|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 17, 2017 10:37:16 GMT
And it no longer (if it ever did) shows on either of the two company websites linked to from the Lendy proposal page .. 'IOW .. Never heard of it!'. 8>.
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Nov 17, 2017 11:57:09 GMT
Hi All, I know I said I'd take a look at the site, but just haven't been able to get to that part of the Island in the normal course of business this month. Haven't heard anything on the local jungle drums either. I would have made a special trip to look around but there doesn't seem to be much of a point in doing so; in putting the land up for sale for 20% of the security value, Lendy has already crystallised the loss - unless they are sure of getting the balance back from the developer. Who is the loan actually to? Is it W****** group? Lots of holes in the information available on the loan site. In the absence of any information from Lendy - anyone got any insight on this? It would appear to me that L**** have been had over on this one and the developer has managed to get past their "Very stringent 49 step DD"!! IMHO
I really do feel for anyone who had a slice of this, but that is part of P2P and we all know it. Doesn't make it right though.
Thanks for the clarity on that, it does seem to be an individual not the group. I know what you are saying ref P2P and we all know the risks etc. However I invested on the basis of the information given and that information gave a named reputable developer as the borrower and even links to their websites to confirm this (I don't feel I can say what I want to say about this here!). There is the valuation too. I guess we all have to wait and see how this turns out - as you say there may well be perfectly good legal reasons for not disclosing too much at this stage. However the land is on the market at 20% of valuation so I'm not sure that argument holds for the change in valuation.
|
|
|
|
Post by skint4achange on Nov 17, 2017 12:20:41 GMT
I know what you are saying ref P2P and we all know the risks etc. However I invested on the basis of the information given and that information gave a named reputable developer as the borrower and even links to their websites to confirm this (I don't feel I can say what I want to say about this here!). There is the valuation too.
I know what you mean. There does seem to be a certain level of incompetence in the L**** office due to it taking 17 months to realise that the actual borrower was an individual rather than a group???  Surely when the legals were signed, they would have been signed by an individual rather than a group??? 
The valuation was created using "Assumptions". We all know what these are the mother of! 
My fear about this (And another white elephant in Exeter) is that if the platform were to fail, the only losers would be the investors, not L**** directors etc. They would simply start again somewhere else and just play their games with other people's money under a different name. The secondary servicer would not really be that bothered about getting the best for the investors (IMHO) and they would just sell everything off to clear the books as quickly as possible.
If L**** are to get back any confidence from investors, they really do need to increase their DD a little bit and not be so keen to get figures on the books. I will bet my a**e that the individual in question on the IOW now owns nothing (Not in his name anyway!)
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 17, 2017 12:48:25 GMT
It would appear to me that L**** have been had over on this one and the developer has managed to get past their "Very stringent 49 step DD"!! IMHO
I really do feel for anyone who had a slice of this, but that is part of P2P and we all know it. Doesn't make it right though.
I know what you are saying ref P2P and we all know the risks etc. However I invested on the basis of the information given and that information gave a named reputable developer as the borrower and even links to their websites to confirm this (I don't feel I can say what I want to say about this here!). There is the valuation too.
I guess we all have to wait and see how this turns out - as you say there may well be perfectly good legal reasons for not disclosing too much at this stage. However the land is on the market at 20% of valuation so I'm not sure that argument holds for the change in valuation. I do not attach much significance to this. It does not appear to be a serious attempt to sell at that price. IMO he is just putting down a marker to start the negotiation with Lendy. IMO we lenders would get the best deal by L accepting that he has them (and us) over a barrel and doing the best deal they can with him. They will not do this as they would no longer be able to claim that no lender has lost money, so they will prefer to kick the can down the road for as long as possible even if means that the eventual and inevitable outcome is a more severe haircut.
|
|
|
|
Post by skint4achange on Nov 17, 2017 13:11:19 GMT
Thanks for the clarity on that, it does seem to be an individual not the group.
I know what you are saying ref P2P and we all know the risks etc. However I invested on the basis of the information given and that information gave a named reputable developer as the borrower and even links to their websites to confirm this (I don't feel I can say what I want to say about this here!). There is the valuation too.
I guess we all have to wait and see how this turns out - as you say there may well be perfectly good legal reasons for not disclosing too much at this stage. However the land is on the market at 20% of valuation so I'm not sure that argument holds for the change in valuation. I do not attach much significance to this. It does not appear to be a serious attempt to sell at that price. IMO he is just putting down a marker to start the negotiation with Lendy. IMO we lenders would get the best deal by L accepting that he has them (and us) over a barrel and doing the best deal they can with him. They will not do this as they would no longer be able to claim that no lender has lost money, so they will prefer to kick the can down the road for as long as possible even if means that the eventual and inevitable outcome is a more severe haircut. If this is the price that has borrower has put the land on the market for and not L****, I would just ignore it. He may have marketed the property for that but as L**** has a first charge (Assuming they didn't get that wrong!!), he can't sell it without them agreeing it anyway AFAIK.
If he markets the land at such a low value and then declares that there has been no interest, it looks like the land is worthless and L**** will take a ridiculously low offer.
Time will tell, but I feel this will drag on for a very long time.
|
|
|
|
Post by wightknight on Nov 17, 2017 14:15:05 GMT
Well, I'm confused on this one. LPA receivers have been appointed and L have v said they are marketing the property to interested parties but the borrower is also pursuing a sale. L have said there are issues with the valuation.
So I don't know who is behind the marketing of the property at the 20% price, but it seems doubtful to me that it could be openly marketed at that price without the first charge consent.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 17, 2017 14:27:46 GMT
His £900K offer may be designed to frustrate L's or the LPA's attempts to find a buyer at a higher price. I very much doubt that he would ever agree to sell at that figure even supposing he legally could.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,331 
Likes: 11,550
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 17, 2017 14:28:30 GMT
Well, I'm confused on this one. LPA receivers have been appointed and L have v said they are marketing the property to interested parties but the borrower is also pursuing a sale. L have said there are issues with the valuation. So I don't know who is behind the marketing of the property at the 20% price, but it seems doubtful to me that it could be openly marketed at that price without the first charge consent. They can market it, they just cant actually sell it.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 17, 2017 16:31:40 GMT
My suspicion here is that the developer (Mr W*****) paid for the ransom strip (price not disclosed on Land Registry details) but didn't realise there was an access issue with the road too. In that case, the people laughing all the way to the bank are the locals and their mates who knew all about everything when this land was first sold by the college in Oxford. So I suspect it is not the developer who has pulled a fast one - just been incompetent not to check every detail of the small access road (which is the only access) to this large site. All supposition of course.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 22, 2017 23:11:07 GMT
"but as L**** has a first charge (Assuming they didn't get that wrong!!)" skint4achangeNow that is an interesting point. |
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 24, 2017 16:12:12 GMT
So, after further discussions with the third party, Lendy are intending to accept the original offer received to purchase the property. Which was? And from whom?
Lendy are now in the process of obtaining possession of the property, so it can be sold. In parallel, they are to pursue "alternative recovery routes" for the balance outstanding because the sale price seems likely to be woefully insufficient to cover the loan and interest.
So who loses out, and by how much?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 24, 2017 16:25:51 GMT
So, after further discussions with the third party, Lendy are intending to accept the original offer received to purchase the property. Which was? And from whom? Lendy are now in the process of obtaining possession of the property, so it can be sold. In parallel, they are to pursue "alternative recovery routes" for the balance outstanding because the sale price seems likely to be woefully insufficient to cover the loan and interest. So who loses out, and by how much? From the change of tone in the wording of recent updates, I get the feeling that we're about to see another new loan category created - a different form of "suspended" where the loan has defaulted, the asset has been disposed of but the capital wasn't fully recovered. This will potentially involve Lendy pursuing the borrower for the remaining balance over months/years via Personal Guarantees and Debentures (usually a futile exercise) and leaving investors in limbo rather than paying out immediately from the Provision fund as has been the case until now. Are the goalposts moving again? I feel that paying out from the provision fund will become a truly "last resort" scenario soon. Interesting times.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 24, 2017 18:34:25 GMT
So, after further discussions with the third party, Lendy are intending to accept the original offer received to purchase the property. Which was? And from whom? Lendy are now in the process of obtaining possession of the property, so it can be sold. In parallel, they are to pursue "alternative recovery routes" for the balance outstanding because the sale price seems likely to be woefully insufficient to cover the loan and interest. So who loses out, and by how much? From the change of tone in the wording of recent updates, I get the feeling that we're about to see another new loan category created - a different form of "suspended" where the loan has defaulted, the asset has been disposed of but the capital wasn't fully recovered. This will potentially involve Lendy pursuing the borrower for the remaining balance over months/years via Personal Guarantees and Debentures (usually a futile exercise) and leaving investors in limbo rather than paying out immediately from the Provision fund as has been the case until now. Are the goalposts moving again? I feel that paying out from the provision fund will become a truly "last resort" scenario soon. Interesting times. I agree that Lendy will kick the can down the road rather than admit that the loan has made a loss. I doubt that the PF has enough in it and they are desperate to hang onto their mantra that no lender has lost money. It will be interesting to see what they put on the annual interest statement that we use for our tax return, if there is a partial return of capital which is described as 'interim' and could theoretically be topped up from a successful legal action.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 31, 2018 7:57:46 GMT
Latest update: The sale of the property is progressing with solicitors for all parties now being instructed. An all parties meeting is taking place in order to iron out the final details of the deal. All parties remain confident that the deal can be completed before the end of January 2018.
Oh good, so should be today then.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Jan 31, 2018 23:23:55 GMT
Sold to the highest bidder - who is ?? For the princely sum of £ ? EDIT - I put a series of question marks and I get a smiley, without asking for one! |
|
Surely when the legals were signed, they would have been signed by an individual rather than a group??? 
