Landal Belvedere go into administration

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.

masonic

axolotl56 said:

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.

That makes things a little clearer. So according to the administrators of Apple Invest, the land at Barnsoul is owned by Apple, not BLRplc, so any certificate provided by the latter cannot confer a legal interest in land. As you highlighted here, the administrators of Apple have confirmed this: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81181028/#Comment_81181028

The administrators have probably by now completed on the sale of the land and the proceeds will be used to repay Apple's creditors. BLRplc does not appear to have any claim to the proceeds.

The existing lodges on the Barnsoul site appear to be provided by BLRplc, and presumably these have been purchased by early investors in the scheme. There will be an income stream from these going into BLRplc, but there is also a legal charge over all of the assets of BLRplc, meaning there is a higher priority creditor that will have to be repaid in full before those investing in non-existent lodges via 'certificate' would see any money. As well as the secured creditor, the administrators state that BLRplc owes Apple nearly £6m, while Apple owes its direct creditors close to £20m (including a mortgage against the Barnsoul site).

Anyone who invested a plot directly with Apple would seem to have a valid claim, as the administrators are recognising these and there seem to be assets to meet most of these (the amount owed to investors has inflated from £9.5m to over £20m between the initial proposals and update, the extent of their shortfall will depend on the accuracy of the valuations in the SoA and how much can be extracted from Apple's debtors - noting BLRplc will be a substantial problem). Anyone who invested through BLRplc should probably expect to receive nothing, although maybe it still has some of the money collected from investors available to be refunded.

jimjames

Due to the lack of filing accounts with Companies House no-one can see what activity is taking place by BLR plc. They've been listed for being struck off but it's now been suspended as objection received. If they really do own or owe anything then it's not a good sign that they've reached this stage where the company is being struck off.

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

Their website makes "interesting" reading. They're currently developing Snowdonia National park whatever that means.

https://www.blrplc.com/current-developments

They also list Barnsoul under legacy developments with a list of phases

https://www.blrplc.com/legacy-resorts

masonic

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

axolotl56

You may be right re administrators. If you read their proposal for Apple it says McAlister were approached by Belvedere (BLRplc) in Nov 2023 and introduced to Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd in April 2024 and were engaged in May. What it doesn't say is that Keith Aldridge terminated his directorship in Belvedere (BLRplc) on 5 March 2024 and set up Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd on 6 March 2024. Administrators' proposal says 13 March 2024 Capital Bridging Blue 1 Ltd bought out the first of Apple's secured debts.

StateofAffairs

masonic said:

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

I'm a bit thick today. Perhaps you can explain why Apple or Apple Admin might have a claim against BLR? I thought BLR was buying the physical lodges, and that Apple was marketing the lodge investments to fund the development, and that Landal GreenParks was drip-feeding back to investors. 

masonic

StateofAffairs said:

masonic said:

Very interesting. Wouldn't surprise me if the administrators were the ones to object to the striking off, given they'd have no-one to chase for the money they claim is owed to Apple in respect of the JV if the company was dissolved. It's not hard to predict what will happen when the Apple administration moves into liquidation and they attempt to enforce their claim against BLRplc.

I'm a bit thick today. Perhaps you can explain why Apple or Apple Admin might have a claim against BLR? I thought BLR was buying the physical lodges, and that Apple was marketing the lodge investments to fund the development, and that Landal GreenParks was drip-feeding back to investors. 

That's a question for the administrators, but it appears to be a consequence of the terms of the JV. It could be as simple as they provided some capital up front that was supposed to be used towards acquiring the lodges.

axolotl56

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

StateofAffairs

axolotl56 said:

Just for information - Belvedere Leisure Resorts plc is now a private company called Belvedere Leisure Resorts Limited.

Is it permitted to change company names of JV's without agreement of BOTH parties, in this case Apple (or Joint Admin MacAlister) would need to approve the change surely? Especially tricky when BLR ex dir Capital Blue has taken on loan charges of Apple and lodge investment interest is not being paid. All it takes is another name change and things become SO MUCH HARDER to trace.