|
|
Post by madkings on Sept 27, 2017 16:37:04 GMT
I some how think the developer will want to try and resolve this as well? the £2M+ profit has gone, will he escape with anything. Lendy still hold the asset, smoke and mirrors with access he is in a desperate position and is trying to put a blocker in the way. Will take time to resolve but IMHO Lendy hold all the Aces....
I think Lendy have more money to sue this guy than vice versa
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:44:07 GMT
Tell me, under the 'old T&C's" or for that matter, current T&C's, is the borrower personally liable for say, a shortfall? Having visited the site today, it appears the old driveway which is shared by both Bricknell's bungalow ("developer"/Lendy site) and B********* H**** (completely separate), there appears to be a widening with new asphalt (new feather board fencing and turf) . I've extracted an up to date title plan from the LR and measured the access road from O*** R**** L***, it appears that the registered plan does not include the new widening and make of that, what you will..... Not relevant perhaps but B********* C****** ('son") has a registered charge on it as recent as 22/09/17 - that's two but perhaps the new bridging loan was to pay back the first one dated last year and the papers have yet to reach companies house. Meantime, having had some experience of sites being repossessed, who will buy it? How easy will it be to get certification on the houses in order for the properties to be saleable let alone mortgageable and with other developments around it being proposed, will the GDV ever be realised? I'm sceptical and having read the valuation reports, a bit confused. The comparables, I would argue, are not comparable. They were based on the Heritage development at Holland Park where properties sold for an average £600K and are in a parkland setting, behind a golf course and nowhere near the noisy M5 motorway. Any photos from you "said" visit?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:45:43 GMT
Yes,
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:46:12 GMT
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:46:31 GMT
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 27, 2017 16:46:38 GMT
Technically, yes, but it would not be a problem if it was the developer (or his son) who was selling the house.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:47:08 GMT
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:47:42 GMT
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:50:10 GMT
"sons' house
Admin Note: Large attachment deleted - OP free to re-post this as an image.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 27, 2017 16:53:28 GMT
I some how think the developer will want to try and resolve this as well? the £2M+ profit has gone, will he escape with anything. Lendy still hold the asset, smoke and mirrors with access he is in a desperate position and is trying to put a blocker in the way. Will take time to resolve but IMHO Lendy hold all the Aces.... I think Lendy have more money to sue this guy than vice versa A tad optimistic IMO. If he can buy the site back for £2m less than he paid for it, as the only person who can access the site, he makes £2m immediately and still has the development profit to come. Lendy can frustrate this by refusing to sell to him but that does us no good. it becomes a 'who blinks first' Mexican standoff like the Brexit negotiations. Either side can easily create great harm to the other and that is all they have to negotiate with.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:55:47 GMT
As a lender, you should have an email explaining Lendy's view on the (alleged) access restriction. (It's a copy of the content on the loan's most recent website update also issued today.) I would post that email content here, but understandable uncertainty exists around sharing lender-specific comms, so won't. I did get an email but it is just the update that they have posted on their site too. No more information. I'm just finding it hard to believe I understand what's being said. So for example, if someone were to have bought one of the houses. Then does it mean they would have needed the developer's son's permission to access their house? Actually, having viewed the conditions of planning, the developer has to create a footpath opposite the site entrance on O** R**** L*** before any of the properties can even be occupied! That definitely has not been done either but I digress. Technically yes but if the legals have been done properly, this will have been avoided or possibly, never even contemplated. I seem to recall there was some correspondence between the lawyers for B********* H***** and the developer. Will try and find it on ECC planning portal....
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 16:57:11 GMT
I did get an email but it is just the update that they have posted on their site too. No more information. I'm just finding it hard to believe I understand what's being said. So for example, if someone were to have bought one of the houses. Then does it mean they would have needed the developer's son's permission to access their house? Actually, having viewed the conditions of planning, the developer has to create a footpath opposite the site entrance on O** R**** L*** before any of the properties can even be occupied! That definitely has not been done either but I digress. Technically yes but if the legals have been done properly, this will have been avoided or possibly, never even contemplated. I seem to recall there was some correspondence between the lawyers for B********* H***** and the developer. Will try and find it on ECC planning portal.... Indeed, see Stokes v Cambridge 1961
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162 
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Sept 27, 2017 16:59:39 GMT
Technically, yes, but it would not be a problem if it was the developer (or his son) who was selling the house. What if the two fell out? And to spite Darth Vader, Luke decided not to give permissions? Based on this 'access' threat, it is clear that the borrower has no regards to the Lenders but his interests alone. I expect Lendy to go in with full legal force in order to recover the due monies as borrower can't fulfil the obligations at the end of the term.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Sept 27, 2017 17:08:29 GMT
Thanks for the photos.
So basically the ransom strip is that road outside the 'sons' house?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 17:30:55 GMT
Yes, I believe so.
|
|
