jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Jan 19, 2021 20:03:24 GMT
Pri******’s K***y T******** declared bankrupt
The developer who fronted troubled Liverpool schemes including H.Q and T.R has been declared bankrupt in the city’s County Court.
An advisor to T* told Place North West in a statement: “The bankruptcy hearing comes after Mr T* personally committed to working with the administrators and the investors to ensure that the development completed with all investors able to realise their asset. Everything that could be done to save this project was done and the scheme will be fully delivered early this year."
Odd, I don't recall any contact from T* in relation to my £27k inheritance investment.
Can anyone else confirm contact from T* with regard to their investment? Perhaps visiting the site and stripping assets is the best course of action. Bricks though windows, hammers through the communal doors, etc, seems to be the most direct route in balancing the books.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 19, 2021 20:29:49 GMT
Pri******’s K***y T******** declared bankrupt The developer who fronted troubled Liverpool schemes including H.Q and T.R has been declared bankrupt in the city’s County Court. An advisor to T* told Place North West in a statement: “The bankruptcy hearing comes after Mr T* personally committed to working with the administrators and the investors to ensure that the development completed with all investors able to realise their asset. Everything that could be done to save this project was done and the scheme will be fully delivered early this year." Odd, I don't recall any contact from T* in relation to my £27k inheritance investment. Can anyone else confirm contact from T* with regard to their investment? Perhaps visiting the site and removing assets is the best course of action to secure our interests. Does your investment relate to Lendy or a flat purchase? The quote is referring to investors in the context of flat purchasers AIUI
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Jan 19, 2021 20:32:51 GMT
Pri******’s K***y T******** declared bankrupt The developer who fronted troubled Liverpool schemes including H.Q and T.R has been declared bankrupt in the city’s County Court. An advisor to T* told Place North West in a statement: “The bankruptcy hearing comes after Mr T* personally committed to working with the administrators and the investors to ensure that the development completed with all investors able to realise their asset. Everything that could be done to save this project was done and the scheme will be fully delivered early this year." Odd, I don't recall any contact from T* in relation to my £27k inheritance investment. Can anyone else confirm contact from T* with regard to their investment? Perhaps visiting the site and removing assets is the best course of action to secure our interests. Does your investment relate to Lendy or a flat purchase? The quote is referring to investors in the context of flat purchasers AIUI Are you taking the piss?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jan 19, 2021 20:46:04 GMT
Does your investment relate to Lendy or a flat purchase? The quote is referring to investors in the context of flat purchasers AIUI Are you taking the piss? Dunno if I'm missing something myself, but it seemed a perfectly reasonable question and point to me.
|
|
trevor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 557
Likes: 381
|
Post by trevor on Jan 19, 2021 21:09:13 GMT
Perfectly reasonable question jhamster. You may be upset but no need to be so disrespectful to one of the boards best contributors.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 19, 2021 21:14:08 GMT
Does your investment relate to Lendy or a flat purchase? The quote is referring to investors in the context of flat purchasers AIUI Are you taking the piss? No genuine question. The property was sold to a company formed by some of the flat purchasers who invested additional funds to complete the build and enable flat purchasers to realise their investment. Many flat owners continue to have an interest in the site therefore, whereas others and Lendy investors dont. As the administration is ongoing they retain an interest in the borrower co under their floating charge and are pursuing MrT under his PG, hence the bankruptcy.
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Mar 23, 2021 19:10:46 GMT
Link to an article on an insolvency investigation, placed in DD.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Jul 3, 2021 21:56:26 GMT
Source: 2nd Witness Statement of Joint Administrator Damian Webb dated 9/7/2020 (my bold)
216. Following authorisation from the FCA, the FCA were keen to understand and have input on the Distribution Waterfall. The FCA were not concerned with the loan and security documentation, rather they were concerned with ensuring that investors received as much as possible, especially in situations where the loans had been underperforming and there was a significant shortfall recovered.
217. Lendy did not obtain any legal advice in relation to the waterfall of security proceeds. Lendy discussed the matter internally and considered comments from the FCA. One of the waterfalls which was considered by the FCA and revised on multiple occasions was H********* Quay (DFL012). The main points which were discussed and revised were the order in which Lendy, investors and other third parties (i.e. professional fees) were paid, the entitlement of Lendy versus the investors, the amount that Lendy was paid by way of a “service fee” for administering the loan and the third party indirect costs paid by Lendy. The FCA on this particular loan considered that investors should be paid more than Lendy had originally allocated to them.
|
|
qlassa
Member of DD Central
Posts: 57
Likes: 25
|
Post by qlassa on Aug 10, 2021 19:05:01 GMT
Source: 2nd Witness Statement of Joint Administrator Damian Webb dated 9/7/2020 (my bold)
216. Following authorisation from the FCA, the FCA were keen to understand and have input on the Distribution Waterfall. The FCA were not concerned with the loan and security documentation, rather they were concerned with ensuring that investors received as much as possible, especially in situations where the loans had been underperforming and there was a significant shortfall recovered.
217. Lendy did not obtain any legal advice in relation to the waterfall of security proceeds. Lendy discussed the matter internally and considered comments from the FCA. One of the waterfalls which was considered by the FCA and revised on multiple occasions was H********* Quay (DFL012). The main points which were discussed and revised were the order in which Lendy, investors and other third parties (i.e. professional fees) were paid, the entitlement of Lendy versus the investors, the amount that Lendy was paid by way of a “service fee” for administering the loan and the third party indirect costs paid by Lendy. The FCA on this particular loan considered that investors should be paid more than Lendy had originally allocated to them.Thanks for this, do you have any follow up on this?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 10, 2021 19:43:00 GMT
Thanks for this, do you have any follow up on this?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Aug 12, 2021 9:54:59 GMT
Source: 2nd Witness Statement of Joint Administrator Damian Webb dated 9/7/2020 (my bold)
216. Following authorisation from the FCA, the FCA were keen to understand and have input on the Distribution Waterfall. The FCA were not concerned with the loan and security documentation, rather they were concerned with ensuring that investors received as much as possible, especially in situations where the loans had been underperforming and there was a significant shortfall recovered.
217. Lendy did not obtain any legal advice in relation to the waterfall of security proceeds. Lendy discussed the matter internally and considered comments from the FCA. One of the waterfalls which was considered by the FCA and revised on multiple occasions was H********* Quay (DFL012). The main points which were discussed and revised were the order in which Lendy, investors and other third parties (i.e. professional fees) were paid, the entitlement of Lendy versus the investors, the amount that Lendy was paid by way of a “service fee” for administering the loan and the third party indirect costs paid by Lendy. The FCA on this particular loan considered that investors should be paid more than Lendy had originally allocated to them.So they are saying we were ripped off? Well done FCA, you noticed. Now what?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Aug 12, 2021 10:13:24 GMT
Source: 2nd Witness Statement of Joint Administrator Damian Webb dated 9/7/2020 (my bold)
216. Following authorisation from the FCA, the FCA were keen to understand and have input on the Distribution Waterfall. The FCA were not concerned with the loan and security documentation, rather they were concerned with ensuring that investors received as much as possible, especially in situations where the loans had been underperforming and there was a significant shortfall recovered.
217. Lendy did not obtain any legal advice in relation to the waterfall of security proceeds. Lendy discussed the matter internally and considered comments from the FCA. One of the waterfalls which was considered by the FCA and revised on multiple occasions was H********* Quay (DFL012). The main points which were discussed and revised were the order in which Lendy, investors and other third parties (i.e. professional fees) were paid, the entitlement of Lendy versus the investors, the amount that Lendy was paid by way of a “service fee” for administering the loan and the third party indirect costs paid by Lendy. The FCA on this particular loan considered that investors should be paid more than Lendy had originally allocated to them.So they are saying we were ripped off? Well done FCA, you noticed. Now what? Maybe the FCA will actually abide by some of their Principles of Business and ensure we are repaid the amount?: SUP 1A.3.2A section 8c with special emphasis on “seek to obtain redress for affected consumers”. www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/SUP/1A/3.html?date=2021-01-01(8) Put right systematic harm that has occurred and stop it happening again – the FCA will:
(a) where it sees systematic harm, move quickly to stop harm occurring. For example, through imposing an Own Initiative Requirement (OIREQ) on the firm and, where appropriate, ensuring that the firm addresses the drivers of culture and its business model and strategy to prevent a recurrence;
(b) where it suspects serious misconduct, refer to its Enforcement Division for an enforcement investigation; and
(c) seek to obtain redress for affected consumers. The FCA may, for example, seek to put this right by requiring a consumer redress scheme, engaging directly with the firm, or by working with other authorities such as the Financial Ombudsman Service Limited.
|
|
