The irony is that if the MiP clauses were made less restrictive, so that in the event of a theoretical default, the MiP could be completely and completely exempt from social housing requirements, the value of all invoiced assets would increase and could be considered a matter of accounting principles with a much higher existing utility value, subject to the lease (TFUE-STT). This assessment would reflect the (dummy) ability of a MiP to sell, beyond existing leases, without the obligation of s 106. This position, in turn, would mean that HAs would be able to raise much more capital from their development stock and, in return, create a large number of additional social units. The intent behind an MPC is to protect the lender and anyone acting on behalf or for the lender and to be able to fulfill their mortgage duty if a borrower makes their loan insolvent. If the MPC does not adequately protect donors and is bound by the restrictions imposed by the S106 Agreement on Affordable Housing, the value would be limited to the existing utility value for social housing (“EUV-SH”). The best possible financing value is the market value under “MV-STT,” in which the lender could sell to either a housing company or an unregulated buyer; and neither the lender nor the rights holders would be bound by the restrictions imposed on affordable housing in Agreement S106. Planning permissions, ownership restrictions and leases are in principle mandatory for land. They need to be checked to see if they have an impact on value or sale. You should be aware that sometimes an ECM can`t be anything other than a “red herring.” A document may claim the commitment or mention of an MEC, but it is not binding. Such an agreement enters into force as a contractual agreement and is relevant only to the parties and would therefore have no impact on a funder or successor. In short, the guidelines provide that, in the case of a borrower taking possession of hashed land, a three-month moratorium should be provided in which the ICH may sell the property other than to another social housing provider (but at a rate that allows full or total recovery of the loan and costs). At the end of the moratorium, if no sale has been made to another AAH supplier or a registered supplier, the MiP may theoretically be exempt from the 106 obligations and, in theory, sell at a market value (as with all other market value valuations based on market value).
The document contains exemplary formulas (particularly agreed with lenders) that ensure that the improvement in valuation (TUE-STT) resulting from this capacity is feasible and that it will inevitably significantly increase the volume of borrowing and hence the number and proportion of affordable housing units that can be built in the capital. The use of the term model is not an absolute requirement and there may be circumstances in which it is inappropriate. But there should be good reasons why the AAH could not assess its new stock under the TUE-STT. Despite these guidelines, some left-wing London councils (also this month) refuse to adopt the guidelines or their clauses in very important cases where hundreds of affordable units are at stake and are based on the thesis that affordable housing should always be sustainable and only sustainable (at all costs).