cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 2, 2016 8:32:59 GMT
Sorry, cop out I know, I don't have time to read through 13 pages - would someone be kind enough to summarize the issue with this loan and why there is such a large amount on the SM? The Borrower didn't have PP For the work he carried out to the house. During our loan he was found out and had to apply for retrospective PP. This PP has now been approved, but with the condition that he reduces the size of the property.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 2, 2016 8:46:54 GMT
Sorry, cop out I know, I don't have time to read through 13 pages - would someone be kind enough to summarize the issue with this loan and why there is such a large amount on the SM? To add to CD's reply ... The borrower did have planning permission, but carried out additional works that were not included in the original application, he then applied for retrospective approval , which was granted on 25th august 2016 with conditions. Part of the retrospective application was for the retention of some of the unapproved works and demolition of some of the more inappropriate works. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess. edit. crossed with CD. Oh no it didnt. 
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 2, 2016 12:16:54 GMT
Hi Martin44, I'm slightly confused by one small part of what you said here: "part of the retrospective application was for the retention of some of the unapproved works and demolition of some of the more inappropriate works."
Are you saying that the retrospective application itself include a request to demolish "the more inappropriate works"?
Also can you (and/or anyone else here) advise on the source of this document and where (if) I can get it to read myself?
Thanks in advance,
Izi.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Sept 2, 2016 12:20:20 GMT
Hi Martin44, I'm slightly confused by one small part of what you said here: "part of the retrospective application was for the retention of some of the unapproved works and demolition of some of the more inappropriate works." Are you saying that the retrospective application itself include a request to demolish "the more inappropriate works"? Also can you (and/or anyone else here) advise on the source of this document and where (if) I can get it to read myself? Thanks in advance, Izi. Mole Valley Council planning - use the property address to search - plenty to read !
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 2, 2016 12:55:38 GMT
Hi Martin44, I'm slightly confused by one small part of what you said here: "part of the retrospective application was for the retention of some of the unapproved works and demolition of some of the more inappropriate works." Are you saying that the retrospective application itself include a request to demolish "the more inappropriate works"? Also can you (and/or anyone else here) advise on the source of this document and where (if) I can get it to read myself? Thanks in advance, Izi. The determination was to demolish "the more inappropriate works" The determination can be found on the relevent council web site, forum rules prevent the link being posted here.
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Sept 2, 2016 16:51:20 GMT
People are still buying this loan?
They must see a lot of value in the land 😆
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Sept 2, 2016 17:57:15 GMT
20 k just gone some one likes it
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 2, 2016 21:48:55 GMT
Hi Martin44, I'm slightly confused by one small part of what you said here: "part of the retrospective application was for the retention of some of the unapproved works and demolition of some of the more inappropriate works." Are you saying that the retrospective application itself include a request to demolish "the more inappropriate works"? Also can you (and/or anyone else here) advise on the source of this document and where (if) I can get it to read myself? Thanks in advance, Izi. The extent of the borrowers "over build" was such, that the borrows agent clearly felt that the only way he would be able to retain the additional upper floor, windows and raised ridge height was to compromise and demolish the lower inappropriate additional rooms, which they had added without prior planning. Call it a mutual sweetener.  And everyone comes out smelling of roses..... No further neighbor comments allowed. 
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 4, 2016 16:18:15 GMT
Hi everyone, thanks treeman, dualinvestor and martin44 for your answers to my question. Also thanks to others for the insightful thoughts. I have managed to find the application and as you warned, there is quite a bit to go through yet. While it does sound dire on the surface, there are also perhaps some understated advantage to this? please correct me if this sounds naive to you. The original valuation were made on the premise of the original planning application. The one being built and now approved is more than the original premise and should therefore attract a higher valuation? I understand the current buyer may or may not pay the same monies for the reduced part (due to the conditions) but its not sounding anywhere as bad as it did before the new approval (?). Keen to get the forum's thoughts on this.
The frustrating thing I suppose is the lack of official update from SS. However, I suppose they don't just want to give an update on the planning application but the other implicated aspects of the loan and perhaps how the borrower and buyer want to proceed.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 16:37:14 GMT
Hi everyone, thanks treeman, dualinvestor and martin44 for your answers to my question. Also thanks to others for the insightful thoughts. I have managed to find the application and as you warned, there is quite a bit to go through yet. While it does sound dire on the surface, there are also perhaps some understated advantage to this? please correct me if this sounds naive to you. The original valuation were made on the premise of the original planning application. The one being built and now approved is more than the original premise and should therefore attract a higher valuation? I understand the current buyer may or may not pay the same monies for the reduced part (due to the conditions) but its not sounding anywhere as bad as it did before the new approval (?). Keen to get the forum's thoughts on this. The frustrating thing I suppose is the lack of official update from SS. However, I suppose they don't just want to give an update on the planning application but the other implicated aspects of the loan and perhaps how the borrower and buyer want to proceed. The valuation report provided to SS was for the house in its current state and was valued as such (£4,250,000). The surveyor presumed that the property had the correct PP, and did cite the most recent PP application, but apparently failed to look into the details. Lendy Ltd based the 70% LTV on the market value (£4,250,000) indicated in the valuation report and this looked to be sound as the property is on rightmove for £4,750,000. However, it has now been found out that work was carried out that was not indicated in the PP and our borrower had to apply for retrospective PP. The retrospective PP was granted, but included some conditions; the main one being the borrower will have to demolish some of the works to bring it in line with the retrospective PP (he has 6 months to complete this). So to summarise... 1. The above means the property will be (once works has been completed) worth less than £4,250,000 2. The property is current worth a LOT less than £4,250,000, because it requires funds to fulfil the condition set out in the retrospective PP
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2016 17:15:34 GMT
People are still buying this loan? They must see a lot of value in the land 😆 some one just lending blind.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 4, 2016 18:20:15 GMT
cooling_dude : Re Does this help lender's position in any way? i.e. is there a kind of fall back?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 18:34:15 GMT
Hi everyone, thanks treeman, dualinvestor and martin44 for your answers to my question. Also thanks to others for the insightful thoughts. I have managed to find the application and as you warned, there is quite a bit to go through yet. While it does sound dire on the surface, there are also perhaps some understated advantage to this? please correct me if this sounds naive to you. The original valuation were made on the premise of the original planning application. The one being built and now approved is more than the original premise and should therefore attract a higher valuation? I understand the current buyer may or may not pay the same monies for the reduced part (due to the conditions) but its not sounding anywhere as bad as it did before the new approval (?). Keen to get the forum's thoughts on this. The frustrating thing I suppose is the lack of official update from SS. However, I suppose they don't just want to give an update on the planning application but the other implicated aspects of the loan and perhaps how the borrower and buyer want to proceed. The valuation report provided to SS was for the house in its current state and was valued as such (£4,250,000). The surveyor presumed that the property had the correct PP, and did cite the most recent PP application, but apparently failed to look into the details. Lendy Ltd based the 70% LTV on the market value (£4,250,000) indicated in the valuation report and this looked to be sound as the property is on rightmove for £4,750,000. However, it has now been found out that work was carried out that was not indicated in the PP and our borrower had to apply for retrospective PP. The retrospective PP was granted, but included some conditions; the main one being the borrower will have to demolish some of the works to bring it in line with the retrospective PP (he has 6 months to complete this). So to summarise... 1. The above means the property will be (once works has been completed) worth less than £4,250,000 2. The property is current worth a LOT less than £4,250,000, because it requires funds to fulfil the condition set out in the retrospective PP CD fully agree. As soon as the latest update on this loan appeared i placed my loan part on the SM, as dualinvestor pointed out elsewhere , not many properties have sold in this vicinity over the last few years , so difficult to ascertain an accurate valuation, i will stick my neck out and guess , when this is brought to a conclusion £3.2m
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 18:52:02 GMT
cooling_dude : Re Does this help lender's position in any way? i.e. is there a kind of fall back? I'm not sure TBH; however, the surveying company does have Professional Indemnity Insurance, as indicated in the following section in the VR There is no indication in the valuation report that the surveyor confirmed that the 2014 PP was implemented correctly, and the VR states that they "have formulated our valuation based on direct comparison methodology", so they have simply inspected the property and compared said property to similar properties in the area. There is also the following paragraph in the VR... My personal opinion is that surveyor should examine the available PP documents and then compare the details to the property they are surveying. There is no indication in the VR that they are obliged to do so, however, they do have Professional Standards set out by the RICS (called the "Red Book") but I have no idea what it requires the surveyor to carry out.... one day I will have to read it  .
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 4, 2016 18:55:15 GMT
Hi everyone, thanks treeman, dualinvestor and martin44 for your answers to my question. Also thanks to others for the insightful thoughts. I have managed to find the application and as you warned, there is quite a bit to go through yet. While it does sound dire on the surface, there are also perhaps some understated advantage to this? please correct me if this sounds naive to you. The original valuation were made on the premise of the original planning application. The one being built and now approved is more than the original premise and should therefore attract a higher valuation? I understand the current buyer may or may not pay the same monies for the reduced part (due to the conditions) but its not sounding anywhere as bad as it did before the new approval (?). Keen to get the forum's thoughts on this. The frustrating thing I suppose is the lack of official update from SS. However, I suppose they don't just want to give an update on the planning application but the other implicated aspects of the loan and perhaps how the borrower and buyer want to proceed. The buyer is now in an exceptionally strong position, that of course is assuming the original buyer is still on the scene. And then there is the position of the borrower, He/They have already had (just) shy of £3m , we are now in the realms of addition cost's for the loan, additional build rectification cost's and the ultimate final value of the property, If i were the borrower, i would be thinking very carefully about what my next move might be.
|
|
And everyone comes out smelling of roses..... No further neighbor comments allowed. 
.