ben
Posts: 2,020 
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 16, 2016 13:38:56 GMT
No matter how good these loans are, I think that for the time being it is important for me to remove my prefunding for these loans. I will be looking in the future for any other clauses similar to 15 above. I'm keeping my pre-funding as it is; this clause isn't going to effect the loan or security, so no reason panic! However it does need addressing. I think in the future, when contacting surveyors SS need to put to explain that the valuation should be, and will be made avalibele to us investors I agree with cooling those clauses do not effect the loan at all the only people it effects is SS as they were the ones that published it, although I do agree with the point of why are the clauses in there,
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Feb 16, 2016 13:40:29 GMT
@cooling_dude cooling_dude You need to develop some healthy scepticism. Read my post again. There are TWO purchases involved here and we don't know the price of either. |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 16, 2016 13:46:17 GMT
I was solely referring to the sentence in your post which I put in bold You seem to think that there were not many buyers competing to buy a farm of this size; but that is untrue, as I have indicated. My scepticism is very healthy, thank you; I feed it vitamins daily  |
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 16, 2016 13:56:13 GMT
My view is that if the valuers made an error and we cannot approach them because we are supposed to not have access to that document than the security's value is in question. I think SS needs to address this part of its operation as a matter of urgency. I think that what really disturbs me is the fact that SS accepts such clauses without even blinking, which makes me think, are they really taking care of our interest?  |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 16, 2016 13:59:28 GMT
Maybe because we were all pestering them for the valuation report  Seriously, though, I agree. It doesn't change my own opinion of the actual loan or security, but I understand your concerns and would like to see some response from savingstream to this issue ASAP.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 16, 2016 14:04:47 GMT
My view is that if the valuers made an error and we cannot approach them because we are supposed to not have access to that document than the security's value is in question. I think SS needs to address this part of its operation as a matter of urgency. I think that what really disturbs me is the fact that SS accepts such clauses without even blinking, which makes me think, are they really taking care of our interest? To be fair to the valuers I doubt very much they knew what SS does or care it makes no difference to them how someone gets the funds to buy a property they are just valuing what they have been paid to value
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 16, 2016 14:08:33 GMT
My view is that if the valuers made an error and we cannot approach them because we are supposed to not have access to that document than the security's value is in question. I think SS needs to address this part of its operation as a matter of urgency. I think that what really disturbs me is the fact that SS accepts such clauses without even blinking, which makes me think, are they really taking care of our interest? To be fair to the valuers I doubt very much they knew what SS does or care it makes no difference to them how someone gets the funds to buy a property they are just valuing what they have been paid to value Then why put such an explicit exclusion for the lenders?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Feb 16, 2016 14:14:11 GMT
It's just standard boilerplate, and I doubt it's enforceable anyway given that it will have been SS who paid for it.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 16, 2016 14:16:16 GMT
To be fair to the valuers I doubt very much they knew what SS does or care it makes no difference to them how someone gets the funds to buy a property they are just valuing what they have been paid to value Then why put such an explicit exclusion for the lenders? The report will be a templete witha lot of sections filled in and al they will do is fill in the blanks about the current property
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 16, 2016 14:18:12 GMT
Then why put such an explicit exclusion for the lenders? The report will be a templete witha lot of sections filled in and al they will do is fill in the blanks about the current property This is is quite true. I've read through most of the valuation reports on SS, and they all contain extensive copy and pasting. You just have to compare the valuation reports of the campsite and the Peterborough loan to see that.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 16, 2016 14:32:03 GMT
Considering agriculture land valuation is currently " static" (as the valuation pointed out), I would imagine this buyer, and other interested parties who failed to buy the land have some inside information "static" is probably code for "falling". Savills said the cost of prime arable land fell last year for the first time in 13 years. Given that you need grass land for grazing, how does that make you feel? 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 16, 2016 14:32:23 GMT
So I have quickly skimmed through all the valuations again. The following paragraph seems to be very common (word for word) in several valuation reports (including different surveying companies)
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 16, 2016 14:35:57 GMT
So I have quickly skimmed through all the valuations again. The following paragraph seems to be very common (word for word) in several valuation reports (including different surveying companies) But that does not exclude lenders as this one does. Also the idea of "not published in anyway" does not include fair use, as permitted under copyright law.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 16, 2016 14:42:00 GMT
Mainly concentrating on the copy pasting element; but in any case if the surveyors were worth the money they demand, then you would have thought they would admit the T&Cs for the benefit of Lendy Ltd, especially considering the nature of Lendy Ltd business. After all, some of these companies have carried out quite a few valuations for Lendy Ltd. It seems to me that these surveyors are lazy creatures, who just fill in the blanks in a template.
No excuse for SS though. They do need to deal with this, or at least respond to our observations
|
|
Balder
Member of DD Central
Posts: 646
Likes: 622
|
Post by Balder on Feb 16, 2016 14:45:55 GMT
Mainly concentrating on the copy pasting element; if the surveyors were worth the money they demand, then you would have thought they would admit the T&Cs for the benefit of Lendy Ltd, especially considering the nature of Lendy Ltd business. After all, some of these companies have carried out quite a few valuations for Lendy Ltd. It seems to me that these surveyors are lazy creatures, who just fill in the blanks in a template. No excuse for SS though. They do need to deal with this, or at least respond to our observations Should be cleaned up, but is standard practice so that the valuers can be paid multiple times by different parties for the same work and can't be held accountable by others.
|
|
