elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 10, 2017 14:15:44 GMT
I have had confirmation from MT that they covered the interest payment made on 02.12.2017.
Many thanks to those who replied to my post.
Best wishes, SXLR Ambiguous use of "they" in first sentence .. is that 'they, MT' or 'they, the borrower' ? A Repayments’ tab by MoneyThing - date of payment and any exception reporting ie reason for delay, who paid it - would remove the ambiguity from all loans (and the inherent risk of obfuscation by the MT “filter”) rather than requiring individual investors to make duplicate queries on what’s happening with their loan repayments (and the admin time taken up answering them).
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Dec 13, 2017 11:14:39 GMT
Hi MoneyThing. Did the anticipated funds arrive on Monday 11th for this loan and the other related loan?
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Dec 13, 2017 20:11:16 GMT
Hi All
Update added to platform.
Kind regards
Sophie
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Dec 13, 2017 20:39:21 GMT
Thanks SophieThing, but wouldn't elliotn's suggestion 2 up be even better (& is it on Shuang's list)?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 14, 2017 5:28:07 GMT
Thanks SophieThing, but wouldn't elliotn's suggestion 2 up be even better (& is it on Shuang's list)? Yep, I'd double my investment for starters with borrower payment history at a glance. Relying on their forbearance filter means finding out MT's own payment was in default from another platform first (one for the unacceptable folder methinks). For now I invest on the possibility of MT paying the borrower’s loan until they default* - unless The Shuang is unleashed (post-ifisa) to strut his stuff. * For the new loan however I’m like a kid in a sweet shop - financial summaries, government backed (if stil tbc) compensation, the minimum interest deducted - and am in for my full L St Anne amount! 😊
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Mar 5, 2018 12:27:07 GMT
Two more consultee responses have been added to the Bradford planning portal. The one from the council's own urban design consultant (?) makes it clear that the current proposal needs to be morphed back to be far closer to that of the originally approved outline planning scheme. The whole document (word format) is worth reading, but to quote the conclusion: So as I and others surmised earlier this month the whole scheme is going to need to be redesigned to gain approval. Unsurprisingly the October interest payment on the TC part of the loan is late yet again, and the prior months default interest remains outstanding. FWIW the discussion on the TC forum centres around the upbeat nature of the updates from MT which is in contrast to TC having the loan in technical default, untradable, and unwilling to provide updates to lenders at the present time. Still issues with the planning application reading the latest update from MT. The original info pack to lenders said the loan was likely to be paid back within 12 months via a refinance package. It would be good to know if this is still being progressed before we get too close to the current end date for the loan which allows for 24months
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Apr 20, 2018 20:49:51 GMT
So the company that purportedly provided the valuation G********* was dissolved by strike out in May 2016 and the "valuation" is dated July 2016. The valuation appears to be a cut and paste of parts from two valuations with the page numbers deleted (look at the index page which does not match the rest of the purported valuation). The borrower bought the site (two title numbers) for £2m and stated that they were paying £4.5m.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Apr 20, 2018 23:17:20 GMT
78 There is a newer similarly-named company still in existence, albeit currently under threat of strike-off. AFAICS the valuer is still trading from the Surrey address given in the valuation. At least, the office was there in August 2016 which is the date of the Google streetview photograph, and the website is still live which implies the hosting fees are still being paid. Also there is a live entry on the RICS website which implies he's still paying his subscription. Neither the valuer's website nor the RICS entry includes the limited company name, so he might not actually be trading through the (new) company. Obviously he should not have used the old company notepaper (or more likely Word template) for the valuation, but I think you are mistaken about cut and paste. The index looks right down to section 3 after which the page numbering in the index is obviously wrong because the page numbers go down. The body of the document seems to flow correctly.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Apr 21, 2018 7:05:15 GMT
Pikestaff thank you for your reply but I am certain that you are incorrect for the following reasons:- 1. The front page of the "report and valuation" is dated 10th July 2016 and 2. This front page clearly identifies, by outlining, the site. The land that is identified now comprises 4 land registry titles only two of which (for GBP 100,000) have been purchased by the borrower and form the security for the TC (£2.05m) and MT £0.745m) loans which amount to £2.75m plus 4 months of overdue interest owed to TC lenders and it 3. States the name of the valuer (the limited company G*****) 4. The second page provides an index of page numbers for example it states that "Security for loan purposes" is on page 12 whereas this starts at page 25 if the pages are numbered after the index. 5. There then follows a letter from G***** also dated 10th July 2016. 6. Page numbers have then been removed from the attached report (and there is a blank page with G*** stamp at the top of the page. 7. Page 1 then starts with the Executive summary. At the bottom of page 1 is stated "The executive summary forms part of our Report and Valuation dated 13th July 2015 and should be read in conjunction therewith." [note 2015 not 2016] 8. Page 2 states which roads the property is located on and that the boundary runs along M***** Road (and other roads). This clearly refers to the whole site (the 4 land registry titles) whereas the borrower did not purchase the two titles that front M**** Rd. 9. The site area quoted is inaccurate (whether you are considering the 2 or 4 titles). 10. The terms and conditions attached to the valuation refer to a yet another associated company which company has also been dissolved by strike out. 11. The information pack stated that the site was being acquired for £4.5m and that the borrower was contributing £1.75m but the site (2 titles) was purchased for £2m. 12. The borrower has not obtained detailed planning consent and has failed to submit an amended application that stands any chance of being approved. 13. There are many prior charges on the title which may rank in preference to TC/MT charges and which should have been but were never disclosed to lenders. 14. At page 50 of the valuation report (and in the header page) are plans with the whole site outlined (all 4 titles only 2 of which were purchased and form the security). Clause 14.4 of the valuation states:- Recommendations : That your solicitors confirm that there is clear title to the Property and that the boundaries indicated on the attached plan are in accordance with those held at the land registry and those over which your charge is to be taken. 15 There is also the section 106 agreements which require very considerable contributions and affordable housing provisions all or which were not disclosed to lenders. See the 13th November 2014 council committee report for details of the 106 agreement that was in place covering the whole of the land Contributions of £726,183 plus onsite affordable housing was required covering the whole site. There are fundamental differences only about half the land has been purchased and provided as security and the LTV is over 100% and the borrower is unable to pay interest as it falls due. There is no real prospect (or offer) of this developer obtaining development finance if detailed planning consent were to be obtained.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Apr 23, 2018 10:23:33 GMT
Pikestaff thank you for your reply but I am certain that you are incorrect for the following reasons:- 1. The front page of the "report and valuation" is dated 10th July 2016 agreed and 2. This front page clearly identifies, by outlining, the site. The land that is identified now comprises 4 land registry titles only two of which (for £2m) have been purchased by the borrower and form the security for the TC (£2.05m) and MT £0.745m) loans which amount to £2.75m plus 4 months of overdue interest owed to TC lenders and it 3. States the name of the valuer (the limited company G*****) agreed4. The second page provides an index of page numbers for example it states that "Security for loan purposes" is on page 12 whereas this starts at page 25 if the pages are numbered after the index. Yes, but the numbering drops from page 10 for section 3 to page 5 for section 4, and some of the index page numbers after that go up far too slowly for a finished document. I'm almost certain that this is a word processing error and the page numbers in the index were supposed to auto-update but at some point the auto-updating for sections 4 onwards got broken. I see nothing heinous here, but it does tell us something about all parties' quality control.5. There then follows a letter from G***** also dated 10th July 2016. agreed6. Page numbers have then been removed from the attached report (and there is a blank page with G*** stamp at the top of the page. I see no reason to assume that the page numbers were ever there, nor to think that there was ever anything on the blank page. My diagnosis would be sloppy word processing and/or one page deliberately left blank.7. Page 1 then starts with the Executive summary. At the bottom of page 1 is stated "The executive summary forms part of our Report and Valuation dated 13th July 2015 and should be read in conjunction therewith." [note 2015 not 2016] Yes, that's obviously wrong but I would not jump to conclusions as to why. It might well be the date of a previous report (which could be for a completely different property) which was used as the template for this one. I have seen this kind of mistake more than once in valuation reports.8. Page 2 states which roads the property is located on and that the boundary runs along M***** Road (and other roads). This clearly refers to the whole site (the 4 land registry titles) whereas the borrower did not purchase the two titles that front M**** Rd. 9. The site area quoted is inaccurate (whether you are considering the 2 or 4 titles). 10. The terms and conditions attached to the valuation refer to a yet another associated company which company has also been dissolved by strike out. More sloppy quality control. The valuer seems to have gone through rather a lot of companies and to be careless about which one he's referring to.11. The information pack stated that the site was being acquired for £4.5m and that the borrower was contributing £1.75m but the site (2 titles) was purchased for £2m. 12. The borrower has not obtained detailed planning consent and has failed to submit an amended application that stands any chance of being approved. 13. There are many prior charges on the title which may rank in preference to TC/MT charges and which should have been but were never disclosed to lenders. 14. At page 50 of the valuation report (and in the header page) are plans with the whole site outlined (all 4 titles only 2 of which were purchased and form the security). Clause 14.4 of the valuation states:- Recommendations : That your solicitors confirm that there is clear title to the Property and that the boundaries indicated on the attached plan are in accordance with those held at the land registry and those over which your charge is to be taken. 15 There is also the section 106 agreements which require very considerable contributions and affordable housing provisions all or which were not disclosed to lenders. See the 13th November 2014 council committee report for details of the 106 agreement that was in place covering the whole of the land Contributions of £726,183 plus onsite affordable housing was required covering the whole site. There are fundamental differences only about half the land has been purchased and provided as security and the LTV is over 100% and the borrower is unable to pay interest as it falls due. There is no real prospect (or offer) of this developer obtaining development finance if detailed planning consent were to be obtained. I still think you are mistaken the valuation being a cut and paste from two valuations; see comments in red above. The other matters you refer to are legitimate concerns but were not the subject of my reply. If and when we have the whole story I'm hoping the picture won't be quite as black as it might seem.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Apr 24, 2018 5:26:40 GMT
There is other evidence that this is a cut and paste from a previous valuation in particular the references to the shopping center opening as due to open when this event had already occurred by the purported valuation date. Much more important is the fact that the borrower only paid £100K in cash to buy the site and took on liabilities estimated by the administrators to be worth £6.9m and the borrowers (directors) assertion that he was paying £4.5m and injecting £1.75m of Directors/shareholders cash was entirely false. The valuer was also not aware of the £6.9m continuing liabilities.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Apr 24, 2018 7:45:58 GMT
There is other evidence that this is a cut and paste from a previous valuation in particular the references to the shopping center opening as due to open when this event had already occurred by the purported valuation date. Much more important is the fact that the borrower only paid £100K in cash to buy the site and took on liabilities estimated by the administrators to be worth £6.9m and the borrowers (directors) assertion that he was paying £4.5m and injecting £1.75m of Directors/shareholders cash was entirely false. The valuer was also not aware of the £6.9m continuing liabilities. If the consideration was £100k cash plus the assumption of £6.9m liabilities (which appear from the administrators report to have been, at least mostly, debt owed to secured creditors of the previous owner), then £7m should (on the face of it) have been the consideration recorded at the Land Registry. It appears from your research that the consideration actually recorded at the Land Registry was £2m. Both figures are a long way off the £4.5m that the company said that it was paying. I don’t know how to reconcile these very different numbers but there could be legitimate explanations. For example, the difference between £7m and £4.5m might be explained if MRDO had done a deal with the secured creditors of the previous owner for the partial forgiveness of their debts. The difference between £4.5m and £2m might be explained if some of the remaining liabilities were excluded (properly or otherwise) from the amount disclosed to the Land Registry. Some stamp duty planning, perhaps? I don’t know the truth of the matter any better than you do. The liabilities assumed are irrelevant to the valuation. [Edit 13/10/2019: except to the extent that they are off balance sheet future commitments, see p2pindependentforum.com/post/351140/thread.]
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on May 18, 2018 17:05:03 GMT
Update on the site that this loan is now in arrears and non performing
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on May 26, 2018 19:18:15 GMT
Update on site (25/05/18), arrears have been brought up to date and so the loan has been de-classified from 'non-performing'.
|
|
78
Posts: 76
Likes: 83
|
Post by 78 on Jun 7, 2018 18:39:25 GMT
SPV (other group company) received planning consent today although I fail to see how this will benefit the TC and MT loans to other group companies
|
|