risk investing in P2P. Borrowers may not repay and secured assets may realise less than their valuations.
That is one thing. But we should expect the loan description's most basic and essential facts such as 'first legal charge' to actually be in place.
If for some reason this is not the case I trust that FS will put lenders back into the same position as if it were the case.
Failure to do this really would be an indication that FS cannot be trusted and a warning to cease all investing here.
We'll see tomorrow if I am worrying unnecessarily.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 11, 2018 21:41:53 GMT
Leaving aside that tonight's update is a little pointless I wonder what the morning holds. FS will be posting updates on this terraced house and the one in Burnley. But not the substantial farmhouse that is also with the same bankrupt borrower. I do hope that FS have this covered and won't try to shrug it off. I understand that our capital is at risk investing in P2P. Borrowers may not repay and secured assets may realise less than their valuations. That is one thing. But we should expect the loan description's most basic and essential facts such as 'first legal charge' to actually be in place. If for some reason this is not the case I trust that FS will put lenders back into the same position as if it were the case.
Failure to do this really would be an indication that FS cannot be trusted and a warning to cease all investing here.We'll see tomorrow if I am worrying unnecessarily. Errrr, there have been no previous indications? 
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,720
Likes: 2,987
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 12, 2018 0:38:49 GMT
If a loan is presented on the FS website as being secured via a legal charge on property or via possession of an item such as in a pawn loan but the reality is completely different, can we sue FS if we invest and lose our investment?
For example, if they say ".....we've taken possession of a 15 carat diamond....verified by specialists X and Y....and it is stored in the secured vault of some famous jeweler somewhere under our control....." but the reality is there is no such diamond and all the money from the loan went to a borrower who lives abroad, has gone bankrupt and the cash was given to his anonymous mate. What could we do about it ?
Or what if a loan is presented as secured by a 1st legal charge on some property or other but in reality isn't. It was just lent to some guy who has long since hidden the cash and there is no legal charge on anything. If an investor had say less than 10K in that loan, could they launch a simple claim against FS for the money? If so, on what grounds?
Wouldn't FS turn round and say "...well this is what we were told in good faith by the borrower.....we would advise you pursue them......"
FS, I'm out.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 12, 2018 10:35:44 GMT
As I said before I don't live 100 miles from this property - I also said it was over-valued : the cottage may realise the loan amount but I doubt it and that is before eviction costs etc and I hope the tenants don't smash the place up as they won't be happy with the situation. The farmhouse IMHO is grossly over-valued and that is before it was made unsafe! In fact if I get time next week I will make a few enquiries and may even think about an offer as properties needing renovation is my bread and butter. Question is just what exactly has this borrower done to this lovely house! Impossible to say without full structural survey (hello FS!) but on the limited information and the fact I am tight I would not even consider anything over £300K. Other developers may disagree so that is just my opinion.
This was is also in my mega list so can't wait for the update - don't want to sound negative but I would not be happy if I was in the second charge...
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Dec 12, 2018 12:08:37 GMT
It has been brought to our attention that the charge on the property was not perfected.
As the client has filed for bankruptcy we cannot retrospectively apply the charge to the Land Registry. We hold security against a linked property that is currently in the process of being recovered through receivership, and we hope for a surplus of funds to be able to repay our investors.
Should we fail to recover the funds for any reason, FundingSecure will stand behind this loan and repay all investors.
As a matter of course, FundingSecure are reverifying security on all loans, have changed processes and implemented new controls to ensure this does not happen again.
We acknowledge that this situation is unacceptable, as is the time it has taken to bring this to light. FundingSecure will ensure no investor suffers a capital or interest loss for our error in this matter.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 3,022
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 12, 2018 12:14:36 GMT
It has been brought to our attention that the charge on the property was not perfected. As the client has filed for bankruptcy we cannot retrospectively apply the charge to the Land Registry. We hold security against a linked property that is currently in the process of being recovered through receivership, and we hope for a surplus of funds to be able to repay our investors. Should we fail to recover the funds for any reason, FundingSecure will stand behind this loan and repay all investors. As a matter of course, FundingSecure are reverifying security on all loans, have changed processes and implemented new controls to ensure this does not happen again. We acknowledge that this situation is unacceptable, as is the time it has taken to bring this to light. FundingSecure will ensure no investor suffers a capital or interest loss for our error in this matter. Let's hope FS doesn't go under before the outcome of the other loan is settled then
|
|
mullet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 137
|
Post by mullet on Dec 12, 2018 12:20:58 GMT
It has been brought to our attention that the charge on the property was not perfected. As the client has filed for bankruptcy we cannot retrospectively apply the charge to the Land Registry. We hold security against a linked property that is currently in the process of being recovered through receivership, and we hope for a surplus of funds to be able to repay our investors. Should we fail to recover the funds for any reason, FundingSecure will stand behind this loan and repay all investors. As a matter of course, FundingSecure are reverifying security on all loans, have changed processes and implemented new controls to ensure this does not happen again. We acknowledge that this situation is unacceptable, as is the time it has taken to bring this to light. FundingSecure will ensure no investor suffers a capital or interest loss for our error in this matter. Let's hope FS doesn't go under before the outcome of the other loan is settled then The other loan is never going to cover all 3 loans. Wouldn't FS be better to just repay investors now on that basis (if they genuinely are planning to stand behind the loan). By waiting for the other loan to complete they are just racking up more interest for themselves
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 12, 2018 12:35:40 GMT
correct - it is not even going to come close!
ref the update - oh dear oh dear oh dear - I am not even sure what FS did is legal - how on earth can you advertise loans against a property for which the charge was not applied!
Why did it need Dan1 (I think) to realise there was a problem here
you could not make this up!
Words fails me - well polite ones anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 12, 2018 12:43:39 GMT
correct - it is not even going to come close! ref the update - oh dear oh dear oh dear - I am not even sure what FS did is legal - how on earth can you advertise loans against a property for which the charge was not applied! Why did it need Dan1 (I think) to realise there was a problem here you could not make this up! Words fails me - well polite ones anyway! Investors need to thank mrclondon not myself (in fact, if ever you're not sure then mrclondon is a pretty safe bet to thank!)
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 12:49:55 GMT
correct - it is not even going to come close! ref the update - oh dear oh dear oh dear - I am not even sure what FS did is legal - how on earth can you advertise loans against a property for which the charge was not applied! Why did it need Dan1 (I think) to realise there was a problem here you could not make this up! Words fails me - well polite ones anyway! From a lot of your other posts it often seems you take great delight in the hope of any loan failing with palpable glee at the capital losses that other investors may well suffer. You also repeatedly point out the many supposed failings of FS, yet in this case, where this is a clear failing, FS have committed to repay any shortfall, as they should. Mistakes happen- one should judge a company on the action taken to both correct the mistake, compensate for the consequences, and ensure it shouldn't hapen again. In this case it appears FS are acting appropriately on all fronts, but that doesn't fit in with your narrative, does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 12, 2018 12:53:02 GMT
correct - it is not even going to come close! ref the update - oh dear oh dear oh dear - I am not even sure what FS did is legal - how on earth can you advertise loans against a property for which the charge was not applied! Why did it need Dan1 (I think) to realise there was a problem here you could not make this up! Words fails me - well polite ones anyway! From a lot of your other posts it often seems you take great delight in the hope of any loan failing with palpable glee at the capital losses that other investors may well suffer. You also repeatedly point out the many supposed failings of FS, yet in this case, where this is a clear failing, FS have committed to repay any shortfall, as they should. Mistakes happen- one should judge a company on the action taken to both correct the mistake, compensate for the consequences, and ensure it shouldn't hapen again. In this case it appears FS are acting appropriately on all fronts, but that doesn't fit in with your narrative, does it? And what, may I ask, is your NARRATIVE arby?
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Dec 12, 2018 12:55:22 GMT
correct - it is not even going to come close! ref the update - oh dear oh dear oh dear - I am not even sure what FS did is legal - how on earth can you advertise loans against a property for which the charge was not applied! Why did it need Dan1 (I think) to realise there was a problem here you could not make this up! Words fails me - well polite ones anyway! Investors need to thank mrclondon not myself (in fact, if ever you're not sure then mrclondon is a pretty safe bet to thank!) Modesty is a trait desired by many but possessed by few  but I agree with your sentiment expressed
|
|
but I agree with your sentiment expressed