|
Post by gsp on Sept 20, 2019 11:34:01 GMT
Next visit in a week?
|
|
|
Post by in2tense on Sept 20, 2019 16:08:17 GMT
|
|
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 Nov 11, 2019 17:20:41 GMT
Went past today, nothing new to report. I did notice 2 windows on the top floor were part open, may have been something ive not noticed before, but I will re check just in case theres someone moved in!
dave Hi turton Good to see your reports on this property. Obviously, this is by far the biggest loan on Collateral, so it is important that it is sold for a good price. Is the building still for sale? I believe the outstanding loans are: BL00026 12% rate: £1,683,600 (1st rank, 32% of tranches) 14% rate: £1,281,325 (2nd rank, 25% of tranches) 15% rate: £1,624,125 + £600,000 = £2,224,125 (3rd rank, 43% of tranches) Therefore we need c.£5m to repay all capital. That's optimistic, but I'd like to see the FCA and BDO agree to finish the building works in order to maximise the return.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 15, 2019 23:03:06 GMT
Not our building (fortunately), but a student block in Bolton is being severely damaged by fire this evening ( ... 20 engines were at the scene ... )
Whilst not wishing to make light of an obvious tradegy, it does slightly reduce the over supply of such blocks in Bolton.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 16, 2019 9:20:09 GMT
Not our building (fortunately), but a student block in Bolton is being severely damaged by fire this evening ( ... 20 engines were at the scene ... )
Whilst not wishing to make light of an obvious tradegy, it does slightly reduce the over supply of such blocks in Bolton.
Or, rather, increases the supply of derelict, uninhabitable student blocks in Bolton ...
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 400
Likes: 484
|
Post by stokeloans on Nov 16, 2019 11:20:17 GMT
Just seen it on another website.Immediate thought was it was ours and an insurance job....then I remembered it's unlikely ours has insurance 😉
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Nov 16, 2019 11:28:01 GMT
Just seen it on another website.Immediate thought was it was ours and an insurance job....then I remembered it's unlikely ours has insurance 😉 That would be very remiss of the administrators if it is true.
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Nov 16, 2019 15:58:23 GMT
Yes, the fire just a stone's throw away makes you wonder what insurance is covering our asset; and not just for fire but also theft and vandalism. Coincidentally, the mrs and I recently enquired with BDO about the matter of insurance and its response is below (redacted not to ID the asset, borrower, or contractor).
It seems to me that efforts to secure and/or insure the asset have been too little and too late. There is reference to security breaches being discussed at the Creditors’ Committee meeting "at some length". Are any of the CC members able to comment on the extent of any theft or vandalism? Has the value of the asset been affected? If there's been extensive theft/vandalism, returns for this asset may be considerably lower than expected.
------ I refer to your email below and apologies for the delay in responding to you. It may be appropriate if I provide some background in relation to this matter.
The Joint Liquidators (“JLs”) had, from the commencement of their appointment (as Joint Administrators at the time), noted that the loan in respect of the development property at G**** M*** S***** was the largest loan on Collateral’s property loan book, and they had asked their property agents to prioritise a report and indicative valuation in respect of the property and sought refinancing proposals from the borrower, F******* I************ Limited (“F*******”).
Collateral’s asset was the loan to F*******, rather than the physical property that secured the obligations of the borrower. Accordingly, F******* continued to have possession and control of the property and had sole responsibility for providing security and insurance. During our discussions with F*******, the borrower put forward a refinancing offer that, in the opinion of our specialist property agents, would have provided the best return to Collateral and its investors.
In subsequent months it was brought to our attention (including through your emails to me) that security arrangements had deteriorated and that action was required. As advised, F******* was obliged to adequately insure and secure the property and, as the JLs did not have control of the property, their options were limited both from a practical and legal perspective. Our solicitors had also written to F******* requesting a copy of the insurance certificate and confirmation that security arrangements remained in place. When F******* failed to provide the requested information we sought further legal advice from our solicitors regarding the actions which we could take in order to improve the security and insurance position at the property in the absence of F*******’s consent. In practice the scope for taking action was limited unless the JLs had opted to take full control of the property by enforcing Collateral’s security and appointing receivers over the property. That was a step which we did not wish to take at that stage (and, indeed, we could not have taken as the Lender Resolution in relation to enforcement had not yet been approved by investors), since it would have destroyed any prospect of us reaching a consensual refinancing with F*******.
F******* did not provide the confirmations that we had requested and, in line with the advice received from our lawyers, we instructed our property agents to take action to improve the basic security at the site. In addition, we took steps to arrange separate insurance for the building to cover for the eventuality that F******* had failed to make, or maintain, its own insurance arrangements. The insurance policy arranged by the JLs was necessarily limited in scope (it did not, for instance, cover break-in and theft), as the JLs were arranging insurance for a property that was not under their control.
We subsequently arranged for agents to re-secure the property a number of times, following reported security breaches. Regular ‘drive-by’ inspections of the property were also arranged. As a result of the continuing concerns over security, and the borrower’s failure to provide sufficient proof that it was able to proceed with its offer, it was decided that receivers would be appointed over the property. Following the Creditors’ Committee’s approval at a meeting held on 12 March 2019, Receivers were appointed over the property on 14 March 2019. They took immediate steps to take possession of the property and placed it under the their own insurance policy. The Receivers have advised that no security breaches have taken place since their appointment.
Later in 2019, Liquidators were appointed over F*******. We have been liaising with the Liquidators to establish whether they have managed to obtain any information in relation to the insurance arrangements for the property. To date, no such information has been obtained and we are advised that the Liquidators have not managed, to date, to secure any of F*******’s books and records. The Liquidators have also contacted the Administrators of M****** Limited, F*******’s contractor for the development, in a further attempt to obtain any information in relation to the insurance arrangements but, again, this has not produced any results. We have of course asked to be kept updated if any relevant information comes to light but, given the complete absence of information in relation to the insurance arrangements (if they were ever in place), no claims have been made to date to any insurers.
Developments in respect of the property, including the previous security breaches, have been recently discussed with the Creditors’ Committee at some length. As you are aware, the Receivers have been undertaking a marketing exercise in an attempt to realise the property, and a number of bids have been received and are being considered. Due to commercial sensitivities, we are unable to provide details of the offers received to date, but I confirm that we will continue to liaise closely with the Creditors’ Committee in this regard.
In respect of your specific questions, to the extent that I can provide an update, please see my responses below.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
BDO
Is there record/report(s) of the police or other authorities visiting or being called to the site? We are not aware of any such record/log, or other steps that the borrower may have taken whilst the site was under its control.
Has there been an assessment of damages to the asset? When was this undertaken and is a copy available? The borrower did not appear to obtain any assessment of the damage to the property whilst it was under its control. The Receivers instructed building surveyors to prepare a report on costs to complete the development shortly after their appointment. The report does not differentiate between remedying any damage caused as a result of vandalism and the general items which were outstanding due to the development being incomplete.
Has comprehensive insurance been in place to cover any losses due to damage? Please see my email above in relation to the insurance arrangements for the site.
Was the insurance put in place by the site owner, the borrower, the Companies (i.e. Collateral), BDO, or BDO's agents? Again, please see my email above.
Have any insurance claims been made and what is the status of such claims? No claim has been made at this stage. If further information in relation to the borrower’s insurance arrangements becomes available in due course we will take any appropriate action.
Have insurance claims recompensed damages in full? Not applicable.
Have damages to the asset been made right? The property has been ‘tidied up’ to allow for the marketing process. Significant works are still required to complete the development.
Does comprehensive insurance continue to cover the asset? As explained in my email above in more detail, since the appointment of Receivers in March 2019, the asset has been placed under the Receivers’ insurance cover.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 16, 2019 18:00:55 GMT
<snip> In practice the scope for taking action was limited unless the JLs had opted to take full control of the property by enforcing Collateral’s security and appointing receivers over the property. That was a step which we did not wish to take at that stage (and, indeed, we could not have taken as the Lender Resolution in relation to enforcement had not yet been approved by investors), since it would have destroyed any prospect of us reaching a consensual refinancing with F*******.<snip> .......it was decided that receivers would be appointed over the property. Following the Creditors’ Committee’s approval at a meeting held on 12 March 2019, Receivers were appointed over the property on 14 March 2019. They took immediate steps to take possession of the property and placed it under the their own insurance policy. The Receivers have advised that no security breaches have taken place since their appointment.<snip>Thanks for the information Please turn me over , I guess it wasn’t marked confidential and no NDA was required A fascinating insight into the sort of things taking place, and as is often the case of course, it raises more questions than answers. I fully understand that there can be complex issues and legalities to resolve which can take inordinate amounts of time in regards to asset recovery, two things however immediately struck me firstly the issue of the Lender Resolution my comment at the time was Mod Hat Off/ I am not happy with the conduct or progress of BDO or the apparent powerlessness we have to do anything about them; and am also troubled about aspects of the Credit Committee (nothing whatever to do with Monetus ). However, although I really dislike the idea that by replying in the affirmative I have somehow endorsed their administration, I have just done so as it seems the most pragmatic solution in the circumstances. My stake (although painfully significant to me) is hardly megabucks, but as others have said everything will help, and I certainly wouldn’t want to contribute to an increase of either the already appalling costs, or the time taken, to (hopefully) recover our funds. Let’s just hope it allows them to speed things up (reduce the need for additional court costs at least) and even better start on returning at least some of investors’ funds well before the end of all this. That they’ve specifically mentioned it as an impediment strikes me that it was a significant factor in delaying steps to realise this asset. The second point is why exactly did they need CC approval before appointing receivers? I did not think this was the role of a CC? And furthermore did this result in additional delays caused by having to wait for a CC meeting which I understand only occur at roughly quarterly intervals? When I complained to the FCA I mentioned that I thought BDO were not fit for purpose in the context of a P2P liquidation/administration, information like this seems to substantiate it.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 5,539
|
Post by duck on Nov 16, 2019 18:04:38 GMT
That letter begs so many questions but what was the likelihood of that offer actually coming to fruition, we have all seen many 'offers' that come to naught, how long was this offer left hanging? However to me the crux of the situation is in this paragraph there seems to be a lack of understanding about the nature of the borrowers and a lack of prompt firm action. Send a letter, wait, get more legal advice hope for a consensual refinance, a desktop exercise. As for the Currie brothers and RR were required to maintain Cols data, we all know how well that went. So what did this insurance cover that added value to investors/creditors? What I read into this letter is that the property has been broken/walked into (probably vandalised ? stripped?) and no appropriate insurance was in place and now that the damage has been done the property is insured So now we have a nearly completed development that will need considerable remedial works. Looks like it will be sold off for a low fire sale price (possibly not the appropriate term today considering the student block round the corner)
|
|
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 Nov 19, 2019 7:52:33 GMT
Please turn me over duck I'm ready to make another complaint. Obviously we have a complaint against the FCA for conning lenders into believing Collateral was registered, now we need a new complaint relating to the failure of BDO to insure the main asset. On Nov 1st 2018 I requested that BDO took insurance of the building very seriously. It appears they did nothing of the sort. The reply 5th Nov 2018 was, "...we are urgently liaising with our solicitors to establish what steps the Companies can take, as lender, to further secure the site." To whom should I complain this time? Possibly, this one, www.gov.uk/complain-about-insolvency-practitioner, although the FCA appointed them.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 5,539
|
Post by duck on Nov 19, 2019 9:40:17 GMT
That is the direction I would take with a copy to the FCA (ask for it to be linked to your existing FCA complaint) and hold onto a copy for sending to your MP when Parliament resumes. Whilst the FCA bear ultimate responsibility for the mess we are in it now appears that further issues exist outside of the FCAs remit.
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Nov 19, 2019 13:13:42 GMT
The mrs and I raised concerns over site security (theft, vandalism) with BDO on the following dates, which doesn't include emails chasing them up for a response. And FYI, the response quoted in the post above was received on 15 November 2019, which is three months after the queries were raised on 14 August 2019. 24 September 2018 1 November 2018 10 December 2018 17 January 2019 7 March 2019 14 August 2019 Other forumites may have complained about site security/insurance too; anyone? And we still haven't heard recent word from the CC members on this matter, or at least to the the extent that they are able to comment considering they're lips may be sealed by an NDA. (Tagging Monetus as one I know is on this forum.) duck sqh I think a campaign of complaints to the Insolvency Service may well be in order. Possibly spearheaded by "duck and the 'lings"? (Thanks to star dust for coining the phrase. ) To help overcome natural entropy, we'd need a complaint template or suggested answers for the Insolvency Services' form.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Nov 19, 2019 22:31:37 GMT
Thanks for raising this situation Please turn me over and sqh . Although the FCA nominated the administrators from BDO, they were appointed by the High Court. Aiui from that point forward the Collateral administration/liquidation is independent of the FCA, and the FCA will not get involved in overseeing it. Although there are restrictions on the powers of an administrator/liquidator over property prior to being able to appoint receivers, they do have a duty of care to protect the interests of creditors. I suspect the administrator could and should have done more to protect this development site. Reading the posts above, BDO were made fully aware of the risks. Based on the response quoted above, I believe BDO could and should have put in place external CCTV monitoring and/or manned patrols to safeguard the integrity of the site. However, according to guidance from The Insolvency Service, "The complaints process does not provide any mechanism of redress for the complainant."Also the process expects that any complaint is made first to the insolvency practitioners themselves, with opportunity to respond. Personally I do not think complaining to The Insolvency Service would benefit the situation at this time. The guidance says "If you believe that you have suffered a financial loss as a result of negligence by an insolvency practitioner you should pursue your own legal remedies."
|
|
insideout
Member of DD Central
Posts: 55
Likes: 99
|
Post by insideout on May 13, 2020 13:29:57 GMT
On the “just received from Collateral” thread duck discussed this building. he said it has been transformed for a nearly completed development to a vandalised shell in the last two years.
what is really known?
About 5 million was invested.
Money destined for other sites was maybe diverted to this one. How much??
Some Insurance was in place but it didn’t cover loss, so what did it cover?
EXACTLY what insurance could and should have been in place and under what terms?
I cannot find the photos that I recall were posted maybe years ago. Are there any photos of the damage?
Even without damage, as a distressed asset it would not have sold for more than maybe £3 million.
Factor in maybe a huge amount of damage perhaps by unpaid builders (anyone know how much damage?) and now a Covid sale and we might be looking at as low as £1.5 million to £2 million.
|
|