Motor home rip off

[Markd]

Yes it would seem to have been fairly profitable until a couple of fires reduced stock and new van supply dried up severely reducing income.
As a highly leveraged business it couldn't withstand that for long.

 

[jagmanx]

Yes it would seem to have been fairly profitable until a couple of fires reduced stock and new van supply dried up severely reducing income.
As a highly leveraged business it couldn't withstand that for long.

That is no doubt a consideration...but of little comfort to both investors and buyers who have IMO simply been defrauded/scammed.

 

[Markd]

Don't disagree - although the investors were in a better position as they could at anytime ask for their money back or have to accept ownership of the security.
One gathers that many did receive an anonymous letter warning them of the mismatch between there loan and the value if the security in the 12 months before administration.
The director managed to persuade a lot of them to hang on saying that if they called in their loan (s) that the whole house of cards would collapse.
Eventually it did of course and now, rather belatedly, they are discovering the risk they took.

The buyers are pawns in the greater game as the company could sell the vans but after doing so the charge holder should have been advised and alternative security provided or original loan repaid.

Given the inevitable depreciation of an asset like this the investors shouldn't really have done more than one cycle at a time.
No doubt the regular receipt of overly generous interest payments as in a lot of Ponzi schemes clouded their judgement.
It could have continued but for the combination of circumstances detailed in the administrators reports causing the company to be unable honour rental bookings and trade itself out of trouble.
You never know - the boom in motorhome interest we've seen in the last 12 months might have been enough had it happened earlier.

 

[jagmanx]

Yes " If it seems to good to be true..It probably is ! "

I am no finacial guru I have invested in the stockmarket but only with fairly safe (?) Investment Trusts
With Brexit in mind I cashed in all with minor profit.
Various housing investment schemes have contacted me offering 10 % return
No thanks ..NOT willing to risk 50% LOSS...
What was the Johnny Cash song "Coward of the County" !!
PS Had I retained my investment trusts until now I would have got more profit !!!! NEVER MIND

 

[Chunky]

I’ve read through the comments on this thread with some interest as an ex investor of Unbeatable Hire.
Far too many corrections to posts spring to mind but to clarify ; investors of UH were generally individuals and couples , not finance companies. Investments were made under a chattel mortgages agreement and as has been mentioned registered with Legal First Charges at Companies House . These were considered and protected investments which were profitable for many years in some cases. Without wishing to be inflammatory any private purchase is a case of buyer beware. It is unfortunate that the chatte mortgage facility is not well publicised; it is NOT an HPI but acts in the same way as if the you had a first charge secured on your property ; it has to be settled first as these individuals have first claim.
The business model worked well. When purchasing large numbers of Motorhomes the company can go direct to the manufacturer and secure excellent discounts per vehicle hence making this model workable .

Facebook group Unbeatable Hire Option C is not available to anyone who cannot prove they were an investor.

cambridgeshire police are involved and supportive of reclaiming vehicles by investors and some vehicles have already been returned or an agreement made to compensate the investor .

a number of illegal suggestions have been made on this thread which I’m sure everyone recognises are just that .

progression to court will incur considerable costs and in addition not only will the mh or its value need to be compensated to the investor , a sum to reflect the devaluing of the vehicle will also be included in the claim .

I said at the start we were investors , we have no axe to grind as we were fortunate to get our motorhome back in Spring 2020. Some investors had 4 motorhomes, 3 of which were either sold on, stolen or written off . There are no winners here. Sitting in the middle of the situation with no vested interest and being privy to full history of the situation I would strongly urge anyone who falls into the ‘buyer’ bracket to reach an agreement with their investor as soon as possible .

 

[Bex123]

Hi, I just received a letter today from a solicitor, same story as above and we bought a van back in March 2019. I have just joined as a full member so would you be able to send me the contact details of the lady mentioned above.
Many thanks
Terry

Goodness, I have read all these comments and so little is accurate. The motorhomes were bought using money lent to the company by individuals and the loans were protected by chattel mortgages. Claims that the company was free to do what they liked with them are untrue - the conditions for what the company could do were well defined and the company chose to circumvent them. Yes they could sell the motorhomes but ONLY if they simultaneously replaced them with equivalent vehicles on exactly the same terms.
The motorhomes being sought now are ones for which this was not done. Not all sales were illegal as plenty of loans were repaid on selling the vehicles.
There are maybe 50 or 60 out there that were sold illegally.
These motorhomes belong to the lenders as a result of loans not being repaid and the company going bust.
This is nothing to do with HP or even common theft such as the vehicle being stolen off the drive.
Just as if you have a mortgage on your house and don't repay it the mortgage company will reclaim the house - the lenders in the case of these motorhomes are now reclaiming them.
It is a very sorry situation as there are no winners. Even getting their property back all the lenders will still be thousands out of pocket.

 

[Bex123]

Yes it would seem to have been fairly profitable until a couple of fires reduced stock and new van supply dried up severely reducing income.
As a highly leveraged business it couldn't withstand that for long.

that's just an excuse from him

 

[Bex123]

That is no doubt a consideration...but of little comfort to both investors and buyers who have IMO simply been defrauded/scammed.

correct

 

[trevskoda]

Link to the radio programme about Unbeatable Hire is here :

BBC Radio 4 - You and Yours, Motor home loans, Sustainability vs Covid, Christmas alone.

People who lent a motorhome rental business money are facing big losses after it collapsed

www.bbc.co.uk

Seems there are investors (some seem to be motorhomers) and the buyers of the used motorhomes that are the losers. I wish you all the best and hope you get some positive news soon.

However the director just appears to have moved on and started a new company selling hand sanitizer.

Washing his hands of it.

 

[Markd]

that's just an excuse from him

It's also what the administrators said.

 

[Markd]

@Bex123
My reading of the files lead me to believe that there were 120 more mortgages than vans on the fleet so its good to hear that there were in fact only 50-60 vans sold without mortgage redemption or amendment.

@Chunky
You mention police involvement in vehicle recovery - how does that work?
Aren't these civil actions?

It's also a case of investor beware as capital was at risk here if the business couldn't fund loan reimbursement and surrendered the 'security' instead - presumably this happened to you.

 

[Bex123]

Washing his hands of it.

that's what he does

 

[Bex123]

@Bex123
My reading of the files lead me to believe that there were 120 more mortgages than vans on the fleet so its good to hear that there were in fact only 50-60 vans sold without mortgage redemption or amendment.

@Chunky
You mention police involvement in vehicle recovery - how does that work?
Aren't these civil actions?

It's also a case of investor beware as capital was at risk here if the business couldn't fund loan reimbursement and surrendered the 'security' instead - presumably this happened to you.

The police case is concerned with the possible fraud perpetrated by the business - they are not involved in vehicle recovery - as you say, it is a civil matter.

 

[Bex123]

The police case is concerned with the possible fraud perpetrated by the business - they are not involved in vehicle recovery - as you say, it is a civil matter.

The other excess mortgages relate to vans that were stolen, lost in fires or other wise missing (ie not sold but who knows where they went) or destroyed.

 

[Bex123]

@Bex123
My reading of the files lead me to believe that there were 120 more mortgages than vans on the fleet so its good to hear that there were in fact only 50-60 vans sold without mortgage redemption or amendment.

@Chunky
You mention police involvement in vehicle recovery - how does that work?
Aren't these civil actions?

It's also a case of investor beware as capital was at risk here if the business couldn't fund loan reimbursement and surrendered the 'security' instead - presumably this happened to you.

They had a good business model that was able to refund loans perfectly - had the business chosen to use the funds to do so...

 

[Bex123]

It's also what the administrators said.

doesn't make what they said right, I can assure you

 

[Markd]

I'm not defending his business practices just pointing out that his comments about the events leading up to his calling in administrators are supported by them.
Do you not believe the problems reported with van build & safety and the high insurance excess and payout limit jeopardized viability.
I'm not that convinced about the business model after all he was turned down by banks as well.
He was also factoring the rental income and that company got hit pretty hard.
He obviously wasn't replacing vehicles one for one and was substituting older vans as security.
It strikes me as being a bit of a Ponzi scheme where early investors got their twice the going rate interest and even their money back but trading difficulties exposed the underlying vulnerability of the model and selling vans only put off the inevitable collapse.

Some people got out in time and got their money back others were lucky enough for the van that they had a charge on to still be on the fleet and so got something back from the administrators.

The trouble with lending money to firms run by one person is that the risk of poor governance is high and unlike shareholders there's no forum to discuss the business or even have reports on trading or issues affecting the business.

A case in point is.the loss through fire or theft of vans that weren't reported to charge-holders.
I suppose those investors who didn't get the free weeks in 'their' vans might have have asked questions. But how many asked for regular reports?
If I owned a van and contract hired it to a rental company I'd want regular inspection reports to ensure that my investment was being well looked after.
I would of course expect a higher monthly income to reflect the reality of depreciation.
The Unbeatablehire deal seemed to imply zero depreciation especially when loans were rolled over on the same van.

 

[Bex123]

I'm not defending his business practices just pointing out that his comments about the events leading up to his calling in administrators are supported by them.
Do you not believe the problems reported with van build & safety and the high insurance excess and payout limit jeopardized viability.
I'm not that convinced about the business model after all he was turned down by banks as well.
He was also factoring the rental income and that company got hit pretty hard.
He obviously wasn't replacing vehicles one for one and was substituting older vans as security.
It strikes me as being a bit of a Ponzi scheme where early investors got their twice the going rate interest and even their money back but trading difficulties exposed the underlying vulnerability of the model and selling vans only put off the inevitable collapse.

Some people got out in time and got their money back others were lucky enough for the van that they had a charge on to still be on the fleet and so got something back from the administrators.

The trouble with lending money to firms run by one person is that the risk of poor governance is high and unlike shareholders there's no forum to discuss the business or even have reports on trading or issues affecting the business.

A case in point is.the loss through fire or theft of vans that weren't reported to charge-holders.
I suppose those investors who didn't get the free weeks in 'their' vans might have have asked questions. But how many asked for regular reports?
If I owned a van and contract hired it to a rental company I'd want regular inspection reports to ensure that my investment was being well looked after.
I would of course expect a higher monthly income to reflect the reality of depreciation.
The Unbeatablehire deal seemed to imply zero depreciation especially when loans were rolled over on the same van.

That's an incredibly big opinion based on very little actual knowledge. I have never understood why people want to say so much when they know so little. Anyway the courts will settle all questions and I am pretty certain about all outcomes ahead. On all counts.

 

[Markd]

We're all entitled to an opinion - as you suggest I'm not personally or emotionally involved but that helps me to form an objective view from what information is publicly available.
FWIW I have fairly consistently expressed the view that the lenders probably have a better case than the purchasers.
Those entering litigation normally expect to win but as I've already said much earlier in the thread we'll see what judges say in due course.

 

[Bex123]

Limited company - no personal responsibility?
The andministrators would have collected what they legally could.
Their reports are worth a read if you want to understand what happened.

He sounded really plausible on You and Yours.

I agree about people moving from one failure to another unless they are banned - even then!

Con men usually sound plausible - that's how they operate