ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Apr 25, 2018 12:01:46 GMT
This has now been in legals for +/- two months - is such a thing normal? It'll be interesting to see what the next update says (which is due in the next couple of days).
|
|
misscas
Member of DD Central
Posts: 64
Likes: 55
|
Post by misscas on Apr 25, 2018 16:48:16 GMT
This has now been in legals for +/- two months - is such a thing normal? It'll be interesting to see what the next update says (which is due in the next couple of days). Yes.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Apr 27, 2018 8:59:56 GMT
Update on site, more bad news, buyer has pulled out, back on the market.
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Apr 27, 2018 9:16:39 GMT
Update on site, more bad news, buyer has pulled out, back on the market. There's also some good news - the shambles surrounding the leasehold/freehold title & consent required from a deceased estate, that lead to the delays that were partly responsible for the sale collapsing, have now been fully resolved
Any future sales should now proceed without delay, now where did I put that queue of eager buyers?
|
|
|
Post by thecleaner on Apr 27, 2018 9:47:30 GMT
Sounds like yet another shambles to me. Why has the buyer now pulled if everything is now hunky dorey. Surely they are in a better position now than before when they agreed to purchase
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Apr 27, 2018 10:04:38 GMT
So the sale has fallen through due to the delay caused in obtaining the necessary consents from the estate of the freeholder. Perhaps the purchaser are frustrated as I was to learn that the property was leasehold rather than freehold. Investors should have been told this at the outset and I hope that investors will be holding MoneyThing to account for this massive failing which has clearly had a significant impact on the value of the security and its sale-ability. I wonder if this loan is going to become the MT equivalent of the London hotel loans on FC?
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Apr 27, 2018 10:19:30 GMT
ptr120: I fully concur with your statement - the value of the security was seriously undermined by it being leasehold as opposed to freehold as advertised to lenders in the MT asset description. Fundamentally, lenders were given false and misleading information - MT should be offering compensation in this regard if the property is sold below the loan value (as seems likely).
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Apr 27, 2018 10:47:54 GMT
rxdav, given that the valuation report states the tenure as Freehold, one would hope that MT would be preparing to sue the valuer for the shortfall between the sale price less costs & the capital & accrued interest due.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Apr 27, 2018 11:07:19 GMT
westcountry: You may well be correct. However, it was MT who presented the valuation to me and consequently it is MT to whom I look for compensation - and I do not expect to wait on any extended timeframe whilst MT themselves take recovery action. I have now sold all my loans in MT exempt those for which there is a queue (most property it seems) - but intend to sell out 100% asap. The only way MT will reverse my negative opinion of them (and it was positive until this debacle) is to willingly offer compensation (as/if required) for any monies outstanding to me subsequent to the asset sale.
I based my commitment to this loan on what has proved to be false and misleading information presented to me by MT - consequently, I expect compensation - simples!
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 27, 2018 11:10:24 GMT
Companies House records for the borrowing company show MT registered a charge against an additional leasehold title this month.
Land registry records for this address (two street numbers combined) show 2 freehold titles, 2 stand-alone leasehold titles, and a leasehold title shared with neighbouring properties. I believe MT now has charges against the two standalone leasehold titles, with a receiver action noted against the original one. All five title numbers are listed in DD Central for those with access.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 27, 2018 11:56:41 GMT
MoneyThing , I note that the marketing agent still has this shown in the headlines column "Tenure: Freehold" (although the main text contradicts this stating it is leashold). I've previously posted on this subject in this thread nearly three months ago. Also the first words in the text are "UNDER OFFER". Surely it is in our interests that this property is marketed professionally with details that are accurate, and not mis-leading. Also worth noting at this point, one of the conditions of the planning approval in June 2015 was that development must start, or application must be made to discharge the conditions within 3 years of that approval, i.e. within the next 3 months.
|
|
|
Post by Companion Cube on Apr 27, 2018 12:00:20 GMT
Update on site, more bad news, buyer has pulled out, back on the market. So can anyone confirm whether the buyer has lost their 10% deposit and if MT now have that amount in addition to whatever they eventually sell it for? If not then I'm confused as to what the point of exchanging contracts is for.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Apr 27, 2018 12:04:19 GMT
Update on site, more bad news, buyer has pulled out, back on the market. So can anyone confirm whether the buyer has lost their 10% deposit and if MT now have that amount in addition to whatever they eventually sell it for? If not then I'm confused as to what the point of exchanging contracts is for.
We've had no indication that contract have been exchanged in this case and I doubt that they have. Could you be confusing things with another loan on MT where contracts have been exchanged, but the buyer has failed to complete?
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 27, 2018 12:08:31 GMT
ptr120: I fully concur with your statement - the value of the security was seriously undermined by it being leasehold as opposed to freehold as advertised to lenders in the MT asset description. Fundamentally, lenders were given false and misleading information - MT should be offering compensation in this regard if the property is sold below the loan value (as seems likely). I think moneything should seek compensation from the lawyer who missed the leasehold and only then compensate lenders
|
|
|
Post by Companion Cube on Apr 27, 2018 12:11:19 GMT
So can anyone confirm whether the buyer has lost their 10% deposit and if MT now have that amount in addition to whatever they eventually sell it for? If not then I'm confused as to what the point of exchanging contracts is for.
We've had no indication that contract have been exchanged in this case and I doubt that they have. Could you be confusing things with another loan on MT where contracts have been exchanged, but the buyer has failed to complete? My apologies for the confusion. I was getting confused with Pre****y, another diabolical mess that I'm significantly locked into. The worry just all merges into one big mess.
|
|