sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550 
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Nov 16, 2019 14:37:43 GMT
A re-payment of 55.2%. Loan overdue by 888 days and no interest paid. Original value £3m with the Lendy loan of £2,100,000. Loan now apparently £940,810.
Borrower moves his company address 3 times (see valuation report and commissioning letter, compared with the Canterbury container office in a garden and now the new address, which appears to be an office facility in Poole on an industrial estate).
This loan was re financed on 05.09.2019. RSM have failed to inform investors how much was paid, the revised value placed on this site or who obtained the refinance. They should disclose how the refinance was obtained and clarify if it was by the original borrower or any of his associates or other companies [or by LB or some of his friends].
They should also account for the interest that would have been paid to there holding account between 05.09.2019 and 15.11.2019. Where has that gone?
We do know that the suspect borrowers took over £3m of our cash and did nothing to develop this site. So where has all our cash gone? It should all still be in a bank account as it has not been spent on this project.
RSM should tell us what is being done to trace the money, what account of the cash has been provided by the borrower and / or his business partners and if the Police have been informed of the very real possibility of a potential fraud that may have been committed on investors.
The valuation is still on the Lendy site and was done by Matt**** & Goo***n dated 25.05.2016. They carry £20m Professional Indemnity insurance for "each and every claim" see page 26/44 of the original valuation of £3million and vastly more if the development was completed.
RSM should tell us who now owns the site, who re financed the site, what is the reason for the proposed further recovery in 48 months and if they are taking action against the original Valuers.
Full disclosure is required to avert the obvious implications that this borrower (and / or his business partners) has managed to skim a vast sum of cash from this original loan for some other purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhea117 on Nov 16, 2019 16:43:43 GMT
A re-payment of 55.2%. Loan overdue by 888 days and no interest paid. Original value £3m with the Lendy loan of £2,100,000. Loan now apparently £940,810. Borrower moves his company address 3 times (see valuation report and commissioning letter, compared with the Canterbury container office in a garden and now the new address, which appears to be an office facility in Poole on an industrial estate). This loan was re financed on 05.09.2019. RSM have failed to inform investors how much was paid, the revised value placed on this site or who obtained the refinance. They should disclose how the refinance was obtained and clarify if it was by the original borrower or any of his associates or other companies [or by LB or some of his friends]. They should also account for the interest that would have been paid to there holding account between 05.09.2019 and 15.11.2019. Where has that gone? We do know that the suspect borrowers took over £3m of our cash and did nothing to develop this site. So where has all our cash gone? It should all still be in a bank account as it has not been spent on this project. RSM should tell us what is being done to trace the money, what account of the cash has been provided by the borrower and / or his business partners and if the Police have been informed of the very real possibility of a potential fraud that may have been committed on investors. The valuation is still on the Lendy site and was done by Matt**** & Goo***n dated 25.05.2016. They carry £20m Professional Indemnity insurance for "each and every claim" see page 26/44 of the original valuation of £3million and vastly more if the development was completed. RSM should tell us who now owns the site, who re financed the site, what is the reason for the proposed further recovery in 48 months and if they are taking action against the original Valuers. Full disclosure is required to avert the obvious implications that this borrower (and / or his business partners) has managed to skim a vast sum of cash from this original loan for some other purpose. Excellent points. All suspicious loans and borrowers should be hounded by RSM, lawyers and the police, if needed, for decades until we get our money back.
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Nov 16, 2019 17:22:18 GMT
A re-payment of 55.2%. Loan overdue by 888 days and no interest paid. Original value £3m with the Lendy loan of £2,100,000. Loan now apparently £940,810. Borrower moves his company address 3 times (see valuation report and commissioning letter, compared with the Canterbury container office in a garden and now the new address, which appears to be an office facility in Poole on an industrial estate). This loan was re financed on 05.09.2019. RSM have failed to inform investors how much was paid, the revised value placed on this site or who obtained the refinance. They should disclose how the refinance was obtained and clarify if it was by the original borrower or any of his associates or other companies [or by LB or some of his friends]. They should also account for the interest that would have been paid to there holding account between 05.09.2019 and 15.11.2019. Where has that gone? We do know that the suspect borrowers took over £3m of our cash and did nothing to develop this site. So where has all our cash gone? It should all still be in a bank account as it has not been spent on this project. RSM should tell us what is being done to trace the money, what account of the cash has been provided by the borrower and / or his business partners and if the Police have been informed of the very real possibility of a potential fraud that may have been committed on investors. The valuation is still on the Lendy site and was done by Matt**** & Goo***n dated 25.05.2016. They carry £20m Professional Indemnity insurance for "each and every claim" see page 26/44 of the original valuation of £3million and vastly more if the development was completed. RSM should tell us who now owns the site, who re financed the site, what is the reason for the proposed further recovery in 48 months and if they are taking action against the original Valuers. Full disclosure is required to avert the obvious implications that this borrower (and / or his business partners) has managed to skim a vast sum of cash from this original loan for some other purpose. Too true this and all the other sites effectively belong to us until they are repaid! "In the first instance lenders are beneficial owners of security held in trust (the Trust Assets) and the Administration of Lendy and SSSH does not change that. Being a lender does not automatically make you a creditor.*" Before anything is sold we should have a vote as to whether or not we accept the deal! Or at least the CC should have a say on our behalve. Are property / land values going to increase once Brexit is sorted?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 16, 2019 17:22:25 GMT
A re-payment of 55.2%. Loan overdue by 888 days and no interest paid. Original value £3m with the Lendy loan of £2,100,000. Loan now apparently £940,810. Borrower moves his company address 3 times (see valuation report and commissioning letter, compared with the Canterbury container office in a garden and now the new address, which appears to be an office facility in Poole on an industrial estate). This loan was re financed on 05.09.2019. RSM have failed to inform investors how much was paid, the revised value placed on this site or who obtained the refinance. They should disclose how the refinance was obtained and clarify if it was by the original borrower or any of his associates or other companies [or by LB or some of his friends]. They should also account for the interest that would have been paid to there holding account between 05.09.2019 and 15.11.2019. Where has that gone? We do know that the suspect borrowers took over £3m of our cash and did nothing to develop this site. So where has all our cash gone? It should all still be in a bank account as it has not been spent on this project. RSM should tell us what is being done to trace the money, what account of the cash has been provided by the borrower and / or his business partners and if the Police have been informed of the very real possibility of a potential fraud that may have been committed on investors. The valuation is still on the Lendy site and was done by Matt**** & Goo***n dated 25.05.2016. They carry £20m Professional Indemnity insurance for "each and every claim" see page 26/44 of the original valuation of £3million and vastly more if the development was completed. RSM should tell us who now owns the site, who re financed the site, what is the reason for the proposed further recovery in 48 months and if they are taking action against the original Valuers. Full disclosure is required to avert the obvious implications that this borrower (and / or his business partners) has managed to skim a vast sum of cash from this original loan for some other purpose. Calm down, you'll do yourself a mischief! It's all situation normal so far for a badly overdue loan... Yes, 55% has been repaid - the security has been refinanced elsewhere, and the money that's released is what's been paid to Ly-in-Admin. Normal waterfall applies. Next step is always then pursuing the shortfall. Personal guarantees from the borrower, PI against the valuer. Once 100% capital is repaid, then the borrower still owes the overdue interest. If that can be claimed, then it'll be paid. The borrower is not off the hook until full repayment of capital plus interest... assuming it can be repaid. If not, then there may be an agreement to close the account for a reduced amount. If not, then insolvency or bankruptcy. Too true this and all the other sites effectively belong to us until they are repaid! No, it doesn't. It could have done, if Ly-in-Admin had chosen to enforce the security. Then Ly-i-A would have owned a useless patch of land, with all the costs and hassles associated. Whoop-de-blinkin'-doo. Effectively, they've enforced the security AND found a buyer, all in one. Except that has only released 55% of the capital owed. If they thought it could have raised more, they'd have enforced it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 16, 2019 17:25:13 GMT
There's nothing else to pursue. The borrower refinanced this loan at an acceptable level for RSM so there will be no further avenues of recovery. Perhaps. We've not seen the paperwork, of course. Perhaps there's still PI.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Nov 16, 2019 17:25:34 GMT
There's nothing else to pursue. The borrower refinanced this loan at an acceptable level for RSM so there will be no further avenues of recovery. Perhaps. We've not seen the paperwork, of course. Perhaps there's still PI. I have. There isn't. No issues with the valuation.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 16, 2019 17:27:11 GMT
Perhaps. We've not seen the paperwork, of course. Perhaps there's still PI. I have. There isn't. Furry muff. I still think 55% is better than we were expecting to be looking at, btw...
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Nov 16, 2019 19:55:51 GMT
Hi adrianc.
When you state "Calm down, you'll do yourself a mischief" can we assume that you are in favour of simply giving up and permitting this disreputable Borrower to simply get away with ripping us all off?
From the very helpful post by Monetus above (in reply to yours) we find out " There's nothing else to pursue. The borrower refinanced this loan at an acceptable level for RSM so there will be no further avenues of recovery"
From that bit of information (and he tells you / us he has seen the paperwork) it looks as if you have got the recovery situation for this loan completely wrong.
This highly manipulative Borrower has been allowed to retained the site with RSM approval, has had a good laugh at us all over 888 days default, Lendy probably now get their fees for pushing this loan to us, whilst investors only get back 55.2%.
I am surprised that you of all people appear to have accepted defeat so soon.
Good luck with all your other investments, SXLR
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 16, 2019 20:33:05 GMT
Perhaps. We've not seen the paperwork, of course. Perhaps there's still PI. I have. There isn't. No issues with the valuation. Has the borrower paid full principal amount and due interest?
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Nov 16, 2019 20:38:25 GMT
Seems we are screwed then.. better get used to it.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,049
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 16, 2019 21:36:08 GMT
Hi adrianc. When you state "Calm down, you'll do yourself a mischief" can we assume that you are in favour of simply giving up and permitting this disreputable Borrower to simply get away with ripping us all off? From the very helpful post by Monetus above (in reply to yours) we find out " There's nothing else to pursue. The borrower refinanced this loan at an acceptable level for RSM so there will be no further avenues of recovery" From that bit of information (and he tells you / us he has seen the paperwork) it looks as if you have got the recovery situation for this loan completely wrong.
This highly manipulative Borrower has been allowed to retained the site with RSM approval, has had a good laugh at us all over 888 days default, Lendy probably now get their fees for pushing this loan to us, whilst investors only get back 55.2%. I am surprised that you of all people appear to have accepted defeat so soon. Good luck with all your other investments, SXLR The borrower was allowed to retain the site because he submitted the best offer. That may stick in the craw of some, but it is the way the process works.
There are many here that would happily take a bigger loss if it meant shafting the borrower, but that isn't the way administration works.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 16, 2019 22:34:29 GMT
No issues with the valuation. I'd say that a valuation that claims a value more than 3 times what the property actually managed to achieve has plenty of issues with it (not necessarily ones that are the actual valuers responsibility of course).
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 16, 2019 23:25:54 GMT
I don’t understand how a regulated company (or any company for that matter) can make up rules willy nilly that introduces a clear conflict of interest. The longer the loans stay in default the more lenders lose and the more the platform gains. What type of company would do that? And what type of regulator would say sure that’s fine nothing to see here. We must fight this, thanks so much to the CC member who are not taking this laying down. From a FCA doc "Under current rules27 a P2P platform must take all appropriate steps to identify and to prevent or manage: a. conflicts of interest between itself (or any person directly or indirectly linked to it by
control) and a client of the platform
b. conflicts of interest between one client of the platform and another client 5.39 These steps should recognise that, in reality, most platforms do more than simply facilitate loans. In particular, platforms should not engage in practices that create a financial incentive for them to facilitate loans in a way that favours the platform or a certain cohort of investors/borrowers and is not transparent to all investors. Such incentives can arise where there are: • opaque fee arrangements between borrowers and the platform
• group structures that generate additional and invisible layers of earnings for the platform itself. For example, a company within the same group as a platform prefunds loans and sells them to the platform via novation, but the group company retains a stake in each loan and the price of the loan is set at a higher rate of interest than that received by retail investors" I don't think Lendy/Administrators manage conflicts of interest properly. I don't know who enforces the FCA rules. It could be the case that you need first complain to Lendy, if it is not resolved to FCA then if not happy with the FCA decision you can go to a court.
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Nov 16, 2019 23:37:31 GMT
I'd say that a valuation that claims a value more than 3 times what the property actually managed to achieve has plenty of issues with it (not necessarily ones that are the actual valuers responsibility of course).
No issues with the valuation. Can you explain what happened? a) The borrower has paid all he should. The issue is that Lendy/Administrators deducted their costs and fee. b) Borrower paid less than he should. Administrators agreed because that was the best option. There was no real chance to sell the security at higher price after seizing it from the borrower. Why do you claim then that the valuation was correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 17, 2019 0:08:13 GMT
The valuation was a residual value valuation and has nothing at all to do with what the site would achieve as a distressed sale. In fact this was one of the better valuation reports of its type as it included a detailed sensitivity analysis on the residual calculation (page 15 of the pdf), and concluded that a range of £565k to £5.5m was possible with a 20% variance on the input data.
It is regretable that retail lenders who could not be expected to necessarily appreciate that a distressed sale would almost never realise the value dervived from a residual value valuation have been exposed to loans such as this (which make up a high % of self select p2p loans). It was and is, simply a gamble on the development being built before the loan defaulted. Those that "invested" in this loan lost the gamble. Yes, its unfortunate, but its a lesson being learnt the hard way.
There are VERY few instances where a residual value valuation could be challenged.
|
|
