Complex Bridging Refinance Case Study — Second Charge Redeemed, Cumbria BTL
Another broker had been attempting to refinance this case since October without success, leaving the borrower over term on their existing bridging loan and under increasing pressure. Aura Capital inherited the case and completed the full refinance — two Cumbria buy-to-let properties, an existing bridging facility redemption, and a second charge release from the client's main residence — in three weeks.
The Situation
The client — a buy-to-let investor — had been attempting to refinance an overdue bridging loan since October through another broker. Months had passed without completion. The borrower was over term with their existing bridging lender, accumulating default interest and facing increasing enforcement risk with each week that passed.
The transaction was not a simple refinance. The case involved two buy-to-let investment properties in Cumbria with a combined value of approximately £550,000, an existing bridging facility requiring redemption, a second charge secured against the client's main residence that needed to be released as part of the wider strategy, and a historic adverse credit profile with missed payments — all since cleared. Each element was manageable in isolation; the challenge was coordinating all of them simultaneously and at pace.
The previous broker had been unable to deliver. Aura Capital was instructed and completed the entire transaction in three weeks.
The Complexity
Cases like this fail — or stall for months — not because the individual elements are insurmountable, but because they require simultaneous coordination across multiple lenders, solicitors, and charge positions. A broker who manages each element separately, or who lacks the lender relationships required for a case of this profile, will find that each workstream moves at its own pace — creating dependencies that compound delays rather than resolve them.
The previous broker had been working this case since October. Aura Capital completed it in three weeks. The difference was not the availability of a lender — it was the structuring of the transaction as a single coordinated strategy, with all parties managed simultaneously from instruction to completion.
The four objectives needed to be met in a single transaction: refinance the existing first charge bridging loan on the buy-to-let security; redeem the existing bridging facility; redeem the second charge secured against the client's main residence; and consolidate the borrowing into a new facility that gave the client the runway to arrange a longer-term refinance without further default pressure.
The historic missed payments — all cleared at the point of application — required careful presentation. Working with lenders who assess adverse credit against the full picture of the case, rather than applying it as a blanket filter, was essential to identifying a workable solution at a competitive rate.
How the Deal Was Structured
The new facility was structured against the two Cumbria buy-to-let properties at 58.25% LTV, with a 9-month term and interest retained at 0.99% per calendar month. A £50,000 second charge loan was arranged against the client's main residence as part of the overall structure — enabling the wider refinancing strategy to complete cleanly and the existing second charge to be redeemed simultaneously.
The valuation was completed using an Automated Valuation Model (AVM) — no physical inspection was required. This is one of the key advantages of no valuation bridging loans: removing the cost and time of a formal RICS instruction from a transaction that was already under time pressure. The AVM was approved rapidly, allowing underwriting and legal work to progress without waiting on a surveyor's schedule.
Aura Capital managed the entire legal process from instruction through to completion — coordinating with specialist lenders, solicitors across both the BTL security and the main residence, and the existing lenders requiring redemption. Rather than treating each element as a separate workstream with its own timeline, the transaction was managed as a single strategy with a single completion date.
The redemption of the existing bridging facility and the release of the existing second charge on the main residence were coordinated to happen simultaneously with drawdown — ensuring the client emerged from the transaction with a clean, consolidated borrowing position and no residual charges outstanding.
The Numbers
| Security 1 & 2 | Two buy-to-let investment properties — Cumbria |
| Combined security value | ~£550,000 |
| LTV | 58.25% |
| Rate | 0.99% per calendar month |
| Interest | Fully retained |
| Term | 9 months |
| Second charge facility | £50,000 — against client's main residence |
| Existing lender redeemed | Existing bridging lender |
| Second charge redeemed | Existing charge on main residence — released at completion |
| Valuation | Automated Valuation Model (AVM) — no physical inspection |
| Adverse credit | Historic missed payments — all cleared |
| Time to completion | 3 weeks from instruction |
| Previous broker | Instructed since October — unable to complete |
| Exit strategy | Longer-term refinance |
| Product | Bridging Finance (Unregulated) |
The Outcome
Overdue bridging loan refinanced
Existing bridging facility redeemed
Second charge released from main residence
Borrowing consolidated into single facility
Default interest stopped
Clear exit strategy in place
Why This Case Worked
The security position was sound. Two buy-to-let properties in Cumbria with a combined value of £550,000 at 58.25% LTV provided the lender with a well-secured position — conservative enough to accommodate the adverse credit history and the complexity of the transaction structure.
The adverse credit was presented in context. Historic missed payments that have since been cleared are a significantly different risk profile from ongoing arrears. Working with lenders who assess the current position — not just the historic record — and presenting the case with a clear explanation of the circumstances is what separates a declined application from a completed transaction.
The coordination approach was the difference between success and another month of delay. Every element of this transaction was managed simultaneously: new lender underwriting, existing lender redemption statements, second charge release mechanics, legal due diligence across multiple titles, and completion logistics across all parties. Aura Capital managed all of it as a single process — not as separate tasks handed off to different parties to move at their own pace.
Aura Capital regularly takes on cases that have stalled with other brokers. The reasons cases stall are usually the same: the broker lacks the lender relationships required for the specific risk profile, they lack the experience to structure multiple elements as a coherent single strategy, or they underestimate the coordination required to move all parties to a single completion date. When a case arrives having already been attempted without success, we assess what has gone wrong and rebuild the approach from the structure outward.
Products Used in This Case
This transaction was delivered using Aura Capital's complex bridging refinance capability — combining a first charge facility against two BTL properties with a second charge bridging loan against the main residence, assessed on an AVM with no physical valuation required, to enable a full debt consolidation and second charge redemption in a single transaction. Related products include our bridging loans for bad credit for cases involving adverse credit histories, and our broader unregulated bridging finance range.
Case Stalled with Another Broker?
Whether you need to refinance an overdue bridge, remove a second charge from your home, or consolidate borrowing across multiple properties, Aura Capital structures complex refinances as a single coordinated strategy. We regularly take over cases that have stalled — and complete them.
Get a QuoteThis case study has been anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Outcomes vary depending on individual circumstances. This does not constitute financial or legal advice.
