aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 343
Likes: 451
|
Post by aj on May 5, 2021 14:07:21 GMT
I'm reading between the lines that the allegations are coming from the 'developer' of the C*** H*** tower block?
If an accurate representation of the borrowers 'development' was given to lenders by FS, I am sure further lending to the borrower would have been unavailable anyway. It is only via FS misrepresentation to lenders that funds were not cut off long ago.
If any fraud occurred, it was the representation of a £1.3M shell as a significantly complete £3.5M development. Any incoming director would be complicit in this misrepresentation if further funds were advanced.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on May 5, 2021 14:12:27 GMT
I'm reading between the lines that the allegations are coming from the 'developer' of the C*** H*** tower block? If an accurate representation of the borrowers 'development' was given to lenders by FS, I am sure further lending to the borrower would have been unavailable anyway. It is only via FS misrepresentation to lenders that funds were not cut off long ago. If any fraud occurred, it was the representation of a £1.3M shell as a significantly complete £3.5M development. Any incoming director would be complicit in this misrepresentation if further funds were advanced. I don't think that;s the same dev. Have a look here: p2pindependentforum.com/post/422369/thread
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 343
Likes: 451
|
Post by aj on May 5, 2021 15:15:23 GMT
Well I'm back to confused then. C*** H*** has a separate borrower who has raised an unspecified challenge to their loans being called in, and the administrators have considered the challenge has enough merit to hold all recovered funds indefinitely (8 months now) until things are resolved. As C&G have declined to furnish any details on the borrowers challenge, I am left grasping at straws as to what skeletons in the FS closet are the source of this delay. Any ideas?
|
|