steve11523
Member of DD Central
Posts: 60 
Likes: 27
|
Post by steve11523 on Oct 4, 2017 11:49:58 GMT
The VR states that a converted barn (The Dairy) similar to the Granary was sold in 2016 for £590,000 but I can find no record of this sale or the price achieved. Has anyone else managed to find it?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 4, 2017 12:20:18 GMT
The VR states that a converted barn (The Dairy) similar to the Granary was sold in 2016 for £590,000 but I can find no record of this sale or the price achieved. Has anyone else managed to find it? Sort of .... www.streetcheck.co.uk/houseprices/*******(replace ******* with postcode, no spaces, lowercase) Its noted as being a "non-standard" transaction, which I'm guessing had a deferred payment or payments as part of the agreement. (Or see the footnote on the page for other comments re "non-standard" sales) It is recorded as £575k in Nov 2016, plus (?) an additional £5k April 17. It was advertised on Rightmove from July 2015 at £625k. Semi-detached so I assume half of the barn conversion, the other half being part of our security. Deferred payment(s) might be logical given the part finished nature of the overall development and might have been withheld until landscaping etc. was completed. (Most of the sold price aggregators don't display "non-standard" sales as without the context the values are pretty meaningless.)
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Oct 4, 2017 13:42:39 GMT
One of the properties is currently on Rightmove <link removed as directly identifies asset, replaced with text: 3 bed barn conversion for £545k added to rightmove 20th Sept 17 > I'm presuming (on pic 16) it is the property on the right..in which case is the other one on the left..if so they seem fairly close to me. Would I want to pay that amount of money to have neighbours so close ?..hasten to add...if I could afford it  |
|
gurberly
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 98
|
Post by gurberly on Oct 4, 2017 14:26:57 GMT
One of the properties is currently on Rightmove <link removed as directly identifies asset, replaced with text: 3 bed barn conversion for £545k added to rightmove 20th Sept 17 > I'm presuming (on pic 16) it is the property on the right..in which case is the other one on the left..if so they seem fairly close to me. Would I want to pay that amount of money to have neighbours so close ?..hasten to add...if I could afford it The agent notes on RightMove Might be off putting to some potential purchasers.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Oct 4, 2017 15:05:07 GMT
I agree..thanks I didn't get that far..borrowing c£1m..say £500K + £850K..(guesstimates ) & after costs and exact verification of rights & boundaries ?..not sure theres a lot in this..?
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Oct 19, 2018 19:29:50 GMT
Not the most promising of updates on this:
"The offer from the bridger came through and is insufficient to repay the debt. If accepted, it would leave us with a significant 2nd charge. The borrower's plans are to sell the properties. The Granary is already listed on Rightmove at £545k with the Farmhouse soon to follow at £850k. We intend to use the threat of receivers as a way of motivating the borrower to achieve a quick sale"
Is anyone successful in identifying the granary on rightmove?
As the farmhouse hasn't even been listed yet I'd assume this has another 6 months to run at the absolute minimum before both properties are sold, but I'm expecting much longer. Very happy to be proven wrong!
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Oct 20, 2018 7:08:12 GMT
It is on rightmove £545
The valuation report says £590 the field £30 not included on rightmove, nor mentioned on FS update. Overblown valuation again, could not get refinance because of this reason leaving a shortfall, hope the valuer has insurance (and FS to follow through) if we end up with under recovery
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 20, 2018 19:49:27 GMT
Further to above coments I have done a bit of research - granted this is a very nice area but this part of this property is not even finished yet and I can foresee the access issue/nearby property being a deal breaker. I think the photo makes the property look much larger than it is - can any local person comment but this one seems highly overvalued to me - well that will be a first!
|
|
TonyL
Posts: 53
Likes: 98
|
Post by TonyL on Oct 30, 2018 14:56:35 GMT
Why is it that all P2P platforms (at least the ones I'm in) seem to easily give up a first charge on the basis that the new lender is 'buying' us out and somehow automatically gains first charge...no matter what the 'buy-out' price? If the borrower continues on to default, the new lender has no real incentive other than to sell the asset to cover their own first charge leaving nothing in reserve to cover any second charge.
It seems to me that there are two fundamental problems with the way P2P operates...
1. If you have a first charge and a new lender comes along they should take a second charge until the original first charge is completely compensated. Until the asset is sold all lending should simply follow a chain - first, second, third... The second/ third charge lenders would be entitled to charge a higher percentage for their higher risk.
2. When it comes to selling the asset, the sale should be managed by the second/third charge holders (i.e. lowest ranking) as they have a greater incentive to maximise the selling price otherwise there won't be enough left after the higher rankings have received their full compensation.
I have been on the losing side of both the above cases many times, before I learned not to lend to anything other than first charge, but it is extremely galling when P2P platforms with no skin in the game seem to think that selling-on the loan to a new lender is the same as selling an asset for recovery, and just roll over submissively giving up what should be my clear rights on a first charge basis.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Oct 30, 2018 15:46:37 GMT
Why is it that all P2P platforms (at least the ones I'm in) seem to easily give up a first charge on the basis that the new lender is 'buying' us out and somehow automatically gains first charge...no matter what the 'buy-out' price? If the borrower continues on to default, the new lender has no real incentive other than to sell the asset to cover their own first charge leaving nothing in reserve to cover any second charge. It seems to me that there are two fundamental problems with the way P2P operates... 1. If you have a first charge and a new lender comes along they should take a second charge until the original first charge is completely compensated. Until the asset is sold all lending should simply follow a chain - first, second, third... The second/ third charge lenders would be entitled to charge a higher percentage for their higher risk. 2. When it comes to selling the asset, the sale should be managed by the second/third charge holders (i.e. lowest ranking) as they have a greater incentive to maximise the selling price otherwise there won't be enough left after the higher rankings have received their full compensation. I have been on the losing side of both the above cases many times, before I learned not to lend to anything other than first charge, but it is extremely galling when P2P platforms with no skin in the game seem to think that selling-on the loan to a new lender is the same as selling an asset for recovery, and just roll over submissively giving up what should be my clear rights on a first charge basis. How about when FS believe there would be a protracted recovery process with low chance of a full recovery anyway? In that case, reducing the debt immediately by 90% while retaining a 10% portion as a riskier 2nd charge may turn out to be the better option. Not always of course, but it's not as black and white as you made out.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 30, 2018 16:48:07 GMT
interesting viewpoint but I would say the second and third charge holders can both force a sale but I don't think many would as a forced sale is often bad news for the realised price (granted there may be exceptions such as very low first charge etc)
however totally agree and as a general rule I concur - only lend against a first charge!
Also at the moment I am not investing in any FS property until a) they get their act together and b) Brexit is history. Property is generally a long game whilst FS loans are (in theory anyway!) only for 6 months. If there is no Brexit deal and we leave without a deal (which I hope we do) then I can foresee the property market freezing up which will cause problems for problematic loans for all P2P companies etc. I also think if this does happen then once the dust settles the property market will gather pace. Just my theory but will be interesting to see what actually happens !
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Oct 30, 2018 16:52:10 GMT
When it comes to selling the asset, the sale should be managed by the second/third charge holders (i.e. lowest ranking) as they have a greater incentive to maximise the selling price otherwise there won't be enough left after the higher rankings have received their full compensation. I'm not sure Barclays would be too happy with their forced sale being (mis)managed by FS  The obvious result of this suggested change is that the first charge holder simply wouldn't allow any subordinated charges.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jan 11, 2019 18:47:30 GMT
Today’s exciting update: “The deadline provided has illicited contact from all parties to this loan. We are not investigating the various proposals that have been made to understand if any of them are viable.” fundingsecure Why NOT investigate them? Why not put a deadline on, on the 6th May last? Or better still - when the last 6 month loan was TAKEN OUT? (3/11/17) (They didn’t illicit a reply from me, so I suppose they are right there) |
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 11, 2019 19:11:17 GMT
Today’s exciting update: “The deadline provided has illicited contact from all parties to this loan. We are not investigating the various proposals that have been made to understand if any of them are viable.” fundingsecure Why NOT investigate them? Why not put a deadline on, on the 6th May last? Or better still - when the last 6 month loan was TAKEN OUT? (3/11/17) (They didn’t illicit a reply from me, so I suppose they are right there) Might that likely have meant to be 'now' instead of ' not' ?
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Jan 11, 2019 19:22:59 GMT
The update does say 'now'.
(Although not doing anything useful to get investor's capital back has been FS's default position for quite a while so despite the promised new broom maybe old habits die hard in the updates department)
|
|
