littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 28, 2017 6:46:51 GMT
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. ; 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. Quite. What incentive do L have to spend their money trying to recover ours?
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 28, 2017 8:06:49 GMT
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. Well, I'm not hanging my hat on this one that's for sure - more clutching at straws! Didn't suggest an easement by prescription, that doesn't apply here. I don't know how developers usually establish a ransom strip to be legally separate from the accessed development - I assume they pick an adjacent property that has always been on separate title so as not to create an implied easement, not sure if that is the case here or not. From the background it seems there may well be an easement created in equity/contract somewhere but there just isn't any information out there. My confidence in Lendy is pretty shaken by this, I'll want to see a solid way ahead quickly if I'm to carry on investing there.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Sept 28, 2017 8:52:04 GMT
Mod Hat On/ jimreaper: this Pro-Board hosted free Forum has an issue with limited storage size and as such we have a policy on posting as images rather than large attachments. You were sent a PM on this subject yesterday and we've noted you have been online since then. To view "PMs" please see the Messages "tab" on the top menu bar. Please action, otherwise we will need to remove these large attached images from the quoted post and your preceding five posts. The reasoning behind this policy, as well as links to assist, can be found in this thread.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470 
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Sept 28, 2017 9:33:02 GMT
All of this legal easement discussion is outside my fields of knowledge, but I can say that from the planning documents the cottage (large house with the new turf laid) has been in whole or part in the name of business associates of the borrower (name of P******) for some time and the bungalow that was demolished was I recall in the name of the borrower. It was located about where houses 2/3 are now situated. So I recall when I looked at the planning some months ago. The adjoining large field was also the subject of linked planning applications at one time (total 60+ dwellings) but with a new access road proposed out onto O** R****L**. The small access route used to the present development was only ever intended to serve the 10/14 houses, as a gated community. if the adjoining field was to be built out this would detract from the views (such as they are) from houses 1 to 4 and make them less attractive. At the moment the views from upper windows (and balconies!) are across this field and to the delights of the M5 and industrial units.
crossed with post above.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Sept 28, 2017 9:38:48 GMT
It would take years to develop out the adjoining land and a major new access road to 60/400 dwellings is neither a cheap nor a quick option.
This development (DFL001) needs to be built out and finalised SOON or else much existing value will be lost via degradation and ongoing security fees etc.
Some mediation between the parties might be a good idea - and cheaper than litigation.
Faults all round - get round the table and sort it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Sept 28, 2017 9:46:05 GMT
All of this legal easement discussion is outside my fields of knowledge, but I can say that from the planning documents the cottage (large house with the new turf laid) has been in whole or part in the name of business associates of the borrower (name of P******) for some time and the bungalow that was demolished was I recall in the name of the borrower. It was located about where houses 2/3 are now situated. So I recall when I looked at the planning some months ago. The adjoining large field was also the subject of linked planning applications at one time (total 60+ dwellings) but with a new access road proposed out onto O** R****L**. The small access route used to the present development was only ever intended to serve the 10/14 houses, as a gated community. if the adjoining field was to be built out this would detract from the views (such as they are) from houses 1 to 4 and make them less attractive. At the moment the views from upper windows (and balconies!) are across this field and to the delights of the M5 and industrial units. crossed with post above. Interesting couple of posts above. I think it may have been me that first brought up easements as a solution for access, but by the looks of the above two posts its a red herring. 1. Because it looks like there are other potential ways to build an access to the site and 2. Because I get the impression that the cottage and security site were never part of the same title, albeit owed by the same person at some point. I suspect there still could be legal redress for Lendy to use that access if a commitment to it exists in all the contractual and legal documents. Hopefully Lendy will give an update with something concrete they hang a legal action on.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Sept 28, 2017 9:53:21 GMT
The whole charade would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. The borrower has played a blinder really.
I wonder if the suspension of the loans might have other reasons behind it. The total of loans total almost £9m and there seems to be quite a massive shortfall.
If these loans are under the old terms is it right to assume that the debt accruing to lenders will be accruing at £1m+ per year? And that debt is from Lendy to us, not the borrower to us?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 28, 2017 9:54:51 GMT
All of this legal easement discussion is outside my fields of knowledge, but I can say that from the planning documents the cottage (large house with the new turf laid) has been in whole or part in the name of business associates of the borrower (name of P******) for some time and the bungalow that was demolished was I recall in the name of the borrower. It was located about where houses 2/3 are now situated. So I recall when I looked at the planning some months ago. The adjoining large field was also the subject of linked planning applications at one time (total 60+ dwellings) but with a new access road proposed out onto O** R****L**. The small access route used to the present development was only ever intended to serve the 10/14 houses, as a gated community. if the adjoining field was to be built out this would detract from the views (such as they are) from houses 1 to 4 and make them less attractive. At the moment the views from upper windows (and balconies!) are across this field and to the delights of the M5 and industrial units. crossed with post above. Don't forget the 8 storey hotel across the field being proposed by the rugby ground owners again, in full view of the first floor of all the houses - I'm told it will get full planning however, highways would object had the hotel wanted access from old R**** L*** or C**** road so the vehicle access will be through the grounds existing car park off the newly widened A3**
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Sept 28, 2017 9:56:02 GMT
"an update with something concrete"
A strip of tarmacadam would do just fine.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 6,440
|
Post by registerme on Sept 28, 2017 9:59:29 GMT
I wonder if the suspension of the loans might have other reasons behind it. The total of loans total almost £9m and there seems to be quite a massive shortfall. If these loans are under the old terms is it right to assume that the debt accruing to lenders will be accruing at £1m+ per year? And that debt is from Lendy to us, not the borrower to us? Puts this in a new light, doesn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 28, 2017 10:07:21 GMT
"an update with something concrete" A strip of tarmacadam would do just fine. PMSL!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 28, 2017 15:25:22 GMT
I wonder if the suspension of the loans might have other reasons behind it. The total of loans total almost £9m and there seems to be quite a massive shortfall. If these loans are under the old terms is it right to assume that the debt accruing to lenders will be accruing at £1m+ per year? And that debt is from Lendy to us, not the borrower to us? Puts this in a new light, doesn't it. someone's clearly got their "," and "0" in the wrong place....IMHO of course
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 28, 2017 15:27:04 GMT
****STOP PRESS****
I'm hearing a local firm of accountants has been appointed as LPA receivers. Good firm, quality people.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Sept 28, 2017 15:59:00 GMT
Feel a bit nervous about that if that's the truth.
The local estate agents didn't really turn out to be impartial.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimreaper on Sept 28, 2017 16:55:38 GMT
?
The LPA will be acting in the interests of the the lender, all 3,727 of them, not "developer"
Check out PFK-FC
As for estate agents; not all but some are notoriously, cunning and untrustworthy. They will already be calling their pet buyers, vulchers, the lot of them and a group is referred to as a wake!
|
|
