Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 19, 2018 14:22:53 GMT
<snip> Lenders have to decide if the risk/return is in balance. Oh if only. Most lenders are blinded in one eye by the 12% headline rate return and totally blinded when they read '.... Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority....'.
Now what could possibly go wrong??
12% pfff.Now then if I see 14%, then I'm all in 👍
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 19, 2018 23:30:32 GMT
FS have clearly stated that the ex-wife charge was behind ours, and this was stated in the information related to the loan. In case this is not true, I fell lenders will have a strong legal case against FS, as it used deceptive methods (false statements) to convince people investing in. I believe this is not convenient for them, so they will have to battle (if necessary) to defend their position in the charges queue. I expect that what FS said was true. But a 'legal opinion' is only an opinion. The wife probably has a legal opinion that says the opposite. The only way to resolve this is likely to be a very expensive court case. The winners won't be the FS investors or the wife -- they'll be the lawyers!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 4,131
|
Post by adrian77 on Mar 20, 2018 9:40:13 GMT
Totally agree - what we seem to have here is an unusual combination of a commercial loan allied with a civil claim for what could well be a divorce settlement. Property law is complicated at the best of times and this one looks like it will need barristers rather than solicitors and we all know how much they cost! If there is a judgement then that could be appealed so forget any quick payout.
Maybe the first charge holder could insist on a sale and put the £480K in a holding account whilst this shambles is sorted-out and FS are kept waiting - I just don't know.
This one could end up with the first charge holder taking a small hit and as for FS it could be "Goodnight Vienna!" Hope I am wrong but an interesting one...
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 1,470
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 20, 2018 10:26:31 GMT
Totally agree - what we seem to have here is an unusual combination of a commercial loan allied with a civil claim for what could well be a divorce settlement. Property law is complicated at the best of times and this one looks like it will need barristers rather than solicitors and we all know how much they cost! If there is a judgement then that could be appealed so forget any quick payout. Maybe the first charge holder could insist on a sale and put the £480K in a holding account whilst this shambles is sorted-out and FS are kept waiting - I just don't know. This one could end up with the first charge holder taking a small hit and as for FS it could be "Goodnight Vienna!" Hope I am wrong but an interesting one... All valid points and unfortunately FS seem to have demonstrated with other outstanding loans that they are not the 'sharpest knife in the drawer' when it comes to dealing with defaults.
It's just one of the reasons why I'm gradually reducing my exposure to them. I'm simply fed up with reading their repetitive meaningless updates.
Just look at the fiasco with the Welsh hotel - will be the first (probably) 1000 day loan shortly. Was originally the usual 6 months and the property is now deteriorating by the day. Talk about inertia - FS have developed it into a fine art IMO.
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Apr 5, 2018 11:24:23 GMT
Update just in the main property has sold for less than the first charge so looks like this will be a total loss. Although there may be some equity in the two small B2L properties but not holding my breath.
To have a 100% loss on a property backed loan is hard to stomach but it just highlights once again the dangers of 2nd charges particularly on non standard assets.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 5, 2018 11:29:03 GMT
Ouch. That's looking like a £725k write-off, bigger than the loss incurred on the NI Wind Turbine. I'm relieved to have no more than a finger nail in this one (a bullet dodged)
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Apr 5, 2018 11:29:13 GMT
I wonder if FS will recognise the full capital loss in their statistics in 2018 or try to prolong the pursuit of the borrower/his wife so capital loss is not recorded in their statistics until 2020.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 4,131
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 5, 2018 12:25:03 GMT
I and others said this would happen!
we have no reason to believe that a fair price was not achieved : this is spin and not the issue - the issue is the valuation and we have no reason to believe this was done correctly in the first place
what do you mean "advised" - either it is or it isn't! Any competent solicitor would have ensured this wasn't the case so I doubt if it is. Sounds like more spin to me.
Are you having a laugh !
Admit it FS that despite many warning you have made a total and complete Horlicks out of this one. At least one set of tenants are being evicted and many investors will take a massive if not a total 100% loss.
Be interested to know what the final selling price was.
Gordon Bennet!
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 5, 2018 13:02:51 GMT
Totally agree with what Gordon Bennet said.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 5, 2018 13:19:05 GMT
Am I being thick?
FS are talking about equity and gaining vacant possession on 1 BTL, yet they can't recover losses from the BTL properties.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Apr 5, 2018 13:31:06 GMT
Am I being thick? FS are talking about equity and gaining vacant possession on 1 BTL, yet they can't recover losses from the BTL properties. The first charge holder (not FS) can't recover on the BTL properties. FS can and hopefully will.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 5, 2018 13:33:29 GMT
FS have clearly stated that the ex-wife charge was behind ours, and this was stated in the information related to the loan. In case this is not true, I fell lenders will have a strong legal case against FS, as it used deceptive methods (false statements) to convince people investing in. I believe this is not convenient for them, so they will have to battle (if necessary) to defend their position in the charges queue. I expect that what FS said was true. But a 'legal opinion' is only an opinion. The wife probably has a legal opinion that says the opposite. The only way to resolve this is likely to be a very expensive court case. The winners won't be the FS investors or the wife -- they'll be the lawyers! Of course. The two lawyers probably know within 5 minutes what is legally correct, but that's only £40 apiece, and another £40 each to write and tell both clients what they want to read. Go to court. Now, argue discuss "things" on the phone for a couple of half hours, that's another £480 each. Attend court and argue. Let's say £2000 each for that. Job done. Ta! £2560 each for a £40 job. See ya round the pub after, Tarquin? Not that any of that story could possibly resemble reality. I know nothing. Edit: PLUS VAT. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS ITS £512. IT AMAZES ME THAT THEY HAVEN'T FOUND A WAY OF CHARGING VAT ON THE VAT YET.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 5, 2018 13:34:21 GMT
Am I being thick? FS are talking about equity and gaining vacant possession on 1 BTL, yet they can't recover losses from the BTL properties. The first charge holder (not FS) can't recover on the BTL properties. FS can and hopefully will. Thanks. I was guessing that is what they meant. Badly worded by FS again!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 4,131
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 5, 2018 15:43:44 GMT
I read this to be that the first charge is over all the properties (it would be if my solicitor was doing it!) and FS only have a charge on the BLT properties once the first charge is satisfied. The LTV seems to support this and yet again the wording from FS is very unclear. I note the first charge holder is C*uts so good luck in crossing legal swords with them! Whatever a complete Horlicks all round...
|
|
jimbob
Member of DD Central
Posts: 317
Likes: 74
|
Post by jimbob on Apr 6, 2018 6:03:16 GMT
I expect that what FS said was true. But a 'legal opinion' is only an opinion. The wife probably has a legal opinion that says the opposite. The only way to resolve this is likely to be a very expensive court case. The winners won't be the FS investors or the wife -- they'll be the lawyers! Of course. The two lawyers probably know within 5 minutes what is legally correct, but that's only £40 apiece, and another £40 each to write and tell both clients what they want to read. Go to court. Now, argue discuss "things" on the phone for a couple of half hours, that's another £480 each. Attend court and argue. Let's say £2000 each for that. Job done. Ta! £2560 each for a £40 job. See ya round the pub after, Tarquin? Not that any of that story could possibly resemble reality. I know nothing. Edit: PLUS VAT. THE GOVERNMENT WANTS ITS £512. IT AMAZES ME THAT THEY HAVEN'T FOUND A WAY OF CHARGING VAT ON THE VAT YET. It is done for fuel, VAT due on the duty ! Least we're not on that "escalator" any more, blimmin Nora. Anyway a £25 hit for me on this one I think.
|
|