When a Development Draws to a Halt: Tom's Story
Tom is a straight-talking small developer in Manchester. He has three successful conversions behind him and a new 12-unit block that needs short-term bridging while planning conditions are cleared and a buyer is secured. He needs between £250,000 and £1.5 million for 9 months. He phones five lenders recommended by an online forum, has a promising first call with two, sends over his accounts and valuations, then waits.
Weeks later he has email crickets. Calls go unanswered. One lender who initially promised an update asks for another copy of the same valuation and then disappears. Meantime, contractors expect payment, a unit isn’t yet weatherproof, and interest is ticking. Tom’s pipeline stalls. The acquisition fee he had set aside starts to erode while costs balloon. He’s now in that awful grey zone where every day without cash increases risk.
Meanwhile, he is told he could reapply to high-street banks. That sounds sensible until he learns their application times and covenants won't match the short-term window. This led to Tom reaching out to a specialist broker who asked for the standard pack, but with one significant twist - proof of a realistic exit. As it turned out, that was the pivot point.
The Real Cost of Waiting for Lenders Who Never Call Back
Ghosting is not just annoying. For developers and investors who need short-term funding from £50,000 to £500 million for 1 to 24 months, it can be ruinous. Time-sensitive projects incur carrying costs, retention payments, loss of deposit protection, and reputational damage with contractors and joint-venture partners. There is also opportunity cost - stalled projects mean missed market windows and higher replacement costs when work restarts.
When providers vanish after an initial call, the immediate problem is liquidity. Underneath that is a deeper issue - a mismatch between how many firms market themselves and how many actually have capital committed and decision processes to close quickly. Marketing departments can paint a lender as nimble and responsive, but the hard truth is that many institutions cannot or will not move at the speed a bridging or short-term commercial deal requires.
As it turned out, the worst part is the distraction. Developers end up chasing lenders instead of managing the build. This leads to rushed decisions with the next available lender, often on poorer terms, or worse, the developer takes on personal exposure to keep the job moving.
Why Most Quick-Fix Funding Options Break Down in Practice
There are a few common failure points that explain why the quick-sounding options rarely pan out.
- False capacity - Brokers or fintech platforms list multiple funders who appear active, but many are panel members with conditional appetite. They may have internal credit routes that rarely approve new or marginal deals. Slow credit committees - Small lenders sometimes rely on offshore credit committees or rotating underwriters. What sounded like a yes in a preliminary call often becomes a "we need more info" loop that kills speed. Documentation gaps - If you submit an incomplete pack, a lender will punt it to the bottom of the pile. But chasing the pack after weeks creates friction and delays that compound. AML and KYC friction - Anti-money-laundering checks can be legitimately time-consuming for complex SPV ownerships and non-UK residents. Some providers over-index on caution and stall the deal. Underwriting surprises - The independent valuer or condition survey might reveal defects or lower GDV which change the risk profile. Lenders who were friendly pre-valuation will often retreat.
That last point is critical. Many developers expect lenders to be “bridge-friendly” irrespective of real asset qualities. Lenders move on objective risk. If your exit is weak, the risk of ghosting increases.
How One Specialist Broker Built a Reliable Short-Term Funding Path
A London-based broker I know, Claire, used to get the same calls Tom did. She was tired of losing deals because she could not get a timely yes. Claire’s approach changed when she stopped treating lenders as a list to cold-send and started treating them as partners you qualify before you present a borrower.
Claire created a three-step system:
Pre-Qualification Audit - Before she sent a pack, she built a one-page risk memo that summarised exit, LTV, valuation assumptions, planning status, contractor credentials, and SPV ownership. She also flagged the earliest realistic drawdown date. Short-Listing by Decision Speed - She kept an active list of funders who had recently closed within 7-14 days for similar profiles. If a funder hadn’t closed quickly in the last six months, they dropped off the shortlist. Data Room and Head of Terms - Instead of open-ended attachments, she used a consistent data room with a checklist and requested a non-binding heads of terms within 48 hours of initial approval. This created pressure and established expectation for the lender to move or explain delays.As it turned out, this method did not remove every problem, but it filtered out time-wasters early. It also made lenders show their hand; those who could commit lit up, and those who could not were removed from the process before a developer had relied on them.
Practical Tactics Claire Uses Today
- Insist on a named underwriter and a target date for committee review with each lender. Provide a credible exit plan: pre-sales, refinance approval-in-principle from a buy-to-let or high-street lender, or forward sale contract. Include contractor stage payments and retention terms in the pack so the lender understands drawdown timing. Use a clean SPV structure where possible. Multiple beneficial owners and complicated corporate chains slow AML checks. Negotiate a small, refundable engagement fee in exchange for a rapid credit decision from the lender if they are genuinely short on capacity.
Why Some Common "Fast" Solutions Are Overrated
Opposing viewpoints often say: pay a premium to speed up the process and everything will be fine. That’s partly true, but pay-to-play schemes have limitations. Some providers demand large non-refundable fees upfront before any due diligence. That is a red flag unless the lender can prove committed capital and a recent track record of quick closes.
Moreover, rolling short-term debt repeatedly to cover an exit that is not solid increases cost and risk exponentially. It is better to address the structural weakness in the Find more information exit than to keep paying arrangement fees on incremental bridging. This led to more experienced brokers advising developers to shore up exits - either by securing committed forward sales or by lining up a follow-on lender as part of the initial package.
Another overrated approach is "platform" lending where algorithms promise instant offers. They often assess only headline metrics and then flag issues in manual review. Those manual reviews create the same delay as traditional lenders but with the added frustration of an opaque process. A contrarian take is to prefer a slow but transparent lender who explains the hold-up rather than a "fast" lender who vanishes.
How to Tell If a Lender Is Worth Chasing
Here are the red and green flags to watch for when a provider says they can close quickly.
Green Flag Red Flag Named decision maker and target committee date Vague timelines and "we will be in touch" Recent, verifiable deals of similar size and structure Only online testimonials or anonymous case studies Clear fee structure and refundable engagement fee option Large non-refundable fee demanded before any credit check Willingness to accept realistic exit collateralisation Refusal to consider standard exit proofs like forward sales Established solicitor panel and digital data-room workflow Requests for ad hoc documents and emailed PDFs onlyFrom Missed Deadlines to Well-Funded Jobs: Real Outcomes
Back to Tom. After being ghosted, he engaged Claire. They tightened his exit by getting a conditional buyer to sign a memorandum of understanding and added two months of contingency to his forecast. Claire presented to three lenders who had closed similar profiles within two weeks previously. One lender offered a 9-month facility at a competitive rate with staged drawdown aligned to contractor milestones.
Tom drew within 10 days of the heads of terms and completed in 21 days. The cost was higher than a standard bank loan, but the overall outcome was better than waiting around and losing contractor goodwill. This led to the project finishing on schedule and achieving a slightly higher GDV because market conditions improved in the completion window. Tom paid the premium and protected his reputation; the alternative would have been a stalled build and higher long-term costs.
Another example: a regional housebuilder needed £7.5 million for 12 months while achieving planning across several plots. They were offered cheap preliminary quotes from lenders who could not commit. By assembling an enforced shortlist and using refundable engagement fees, their broker secured committed money from a mezzanine fund prepared to deploy capital quickly against clear security. The builder kept their contractor pipeline intact and moved forward without renegotiating supplier contracts.
Actionable Checklist: How to Avoid Getting Ghosted
- Prepare a one-page risk memo up front - exit, clear LTV, valuations, contractor CVs. Short-list lenders by recent closing times, not by advertised appetite. Ask for named underwriters and committee dates in writing. Use a standard data-room checklist to avoid missing documents that lead to stalls. Secure a realistic exit before you lock term - forward sale, refinance in principle, or an investor commitment. Avoid non-refundable upfront fees unless the provider proves recent rapid closures and provides a refund commitment. Keep communication concise and set hard internal deadlines for responses - 48-72 hours for acknowledgements, 7-14 for credit decisions.
When Ghosting Is Actually a Useful Filter
Contrarian point: some ghosting tells you something valuable. If a lender disappears after preliminary review, they likely flagged a material issue. That might save you time and help you rethink the deal structure. Rather than despair, treat it as market feedback. Re-examine your valuation assumptions, exit plan and SPV cleanliness. Frequently, a minor cleanup of the pack or an improved exit can turn a ghost into a yes.
Meanwhile, keep a parallel plan. Line up at least two backup options early and keep them engaged with the same tight memos and deadlines. If a lender withdraws, a presentable, prioritised pack means you can pivot quickly.
Final Word: Protect Cash, Protect Reputation
Short-term funding for property developers and investors is a solvable problem when approached with pragmatism. The most dangerous stance is optimism without process - assuming every lender on a list can move quickly. The straight-talking broker approach is to assume delay and create systems to force transparency.
As it turned out, the majority of funding failures come down to poor preparation and unrealistic expectations. Put the exit first, prepare the documentation like a lender will ask for it, and qualify your list of funders by recent performance, not slick marketing. This led more developers to choose speed and certainty at a realistic price rather than gambling on a "cheap" option that evaporates.
If you run into ghosting, treat it as information, not final judgement. Tighten the pack, shore up the exit, and present to funders who can prove they have closed similar deals recently. That will protect your money, your timelines and your reputation - and that is what counts in property.