Landal Belvedere go into administration

masonic

jimjames said:

Not good news but highlights yet again the importance of anyone looking at buying this sort of investment getting their own legal advice before doing so. Although I suspect the cost of such advice up front might seem expensive it will ultimately be far less than losing all your money.

Having looked at the report it seems the director is refusing to assist which is complicating matters but appears that investors may have around £17million invested in the company despite the director giving much lower numbers.

This scenario seems similar to the one encountered in the P2P world, where an asset it dangled in front of investors with the promise that they'll be protected by a legal charge over the asset, only to discover several months later that no legal charge was registered and/or the asset doesn't belong to the borrower or the asset doesn't exist.

StateofAffairs

masonic said:

jimjames said:

Not good news but highlights yet again the importance of anyone looking at buying this sort of investment getting their own legal advice before doing so. Although I suspect the cost of such advice up front might seem expensive it will ultimately be far less than losing all your money.

Having looked at the report it seems the director is refusing to assist which is complicating matters but appears that investors may have around £17million invested in the company despite the director giving much lower numbers.

This scenario seems similar to the one encountered in the P2P world, where an asset it dangled in front of investors with the promise that they'll be protected by a legal charge over the asset, only to discover several months later that no legal charge was registered and/or the asset doesn't belong to the borrower or the asset doesn't exist.

I think this scenario is probably even worse. 
If the Belvedere site has no planning permission for ANY lodges whatsoever (refused ever since Dec 2020, and no work started) and the Barnsoul site has permission for only 40-ish (not the 220 according to Knight Knox) then false statements appear to have been made by various directors in the partnership, or the suggestive aspiration to be part of Landal GreenParks. Should have looked into the history more, BLR being the subsidiary of a name-changed entity BPL1 which has now been liquidated with outstanding legal charges you describe. No land certificates issued either, so zero asset. You might want to see if Druces can enlighten you.

Shimrod

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

Accounts are over a year overdue, and also features Alan McNamara as a director

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11976912/officers

jimjames

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

[Quoted post removed by Forum Team]

The difference is those holiday parks actually exist. Landal Belvedere appears to be a scam where people have handed over money for a non existent property. There may be dubious sales tactics and terms for those holiday parks referred to in the Which report but the person buying can actually use it. For these once the money is handed over the investor won't have anything to show for it.

axolotl56

Tried the phone number for Eglinton Park but it didn't ring.  The lodge site (ie land) appears to be up for sale and last planning permission seems to have been in 2011.

StateofAffairs

axolotl56 said:

Tried the phone number for Eglinton Park but it didn't ring.  The lodge site (ie land) appears to be up for sale and last planning permission seems to have been in 2011.

Does that mean another EXPIRED or REFUSED planning permit at Eglinton Park (and are they part of Landal Greenparks?)
The former was not the case at Barncrosh, aka Landal Belvedere.
PP was definitely refused there, back in late 2020, and again just weeks ago.
So if you bought Landal Barnsoul, which DOES have some PP, you would be entitled to some return surely? Even it just pennies in the £.
Whereas if you bought Landal Belvedere, you deserve absolutely nothing because it was falsely advertised by the developer or finance offer.
Are we getting anywhere?

masonic

StateofAffairs said:

axolotl56 said:

Tried the phone number for Eglinton Park but it didn't ring.  The lodge site (ie land) appears to be up for sale and last planning permission seems to have been in 2011.

Does that mean another EXPIRED or REFUSED planning permit at Eglinton Park (and are they part of Landal Greenparks?)
The former was not the case at Barncrosh, aka Landal Belvedere.
PP was definitely refused there, back in late 2020, and again just weeks ago.
So if you bought Landal Barnsoul, which DOES have some PP, you would be entitled to some return surely? Even it just pennies in the £.
Whereas if you bought Landal Belvedere, you deserve absolutely nothing because it was falsely advertised by the developer or finance offer.
Are we getting anywhere?

I don't follow your logic. Whether or not there is planning permission would be irrelevant if the investor has no legal interest in the land. It seems likely that once again, all the investment bought was a certificate that has no legal standing and a promise that it would be received as consideration for a non-existent lodge. A land registry search would confirm who owns the land and whether any legal charge was registered against it. If not, the investor would be an unsecured creditor of the company, having not received the lodge they "bought". I strongly suspect that when all is said and done there will be no money left to distribute to unsecured creditors.

StateofAffairs

masonic said:

StateofAffairs said:

axolotl56 said:

Tried the phone number for Eglinton Park but it didn't ring.  The lodge site (ie land) appears to be up for sale and last planning permission seems to have been in 2011.

Does that mean another EXPIRED or REFUSED planning permit at Eglinton Park (and are they part of Landal Greenparks?)
The former was not the case at Barncrosh, aka Landal Belvedere.
PP was definitely refused there, back in late 2020, and again just weeks ago.
So if you bought Landal Barnsoul, which DOES have some PP, you would be entitled to some return surely? Even it just pennies in the £.
Whereas if you bought Landal Belvedere, you deserve absolutely nothing because it was falsely advertised by the developer or finance offer.
Are we getting anywhere?

I don't follow your logic. Whether or not there is planning permission would be irrelevant if the investor has no legal interest in the land. It seems likely that once again, all the investment bought was a certificate that has no legal standing and a promise that it would be received as consideration for a non-existent lodge. A land registry search would confirm who owns the land and whether any legal charge was registered against it. If not, the investor would be an unsecured creditor of the company, having not received the lodge they "bought". I strongly suspect that when all is said and done there will be no money left to distribute to unsecured creditors.

Sorry to confuse. I think I am drawing the distinction between 2 different investment schemes at 2 physically different locations. Surely they must be administered separately? Landal Barnsoul returns must be higher because it has legitimate planning permission. The Belvedere site doesn't.
... and in the EDIT:
Even though both appear schemes run by Apple aka GladePark, Barnsoul is operational, and must be getting occupancy commission paid back to Landal Barnsoul from Landal Grenparks. Such is not the case at Landal Belvedere, hence the distinction I draw between the two, and it is unfair if Barnsoul investors get returns reduced due to the absence of development and occupancy at Belvedere/Barncrosh. 
Must not forget that there was a JV between Apple & Belvedere Leisure Resorts either.

masonic

StateofAffairs said:

masonic said:

StateofAffairs said:

axolotl56 said:

Tried the phone number for Eglinton Park but it didn't ring.  The lodge site (ie land) appears to be up for sale and last planning permission seems to have been in 2011.

Does that mean another EXPIRED or REFUSED planning permit at Eglinton Park (and are they part of Landal Greenparks?)
The former was not the case at Barncrosh, aka Landal Belvedere.
PP was definitely refused there, back in late 2020, and again just weeks ago.
So if you bought Landal Barnsoul, which DOES have some PP, you would be entitled to some return surely? Even it just pennies in the £.
Whereas if you bought Landal Belvedere, you deserve absolutely nothing because it was falsely advertised by the developer or finance offer.
Are we getting anywhere?

I don't follow your logic. Whether or not there is planning permission would be irrelevant if the investor has no legal interest in the land. It seems likely that once again, all the investment bought was a certificate that has no legal standing and a promise that it would be received as consideration for a non-existent lodge. A land registry search would confirm who owns the land and whether any legal charge was registered against it. If not, the investor would be an unsecured creditor of the company, having not received the lodge they "bought". I strongly suspect that when all is said and done there will be no money left to distribute to unsecured creditors.

Sorry to confuse. I think I am drawing the distinction between 2 different investment schemes at 2 physically different locations. Surely they must be administered separately? Landal Barnsoul returns must be higher because it has legitimate planning permission. The Belvedere site doesn't.
... and in the EDIT:
Even though both appear schemes run by Apple aka GladePark, Barnsoul is operational, and must be getting occupancy commission paid back to Landal Barnsoul from Landal Grenparks. Such is not the case at Landal Belvedere, hence the distinction I draw between the tow, and it is unfair if Barnsoul investors get returns reduced due to the absence of development and occupancy at Belvedere/Barncrosh. 
Must not forget that there was a JV between Apple & Belvedere Leisure Resorts either.

What will matter is whether the contracts for the two schemes were between investors and the same vs two different companies. I think it is a single company marketing these investments, but could be wrong. If the investors in each scheme were dealing with the same company, then assuming that company cannot simply refund them, it will eventually be driven into administration itself and the investors will become unsecured creditors of the company. That is, unless they are registered owners of a plot of the land, or have a legal charge over the land (in which case they will benefit from the specific asset listed in their name at the land registry, the land at one site perhaps being worth a little more due to the PP). I think it is unlikely that they would have a legal interest in the land at either site, especially given this has been confirmed for one of the sites. 

More likely the arrangement would have been for the lodges in situ, had they ever been built. So the land with planning permission, the land without planning permission (if owned by the company contracting with the investors) plus any income the company is receiving, would be pooled and used to meet creditor claims in the prescribed priority order, with investors being at the back of the queue (after the administrators themselves, HMRC, staff, secured creditors etc). The other scenario is where the land isn't owned by the company dealing with investors, in which case the land is beyond their reach entirely.

If the companies involved in marketing the two schemes to investors are different, then you are correct that the prospects for those investing in Barnsoul would seem better, but they could still end up with nothing as (for example) Landal Barnsoul Limited has not filed anything suggesting that it has received any assets or income from the operations of the site. It's last balance sheet showed it had £100 of capital.

axolotl56

I think there might have been an agreement between Landal Greenparks and Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc with regards to sharing profits from Barnsoul.  Also there exists a Plot Certificate signed on behalf of Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc.  The company names are deliberately misleading.  BLRplc has not published certified accounts since those of 30 June 2021.