orvilorvil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 67
Likes: 60
|
Post by orvilorvil on May 13, 2018 11:50:18 GMT
It's abundantly clear through most of the DFL loans, there is very limited project monitoring from Lendy Towers. Even the 'latest photos' show snow on the ground... Which is probably why they updated their T&Cs to state that it’s not LY’s responsibility to monitor DFLs. May I ask, whose responsibility it is then? Seems like they’ve just left it to the borrowers. So when the borrower makes an application for a drawdown based on works completed who is the IMS employed by, surely engaged by the lender - i.e Lendy - or are they just giving the funds without actually checking the works have been completed, or even worse front end funding.... Are Lendy saying they aren't responsible for the progress of the development?
|
|
|
Post by loftankerman on May 13, 2018 14:54:47 GMT
Which is probably why they updated their T&Cs to state that it’s not LY’s responsibility to monitor DFLs. May I ask, whose responsibility it is then? Seems like they’ve just left it to the borrowers. So when the borrower makes an application for a drawdown based on works completed who is the IMS employed by, surely engaged by the lender - i.e Lendy - or are they just giving the funds without actually checking the works have been completed, or even worse front end funding.... Are Lendy saying they aren't responsible for the progress of the development? They appear to claim they have no responsibility for monitoring development or even checking that the funds supplied are used for the stated purpose that they were lent. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that latter clause was slipped in to facilitate the field of sheds. However it opens a can of worms, for all we know we could be funding crime or global terrorism. If borrowers are able to make money disappear with nothing to show for it, then serious questions need to be asked through the right channels, not shrugged off.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on May 13, 2018 15:23:20 GMT
Do you have someone in mind to ask "the serious questions through the right channels"? I am not sure there is anyone out there with the will and the resources. Small investors must either not invest and/or write off all or part of investments already made. Large investors might take legal advice and act accordingly. In the short term I don't think Lendy's behaviours will change.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on May 13, 2018 16:11:39 GMT
However it opens a can of worms, for all we know we could be funding crime or global terrorism. If borrowers are able to make money disappear with nothing to show for it, then serious questions need to be asked through the right channels, not shrugged off. This is not limited to Lendy, but applies to most, if not all, p2p platforms. I have been growing increasingly concerned that the level of due dilligence performed by p2p platforms on potential borrowers (and more importantly their close associates / connections who may be involved in the project's cashflows) are not sufficeintly in depth to trigger AML concerns that would need reporting (by the platform) to the National Crime Agency. The British Bankers Association published a report dated 2015 on the Effectiveness of the UK's AML Regime ( download pdf from here). Clearly this report predates the 2017 changes to AML legislation, but there are a few sobering details in just the first few pages: "In 2014, 82 per cent of the 354,186 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) submitted to the NCA were from banks."
"The NCA estimates that hundreds of billions of dollars are laundered through UK banks each year (despite the efforts of banks)."It would be interesting to know how many SAR's are submitted by p2p platfoms. There is at least one individual who whilst not a p2p borrower himself is involved to varying extents with multiple projects for multiple p2p borrowers using multiple p2p platforms who has been charged (but NOT convicted) of money laundering offences. (Along with co-defendents he was charged with conspiracy to cheat, conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to launder money, and false accounting. The defendents successfully pleaded that there was no case to answer. This was allegedly a SIPP tax fraud, involving debt based instruments.) For the avoidance of doubt, there is no evidence the Wolverhampton borrower is connected to this individual. Does any of this matter ? Irrespective of our own moral / ethical views on this, the bottom line is that borrowers operating on the edge of the law will struggle to refinance through mainstream finance providers, either because the finance provider is concerned they may be missing a horrible detail, or because the borrower is reluctant to cast a spotlight on himself or his associates from more vigilent finance providers.
|
|
|
Post by loftankerman on May 13, 2018 16:15:52 GMT
Do you have someone in mind to ask "the serious questions through the right channels"? I am not sure there is anyone out there with the will and the resources. Small investors must either not invest and/or write off all or part of investments already made. Large investors might take legal advice and act accordingly. In the short term I don't think Lendy's behaviours will change. Just to clarify.. You don't think there is anyone out there with the will and resources to look into published processes which have the potential for providing a useful means of funding for terrorism?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on May 13, 2018 19:14:29 GMT
Evidence would be needed that such is likely to be occurring with laws being broken. The police or intelligence services would presumably have an interest. Can't see it helping investors get their money back though.
|
|
|
Post by loftankerman on May 13, 2018 19:46:50 GMT
Evidence would be needed that such is likely to be occurring with laws being broken. The police or intelligence services would presumably have an interest. Can't see it helping investors get their money back though. I don't think evidence is needed to demonstrate laws being broken as such. Demonstrating that a mechanism exists for Con Man A to magic away funds to provide a fine lifestyle, must equally demonstrate that should he have wished he could have diverted it to other activities. As a resident of Manchester, where we have been a successful terrorist target more than once, I'd be happier thinking that something was being done to prevent terrorism, rather than getting someone's money back. No one could have missed being told their capital might be at risk. It might have been better understood if they had been told 'Idiots will probably give your money to con men.' Nonetheless I think it most likely that Lendy getting serious words from the security services might buck their ideas up a bit more than irate comments here.
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on May 17, 2018 11:27:35 GMT
I think it's nailed on that we'll have to wait for the next episode of fortnightly BS, and then only to be told its 'adverse', but for commerical reasons the number won't be disclosed. Thus strengthening Lendy's hand against the dissenters. It's clear they want to wash their hands of it quick, even if it means sending investors into a loss.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on May 17, 2018 12:03:31 GMT
Presumably the valuation is adverse, otherwise they would have told us already.
I also want to know what is happening to the income from the completed bits of the property? Hopefully that is still going to Lendy.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on May 17, 2018 12:24:02 GMT
The valuation must have come back by now. So lets hear it... What's it worth? before we know what it is really worth we need to be sure the borrower hasn't got any tricks up his sleeve like some ransom strip owned by his mother or some other cunning plan - sadly I find it hard to believe they wont
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on May 19, 2018 6:51:47 GMT
No update then. A £14 million loan gone bad and no update for the week. Not even news of thumb twiddling...
Days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years...
The life of a Lendy investor.
Still they're committing plenty of time and resources to TP so there's still life there and they're not dead yet!
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on May 19, 2018 12:26:11 GMT
14 million loan gone bad yet they had full expectation of payment right up to the last minute. Or said they did. Either way it would seem we were lied to or this 14 million loan was not properly monitored.
I would now guess that the borrower has offered to repay about half of the GDV.
I don't bother posting here much any more as it seems truly helpful posters have been banned by over enthusiastic moderating and to be honest, I'm just having a whinge anyway. This loan is truly the last straw for me. See, whinging.
I would love to head for the door if I knew where it was, so I'll just have to wait and see what my fate is. One consolation is that it would need a true disaster for me to not come out ahead after being here since the boaty days, but I feel my luck is running out.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 19, 2018 14:48:04 GMT
That's a nice theory, but with a development loan you are almost always, at some point in time, lending more than the half (if you are lucky half .. in some cases like FS Whitehaven more like 0%) finished project is actually worth. 'secured on property' P2P seems to be turning into a lot of opportunities to lend developers too much money against projects which will cost more to complete and then will be worth less than the initial wildly enthusiastic forecasts. T'aint a surprise .. just watch a couple of episodes of 'Grand Designs' .. architect is given 'build me a £400k house' brief, quotes from builders come in at £550k, snags arise, and the final cost is £750k. But never mind, you do get a £500k house for that.
|
|
|
Post by Whitbourne on May 19, 2018 14:50:59 GMT
Is the borrower really a del boy? We don't know. Let's assume it's been valued at £15m. The new lender will only lend up to 70% so the only offer the borrower can put forward to repay is £10.5m. They can't raise any more funds. IF this is the situation, I'd rather take the £10.5m funded by the new lender and let the remaining balance be a second charge. This stops borrowers from walking away with our money, stops the lengthy enforcement process and overall will give better recovery than quick fire selling at auction. The morale of the story to lendy is DONT LENDY MORE THAN THE ASSET IS WORTH! I agree, we don't know. There are several reasons why the borrower might be acting perfectly reasonably. Here are three (I am not saying they apply, just that they are plausible explanations):
1. The agreed development tranches were not supplied in time by Lendy (because investors were p*ssed off) and so the work fell behind 2. Lendy imposed additional charges and penalties that the borrower was unable to repay, because they did not reflect an increase in value of the site
3. The loan terms required all sale proceeds to be repaid to Lendy, instead of being recycled into the scheme, therefore stalling future work
It is also possible that the developer was incompetent or unlucky - who knows? But it would be wrong to assume this without evidence.
As for the suggestion "take the £10.5m funded by the new lender and let the remaining balance be a second charge" I think that is an excellent idea from Jeepers and the most likely way we will get at least some of our money back.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,221
Likes: 11,417
|
Post by ilmoro on May 19, 2018 16:36:19 GMT
One issue with 1st/2nd charge is where are the funds coming from to complete as it clearly isn't based on the photos provided
|
|