cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 4, 2016 23:41:35 GMT
Yes; but what the red book is saying (or the way I read it) is that the valuer should have confirmed that correct PP was in place when he carried out the site inspection on Jan 2016 ( "The valuer needs to establish whether the property has the necessary statutory consents for the current buildings") The building did not have the necessary statutory consents; it did have PP but our borrower carried out works not included in that PP (i.e. it did not have the necessary statutory consents on the date of the inspection - Jan 2016). It is mandatory for those who are members of the RICS to follow the regulations set out in the red book, and it seems to me that the valuer did not complete the above step. Note : Everything I have written in the above post is via information I have found online in the last hour. It is simply untrained observations and I could be wrong! CD. as of jan 2016, all planning consents were indeed in place and had been passed, whether they were followed is a another story, It is not the valuers job to carry architects drawings, that is the surveyors job. As noted, I'm no expert; but it seems to me that it is the valuers job, as it is what the red book requests them to do so. It even says that "delays or expenses may be incurred in obtaining definitive information". You seem to be separating valuers & surveyor; they are one of the same; the VR for PBL081 is completed by chartered surveyors! If you have a look at the SS website they say that "Professionally qualified chartered surveyors are instructed to value the property being used as security". In any case, these are unqualified observations by me, and I could simply be digging a hole and filling it with my ignorance  . What we need is a somebody in the surveying business; there must be one around here somewhere! Either that or I will read & study the £75 'red book', take the test, register with the RICS and return with the answer... and ask Lendy Ltd if they have a job going 
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 5, 2016 6:45:31 GMT
So with all the extraneous information taken away, c.£1million was required to complete the property (£3million advance, £2million previous borrowing). One third of the loan was required for works and costs, hence my contention this was not a bridging loan and I disagree with your view that the property was complete if it still needed £1million spent on it. It was not my view that the property was completed, it was SS's view, hence the quote. There is no quote anywhere as far as i can establish that states where the £1m was spent, the info quotes " various modifications of certain aspects of the property for which our borrower needs our funds " again however, the quote that the property is complete is not my quote, it is there for all to view on SS's initial loan details. If your claim is that £1m is still needed to be spent on it , then where? I cannot see any quotation marks in the posts you have made, such as Surely at the time of the loan, the property was completed, part of the purpose of the loan was to undertake works, I do not claim there is still £1million to be spent now, but there was at the time of the loan as that is self eveident in the loan particulars, i.e. advance £3million, pay off existing loan £2million, difference £1million. Therefore this was not a bridging loan but contained a significant sum for development (which was my original statement that got us into this discussion)
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 5, 2016 7:35:26 GMT
dualinvestor It was not my view that the property was completed, it was SS's view, hence the quote. There is no quote anywhere as far as i can establish that states where the £1m was spent, the info quotes " various modifications of certain aspects of the property for which our borrower needs our funds " again however, the quote that the property is complete is not my quote, it is there for all to view on SS's initial loan details. If your claim is that £1m is still needed to be spent on it , then where? I cannot see any quotation marks in the posts you have made, such as Surely at the time of the loan, the property was completed, part of the purpose of the loan was to undertake works, I do not claim there is still £1million to be spent now, but there was at the time of the loan as that is self eveident in the loan particulars, i.e. advance £3million, pay off existing loan £2million, difference £1million. Therefore this was not a bridging loan but contained a significant sum for development (which was my original statement that got us into this discussion) Morning dualinvestor , i would agree with your point regarding the aspects around whether this is a PBL due to the fact that £1m was used for additional works, it could be argued that it is 2/3 pbl and 1/3 dfl. The main issue for me is , did savingstream know what the £1m was going to be spent on, if they knew that the funds were going to be used to rectify illegal works where a retrospective planning application had not yet been made, then i would consider that to be a very dubious practice. However, i would give SS the benefit of the doubt and would suspect they did not know, and were probably fed a cock and bull story by our borrower, one thing is for sure, SS did know something, as per the original loan details This agreement will all be agreed legally before they commence any work for this prospective buyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Sept 5, 2016 7:51:38 GMT
I've had a quick look at this red book (via information available online) and the following is stated. To clarify; all RICS members providing a written valuation are required to comply with the Professional Standards and Valuation Practice Statements in Red Book – in other words, (unless stated otherwise), they are mandatory Morning CD again i agree with you, but there is confusion here about what savingstream is commissioning , are they commissioning the chartered surveyors to carry out a survey (which is usually requested by the buyer) or a valuation, these can both be carried out by the same person, but they are not the same thing, so the question is how far is the valuer expected to go when carrying out a valuation, and did the valuer go far enough with regards to pbl81. www.amorrison.co.uk/valuations-surveys/
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Sept 5, 2016 9:22:28 GMT
martin44 I cannot see any quotation marks in the posts you have made, such as Surely at the time of the loan, the property was completed, part of the purpose of the loan was to undertake works, I do not claim there is still £1million to be spent now, but there was at the time of the loan as that is self eveident in the loan particulars, i.e. advance £3million, pay off existing loan £2million, difference £1million. Therefore this was not a bridging loan but contained a significant sum for development (which was my original statement that got us into this discussion) Morning dualinvestor , i would agree with your point regarding the aspects around whether this is a PBL due to the fact that £1m was used for additional works, it could be argued that it is 2/3 pbl and 1/3 dfl. The main issue for me is , did savingstream know what the £1m was going to be spent on, if they knew that the funds were going to be used to rectify illegal works where a retrospective planning application had not yet been made, then i would consider that to be a very dubious practice. However, i would give SS the benefit of the doubt and would suspect they did not know, and were probably fed a cock and bull story by our borrower, one thing is for sure, SS did know something, as per the original loan details This agreement will all be agreed legally before they commence any work for this prospective buyer. IMO you are generous in giving SS the benefit of the doubt. The additional works were significant, even in leafy Surrey £1million gets you an awful lot of building work, any loan that contains more than a minimal sum for this purpose is not a Bridging loan at all e.g. if there was say £10,000 to paint the window frames then the house his complete, if it £1million to satisfy a potential purchaser it is significantly incomplete. The question that should be asked is did this purchaser exist and was that £1million used on building work at all? Furthermore what checks did SS do both before and during the loan, not only on compliance with PP but on the existence of the "purchaser" and their "requirements"? But this all might bhe a moot point if the loan is repaid in full anyway.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 5, 2016 10:01:06 GMT
Our representatives are visiting the site this week - planning consultant and QS who will be able to tell us exactly what needs to be done, how much it will cost and how long it will take. We will report back when the report is received and we have worked out a plan.
Intriguing.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Sept 5, 2016 10:10:09 GMT
So what update do you believe
2 WEEKS AGO
Potential issue - the borrower has undertaken work not in compliance with the planning permission and is now seeking retrospective permission from the local authority. We are sending our planning expert up next week to review the situation and will report back as soon as we know anything further.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 5, 2016 10:12:58 GMT
Our representatives are visiting the site this week - planning consultant and QS who will be able to tell us exactly what needs to be done, how much it will cost and how long it will take. We will report back when the report is received and we have worked out a plan. Intriguing. No hint that repayment will be made, despite the loan finishing its term; that's no surprise considering most these bridging loans overrun, but this would be a nice one to see the back of. I will be interesting to see how SS handle this; the value will undoubtedly drop and subsequently the LTV will rise above 70%. I wonder if SS will update the loan details to indicate these details.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 5, 2016 10:13:47 GMT
I think that an "updated" update takes precedence. Now as to what one should believe, . . . . that is not for me to say.
Seeing the number of loans that are marked as going to be paid imminently or this week, I expect the SM to be as dry as a lake in the middle of the Sahara. (considering also that PBL 20 is nearing an ending.)
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Sept 5, 2016 10:32:20 GMT
I think that an "updated" update takes precedence. Now as to what one should believe, . . . . that is not for me to say. Seeing the number of loans that are marked as going to be paid imminently or this week, I expect the SM to be as dry as a lake in the middle of the Sahara. (considering also that PBL 20 is nearing an ending.) I would like to assume that all updates are factual. But what do i know
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 5, 2016 11:43:52 GMT
Pretty sure that the valuation was done after the 'unauthorised' works were done as you can see the loft windows in the rear elevation photos. Also reference to 5 bedrooms on FF when plans show 4 plus one in loft, 3 on LGF which includes the one to be demolished and the photo of the front is the 'atrium' or single story side extension refered to in app.
Remedial works are scheduled to be complete at end of November
Original application didnt include the lower basement and a number of bits of the house that werent accessible from house (the bits that are being demolished) as borrower 'didnt realise' they counted as part of the house for planning purposes and just rebuilt/replaced the existing structures which had fallen into disrepair.
Should be noted that issues arose in May (thats when the new planning was submitted)
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308 
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Sept 7, 2016 15:17:19 GMT
PBL081 is selling reasonably well. When I put some up for sale on Sunday night (just under 3 days ago) there was £138K ahead of my part. It has just sold  It may look like there is a lot (and there often is) but is seems to be moving fairly freely. |
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Sept 7, 2016 15:27:40 GMT
Yes indeed - I've been saying the same thing in a few threads this week. An amount I put up shortly before lunch on Monday sold sometime between 15:40 and 16:05 this afternoon. My SS emails have started to arrive very late recently, so I haven't yet got the sold notice, but it definitely all went. Down to only about £67K of it available altogether now as I write, so the lender queue must be very small indeed now, since SS were holding a fair old chunk of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Sept 7, 2016 16:39:17 GMT
WTH happened there?
I put up my small holding half an hour ago, more for a laugh than anything... and it's gone!
Someone just took over £50k ?
|
|
jimbob
Member of DD Central
Posts: 317
Likes: 74
|
Post by jimbob on Sept 7, 2016 16:40:52 GMT
WTH happened there? I put up my small holding half an hour ago, more for a laugh than anything... and it's gone! Someone just took over £50k ? The loan monster is hungry.
|
|
. What we need is a somebody in the surveying business; there must be one around here somewhere! Either that or I will read & study the £75 'red book', take the test, register with the RICS and return with the answer... and ask Lendy Ltd if they have a job going 
It may look like there is a lot (and there often is) but is seems to be moving fairly freely.
