ParkFirst Early Redemption - Thread for any reports of successful redemptions

Aretnap

JohnRim wrote: »

The FCA website only mentions the company's that where created to deal with buy backs. I'm guessing the car parks can continue to operate for those who chose the lifetime lease.

From the FCA statement

"In addition, the companies that entered into the Lifetime Leaseback (Park First Glasgow Rentals Limited and Park First Gatwick Rentals Limited) have also entered administration."

Souss

New to this and can't see how to make a completely new post. But, anyway, as I think someone else said, surely we own the piece(s) of land even if only leasehold and this is legally drawn up by a solicitor? What's the point of getting land legally registered in one's name otherwise? I thought this was some kind of protection.

I am not sure exactly what the administrators' role in this is but do they try to turn the business around, get another company to buy it, or what? The reason I bought into this was that logically speaking there is a general shortage of parking, and air travel is increasing at a rapid rate (especially Gatwick). Potentially in the next few years, shortage of parking spaces will be a crucial problem near airports. Surely the administrators will be able to run the car parks and make a profit - isn't that what they are appointed to do? Is Park First completely out of the picture now, or is it possible that the administrators could run everything more efficiently and they could take over again? Yes, I do understand that a lot of people want their money back and this has caused the problem - but what about the piece of land 'ring-fenced' - Luton I think? Maybe selling this and continuing revenue from the spaces is not enough to pay them. As far as I understand, if these people could have been paid, the business would have not got into trouble.

So is the outcome just to run the car parks for the time being, put the profit from this in a 'pot' along with sale of some of the land (Luton?), and pay off the creditors? Supposing I just want to keep my three tiny pieces of land near Gatwick airport? Surely they can't take them away from me? My children might be able to do very well if a building company want that land in 10 or 20 years' time!

Sorry for my ignorance but I cannot make sense of all this - maybe grasping at straws because I put 30% of my savings into the scheme hoping the revenue would be a handy little pension top up.

Did anyone buy their spaces through Katar investments? It looks like the office has closed down, and all the contact numbers for the people working there have been cancelled.

Reaper

I'm not an expert but if you buy a leasehold house you own the house but not the land it is built on.

What you have will depend on what your lease says and what the freeholder is allowed to do with it.

I am guessing you only have the right to a cut of money raised from parking cars on it. If the land is sold off by the administrators I think any buyer would be mad to operate it as a car park. Unless anything in the lease prevents it I would expect them to build a hotel on it or something else non-car related in which case your rights are worthless. But have a read of the lease and see.

PS I guess you could ask the administrators about buying the freehold from them if you really believe in it. But personally I would be reluctant to throw good money after bad, and as that would prevent them selling of all the land as a single block to a developer they probably won't be interested.

Souss

Thanks for input. I think you are right about a property - you only own the building for the term of the lease but you don't own the land. But I had a very quick look at leasehold land uk, and it appears you have rights over the land for the term - you are a kind of sitting tenant. There is no need to buy the freehold. So unless there was some very clever wording by the solicitor it would appear we do have rights over the land for however many years it was. If this is so, I would be inclined to keep it just to be awkward - even if I don't get any money back. Can't lay my hands on the paperwork at the moment, as I have just moved and trying to get sorted out. Not sure if worth giving the solicitor a ring to see about the legalities.

Reaper

Souss wrote: »

I had a very quick look at leasehold land uk, and it appears you have rights over the land for the term - you are a kind of sitting tenant. There is no need to buy the freehold.

I have no idea. I know increasingly leaseholders have been given more rights but I suspect these are aimed at those living on the land. However like I say I am no expert. I'll leave the answer to others.

Can't lay my hands on the paperwork at the moment, as I have just moved and trying to get sorted out. Not sure if worth giving the solicitor a ring to see about the legalities.

I'd at least find the paperwork first as the first thing the solicitor will say is "what are the terms of the lease?"

doe808

Reaper wrote: »

I'm not an expert but if you buy a leasehold house you own the house but not the land it is built on.

What you have will depend on what your lease says and what the freeholder is allowed to do with it.

I am guessing you only have the right to a cut of money raised from parking cars on it. If the land is sold off by the administrators I think any buyer would be mad to operate it as a car park. Unless anything in the lease prevents it I would expect them to build a hotel on it or something else non-car related in which case your rights are worthless. But have a read of the lease and see.

PS I guess you could ask the administrators about buying the freehold from them if you really believe in it. But personally I would be reluctant to throw good money after bad, and as that would prevent them selling of all the land as a single block to a developer they probably won't be interested.

Administrators can disclaim leases, resulting in them being brought to an end. Can be a complex area, but this is the general position.

AnotherJoe

Souss wrote: »

New to this and can't see how to make a completely new post. But, anyway, as I think someone else said, surely we own the piece(s) of land even if only leasehold and this is legally drawn up by a solicitor? What's the point of getting land legally registered in one's name otherwise? I thought this was some kind of protection.

I am not sure exactly what the administrators' role in this is but do they try to turn the business around, get another company to buy it, or what?

Not the former. They will try for the latter. Then liquidate if no buyers.
The reason I bought into this was that logically speaking there is a general shortage of parking, and air travel is increasing at a rapid rate (especially Gatwick). Potentially in the next few years, shortage of parking spaces will be a crucial problem near airports.

I dont see why it is "crucial". If parking is too expensive because the land can be used for something else more profitable, then it will be used for that instead and people will use alternatives to nearby parking, of which there are many. Your assumption seems to be as simple as, people will park at any price.

Surely the administrators will be able to run the car parks and make a profit - isn't that what they are appointed to do?

No it is not. They are appointed to get the most for the assets.

You've also assumed that these car parks can be run at a profit, but they may simply be inherently unprofitable (especially given the loading added by flogging off potential profits to investors). For example, totally making up numbers, if it costs £1,000/week to run each space and people will only pay £950 to park there, then no one would buy that business. They cant just ratchet up the price to a level where they will be profitable, because people will choose cheaper alternatives.

Is Park First completely out of the picture now, or is it possible that the administrators could run everything more efficiently and they could take over again?

No because administrators dont get into "running things more efficiently" they just want to sell it to someone else in part or whole. There may, literally, be no one else that want to buy it,

Yes, I do understand that a lot of people want their money back and this has caused the problem - but what about the piece of land 'ring-fenced' - Luton I think? Maybe selling this and continuing revenue from the spaces is not enough to pay them. As far as I understand, if these people could have been paid, the business would have not got into trouble.
I doubt that. Most likely it is a flawed business model that cannot work given the costs


So is the outcome just to run the car parks for the time being, put the profit from this in a 'pot' along with sale of some of the land (Luton?), and pay off the creditors? Supposing I just want to keep my three tiny pieces of land near Gatwick airport? Surely they can't take them away from me? My children might be able to do very well if a building company want that land in 10 or 20 years' time!
Good question re the leases. Dont know. Maybe they can value them at some amount and compulsory purchase.


Sorry for my ignorance but I cannot make sense of all this - maybe grasping at straws because I put 30% of my savings into the scheme hoping the revenue would be a handy little pension top up.

Oh dear. I am what most would call a high risk investor. I'd never put 30% of my savings into any one thing.


Did anyone buy their spaces through Katar investments? It looks like the office has closed down, and all the contact numbers for the people working there have been cancelled.

You seem to be assuming the business model is or was, run and operate profitable car parks and give a large part of that profit to others (a strange model)

An alternative model is, take in investments to fund your business so you arent risking anything, cream off lots of money, often via third parties for "introductions", [STRIKE]when[/STRIKE] if the business fails, say "oh dear" and walk* away from the wreckage.




* For values of "walk" = drive away in Ferrari.

Souss

Thanks for feedback. Are you actually an investor in this? I would guess not, otherwise you would look at the terms of lease yourself. As far as I can see - trying to interpret the jargon - we do actually 'own' the land for the lease period. It is legally registered with land registry. I think only government can make a compulsory purchase order. I remember being told by someone in Parkfirst office that I could sell my land like any other property after two years using a regular estate agent. From my point of view, this is quite important and as I said, I might just say 'what the hell' and refuse some pittance of a compensation offer just to be awkward - or maybe accept an offer for two of the spaces but hold on to one of them. That land won't be left there doing nothing for years and someone will want to buy it for development.

Aretnap

Souss wrote: »

The reason I bought into this was that logically speaking there is a general shortage of parking, and air travel is increasing at a rapid rate (especially Gatwick). Potentially in the next few years, shortage of parking spaces will be a crucial problem near airports.

Will it though? So you have any evidence to back this up beyond a vague feeling and ParkFirst's own marketing speel? Car parking is not exactly a business where the barriers to entry are huge. If you want to set up a car park you just need some low value brownfield or wasteland, a cheap tarmac job and some white paint. Even in the South of England there is no shortage of land doing nothing in particular, and it doesn't even have to be particularly close to the airport if you're going to pay a bloke to provide a meet and greet service, collect the punters cars from the airport and drive them to the car park (this seems to be how Park First's Gatwick car park is run).

If there is a barrier to entry it is likely to be planning permission - provided the local council is willing to grant planning permission there is never likely to be an acute shortage of parking spaces as more car parks can easily start up to meet demand.

,Supposing I just want to keep my three tiny pieces of land near Gatwick airport? Surely they can't take them away from me? My children might be able to do very well if a building company want that land in 10 or 20 years' time!

That would presumably depend on the terms of the lease. However if there is no mechanism for forcing individual leaseholders to sell (eg if a fixed number of leaseholders agree to an offer, the others have to go along with it) then the land is more than likely unsellable and worthless. No building company is going to want to develop the land of it means negotiating with hundreds of individual leaseholders, any one of whom could presumably scupper the whole development by refusing to sell and many of whom will be under the misapprehension that a fair price for their 10 square metres of cheap tarmac is £25K and won't accept a penny less.

So unless there was some very clever wording by the solicitor it would appear we do have rights over the land for however many years it was. If this is so, I would be inclined to keep it just to be awkward - even if I don't get any money back.

Awkward to whom though? The people behind ParkFirst don't care - the scheme has served it's purpose, they have long since pocketed your money, spent it on loose cars and fast women, and moved on to selling "fine" wines, hotel rooms, student bedsits or whatever the next get rich quick scheme is (not storage pods though -they've already done them). And the administrators don't care - making things awkward for then just means they get to run up more billable hours to charge against whatever money would otherwise be returned to creditors.

Souss

No getting away from the fact that it seems we do own the land. If they (or whoever) are hoping to sell it on to this 'Chinese billionaire' that has been mentioned, then surely it is being awkward to hang on to it.

Up the road from us there is a guy of about 90 living in a tiny tumbledown shack in the middle of a fairly large tract of land surrounded by hotels. Over the last 30 odd years hotels have tried in vain to get him to sell (I think the rest of the land is owned by family members) but he refuses and you can see him sitting there as you drive to the beach, with his two goats tethered outside, a few chickens and his dog, with the rest of the family willing him to pop his clogs so they can sell to the highest bidder. Probably not quite the same, but nice story, and that's what I mean by being awkward!