Unsecured bridging loans in the UK: a developer exit reality check

You have completed the scheme. The contractor is off-site, units are finished, and the development finance is due. Searching for an unsecured bridging loan in the UK is a natural first step: it captures the instinct that you would rather not pledge an asset you are about to sell.

The instinct is understandable. The product, at the scale most developers need, barely exists.

True unsecured bridging at £1 million and above is either priced to compensate for the lender's unprotected position, at rates that can seriously compress your development margin, or simply unavailable from credible lenders. What exists, and what typically suits developers in exactly your position, is a first-charge exit facility against the completed scheme itself, underwritten on its current value and your sell-down programme rather than your income or trading history.

What the UK market actually offers at scale

True unsecured lending (no charge on any asset, no personal guarantee backed by property) exists at smaller ticket sizes and at rates that reflect the lender's uncovered risk. At £1 million and above, lenders almost universally require security. It can be a first charge on the development itself or a charge on another property. Some form of asset backing is a practical prerequisite.

There is a distinction the term "unsecured" sometimes obscures: personal guarantees. Many structured finance products that bill themselves as unsecured are backed by a director's personal guarantee. That is not genuinely collateral-light lending, and it is not a comfortable structure for a developer with other assets at stake.

The better question for most developers is not "how do I borrow unsecured?" but "do I want to pledge this specific scheme, or a different asset?" If the goal is speed and rate, a first-charge exit against your completed scheme is almost always the most efficient path. For a thorough breakdown of how these facilities are structured, read our developer exit finance guide.

Why a completed scheme is the cleanest collateral you can offer

Development finance carries the lender through construction risk, programme risk, and planning uncertainty. Once the scheme is complete and units are marketable, that risk profile changes substantially. A private lender underwriting an exit facility instructs a straightforward RICS valuation, takes a first charge registered at HM Land Registry, and underwrites on the completed scheme's current as-is value.

From a lender's perspective, that is materially lower risk than an unsecured position against a developer's balance sheet. The pricing implication is direct: a secured first-charge exit product costs less in monthly interest than a genuinely unsecured bridging loan priced to account for the absence of collateral, often meaningfully so at higher loan sizes.

Rikvin's developer exit bridging loans reach up to 75% LTV on a completed scheme, a comfortable level for a development with individual unit sales already progressing. The effective ceiling on unsecured bridging is lower, because lenders impose tighter limits when there is no underlying asset to fall back on.

How developer exit finance is underwritten

Developer exit lenders do not run your income through a debt-service calculation. The underwrite centres on three questions: what is the scheme worth now, what does your sales programme look like, and how will the loan be repaid? That last question is almost always answered by unit sale proceeds, though a refinance onto longer-term investment debt is a valid exit for developers retaining part of the scheme as a portfolio.

The absence of income-based underwriting is why developers who fall outside a mainstream bank's criteria, such as foreign nationals, SPV borrowers, or complex group structures, can still raise private exit finance. Rikvin issues a term sheet within 24 hours of a credit-ready submission, and drawdown follows in about two weeks. Speak to our team before a development lender deadline tightens the timeline.

What lenders need: a credible sales programme or refinance plan; a current RICS or desktop valuation; clean title with no undisclosed charges or covenants that would impair a sale; and evidence that development consent conditions are discharged. If your scheme includes an HMO or multi-unit freehold block, licensing and compliance will also be checked. The requirements for HMO and MUFB exit finance differ in important ways from standard residential.

When exit finance works, and when it does not

This structure suits developers with a completed scheme, unit values that support the required LTV, and a defined sales programme or credible refinance within the loan term. It also works for partial schemes where you are retaining some units and selling others: the lender can structure against the retained portfolio or the sell-down.

It is the wrong tool when the build programme is still live. Exit finance assumes a valuation that reflects finished, marketable units: mid-programme, development finance is the right product.

Think carefully about LTV before you approach. If your development finance has run to a high percentage of cost and the scheme's current value supports only 65% LTV at exit level, there may be a shortfall to fund down before a clean refinance is possible. That gap is often solvable through equity injection or a partial unit sale, but it needs to be modelled first. Related: see the £18.8M facility we provided against a landmark West London hotel. Developers operating through SPVs or offshore vehicles should also note that Rikvin lends to UK SPVs, trusts and offshore companies on the same first-charge basis, with identical underwriting logic. Review the full lending process before your first lender conversation.