Mortgage lenders, some of whom are household names, must rue the day they lent money to the Stainers, as they count the losses they are making on the 19 Stainer flats. Now we can share with you the eyewatering losses they have made, thanks to the enclosed schedule of these properties. This schedule was drawn up after their November 2018 bankruptcy, which saw all the flats vested in their Trustees in Bankruptcy, MacIntyre Hudson LLP, with the intention of selling them to pay the Stainers debts of £1.7 million. In some cases, the lenders stepped in and called in their loans, not that it helped them one bit!
The schedule lists every property by its name, the borrower, the mortgage lender and the valuation placed on these flats in 2019 by someone who must by now be burying his head in shame. Above all it shows the size of the loan in, we believe, in mid-2019.
Fast forward to 2021 and seven of these flats have been sold, so we can compare what these flats have actually sold for, and the extent of the losses the lenders have made.
Take the Dorchester Suite, the jewel in the Stainer holiday rental crown. It was valued at £200,000, the mortgage was £153,679. It sold after a rather chaotic auction, along with the Edinburgh Suite, at which Stainer sought to buy them back, but failed to raise the funds to complete, so lost his deposit.
The Edinburgh was valued at £160,000 with a mortgage of £158,000.
This pair of prime properties sold for £180,000 before auction fees, agents commission etc. The combined mortgages were just under £312,000. So, the lender lost at least £132,000 and probably closer to £140,000 with costs.
A further five flats have now sold, with a combined valuation of £606,000, a total mortgage debt of £503,000, and we are given to understand, sold for around £235,000 for the lot! So that’s another lender’s loss of £268,000.
So, with just 7 of the 19 flats sold, lenders have already lost £408,000!!!
The only good news for one lender is that the garage complex, owned personally by the Stainers, sold at auction for £675,000 and the mortgage was ‘only’ around £430,000. The surplus will be divvied up between HMRC and other creditors, including the Grand’s Service Charge account, less the costs of the receiver.
So now, other lenders, including Bank of Ireland., Birmingham Midshires and NatWest, must be quaking in the boots waiting for the next tranche of sales, and losses — except of course no one actually feels the pain. It’s OPM, other people’s money – something Stainer loves the feel of, especially as the Stainers were grossing between £350,000 and £400,000 per annum from their holiday let business.
On the subject of other people’s money, what’s with the sale of the freehold? It sold on June 22nd for £448,000 despite two failed injunctions to prevent the sale and exchange of contracts which will take place on or before the 22nd of July with completion within a further 28 days.
This amount will be divided up, firstly to the administrators, Begbies Traynor who will reclaim all their costs, including fighting off Stainer’s failed injunction applications and insuring the Grand. What’s left will be divided up pro rata between the majority creditor, the Service Charge account of the Grand, managed by Alison Mooney, whose application plunged Hallam Estates into administration, and Folkestone and Hythe Council for unpaid business rates. We assume they can kiss goodbye to the £95,000 of COVID-19 grants doled out to Hallam last year. More taxpayers’ money down the drain.
It’s an expensive business doing business with Michael Stainer, and we eagerly await what Southwark Crown Court will make of his alleged crimes next May.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.