sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jun 4, 2019 13:02:32 GMT
petrichory , you say "The farmhouse itself (<redacted>) was not paid for until the 23th of June, which is the day that 8010286828 was made active. The price was £672,000." The VR quotes a slightly different number as the title deeds. Is there a typo, or additional title deeds ?
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jun 4, 2019 15:02:46 GMT
petrichory , you say "The farmhouse itself (<redacted>) was not paid for until the 23th of June, which is the day that 8010286828 was made active. The price was £672,000." The VR quotes a slightly different number as the title deeds. Is there a typo, or additional title deeds ? Have you learned nothing from your time on here, !!!
All loans and the Platform are Typos
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Jun 4, 2019 15:54:49 GMT
petrichory , you say "The farmhouse itself (<redacted>) was not paid for until the 23th of June, which is the day that 8010286828 was made active. The price was £672,000." The VR quotes a slightly different number as the title deeds. Is there a typo, or additional title deeds ? For the farmland: "The price stated to have been paid on 2 June 2017 for the land in this title [<redacted>] and in <redacted> was £167,000." For the farmhouse: "The price stated to have been paid on 23 June 2017 for the land in this title [<redacted>] and in <redacted> was £672,000" The old title deeds were probably from the pre-registration system of conveyancing, according to the Land Registry the current titles are <redacted> and <redacted>. Someone with more experience could probably enlighten us if linking old title numbers is common. FS has a charge over both titles (lucky, that!) but I don't believe there is any reference to separate title deeds on FS. The farmhouse was last sold in 2002 and there is no indication of a previous charge, unless it is against a linked title deed that I cannot see from the public record. The farmland was last sold in 2009 - also no previous charge. Both titles appear unencumbered before FS became involved and even if there was a hidden charge, I fail to believe that - after 15 years of single ownership - "Debts due to the first charge holder is [exactly?] £650,000" as stated in the loan. I thought it was strange that FS did not re-post loan 2861004433 after increasing it from £125,000 to £188,000. If there was indeed a first charge lender who had "decided to reduce their funding" this would be a massive red flag, as others have mentioned on this thread. Even by FS standards, I doubt the loan would have gone ahead with that level of uncertainty involving another hostile lender. The only explanation - based on public records, the odd 11/05 update and the valuation commissioned on 12/04 - is that there never was another lender and FS is in fact talking in the third person when the "first charge holder" is mentioned (despite not holding any such charge at the time!). FS decided to vary the size of the first and second charge so that Mr. cocktail cucumber could purchase the farmland without having any skin in the game. I was never interested in this loan but since I am in the Burnley one with linked proceeds, this omnishambles deserves some post mortem DD.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jun 4, 2019 16:16:12 GMT
petrichoryThere is a fair degree of detail quoted and I prefer to continue with my views in DD. I've sent you a PM because I don't think you have access.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jun 4, 2019 16:58:21 GMT
What a fantastic piece of work and there was me saying I was fed-up of FS treating us all as idiots! I ditched my original holding in this one as I know the area and thought the main property was overpriced but would renew-
Have re-read the FS posts
The original valuation was done for a digital bank called M******N so if I understand this correctly there is no evidence they actually advanced any money?
I also note the surveyor's report said the current salebility was "poor" and that is before this borrower had a go at the building!
So what has happened ? This other charge holder has called in part of the loan rather than repossess the property? Well I guess this could happen and would be better for the first charge holder but at the same time this lucky borrower and by happy coincidence the borrower gets the exact same money from FS !
As I see it the question is "OK FS where is the proof of the original first charge holder?"
I am sure I am not the only person itching for a reply...I am not jumping to conclusions as the land registry may be out of date but I find it all very curious.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on Jul 11, 2019 5:18:33 GMT
fundingsecure Please could you provide an update for 8010286828 & related loans. (There hasn't been a substantive update for more than four months now and also more than a month since the note on 10th June stating "....we anticipate that a more comprehensive update will be available in the next 2 weeks".)
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 11, 2019 5:55:13 GMT
exactly what I think he has done and once he moved in he has damaged this lovely building so it looks to me as if FS have been had on 2 accounts. I know this area and I think they buyer paid over the odds for the building. Well FS - we are still waiting...
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jul 11, 2019 9:35:32 GMT
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about these loans on here. The 2nd Charge (2861004433) and 1st Charge (8010286828) are for the same property with land but they actually comprise two different land titles. Of course, FS has fundamentally bungled the whole thing yet again. Funds from 2861004433 were not used to purchase the farmhouse, this loan was used to purchase the adjoining land (<redacted>) for £167,000 on the 2nd of June 2017 after 2861004433 was made active on the 30th of May. The farmhouse itself (<redacted>) was not paid for until the 23th of June, which is the day that 8010286828 was made active. The price was £672,000. Overall, the buyer paid £672,000 + £167,000 = £839,000 for the farmhouse and the land. If you add up all the B-wick loans (2861004433 + 1079396222 + 3139320212 + 8010286828) you get the magical number = £839,000 In other words, the borrower used the BTL property he had bought for £72,000 in 2005 to leverage himself, his partner and 5 children into a country mansion. FS obviously knew that the borrower was planning to buy the farmland and then the farmhouse but instead of having a 1st charge loan for the land and a 1st charge loan for the farmhouse on separate titles, the loan was combined because the borrower only contributed 7.6% of the purchase price, money taken from other FS loans. 2861004433 is described as "additional top-up finance" but you can hardly call £188,000 a top up when the borrower only puts in £64,000 (from other loans!) Again, if FS had mentioned that this borrower was connected to all these loans and borrowing money from Peter to pay Paul, I believe far less people would have invested. Champion poster! There really is no excuse for any of their behaviour and it's no suprise they don't engage in full and frank conversations with lenders, they don't have a leg to stand on. Reminds me of politics really - think of all the MPs who have been caught red handed lying to the public, or did things like claimed for 4 double beds for a 1 bed second home, etc, I would like to see 5-10 minute interviews where they are presented with the facts and offered a chance to give their justification and reasoning for having done so. Sadly this is something that no mainstream journalist or broadcaster has any interest in doing!
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Jul 11, 2019 10:09:20 GMT
exactly what I think he has done and once he moved in he has damaged this lovely building so it looks to me as if FS have been had on 2 accounts. That is a charitable opinion but it is wrong. FS deliberately increased the loan amount for the second charge after the loan had been open for over a month - without informing existing lenders - so that the borrower could purchase the farmland. FS were well aware that the land and the building had separate title deeds but chose to phrase the loan description as if they were part of the same transaction when clearly they were not. The second charge was described as "top-up funding" for the house purchase but that is not how the money was used, at all. It is the equivalent of getting a bank loan to purchase a car, only to then use that money on a set of wheels, then going back to the same bank for another loan to purchase the rest of the car. No reputable bank would let you get away with that, unless it had been approved in advance. FS was not "had" insofar as they were in on it.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on Jul 11, 2019 11:11:00 GMT
petrichory , Many thanks for sharing your brilliant analysis. 1. Just to make sure I understand this correctly from an impact perspective: Do FS's (inappropriate) actions have an impact on *both* the first and second charge loan investors (as regards the strength of the underlying security they were promised) or just the second charge loan holders? 2. Don't wish to jump the gun, but *IF* eventually there were to be shortfall in the amount repaid back to its loan investors, any views from what we know so far, as to whether from a legal perspective, FS's (inappropriate) actions appear to be sufficiently serious enough to justify the basis for a potential claim for redress/compensation against FS (from first and/or second charge loan holders) on the grounds of misrepresentation/ collusion / any other legal breach?
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 305
Likes: 666
|
Post by copacetic on Jul 11, 2019 19:55:43 GMT
Some excellent posts there petrichory . One additional cherry on top of the incompetence cake for dealing with this borrower, which I don't think has been mentioned in this thread, is FS didn't even bother securing the loan 1079396222 with a legal charge. This means that loan is only supported by whatever crumb of money is left in borrower's bankruptcy assets and FS' own promise of repayment, should they still be in existence by the time this gets sorted.
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Sept 3, 2019 23:39:21 GMT
Mr. Party Cucumbers, the magnanimous man behind these loans, is due to be discharged from bankruptcy on the 11th of September, a date so depraved and calamitous that it would only be fitting for a wretched scab like Mr. Party Cucumbers to slink away with his spoils on this rotten anniversary.
As far as I know, FundingSecure has not disputed the discharge with the OR, despite having no security over a number of loans and having thus far failed to reimburse lenders for these unsecured loans.
The only people who would benefit from this bankruptcy discharge are lenders in the first charge 8010286828 loan - it should be easier to evict the borrower/fraudster and his brood after a discharge.
The people who stand to lose from a discharge is pretty much everyone else in every connected loan (2861004433, 1079396222, 3139320212 and 1764214549)
1) It is an established fact that the borrower never intended to repay these loans - £380 is the daily combined interest for these loans from prima facie calculations, the true amount charged by FS will likely be £450+/day. Just to confirm, this Yorkshire man with five children did not and does not have access to this sort of income and any loan application stating otherwise is presumed fraudulent. Accepting such a loan application and working with the penniless borrower to maximise the risk to lenders is equally presumed fraudulent conduct.
2) It is an established fact that the money for loan 2861004433 was raised under false pretences and misappropriated. Instead of being used as "top-up funding" to purchase a house with land, the money was used entirely to purchase a piece of agricultural land - not as part payment but instead in full and at sticker price. This is a wanton misappropriation of funds for unsanctioned purposes - one that FS encouraged and actively facilitated by increasing the loan at the borrowers request.
3) It is a fact that FS has made impractical and illogical promises to the lenders in 1079396222, 3139320212 and 1764214549 that they would be repaid from the surplus proceeds of loan 8010286828.
- Given that the accumulated interest on both loan 8010286828 (1st charge Farmhouse) and 2861004433 (2nd charge Farmhouse) exceed the total sum of loans 1079396222, 3139320212 and 1764214549 combined, it would stand to reason that FS is deliberately refusing to repay these loans as there is a zero percent chance of surplus recovery. This is further underscored by their refusal to challenge the discharge of bankruptcy with the official receiver, which would prevent the discharge of these unsecured debts.
- If FS had any true intentions of repaying these loans as promised, they would have already done so - at present, interest continues to collect on these irrecoverable loans for the simple reason that FS is refusing to reimburse lenders.
In other words, the causality of the above would strongly suggest a complicity on the part of FS with Mr. Party Cucumbers - a person so suspiciously cozy with management that all his properties were listed without obtaining a single valuation, which may seem odd for one property but stinks of nepotism and insider dealing when it happens for ALL of them.
I do not have access to the DD but I would love to know if anyone has written to the OR to obtain a suspension or BRO for this mutt
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 4, 2019 6:44:10 GMT
Would I be correct in thinking you aren't exactly impressed with FS over this one?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 4, 2019 7:29:30 GMT
It all makes for awful reading. Of course the new management at the helm of FS will intimate that it was all the fault of those who have now gone and that the new broom is sweeping clean. So far there is little of a track record. It is incumbent on all lenders to remain extremely vigilant and in particular to look carefully at all information provided by the platform re new loan applications. Personally I continue not to lend anew via this platform. There are other better deals on offer elsewhere.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on Sept 4, 2019 8:29:32 GMT
If the "new" management wishes to build goodwill and gain any credibility that FS has turned over a new leaf, the least they can do is to take responsibility for the errors previously made and compensate its lenders for the shortcomings of its predecessors.
|
|