|
Post by sirpercyblakeney on Sept 30, 2020 17:54:31 GMT
An update with no real content = We are stuffed!
Can't say we have not been warned
|
|
|
Post by mikeyb999 on Sept 30, 2020 18:30:34 GMT
Yep, that update reads as......your not getting anything back - to follow is a long statement from our legal team explaining where the £1.3m went......
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 30, 2020 18:43:08 GMT
sounds like a warning to expect bad news to me - how the hell did FS get into this mess - my solicitor would never have done so!
All they had to do was add a charge to a title - not exactly the sort of thing you need a Lord Chief Juss#tice for is it
Unlike FS several forum members researched this borrower and his legal associate and the message was clear - AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!
Hopefully we can sue FS/directors for even more gross incompetence.
I wonder if this clever-clogs legal chap allied with this professional wide boy have totally outsmarted FS...I will not be happy if this is the case....
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 30, 2020 19:11:59 GMT
sounds like a warning to expect bad news to me - how the hell did FS get into this mess - my solicitor would never have done so! All they had to do was add a charge to a title - not exactly the sort of thing you need a Lord Chief Juss#tice for is it <snip>Re: this bit, sorry, you've lost me. Can you go into detail, please? (Either here on in DD if more appropriate.)
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Oct 1, 2020 11:02:55 GMT
The previous update on 9 September stated that the borrower had raised concerns about the appointment of the receivers so it seems that this is the sticking point.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Oct 1, 2020 11:17:43 GMT
Yep, that update reads as......your not getting anything back - to follow is a long statement from our legal team explaining where the £1.3m went...... I think it reads that a the borrower has made a legal challenge on some grounds, so the administrators have been forced to instruct solicitors to respond to this challenge. Due to FS, the borrowers have millions of pounds worth of investors money that clearly weren't spent on renovations to the tower block; the administrators should have made efforts to trace where this loaned money went and be mounting legal charges against these characters. Instead, the borrowers who had no funds left to complete the development are mysteriously flush with cash to spend on lawyers and those supposed to be representing the best interest of the creditors aren't even willing to communicate with said creditors. A sorry state of affairs.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 1, 2020 12:04:01 GMT
A sorry state of affairs. Wholeheartedly agree, ajWhat I don't understand is adrian77 's comment re: solicitors and " All they had to do was add a charge to a title - not exactly the sort of thing you need a Lord Chief Juss#tice for is it" None of the updates suggest there was an issue with the charge and I'm pretty sure that the acting Receivers' legal reps wouldn't have sold the security unless they were in the clear to do so, and nor would the Borrower have allowed it to happen. Reading between the lines, my (speculative) suspicion is that the Borrower is maintaining they could have achieved a better result had they been allowed to do X,Y or Z and on that basis are calling the Receivers appointed by FS into disrepute for not striving to achieve the best outcome for all parties. Frustrating thing for Lenders is that the Borrower can tie up the Receivers (clocking up Receivers hours / costs as well as those of the Receivers' legal counsel) possibly at little or no cost to the Borrower, but at a not insignificant cost to Lenders.
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Oct 1, 2020 13:32:43 GMT
The update on the 9th September says the borrower had “previously” raised concerns about the appointment of receivers. Why were these concerns not dealt with before the sale of the property?
Bearing in mind the receivers were appointed on the 20th November 2018 there should have been ample time to get this resolved before the sale went ahead!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 1, 2020 18:43:47 GMT
ExactlyT
to those of us not trying to score cheap points I thought it was bleeding obvious what I was referring to - namely FS needed to ensure the legal work was done correctly so that their charge on this property was perfected and this included the proper legal route to obtain repossession is case of default or any other problems such as misrepresentation. I have no commercial mortages but I do have a residential mortage - if I defaulted I don't think I would get very far if I disputed their decision to repossess my house! As I have said 100 times before when I started my property career I had a bank loan and they had every avenue covered and made it quite clear they would possess my commercial AND residential home if needed be,
I have checked the comments for this one - unless I am mistaken this borrower defaulted (which I suspect was part of his original business plan) and it was FS who called-in the recievers- so ,as I see it, either this borrower is launching some stupid legal point or he has set a legal trap which FS have walked into.
So whose fault is it that we are in this situation - I would surmise FS's! And as I said all they had to do was ensure the legal was done correctly so we would not be in this position - not as if we are takling about much money - only £2.59m according to my maths
I hate to think what the legal costs are going to be for this one...
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Oct 1, 2020 20:24:15 GMT
ExactlyT to those of us not trying to score cheap points I thought it was bleeding obvious what I was referring to - namely FS needed to ensure the legal work was done correctly so that their charge on this property was perfected and this included the proper legal route to obtain repossession is case of default or any other problems such as misrepresentation. I have no commercial mortages but I do have a residential mortage - if I defaulted I don't think I would get very far if I disputed their decision to repossess my house! As I have said 100 times before when I started my property career I had a bank loan and they had every avenue covered and made it quite clear they would possess my commercial AND residential home if needed be, I have checked the comments for this one - unless I am mistaken this borrower defaulted (which I suspect was part of his original business plan) and it was FS who called-in the recievers- so ,as I see it, either this borrower is launching some stupid legal point or he has set a legal trap which FS have walked into. So whose fault is it that we are in this situation - I would surmise FS's! And as I said all they had to do was ensure the legal was done correctly so we would not be in this position - not as if we are takling about much money - only £2.59m according to my maths I hate to think what the legal costs are going to be for this one... adrian77 - It's nothing to do with 'scoring cheap points' and, instead, everything to do with seeking clarity and ensuring that, for the benefit of lenders looking for accurate information, the situation is presented as precisely as possible. My querying your comment suggesting that the charge hadn't been perfected was an attempt to achieve just that. Do you think the appointed Receivers would have sold the security without first checking everything was in order and that they were legally entitled to do so? It would appear so, as you go on to add: " And as I said all they had to do was ensure the legal was done correctly so we would not be in this position" I'd be the first to concede that FS' (pre-Admin) track record for legal accuracy left something to be desired but adrian77 , c'mon ... are you saying really suggesting Avison Young are just as slip shod? To make it absolutely clear, there is no evidence that the situation is anything other than that " the legal was done correctly" as the security has been sold.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 2, 2020 7:54:21 GMT
well that's one opinion - the point is either this legal work was done correctly or it wasn't.
I have no idea if this was or wasn't the case - if not the case then FS have screwed up with over £2.5m of our money and I really hope we can sue them 5% of £2.585m is £129K.
The point I was making is that I see NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER for the legal work not being done correctly as this was a simple case of lending money against an asset
In my opinion if there were legal issues then we should have been told about them and FS should either have walked away or ensured they were covered. I have checked the comments as below
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 8, 2020 13:21:10 GMT
They could have given us this update when the money was received. Their lawyers have had several weeks to look at this before this announcement was made.
It seems to me that we have a whole bunch of sharks here that never had any intention of us seeing this money back and that now includes the receivers.
"This one looks like first charge holders might just get their money, best put a spanner in the works while work out how to put a stop to that!"
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 8, 2020 15:00:02 GMT
"
Hopefully but I have a very bad feeling about this one - I think we have the right to be told how much has been received - this was a month ago
Being in the second tranche I was hoping I would get some money back but now I really worry I won't see a penny.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Nov 12, 2020 8:52:40 GMT
Still not a word a month later. Still, it's only my money so why would I need to know anything.
This is outrageous, we still can't can't our money back even when it's sitting there!
|
|
syalith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 62
Likes: 102
|
Post by syalith on Nov 12, 2020 19:10:56 GMT
Still not a word a month later. Still, it's only my money so why would I need to know anything. This is outrageous, we still can't can't our money back even when it's sitting there! Totally agree. Disgusting, isn't it? Surely it doesn't take 43 days for a solicitor to give us an idea where we stand. My worry is that the longer this takes, the less likely it is to be a trivial matter. Hopefully, it does turn out to be trivial and the administrators are just being slow to update. I actually drove up to Liverpool to check out another of the development loans on Fundingsecure back in the day, it was supposedly progressing well with the foundations going in, but when I got there all I saw was a huge pile of rubble. I never bothered to check out the tower block as I thought the LTV was so low it wasn't necessary. I sold the pile of rubble on the secondary market immediately, but if I had been smart I would have sold all my loans and exited from Fundingsecure entirely. I was greedy and didn't think rationally and I'm paying the price for that now.
|
|