|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 17:41:12 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' standoff like the Brexit negotiations. Either side can easily create great harm to the other and that is all they have to negotiate with. I'm sure, with the amount of outstanding debt, Lendy will pursue this vigorously and litigation like is expensive; does the borrower have the resources? Maybe, but if any attempt to deliberately deprive the lender of monies that were lent in good faith, will usually be recognised by the courts but as a last resort, I suppose the lawyers will have to roll over....in any event, this will drag on and on.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470 
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Sept 27, 2017 17:47:53 GMT
I may have some photos from months ago before the new turf was laid and the new fencing installed. From what I recall some services to the new dwellings from O** R**** L*** were laid underneath the newly turfed area. The sewers are underneath the gardens of plots 1 to 4, a diversion of an existing sewer was planned - assume this was all undertaken. The whole site will need a new pumping station - not sure if this has been built yet.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 27, 2017 18:03:42 GMT
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. No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 18:10:16 GMT
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. No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it? Lendy has the land asset, it’s theirs, what ever the outcome. My question, still yet to be answered is, does Lendy require, at the time of signing, personal gurantees from directors?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 18:19:48 GMT
I may have some photos from months ago before the new turf was laid and the new fencing installed. From what I recall some services to the new dwellings from O** R**** L*** were laid underneath the newly turfed area. The sewers are underneath the gardens of plots 1 to 4, a diversion of an existing sewer was planned - assume this was all undertaken. The whole site will need a new pumping station - not sure if this has been built yet. Reminds me of a developer friend who fired a main contractor for breach of contract. New owners move in and six weeks later, overflowing toilets, all three of them. He calls in a drain company and using cctv, they discover a piece of kerbstone in the middle of the drain worse still, it’s under the living room concrete floor with no access. Owners had to be put in temporary accommodation while the living room floor was dug up and the kerbstone removed. Clearly nasty and vindictive as the top of the pipe had been cut open to put the kerbstone in.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 19:42:45 GMT
The small local estate agent seems to be a very new website only setup and linked to the borrower. Seems quite an unusual setup to my way of thinking. I tend to agree. We seem to have gone from one extreme (Internationally known agents marketing upmarket property) to the other (small new local agent with 6 properties on their books, 4 of which are within DFL001 and DFL002). Maybe some digging will unearth a reason, or as you suggest, merely a connection. If there is a connection between developer and sales agent, this might need to be disclosed to any intending purchaser, or so I believe? Nice website though - very swish. Yeap, they are linked. Seems the developer is a director, personally via an LLP and owns over 75%
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 27, 2017 20:57:09 GMT
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. No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it? Re Access: I would have thought this meets the criteria for an Easement by necessity, presuming the development has no other access to the highway. Regardless, it seems that the access has been created and used during the course of the development, my understanding is that the Courts would likely recognise an access due to the facts on the ground. ie. if Lendy was denied access by the 'son' it should be able to seek an injunction granting access and thereafter a permanent easement across the 'son's land'. That's not even considering the contractual element. The 'son' will have to be careful here, in not granting access he might make himself personally liable for damages - who knows? PS. Hi - just joined because I found this thread and unfortunately I'm an investor 
|
|
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 21:13:42 GMT
Who will be the winner? Well, the lawyers for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 21:18:53 GMT
No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it? Re Access: I would have thought this meets the criteria for an Easement by necessity, presuming the development has no other access to the highway. Regardless, it seems that the access has been created and used during the course of the development, my understanding is that the Courts would likely recognise an access due to the facts on the ground. ie. if Lendy was denied access by the 'son' it should be able to seek an injunction granting access and thereafter a permanent easement across the 'son's land'. That's not even considering the contractual element. The 'son' will have to be careful here, in not granting access he might make himself personally liable for damages - who knows? PS. Hi - just joined because I found this thread and unfortunately I'm an investor ....or even one of implication.
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 27, 2017 21:30:52 GMT
Yes, quite right, although I haven't quite followed the various land transfers. Were the development title and the cottage owned by the same legal person at any time?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 27, 2017 21:59:36 GMT
jimreaper Lendy have a 1st charge over the asset (the loan may be in the personal name of the borrower) an F&F debenture over an SPV (with property named in the schedule) and a PG.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 21:59:55 GMT
A little complicated.
B********* c****** was financed using a bridging loan in the name of an LLP part owned by the son, father and another LLP, fully owned by the father. Dad resigned from the borrowing LLP in November 2016 some eight months after the bridging loan was created.
That loan expired in February 2016 and it looks like another bridging loan company Alpine has stepped in on 22 September 2017, and either advanced more monies or paid off the initial bridging loan. This time, it’s in the name of the original LLP solely directed by the son who has the significant interest and the same LLP controlled by the father.
Theres a paper trail and if there was some malice aforethought, it’s rather obvious and not very clever.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 27, 2017 22:03:41 GMT
jimreaper Lendy have a 1st charge over the asset (the loan may be in the personal name of the borrower) an F&F debenture over an SPV (with property named in the schedule) and a PG. A PG, I’m guessing a personal gurantee, means doom on then. Those flats on the Quay aren’t worth anywhere near the asking and the new build will be destroyed going in to winter. Lendy needs to move quickly.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Sept 27, 2017 22:49:03 GMT
No doubt Lendy will, but who/what exactly is the borrower? If it's a SPV, then Lendy could end up with a judgement in their favour but little chance of collecting anything because the SPV doesn't have any assets other than the property. In that case, wouldn't Lendy end up with a piece of property but limited/no access to it? Re Access: I would have thought this meets the criteria for an Easement by necessity, presuming the development has no other access to the highway. Regardless, it seems that the access has been created and used during the course of the development, my understanding is that the Courts would likely recognise an access due to the facts on the ground. ie. if Lendy was denied access by the 'son' it should be able to seek an injunction granting access and thereafter a permanent easement across the 'son's land'. That's not even considering the contractual element. The 'son' will have to be careful here, in not granting access he might make himself personally liable for damages - who knows? PS. Hi - just joined because I found this thread and unfortunately I'm an investor I wouldn't hang your hat on an easement by necessity being provable / obtained via the Courts. Ransom strips have high value for a reason. Also, you normally have to have had unopposed use over land for 20 years+ to obtain a legal right by prescription. This case seems very muddled. At the very least I'd expect very big legal costs.
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Sept 28, 2017 6:46:29 GMT
Looks like Lendy have been outmanoeuvred by a savvy borrower, again.
|
|
