mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 24, 2017 16:49:13 GMT
Today's update doesn't mention anything about whether the new offer covers all capital and accrued interests. Because it clearly doesn't! When an offer does appear to cover capital and interest Lendy do make sure to put that in the update!
|
|
|
|
Post by masquedefer on Nov 24, 2017 18:27:52 GMT
I saw a direct post from this borrower in another thread over the weekend (I can't find it now).
I think he offered about £6.7m less RM costs and other conditions to settle both DFL001 and DFL002 for which the total loan comes to about £32k shy of £9m.
I'm only in both for £6k total, but if this is same the borrower who earlier boasted about his relative owning a ransom strip on one of the developments, then he has evidently pulled a fast one both us (the lenders) and Lendy, which I don't like.
I would rather take a bigger loss letting this go to another buyer than see this apparently and allegedly* objectionable person clean up at our expense.
Furthermore his (allegedly menacing) rationale that leaving the build open to the elements over winter will cause major extra costs, is b*ll*x. External building materials are durable and if any openings need boarding to protect internal work then that cost is minimal. If we have a very bad winter site progress would be limited anyway. Scaffolding costs are also chicken feed in comparison to the size of loan, so let the scaffolders have their scaffolding
Do not be swayed by this person. Let Lendy negotiate an outcome and take a hit lettign it go to another buyer.
Apologies for any errors above. No doubt I will be corrected (and admonished).
|
|
|
|
Post by skint4achange on Nov 24, 2017 19:35:45 GMT
If you look back on here, page 49, Developer posted the same on here. He also appears to have a stooge called JimReaper who was trying to devalue the development in the mind of the investors.
I think if you read from page 49 on here, the feeling is that he can go and f*** h******. Fill in the blanks as required.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162 
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Nov 24, 2017 22:36:09 GMT
I would rather take a bigger loss letting this go to another buyer than see this apparently and allegedly* objectionable person clean up at our expense. ... Let Lendy negotiate an outcome and take a hit lettign it go to another buyer. I agree with the above statement even though my reasons (and logic) is different. If Lendy accepts the offer from the borrower, the latter uses up its own capital leaving nothing for Lendy to pursue as personal guarantees. If Lendy accepts a third party's offer, it can then have an opportunity to make up the shortfall against the borrower for the rest of the owed money. I really hope Lendy realise this.
|
|
|
|
Post by skint4achange on Nov 24, 2017 23:31:42 GMT
My personal thoughts are, if the platform (And investors) are going to get screwed, then we might as well go for it big time but just make sure that the developer loses everything he has in the process.
I know it is a case of cutting you nose off to spite your face, but if you do it this one time, developers think harder in the future if they see that you will pursue them into oblivion.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Nov 25, 2017 10:39:51 GMT
I think the highest offer will be accepted even if it is from a party who is, no doubt, connected to the borrower. In a nutshell Lendy or saving stream as it was then, was a start-up company that had just moved into property and development loans despite having no experience. The Des's and others of this world spied an opportunity to take advantage of their naivety. At the end of the day LY are on the hook for the full amount here including bonus interest as well and they will be having to dig deep into their pockets to make up the difference and therefore I would say they will have to swallow their pride and take the highest offer on the table even though it might mean they will have been done up like a kipper.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Nov 25, 2017 10:51:50 GMT
I think the highest offer will be accepted even if it is from a party who is, no doubt, connected to the borrower. In a nutshell Lendy or saving stream as it was then, was a start-up company that had just moved into property and development loans despite having no experience. The Des's and others of this world spied an opportunity to take advantage of their naivety. At the end of the day LY are on the hook for the full amount here including bonus interest as well and they will be having to dig deep into their pockets to make up the difference and therefore I would say they will have to swallow their pride and take the highest offer on the table even though it might mean they will have been done up like a kipper. You're absolutely right. There is no doubt whatsoever that a certain type of individual will see opportunity to enrich themselves by exploiting the inexperience, naivety, and arrogance of some peer to peer platforms with inexperienced and naïve lenders. We as lenders are being targeted by opportunist fraudsters, very smart and with no morals or scruples at all. I have now seen multiple examples of this and I'm sure many others have. We as lenders need to keep this very much in mind. Note, these are general comments and not aimed at any particular platform or borrower.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,054
Likes: 4,441
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 25, 2017 10:57:23 GMT
exploiting the inexperience, naivety, and arrogance of some peer to peer platforms So the moral of the story is don't invest with new start ups until they have established a reliable track record? (or alternatively invest with Unbolted where you can only loose £5 at a time).
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Nov 25, 2017 10:59:44 GMT
Although I understand the angst of people in wanting "revenge" on the borrower, if Lendy were to act in this way it would certainly not be in the interest of lenders and in fact they would almost certainly be culpable of negligence.
The mistakes were made in making the loan and the, lack of, proper supervision during the term. It would appear that Lendy have excercised no duty of care to the lenders at many stages and the borrower, either by accident or design, has taken advantage of it. By seeking to exploit it now it is what any rational person would do.
Lenders shouid direct their anger at Lendy for getting them in this mess, and not for the first time. They have morhed from a boat finance company to a property development financer in under five years with little evidence they have the experience or expertise.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Nov 25, 2017 11:05:44 GMT
Not that I wish for any investors to personally lose out, but I just want Lendy to live in the real world and actually declare a loss on something, rather than live in the farcical world where nearly a third of their loanbook is non-performing whilst simultaneously 'no investor has lost a penny'.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Nov 25, 2017 11:12:31 GMT
exploiting the inexperience, naivety, and arrogance of some peer to peer platforms So the moral of the story is don't invest with new start ups until they have established a reliable track record? (or alternatively invest with Unbolted where you can only loose £5 at a time). I think the moral of the story is to be extremely sceptical at all times. There are people out there who wish to rob us and platforms that are inept enough to let them. This we know. These platforms are on a steep learning curve using our money.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 25, 2017 18:41:42 GMT
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Nov 25, 2017 20:36:04 GMT
Although I understand the angst of people in wanting "revenge" on the borrower, if Lendy were to act in this way it would certainly not be in the interest of lenders and in fact they would almost certainly be culpable of negligence. The mistakes were made in making the loan and the, lack of, proper supervision during the term. It would appear that Lendy have excercised no duty of care to the lenders at many stages and the borrower, either by accident or design, has taken advantage of it. By seeking to exploit it now it is what any rational person would do. Lenders shouid direct their anger at Lendy for getting them in this mess, and not for the first time. They have morhed from a boat finance company to a property development financer in under five years with little evidence they have the experience or expertise. Simply quoting you for your wording - 'duty of care to lenders' - I've not been able to see whether this loan problem could have been avoided - it appears to me as if it's down to borrower personality and desires. not revealed earlier? Could L have intervened and seen this coming?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Nov 26, 2017 10:16:09 GMT
Although I understand the angst of people in wanting "revenge" on the borrower, if Lendy were to act in this way it would certainly not be in the interest of lenders and in fact they would almost certainly be culpable of negligence. The mistakes were made in making the loan and the, lack of, proper supervision during the term. It would appear that Lendy have excercised no duty of care to the lenders at many stages and the borrower, either by accident or design, has taken advantage of it. By seeking to exploit it now it is what any rational person would do. Lenders shouid direct their anger at Lendy for getting them in this mess, and not for the first time. They have morhed from a boat finance company to a property development financer in under five years with little evidence they have the experience or expertise. Simply quoting you for your wording - 'duty of care to lenders' - I've not been able to see whether this loan problem could have been avoided - it appears to me as if it's down to borrower personality and desires. not revealed earlier? Could L have intervened and seen this coming? There appear to be problems with the security and ransom strips, if so L should have discovered it at the outset and not made the loan. I say appear because I have not seen any evidence that support or refute this theory other than on various forums.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 26, 2017 13:57:04 GMT
We are covering old ground here - going back to posts here on 9 November and earlier. For example,
"If there is a ransom strip, then the only people at fault are Lendy for not identifying and dealing with the problem before the loan went live."
"If you look at the early valuation documents the issue of width of access and the need to take a strip of land from the adjoining house to enable the northern access route was flagged up by valuers. Plain as day in 2015 and maybe earlier. I suspect lendy didn't cover their backs in the rush to lend as much money as possible (growth, growth we must have growth)."
In respect of the Isle of Wight, it now appears there is no 'ransom' situation in respect of access to land (so I am told) but the problem is one of all of the land not being under the control of the borrower (and thereby Lendy) - seems it might be a matter of Land Registry charges not having been properly appreciated.
The common factor now is a lack of clear information from Lendy - maybe for good reasons as legal positioning takes place, maybe to try and avoid (or delay) criticism of their internal legal competence.
Another common factor may be substantial platform and/or investor losses that would never have occurred had key points of both loan applications been recognised at the outset, and the loans competently managed.
|
|
