hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Oct 25, 2017 20:30:42 GMT
Shh the baby just went to sleep and it’ll wake up screaming now!
|
|
fogey
Posts: 171
Likes: 104
|
Post by fogey on Oct 25, 2017 22:18:02 GMT
There is a strange feeling of deja vu here. I hope we are not going to be subjected to yet another panic attack, it certainly looks as if the baby is now awake and responding just as it did before ... Of course it is now even more susceptible to bad noises that keep it from sleeping ... just as you might expect ...
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 14, 2017 14:36:04 GMT
I have just removed several posts from public view that attached the title documents relating to the secured assets of this loan.
These posts were in breach of forum rules with regard to identifying the asset and the borrower, and by providing the whole document instead of extracts the poster was possibly in breach of land registry copyright.*
Discussion of the content of title documents is perfectly possible on the public forum without attaching the documents themselves, or identifying the borrower / asset in such discussion.
* Its perhaps worth noting that title documents include the exact timestamp when they were generated. Land Registry will be able to link that time stamp back to the person who paid for those title documents via credit/debit card records.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Nov 14, 2017 16:51:20 GMT
…providing the whole document instead of extracts the poster was possibly in breach of land registry copyright.*… * Its perhaps worth noting that title documents include the exact timestamp when they were generated. Land Registry will be able to link that time stamp back to the person who paid for those title documents via credit/debit card records. How does this square with sharing LR documents in DDC mrclondon ?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 14, 2017 17:04:55 GMT
…providing the whole document instead of extracts the poster was possibly in breach of land registry copyright.*… * Its perhaps worth noting that title documents include the exact timestamp when they were generated. Land Registry will be able to link that time stamp back to the person who paid for those title documents via credit/debit card records. How does this square with sharing LR documents in DDC mrclondon ? [mod hat off] My personal views only.A very good question guff . At present I personally am only comfortable with sharing limited extracts from title documents that I have purchased, without an in depth study of the copyright position. (As indeed I have done on a couple of the DDC posts I've made). I have very occaisonaly shared title documents with other lenders but have always redacted the timestamps (normally 2 per document in text plus the file creation timestamp) to remove the link back to myself. Forum staff have made it clear that posters accept full responsibility for what they post, both on the public boards and on DD Central. It is upto each poster to decide what they are comfortable defending legally. That said, however gung-ho the poster is, may be attaching title documents in DD Central without first redacting / removing the time stamps is taking a risk that is simply not necessary, but please be aware that the mere act of redacting such information could be interpreted negatively by the courts if you were prosecuted for breach of copyright, and could increase the fine incurred. Attaching land registry titles to forum posts is a risk I'm not prepared to take personally. For reference this is forum rule 9 For clarity, the posts have been removed from view completely, they have not been moved to DD Central.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 14, 2017 17:55:58 GMT
Another post has been removed from public view as a breach of forum rules. Quoting the land registry tiitle numbers, as the poster has just done, is identifying the secured asset.
If there is any information in those title documents that should be brought to the attention of lenders, please describe the information without mentioning the title numbers, the address / location of the asset, the name of the borrower, any previous owner, any co-financier, etc or the directors/main shareholders thereof.
Alternatively please feel free to seek and obtain the written permission of every individual and corporate entity mentioned in the title documents, along with that of the Land Registry itself for the publication of the title documents into the public domain.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 743
Likes: 733
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 14, 2017 19:10:35 GMT
At present I personally am only comfortable with sharing limited extracts from title documents This takes me back over thirty years when I had managerial responsibility for a library and technical information service. You can copy and make available for research purposes extracts from a copyrighted work (but not the whole work) under the Fair Dealing exemption under the then Copyright Act. We could copy a few pages from a book or a whole article from a scientific journal but not the whole journal. In theory, we were supposed to get a signed declaration that the copy was to be used only for research purposes, but I'm not *entirely* sure my staff rigorously enforced this; when requesting material from the British Library up in Boston Spa, such a declaration was mandatory: they would only copy one article at a time, so if it were a special issue and we wanted all the articles from that issue, it was submit multiple requests at £5/request! I understand that Google have scanned large numbers of books from cover to cover to make the text available for searching but when I last checked it was only possible to access a few pages at a time. So I'm completely in agreement with the policy of deleting copyright material, except where it is a quotation or small extract from the whole and that it is clear that it is only for research purposes. However, there is a convention that such a Fair Dealing extract should carry the attribution to the source and its author - if you're going to ban the publication of an identifiable Land Registry Title Number, there's a problem. This is where I'd be tempted to employ the Nelsonian blind eye.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 14, 2017 19:28:01 GMT
So I'm completely in agreement with the policy of deleting copyright material, except where it is a quotation or small extract from the whole and that it is clear that it is only for research purposes. However, there is a convention that such a Fair Dealing extract should carry the attribution to the source and its author - if you're going to ban the publication of an identifiable Land Registry Title Number, there's a problem. This is where I'd be tempted to employ the Nelsonian blind eye. eeyore thanks for your comments. Of course in DD Central there is no need to redact land registry title numbers, and hence as you suggest the attribution of the source of the quoted material can be made explicit (as I have indeed done). For extracts from title documents made on the public boards, I suggest quoting a partially redacted title number is probably the way to go. That said, I think directly quoting from title documents on the public boards isn't going to be that useful once all other asset/individual id details are redacted so will be a fairly rare occurance. The art of "research", of paraphrasing source material and publishing ones own interpretation of the material seems to be a vanishing skill (personal observation based on mentoring a fair number of graduates over the years).
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 14, 2017 19:33:23 GMT
These posts remind me of the experience of a colleague of mine, who in his field is fairly highly regarded (though not necessarily as well regarded as he would like to think, but that is a personality issue). He is an author of a number of quite well selling technical books (for their niche).
On one of his early visits to deliver training/expertise in China, he found himself dealing with a classroom of around 40 plus (of course the customer had paid on the basis of about 15 attendees, but situation normal).
Towards the end of his time there, all of the assembled masses looked to secure his signature on their personal copy of one of his books. He was presented with one original and 39 photocopies.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Nov 15, 2017 10:41:37 GMT
I think I have just woken up the baby....sorry
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 362
|
Post by toffeeboy on Nov 15, 2017 12:58:13 GMT
You only need one or the other not a Nelsonian Blind eye, to include both suggests it is a specific blind eye. The phrase is usually one or the other with Nelson's eye telling you it is a blind one.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Nov 15, 2017 16:44:32 GMT
So my understanding is that the borrower has completed the purchase of 2 land registry titles with a purchase price of £2m but borrowed substantially more and there are also many prior charges/notices still on the title. Not looking good to me.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 15, 2017 18:02:44 GMT
So my understanding is that the borrower has completed the purchase of 2 land registry titles with a purchase price of £2m but borrowed substantially more and there are also many prior charges/notices still on the title. Not looking good to me. LTV is low on this one. I’m quite comfortable with the asset if we default
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 15, 2017 18:10:48 GMT
I've bailed out of this one despite it being first charge first facility etc. and may be perfectly sound. A borrower who borrows such large amounts to cover interest required to renew loans makes me nervous. Dodgy cashflow? I know we effectively pay for our own interest payments all over the place, but .... EDIT: Huh!!!!!!!!!!! Just realised. I wasn't talking about this loan at all!! Not even in it. I was on about Ly.St.Anne's on FS. NURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Nov 20, 2017 21:53:43 GMT
Just to be quite clear my understanding is that the current loan to value is over 100% as from the land registry titles only two out of the four titles that comprise the whole site appear to have been purchased (for £2m not over £4m). The loan appears to exceed the value of the currently registered security and there are prior changes/entries in the charges registers.
|
|