Property in Meir, Stoke on Trent (1163068428 -final) DEFAULT
Nov 5, 2020 17:36:47 GMT
11025, huxs, and 3 more like this
Post by iRobot on Nov 5, 2020 17:36:47 GMT
The more I think about it, the more bizarre it appears.
CG&Co seem to be pushing aside the 'usual' FS 5% fee on the basis that: "as there has been no sale of any asset, the additional fee of 5% due to FS pursuant to clause 6.2.4 of the Terms and Conditions will not apply."
Doesn't the 'first legal charge against two plots of land' constitute an asset and, if so, as they've (presumably) been relinquished in recognition of monies received, hasn't 'a sale' taken place?
Don't know what the guys and gals over as FS towers are smoking, but feel free to send some my way, please.
#lockeddownandloaded
I do understand where you're coming from ilmoro and acknowledge that the land titles haven't changed hands, but I'm not buying that the 2.6.4 doesn't kick in simply because it's a 'borrower settlement' rather than a Receiver-led disposal / recovery. To me, this smacks of CG / FS running roughshod over the Ts&Cs under the veil of having "taken legal advice" to maximise FS' returns.
As to FS having an entitlement to default interest - or earning interest at all - they do have a page on their web-site outlining the rates of interest they charge (probably inaccurate, but ...) and I have seen Term Sheets for Lendy which outline their rates of interest (normal and default), even thought they weren't the lenders of the sums being borrowed under the agreement.
Couple of further points to note on this one:
1. Working the figures back suggests the settlement's redemption date was 17/09/20; some seven weeks before lenders were repaid.
2. On 28/09/20, the defaulted Jam memorabilia loan was another instance where the borrower reached a settlement of a sum lower than the amount owed; nothing was sold. On that occasion FS took its' 5% fee as recorded in the breakdown.
3. In the majority of instances where FS have taken a 5% from the redemption sum (rather than as a % of the sum borrowed) the calculation has been made against the same redemption figure as CG's 3% fee. For example, if the redemption sum were £100k, CG would have taken 3% of that £100k - or £3k - and FS would have taken 5% of that same £100k, leaving £92k as the disbursement sum for lenders. On this occasion FS have taken their 15% 'fee' after CG have taken their 3%. This has effectively reduced the sum gained by FS and increased the sum disbursed to lenders - by around £1.1k. Not a large sum, but the notable thing, I think, is whether it's indicative of CG somehow wanting to put a strict(er) hierarchy in place ahead of the court ruling(s). It doesn't appear to have been as error as the order of deductions is mentioned in the text of the update.
4. the breakdown contains a expenses line for "Legal Fees & Disbursements - Settlement -£4,800.00". I wonder if this was - in part, at least - to cover the aforementioned legal advice around FS taking 15% of the redemption sum against 5% of the loan amount. In other words, lenders were charged (up to) an additional £4.8k just so FS could deduct a further £35.7k instead of the 'usual' £14.5k
Said it before and I'll say it again; to quote the mighty Bart - "I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows"