|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 7, 2016 19:24:24 GMT
loanstar: understood and agreed. My comment was directed at anyone posting reply to your 'request'.
|
|
|
|
Post by loanstar on Jun 7, 2016 19:27:11 GMT
Unless I am mistaken there is nothing to post about.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jun 7, 2016 20:16:58 GMT
I think the update on the website states 10th not 9th of March, but the point above is still valid... No meeting on that date!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2016 20:45:25 GMT
The planning authority for this area is the South Downs National Park Authority. While they delegate most planning matters to the local authorities, including Chichester District Council, they called in this application which can be found on their planning portal. There was just one application relating to the garden centre itself, and it was withdrawn. The only mention of potential residential development is buried in the sewage plant specification. The applicants denied any intented residential development as "rumour" and "Chinese whispers". It is interesting to compare the dates and details of the application against the updates given on this forum on the PBL20 summary page. Although there was a SDNPA planning committee meeting on 10/3/16, this application was not on its agenda.
The garden centre was trading healthily under the previous owners who sold to the present owners in order to retire.
Hope this information is helpful to someone.
49.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 7, 2016 20:45:38 GMT
I do not have an investment in this loan, but I do have a 5 figure sum deployed on this platform. Having no interest in this loan I have never conducted any DD. My background is town planning, so that is the area I had a little look to see if I could bring any comfort or information to this debate. (My vote would be certainly less than the full amount). The site in question comes under the area looked after by Chichester Distrcit Council. They have a standard web site dealing with planning. publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=ApplicationIt would appear we are dealing with three interconected properties. A simple postcode search returns a number of application, the latest for the garden centre being a 2009 application. I note that in the recent update there is talk of a planning meeting being held on the 9th March this year. Looking at the dates on chichester.moderngov.co.uk/mgCalendarMonthView.aspx?XXR=0&M=3&DD=2016&ACT=Go there was no meeting. If someone can give details of the planning application I would be interested, as it could effect the value of the asset. I notice on the garden centre web site there is information about who the Joint Administrators are. I trust the above is useful. The most recent withdrawn application is on the South Downs portal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2016 17:44:19 GMT
Previous entries on this thread have established that the house and agricultural land could be separated from the garden centre. However, the garden centre and its car park take up the entire road frontage. A track between them leads to the house behind the garden centre buildings, with the agricultural land behind that. The house and agricultural land are effectively landlocked unless access can be gained across a neighbour's land, or by splitting the garden centre from its car park, unless a separate gateway is created onto a disused and overgrown lane, which was part of the main road before it was straightened in the 1970s. The withdrawn planning application included creating just such a gateway as egress for the new, larger car park. This could , if granted, have opened up options for the house, and especially for the development of the agricultural land.
A little surfing on the Companies House website suggests that, the day before the administration was announced, the three directors set up a new limited company using a name similar to the garden centre business. The very next day they all resigned as directors and were replaced by the wives of two directors. Within a few days, the two wives also set up a further retail company based on the family surname.
All of this supports Cooling Dude's suggestion that the directors, having failed to obtain planning permission on their specific terms, have lost interest in the site. However, the LinkedIn profile of at least one director indicates a link to a distressed property acquisition group. The cynic in me asks whether the directors could allow one business in the group to fail in order that another business in the group might acquire the agricultural part of the site at a favourable price, for the residential development that could well have been the main objective from the start.
49.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 8, 2016 18:47:24 GMT
A little surfing on the Companies House website suggests that, the day before the administration was announced, the three directors set up a new limited company using a name similar to the garden centre business. The very next day they all resigned as directors and were replaced by the wives of two directors. Within a few days, the two wives also set up a further retail company based on the family surname. One potential "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy that might be adopted is an inflated valuation to get an excessive secured advance above the value of a property then buying back at the actual value if the planning application fails. If payments to owners have soaked up the difference between valuation and price the money can have been extracted already and the limited company can be wound up without immediate personal liability. Then the successor company can buy again at or below the original purchase price from the receiver, with below value potentially useful to extract more money from the deal. Not that this happened here, it's just one of the risks that diligence can mitigate. In this specific situation the valuation appearing to be well above purchase price, whether planning consent state was accurately described and any undisclosed ownership interests are the sort of thing that I'd consider particularly significant in determining whether a SAR is required and which parties must be reported, with Lendy themselves being one candidate, as well as the ultimate borrowers and borrowing firm. Lendy might simply have been duped by inadequately checked valuations and planning permission claims, for example, but that would not remove a SAR obligation. Or not duped and genuine misunderstanding, oversight or whatever else - while there appear to be some interesting facts, the facts don't say why or give more detail about what happened, so an open mind is essential. Nobody who files a SAR can be expected to comment much because there's a criminal offence of tipping off if one or more of the parties reported becomes aware of it.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jun 8, 2016 19:40:35 GMT
Sorry james but could you expand on 'sar' ? |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 8, 2016 19:56:56 GMT
Sorry james but could you expand on 'sar' ? I'd assume SAR = Suspicious Activity Report , a concept of the Money Laundering Regulations
Personally I think more relevant would be the Administrators duty to report on the conduct of directors if they had any misgiving about prior events.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jun 8, 2016 20:16:30 GMT
Sorry james but could you expand on 'sar' ? The link expands a bit on it, mrclonodon is right. Agree with the administrator/receiver bit as well but sometimes they can have been involved in the original transaction so it might be difficult. It's a difficult area to discuss as well. It looks as though there are issues somewhere but where and why are the tough parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 8, 2016 20:47:26 GMT
Sorry james but could you expand on 'sar' ? I'd assume SAR = Suspicious Activity Report , a concept of the Money Laundering Regulations
Personally I think more relevant would be the Administrators duty to report on the conduct of directors if they had any misgiving about prior events.
The Administrators duty to report is under the Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) AND will happen in any event but is unlikely to detail any activity related above unless there is clear evidence of fraud which they would report to the police as well. As it's name suggests the CDDA main sanction is to disqualify directors and as those in the debtor company are not directors of newco it will not affect them much.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 8, 2016 23:17:49 GMT
This is starting to get stale. All you headless chickens and conspiracy theorists... the exit is THAT way -> And all you blind apostles <------ its that way
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jun 9, 2016 9:46:01 GMT
If they were simply theories, wild or otherwise, it wouldn't be a problem, they are actually facts that are in the public domain. All of the items below are very easily verifiable facts in the public domain The freehold property was purchased for £1.475m The loan was for £1.7million "Lendy Finance Limited" (a company not registered in the UK) owns 10% of the borrower (or did at 16 August 2015) The Lendy "Bridging Loan Particulars" state a) the value is £2.43million and b)the loan represents 70% LTV The same particulars state that the site has "full planning permission for extensive redevelopment" 6 months interest was deducted from the loan (making the nett loan ££1.547million) Theories can and have been extrapolated from those facts, savingstream could comment on them but if it has exercised its mind on the subject and taken leggal advice has probably been told not to. They are not answerable to this forum but might be to the FCA if those facts are presented to them. While listing facts, I also would add the description of the borrower in the Particulars as "he". I see nothing in the Particulars that suggests that the borrower is a limited company. People are sloppy about distinguishing between companies in sole ownership and their owners. (I'd prefer that they weren't - it's not that it's a great trouble to write "the owner of the borrowing company" rather than "the borrower"). One should check out the details rather than rely on the spiel.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 9, 2016 10:56:19 GMT
While listing facts, I also would add the description of the borrower in the Particulars as "he". I see nothing in the Particulars that suggests that the borrower is a limited company. People are sloppy about distinguishing between companies in sole ownership and their owners. (I'd prefer that they weren't - it's not that it's a great trouble to write "the owner of the borrowing company" rather than "the borrower"). One should check out the details rather than rely on the spiel. : It's fine to suggest that potential investors should check the details, but how could we have done that in this particular case? A related point is that investors should be able to rely on the platform to provide accurate info. And if a platform makes a mistake, or misleads, they need to be prepared to accept responsibility for any resulting losses. If they have potential liability for their actions then I'd expect them to be more careful than if they didn't. And I don't expect that the regulators would look kindly on businesses that are sloppy. But maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jun 9, 2016 11:01:46 GMT
People are sloppy about distinguishing between companies in sole ownership and their owners. (I'd prefer that they weren't - it's not that it's a great trouble to write "the owner of the borrowing company" rather than "the borrower"). One should check out the details rather than rely on the spiel. : It's fine to suggest that potential investors should check the details, but how could we have done that in this particular case? With regards to the status/identity of the borrower, you use the Q&A tab, or you email SS. (I made the other, and conservative, assumption that the borrower was using a incorporated limited liability vehicle.)
|
|
