gurberly
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 98
|
Post by gurberly on Jan 19, 2017 18:36:20 GMT
SS != DD
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Jan 19, 2017 18:39:27 GMT
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 19, 2017 18:40:38 GMT
Pressure on SS from lenders (who are instructed by SS in the T & C to do their own due diligence before lending) might still be needed "to focus SS's mind"! Now where have I seen that before?
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Jan 19, 2017 18:45:15 GMT
SS ∩ DD = Ø
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,162
Likes: 4,852
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 19, 2017 18:51:52 GMT
Summit's up at SS Towers, they have changed, and not for the better IMHO. Well, maybe for the better for Borrowers.
Trust is paramount, and imparting material facts/vital information to Lenders which is garnered from The Platform's DD should be a given - but it's not, seemingly.
|
|
|
Post by rb5286 on Jan 19, 2017 18:53:33 GMT
Blimey... can't we even mention a newspaper? I'm too scared of having my bottom smacked. 'I'm too scared of having my bottom smacked' I thought you were referring to moderators smacking bottoms. Lol
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jan 19, 2017 19:34:57 GMT
Anybody invested in this loan should search for the borrower's name today He is the news... If you know the further details, it also cements the fact that our man went via a different name between 1995 & 2010. Plenty of LTV still to be leveraged, place your bets for another tranche to cover the fine!
|
|
jsmithe
Member of DD Central
Posts: 74
Likes: 22
|
Post by jsmithe on Jan 19, 2017 19:46:32 GMT
I don't see how his recent c***t o*****d f••e will be an issue, if it does end up strangely the sale will be forced I should think.
Also, he seems to have an alleged p*******y problem with his h***s, but unlikely to prove problematic for SS.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 19, 2017 20:28:00 GMT
Is the SS loan to a company which he is a director of?
If he was disqualified from being a director, but signed on behalf of the company, does that make the loan agreement not legally inforcable?
Potentially this could mean SS has given our money over without a valid loan agreement
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 19, 2017 20:32:45 GMT
Is the SS loan to a company which he is a director of? If he was disqualified from being a director, but signed on behalf of the company, does that make the loan agreement not legally inforcable? Potentially this could mean SS has given our money over without a valid loan agreement There is no existing company with MD as a director (that we know of) R*****a is definitely an individual (MD - as indicated on the LR doc along with the SSSH charge) The C****t is tad more complex. On the LR it is registered in MDs name, but there is a charge against the C****t on a CH record (this company has a director that is connected to MD). However, it is likely the borrower in both cases is an individual (MD)
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 19, 2017 20:40:38 GMT
Forgive me, I can't log in right now, but the SS details of the loan do not confirm the borrower exactly?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 19, 2017 20:44:47 GMT
Forgive me, I can't log in right now, but the SS details of the loan do not confirm the borrower exactly? The borrowers name is noted in both VRs. The original R*****a loan (PBL097) was for MD (as it is noted in the Land Registry)
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Jan 19, 2017 20:59:23 GMT
Since we've ventured into mathematical notation...
According to hearsay: MD ∈ { bottom smackers }
According to the courts: MD ∉ { bottom smackers } (he was lucky.)
According to MD/SP: MD ≠ SP
According to CD (a much more reliable source, and since proven): MD = SP
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 19, 2017 21:07:54 GMT
Since we've ventured into mathematical notation...
According to hearsay: MD ∈ { bottom smackers }
According to the courts: MD ∉ { bottom smackers } (he was lucky.)
According to MD/SP: MD ≠ SP
According to CD (a much more reliable source, and since proven): MD = SP And according to the VR of the c***t, MD is not the borrower. See this quote: "The Borrower arranged free access and we were allowed full access to all parts of the Property by Mr M*** D******." [VR pg 3] If the borrower and Mr M*** D****** are the same person, why is the above quote worded in the way it is?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 19, 2017 21:11:36 GMT
Since we've ventured into mathematical notation...
According to hearsay: MD ∈ { bottom smackers }
According to the courts: MD ∉ { bottom smackers } (he was lucky.)
According to MD/SP: MD ≠ SP
According to CD (a much more reliable source, and since proven): MD = SP And according to the VR of the c***t, MD is not the borrower. See this quote: "The Borrower arranged free access and we were allowed full access to all parts of the Property by Mr M*** D******." [VR pg 3] If the borrower and Mr M*** D****** are the same person, why is the above quote worded in the way it is? I think it has been established that the VR isn't the most reliable bit of literature... If you go to the Planing Site, search the postcode, go to some of the C****t planning application, you will note that MD is the applicant And like I said - his name is on the LR. He is the legal owner
|
|