A London-based property developer required a £5 million refinance across a portfolio of three assets, each with differing characteristics, ownership structures, and intended exit strategies. With existing lending facilities nearing expiry and previous attempts by other brokers unsuccessful, the situation required not just access to funding, but a carefully structured approach capable of aligning lender appetite with a complex, time-sensitive scenario. Working closely with the client, Wesley Ranger of Willow Private Finance delivered a fully structured refinance within 10 working days, securing funding through a private bank on commercially viable terms.

Structuring a Refinance Across Multiple Asset Types

Refinancing a portfolio that includes mixed-use property, development exposure, and varying stages of completion presents a level of complexity that many lenders are not equipped to handle within a single transaction.

In this case, the portfolio comprised a tenanted commercial asset with residential units above, a property undergoing refurbishment, and a site with planning permission in place. Each asset carried a different risk profile, income dynamic, and valuation approach.

Most lenders prefer uniformity. Mixed-use security, particularly when combined with development elements, often leads to fragmented lending structures or partial solutions that fail to meet the client’s overall objective.

However, where the underlying asset base is strong, and the strategy is clearly defined, it is possible to structure a facility that considers the portfolio as a whole rather than as isolated components.

This requires a lender capable of taking a holistic view of risk, supported by a clearly presented case that demonstrates both asset quality and exit viability.

Why the Refinance Had Previously Stalled

Despite the client’s strong track record and asset quality, previous attempts to refinance the portfolio had been unsuccessful.

The primary issue was not eligibility, but alignment.

Many high street and specialist lenders were unable to reconcile the combination of factors presented. Mixed-use security created valuation challenges, while the presence of refurbishment works and planning exposure introduced elements that fell outside standard underwriting models.

In addition, the ownership structure added further complexity. The assets were held across multiple SPVs, with inter-company lending arrangements and differing shareholder positions. For many lenders, this introduced additional layers of due diligence that extended beyond acceptable timelines.

Time pressure compounded these issues. With the existing facility due to expire within a matter of weeks, lenders were required to assess, approve, and complete within a significantly compressed timeframe—something few were able or willing to commit to.

This combination of structural complexity and urgency is where many transactions begin to stall.

Aligning the Right Lender with the Right Structure

The solution required a shift away from conventional lender channels and towards a more flexible, relationship-driven approach.

A private bank was identified early in the process, based on its ability to assess multi-asset transactions and its willingness to consider complex ownership structures alongside non-linear exit strategies.

Rather than presenting the case as three separate refinancing requirements, the structure was built around a consolidated view of the portfolio. This included a detailed breakdown of each asset, supported by a clear strategy outlining intended disposals, refinances, and long-term holds.

By framing the transaction in this way, the lender was able to assess overall exposure, rather than applying restrictive criteria to each component individually.

Speed was critical. All documentation was prepared and packaged at the outset, including company financials, asset-level details, lease agreements, and planning documentation. This ensured that the lender could move quickly from initial assessment to formal terms without unnecessary delays.

Coordination across all parties—valuers, legal teams, and the client’s advisors—was maintained throughout, ensuring the transaction progressed within a defined and controlled timeline.

Managing Time Pressure Without Compromising Structure

Time-sensitive refinances often introduce a trade-off between speed and quality of outcome. In many cases, borrowers are forced into suboptimal terms simply to meet deadlines.

In this scenario, the objective was to avoid that compromise.

By identifying the appropriate lender early and presenting a fully structured case, it was possible to achieve both speed and commercial viability. Terms were agreed within 48 hours, with a formal offer issued shortly thereafter.

Valuations and legal processes were aligned to the same timeline, allowing completion to take place within 10 working days from initial enquiry.

This outcome highlights an important principle in complex refinancing: speed is not achieved by cutting corners, but by eliminating uncertainty through preparation and clarity.

Outcome: A Fully Structured Portfolio Refinance

The completed structure delivered a balanced and effective outcome for the client.

All three assets were successfully refinanced under a single, coherent facility. The client avoided default penalties associated with the expiring loan and secured terms that aligned with both short-term obligations and longer-term strategy.

The refinance also provided greater flexibility moving forward, allowing the client to proceed with planned disposals and reinvestment opportunities without immediate funding pressure.

Importantly, the structure reflected the full strength of the portfolio, rather than being constrained by the limitations of standard lending models.

Key Takeaways

This case illustrates the importance of structuring in complex refinancing scenarios.

The challenges presented—mixed-use assets, multiple SPVs, tight deadlines, and varied exit strategies—are not uncommon in professional property portfolios. However, they require a lender capable of assessing risk in context, rather than relying on rigid criteria.

By presenting the transaction as a unified portfolio with a clear strategy, it was possible to align the client’s objectives with a lender willing to take a more sophisticated view.

Speed was achieved not through urgency alone, but through preparation. Front-loading documentation, coordinating stakeholders, and maintaining a clear narrative throughout the process allowed the transaction to progress without friction.

For developers and investors facing similar situations, the key lesson is clear: complex cases require more than access to lenders—they require a structured approach that brings all elements of the deal together into a coherent, deliverable outcome.