1861254173 - Kn***sb****** (FS)

Don't think it can but correct me if I'm wrong.

The other 2 houses are assets only for FS loans, therefore, the sale of these will begin to repay approx 30-40% of the capital of the second charge -FS loan refs- 1223006016, 3033120644, 1422136493 and 1861254173 Then any leftover proceeds from the sale of the main house will also repay capital from the first  4 FS loans and outstanding interest.

It does look very dodgy for the investors in the final loan through-3867743062 which I think ranks behind all others.

Interesting news-

We have been advised by the agents marketing the main house that two new parties have shown an interest in the property. One interested party is a footballer who is due to attend for a second viewing with a builder; the other interested party is a couple who operate a business in York and have recently sold their home and are therefore effectively cash buyers.



Of the other two properties, one is shortly to be listed with a local estate agent. The other is still occupied and our lawyers are proceeding with eviction orders.

We can hope that the works are complete and footballer is taking along their builder to express an opinion of the quality of the work done and to provide an assurance that a lot more work won't need to be done.  (Isn't that similar to why someone considering buying a car might ask their mechanic to look at it before they make an offer?)

AIUI, the receivers have a duty to obtain the best price possible, so the first charge holder probably can't tell them to accept the first low offer that comes along.  The second charge holder probably could reject the receivers' advice to accept an offer that wouldn't cover all that was owed, but that could cause trouble if a
subsequent offer received meant that the first charge holder ended up worse
off than if the first offer had been accepted, so that would expose whoever rejects the receivers' advice to a risk of being sued by anyone affected by that decision.  AC made that clear after they asked their investors to vote to accept an offer and the vote went the 'wrong' way.  IIRC, in that case AC were the only chargeholders and the offer received wouldn't have produced enough proceeds to completely clear the debt.  The borrower was at risk for the shortfall in the proceeds, but the AC investors were afraid the borrower would become bankrupt and leave them with losses.  The borrower could have claimed against AC if a subsequent sale produced a poorer result for them.

Does the reference to 2 other properties refer to the ones where titles were used for loans on other platforms that sit within the grounds? I think they are the lodge and riding school iirc.
For the legally knowledgeable what is the situation in reveivership/ admin or bankruptcy, whichever applies here, for titles owned by the borrower but used as collateral first charge elsewhere to be blocked by the courts?
Thanks.

I don't doubt the above so I wonder just how much the legal fees for the sharks lawyers will be whilst they milk this one. I am holding back on FS property loans until we see how this one actually ends up.

 IN