rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Sept 16, 2020 15:05:22 GMT
Well I trust that this disgraceful disbursement situation is still being contested ?
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Sept 16, 2020 15:20:51 GMT
Missed out bottom line but got probs..secondary loan 7027205673 get nothing Meanwhile FS get £29K+ I had investments in both but bitter sweet as i had far more in primary So FS have taken 5% of the total receipts rather than 5% of the loan amount? Thieving gits! That's an extra £10.1k that could / should have been returned to lenders, so I'll say it again ... THIEVING GITS! (All in my opinion, of course.) And mine.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 16, 2020 16:01:38 GMT
hang on a minute - the barge failed to realise the loan amount so they took 10% of money realised in order to recover 5% of the loan amount This one returns more than the loan and they take 5% of the realised money - are they taking the urea or what?
£1200 for a nursery valuation - they are taking the urea!
So they want 5% of the loan as if the property realises less than the loan but they want more if it realises more than the loan! What about acting in the interests of the creditors? This looks very dodgy to me I think that morally at least (I am not a legal person) that this 10% should be after and not before costs
This is appalling - heads they win and tails we lose - hopefully this can be legally contested. Also they have had £108K in rent etc and done what for it - virtually nothing but they still take 5% of it.
As I see it all investors in this loan have been cheated - with the secondary holders totally shafted - disgusting.
I make this no 17 in my list of 100% losses - how the hell can you lose 100% in a secured property loan - even Diane Abbot would have done better!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 16, 2020 17:02:00 GMT
Was this property recovered via a sale which is the clear criteria for the deduction of the 5%? Not a refinance or a settlement but a sale ... it's pretty clear.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 16, 2020 17:39:18 GMT
it is the clear criterion (The word "criteria" is often treated as singular or even uncountable, but these uses are usually still considered incorrect, because the standard singular form is "criterion") - please feel free to post where this is clearly stated as I missed it, Never took 5% of the barge sale did they?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 16, 2020 18:16:04 GMT
it is the clear criterion (The word "criteria" is often treated as singular or even uncountable, but these uses are usually still considered incorrect, because the standard singular form is "criterion") - please feel free to post where this is clearly stated as I missed it, Ne ver took 5% of the barge sale did they? T&cs 6.2.4 An additional administration fee of 5% of the Loan value will be deducted from the net proceeds of sale of the Asset and paid to FundingSecure (after deduction of all selling expenses such as commissions). Thought they did take 5% of the barge loan. Note it is 5% of the loan value deducted from the net sale proceeds, so if the loan is £1000 and sells for net £50, they take the lot if if thats 100% of the sale proceeds. If the loan is £1000 and settles for £50 they get nothing as there are no sale proceeds
|
|
wishy
Posts: 33
Likes: 42
|
Post by wishy on Sept 16, 2020 20:11:57 GMT
Dear ilmoro, I know you understand this stuff better than me. Also, obviously, I don't want you to say anything that could in any way prejudice any upcoming legal proceedings. However, I (simple non-legal human) don't really understand why you seem to accept the reading of the T&Cs in a way that, I think, many lenders, like me, did not understand it at the time. I am sure that I discussed this with FS and was told that their fees would cover the (if it ever came to it) wind down process. Why are we so willing to let them decide that that expense is ours alone?
|
|
|
Post by tomujain on Sept 16, 2020 20:55:53 GMT
T&cs 6.2.4 An additional administration fee of 5% of the Loan value will be deducted from the net proceeds of sale of the Asset and paid to FundingSecure (after deduction of all selling expenses such as commissions). Thought they did take 5% of the barge loan. Note it is 5% of the loan value deducted from the net sale proceeds, so if the loan is £1000 and sells for net £50, they take the lot if if thats 100% of the sale proceeds. If the loan is £1000 and settles for £50 they get nothing as there are no sale proceeds So the Ts and Cs apply when they want them to apply - aka when it works in their favor; but when the Ts and Cs work in our favor they don't apply? Sounds legit. Least we not forget that Funding Secure is hardly innocent in all this drama I can think of at least 5 counts of KNOWN fraud on their behalf. I suspect when the dust settles and the admins have finished sucking this husk dry that a lot of lawsuits will be fired at these so called 'directors' I would like to know where this 'fee' is going, the directors of this pit of snakes we call 'funding secure' or does it go to the admins? In either case its clear what side of the fence the admins are on.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 17, 2020 7:47:54 GMT
thanks for the below:
to me this reads looks more like a 15 year old wrote it rather than a qualified solicitor - does it explicitly state what exactly are selling expenses in the smallprint? I can understand the above unlike most legal documents I come across!
So what have we got here - FS buying assets with our money and being guaranteed 5% of the loan value for all realised assets - are they having a laugh or what - I thought we were investing with them and paying for their "expertise" wheareas they seem to have been motivated to throw money at any crazy project knowing full well they would benefit if it went pear-shaped! If we take e.g. the speedboats at £1.1m then that is a £55K fee which I imagine is more than one is worth! If we take the Tower Block then if my figures are correct that is £2.585m x 5% = £129K so after massive legal expenses etc etc just how much are we going to get back? Personally I invested my money for the benefit of me and not FS.
There was me warning about FS being clueless about property development and now I wonder if having projects fail was part of their business plan i.e. shafting the investors - my failing for not considering this option not that I thought the FCA were there to protect us
FS have sold us what are worse than junk bonds - our money has gone to dodgy developers and to FS who have kindly sold us duds - I am not very happy about this!
"Thieving gits" is the only technical legal term I can come up with.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Sept 22, 2020 15:21:44 GMT
Was this property recovered via a sale which is the clear criteria for the deduction of the 5%? Not a refinance or a settlement but a sale ... it's pretty clear.
Adding this to the administrators seemingly choosing 5% of the loan or sale amount depending on whichever is larger, it seems to me they have gone full vulture mode and are now just taking the maximum amount from lenders they think they can possibly get away with.
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Sept 27, 2020 11:37:56 GMT
hang on a minute - the barge failed to realise the loan amount so they took 10% of money realised in order to recover 5% of the loan amount This one returns more than the loan and they take 5% of the realised money - are they taking the urea or what? £1200 for a nursery valuation - they are taking the urea! So they want 5% of the loan as if the property realises less than the loan but they want more if it realises more than the loan! What about acting in the interests of the creditors? This looks very dodgy to me I think that morally at least (I am not a legal person) that this 10% should be after and not before costs This is appalling - heads they win and tails we lose - hopefully this can be legally contested. Also they have had £108K in rent etc and done what for it - virtually nothing but they still take 5% of it. As I see it all investors in this loan have been cheated - with the secondary holders totally shafted - disgusting. I make this no 17 in my list of 100% losses - how the hell can you lose 100% in a secured property loan - even Diane Abbot would have done better! They did the same for Mi*** Use Prop*** Cov**** - Renewal (3934175822). Took the 5% on the entire Loan Amount + Deposit Forefeited earlier. So 5% of an extra 54.5K.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 27, 2020 12:55:49 GMT
As I understand it this fee is 5% of net proceeds of sale - I am not convinced a forefited deposit can be classed as such - is this clearly and explicitly defined in the T&Cs ? Somehow I doubt it but I am no lawyer.
Also I am concerned what will happen with the art sales if the new litigation owners get a recovery - I note we are told To me the above is very unclear - after reading the above I am very worried for 3 reasons (and yes I am a lot of these paintings)
1) we get shafted for a 5% fee of £2.3m (if this is the correct total) = £115K out of any recovery
2) the money paid to FS to aquire these rights is also subjected to this 5%
3) the litigants clock-up huge legal fees so there will be very little left over i.e. :
- the litigants benefit from their massive legal fees and only make a nominal profit on their investment - FS still get a fee despite in my book being criminally negligent - and yet again we end-up with c*ck all!
I really hope my fears are misplaced
|
|
morris
Member of DD Central
Posts: 261
Likes: 149
|
Post by morris on Sept 27, 2020 15:02:27 GMT
As I understand it this fee is 5% of net proceeds of sale - I am not convinced a forefited deposit can be classed as such - is this clearly and explicitly defined in the T&Cs ? Somehow I doubt it but I am no lawyer. Also I am concerned what will happen with the art sales if the new litigation owners get a recovery - I note we are told To me the above is very unclear - after reading the above I am very worried for 3 reasons (and yes I am a lot of these paintings) 1) we get shafted for a 5% fee of £2.3m (if this is the correct total) = £115K out of any recovery 2) the money paid to FS to aquire these rights is also subjected to this 5% 3) the litigants clock-up huge legal fees so there will be very little left over i.e. : - the litigants benefit from their massive legal fees and only make a nominal profit on their investment - FS still get a fee despite in my book being criminally negligent - and yet again we end-up with c*ck all! I really hope my fears are misplaced
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Sept 27, 2020 15:41:30 GMT
morrisDid you forget to add your comment ?
|
|