fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Jul 12, 2017 20:41:07 GMT
Mmmm... Chocolate.
Edit: It's OK Ed, I'm in.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,587
Likes: 4,181
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 12, 2017 21:01:53 GMT
Evening, I would just like to clarify: Roof 1, block B - Is on and watertight. The final covering membrane starts Friday this week (slight delay due to a national shortage of insulation). Roof 2, block A - Trusses on and is watertight. Membrane to follow after block B is on. Where are you getting your information from? If you look at the Plym.1 photo (taken earlier today) you can look into the building through the second floor window openings and see the sky. In what way is this watertight?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 13, 2017 9:53:06 GMT
Afternoon. I can confirm that our borrower was in no way connected to the previous ownership. Regards, Ed. Thanks for that Ed. Could you help me a bit more on that? For the residential development in B********* (MTAS713), we're told "Related Loans: This is the same borrower as the recently funded Plymouth student development (MTAS707)": which I gather is P******** P******* D******** Ltd. This is one of a number of companies of which a Mr DH is the sole director. On planning application documents for both B********* (MTAS713) and the Plymouth development the applicant is C******* A**** Ltd. Which is another of the companies of which Mr DH is/was the sole director, until it became insolvent and went into compulsory liquidation recently. All of which gave me the impression that both sites were previously owned by Mr H's liquidated company C******* A**** Ltd until they were acquired by his other company, P******** P******* D******** Ltd, the borrower. Could you help by pointing out what I may have misunderstood?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 13, 2017 10:10:54 GMT
Afternoon. I can confirm that our borrower was in no way connected to the previous ownership. Regards, Ed. Thanks for that Ed. Could you help me a bit more on that? For the residential development in B********* (MTAS713), we're told "Related Loans: This is the same borrower as the recently funded Plymouth student development (MTAS707)": which I gather is P******** P******* D******** Ltd. This is one of a number of companies of which a Mr DH is the sole director. On planning application documents for both B********* (MTAS713) and the Plymouth development the applicant is C******* A**** Ltd. Which is another of the companies of which Mr DH is/was the sole director, until it became insolvent and went into compulsory liquidation recently. All of which gave me the impression that both sites were previously owned by Mr H's liquidated company C******* A**** Ltd until they were acquired by his other company, P******** P******* D******** Ltd, the borrower. Could you help by pointing out what I may have misunderstood? You can apply for planning without being the owner so quite possible for the prospective purchaser to be listed as the applicant and maybe have an option in place to purchase which then got picked up by another borrower company when CA got into difficulties. CA was a subsiduary of another of the borrower's companies. Incidently PPD isnt the borrower on Plymouth, its another of the directors companies according to CH.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 13, 2017 10:35:24 GMT
Evening, I would just like to clarify: Roof 1, block B - Is on and watertight. The final covering membrane starts Friday this week (slight delay due to a national shortage of insulation). Roof 2, block A - Trusses on and is watertight. Membrane to follow after block B is on. Where are you getting your information from? If you look at the Plym.1 photo (taken earlier today) you can look into the building through the second floor window openings and see the sky. In what way is this watertight??
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Jul 13, 2017 11:24:37 GMT
Afternoon. Just a holding note to say that I will respond on the two points later today. Regards, Ed.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 13, 2017 12:16:42 GMT
Incidently PPD isnt the borrower on Plymouth, its another of the directors companies according to CH. That doesn't surprise me though the loan details for B******* do say it's the same buyer, rather than another company with the same sole director. He does seem to have quite a lot of companies, a dozen or so created last year alone iirc. As you suggest there are many possible scenarios, some less likely than others. What we seem to know with some certainty is that one of the borrower's companies was making planning applications for this site from some while back until recently before becoming insolvent and being put into compulsory liquidation by its creditors. Then another of the borrower's companies acquired the same site from an unnamed company, also in financial difficulties, at a knockdown price. Gets very confusing with the many companies and could have been a coincidence of two unconnected companies, one making planning applications for the site and the other owning it, both companies getting into difficulties at around the same time. Perhaps just an unlucky site. Would be more easily understood if MT were to clarify the sequence of events either here or in the details. Thanks for the pics agent69. I guess the question being if this one of the borrower's companies were also to get into difficulty, would anyone be willing to pay £2,180,000, the new valuation, to take over the project as it currently stands. Given that the borrower found that a part completed project can be bought for just a fraction of the normal value, himself having paid just £331,000 for this site as a distressed sale, I wouldn't necessarily count on it. Looks way too early for the latest tranche to me. It could of course be repaid on time without a hiccup.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Jul 13, 2017 14:02:49 GMT
Afternoon,
Ref: the roof.
Although the borrower confirmed that the roof was on on Block A (which is what he was the latest agreed plan by the project director on-site), the project director had started to put the roof on but stoped short of covering the entirety as they changed their mind in order to build the fire walls.
Apparently, they did put the roof on on Block B before the fire walls were build, but by doing it the other way round for Block A, will save them around 2 weeks in the long run.
Ref: Entity's.
The synopsis is as follows:
- when DH sourced this site to acquire, it had planning in place for 45 cluster student apartments (shared amenities). - deal was struck to acquire purchase of site subject to change of use to 39 studio apartments. - revision submitted by [architects] with the contact details noting C******* A****. - amendment to planning accepted. - purchaser of site was and is B****** S***** Limited. - this therefore maintains the fact that the current owner of the site has no link to the previous owner, simply purchasing an option on the site subject to revised planning.
Hope this makes sense (even with all the '*'s).
Kind regards,
Ed
|
|
madpierre
Member of DD Central
Posts: 303
Likes: 374
|
Post by madpierre on Jul 13, 2017 14:30:47 GMT
Hi Ed, I have nothing to say, merely joining this thread with my 'Expression of Interest' in the chocolate. I am also in the 3rd tranche so now have all bases covered
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 13, 2017 15:17:07 GMT
Chocolate, with Brandy, Dude? Shurely shome mishtake?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Jul 13, 2017 15:21:19 GMT
Afternoon, Ref: the roof.Although the borrower confirmed that the roof was on on Block A (which is what he was the latest agreed plan by the project director on-site), the project director had started to put the roof on but stoped short of covering the entirety as they changed their mind in order to build the fire walls. Apparently, they did put the roof on on Block B before the fire walls were build, but by doing it the other way round for Block A, will save them around 2 weeks in the long run. Ref: Entity's.The synopsis is as follows: - when DH sourced this site to acquire, it had planning in place for 45 cluster student apartments (shared amenities). - deal was struck to acquire purchase of site subject to change of use to 39 studio apartments. - revision submitted by [architects] with the contact details noting C******* A****. - amendment to planning accepted. - purchaser of site was and is B****** S***** Limited. - this therefore maintains the fact that the current owner of the site has no link to the previous owner, simply purchasing an option on the site subject to revised planning. Hope this makes sense (even with all the '*'s). Kind regards, Ed Jesus, that's now a Quintuple Thumbs Up ...........
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Jul 13, 2017 15:58:34 GMT
is there some kind of requirement to aid the discussion, or is it simply a matter of saying Hi! to Ed to bank your chance of choccie?
|
|
scubabeer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 20
|
Post by scubabeer on Jul 13, 2017 16:04:58 GMT
Just catching up with this thread and to thank Ed for his excellent update. Oh, and for the chocolate of course
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jul 13, 2017 16:09:24 GMT
I would go as far as saying that if the build is not complete in August, I will give all participants in this thread to date a choccy bar*! Ed * This is not to be considered a bribe or any incentive to invest in the loan, simply to show the confidence the author has in respect to the progress of the project. In the event the author does have to 'eat his words' and buy said choccy bars, this will be undertaken at the personal expense of the author and not the company for which he is associated with. I have to say, I don't think much of the DD that is being shown by the johnny-come-lately would-be participants in the choccy bonanza.
|
|
alison
Member of DD Central
Sanctuary!!
Posts: 356
Likes: 99
|
Post by alison on Jul 13, 2017 16:35:04 GMT
I would go as far as saying that if the build is not complete in August, I will give all participants in this thread to date a choccy bar*! Ed * This is not to be considered a bribe or any incentive to invest in the loan, simply to show the confidence the author has in respect to the progress of the project. In the event the author does have to 'eat his words' and buy said choccy bars, this will be undertaken at the personal expense of the author and not the company for which he is associated with. I have to say, I don't think much of the DD that is being shown by the johnny-come-lately would-be participants in the choccy bonanza. I admire your DD ali - I hadn't spotted that, but I also hadn't perjured my soul begging for a bar of chocolate!!
|
|