|
|
Post by loanstar on Nov 25, 2014 14:56:30 GMT
Having some fun with this one. From the investors report you would think that it is a house that will be converted into three flats. But as investors are discovering the building has already been converted into flats that have been rented out and council tax paid. FC now claim work has started. So an investor would assume major works started, but flats not ready for occupation. It would seem clear that the owner has already converted and let out all 3 flats in the past, but now would like to tart them up and sell them on.
I have no problem with that, but that is not what the investors report implies.
Rule one, someone should always visit and internally inspect the property the money is to be invested in.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 25, 2014 16:12:15 GMT
Fun is right. It looks like it was three flats but is now one shell with a hole under it with the intention of providing three better flats. How that is done under a planning consent from 2005 is a puzzle, even if the work was started before expiry in 2010. Was it three flats in 2010? FC's reports seem to indicate that the inspections and evaluations have been done, but they have been economical with the back history. Still may be worth considering when it gets nearer filling, though as with many of these property loans it may be safest not to be holding the parcel when the music eventually stops.
I feel sorry for the poor neighbours - a town house - three flats - a shell with a hole under it - three more flats. All that noise and disruption by day, and the sound of under-'pining' from the basement at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by loanstar on Nov 25, 2014 17:45:22 GMT
Once planning consent has been given work must be started within five years. In this case what seems to have happen is the house was converted into three flats,
but not all the work was undertaken. The flats were then let. The consent for the extra work, digging out the basement etc, is still in place. The owner has now decided to complete the work and sell the flats. Almost certainly the owner only had enough money to buy the property and do a basic job converting into three flats. The flats have then been let to provide income to repay borrowed money.
Why FC could not have given a clearer picture in the investors report I just do not understand. It just invites the likes of me to start asking questions.
FC just fail to be able to build investor trust. Who wants to invest in a property deal where lots of questions are being asked about work that has and has not been done?
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 615 
Likes: 182
|
Post by min on Nov 25, 2014 23:05:12 GMT
Add 8923 to the mess. Listed as tranche 1 when it's tranche 2 - other errors (Please note that due to a technical issue the monthly repayments shown on the existing outstanding loans tab,under the financial summary, are incorrect.) all pointed out on 14th Nov but still not corrected- seems Financial Clowns can't even correct their own website.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 26, 2014 10:58:05 GMT
This communication with lenders is becoming a mess on the property loans and reflecting badly, and perhaps unfairly, on the actual job that Fairy Cycle are doing in evaluating and managing the loans. I think they have a resource problem in dealing with the larger and more engaged lenders. They will not make much money on 9164. I am sure that they would like to minimise that communication, provide just basic correct info, minimise the reports and do away with Q&A. That is, treat crowd-funders as an appreciative listening crowd rather than making errors and taking questions which might scare the crowd. But at the same time Fairy Cycle needs the lenders it would lose, for now.
|
|
