IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands

[stevematch]

Dodgy

I had six years with Sanzar and Garraway and had a tax bill of over 100K, although the recent changes have helped. I haven't yet settled, mostly due to the complete inability of the Revenue to ever agree a sum twice in a row.

I've had the Gladstone letters and was initially infuriated, but having read the entire 102 pages of this forum (3 days man..) I'm now more focused. I'm a Programme TM and if I had a crisis at work I'd always try and stay detached, and seek the best advice I could. Thanks to Webberg and others for staying grounded and sticking with the basic facts of this campaign. I have contacted ETC and am taking their advice.

I've check every piece of info I have from both Sanzar and Garraway, and have found emails from Dec 2009 from Sanzar mentioning the word loans, they were talking about helping with tax returns, but there are three others that include the term in 2010 and 2011. None of the contract docs I still have use the term (I had two or three different Sanzar schemes) but the emails certainly did.

As far as Garraway are concerned I have three Deeds of Settlement that I have signed that are loans documents, I logged into the Felicitas website and they also have these documents scanned with my signature. However for some of the Garraway loans they have documents that I have never seen before, one per monthly loan indicating that interest is being charged - see below. At the end it states that the loan has been entered into on the date at the top of the agreement. However I HAVE NEVER SEEN THESE AND WOULD NEVER HAVE ENTERED INTO THEM if I had had any inkling that there would ever have been any interest charged. I suspect these are fake documents to try and prove a case for interest. Also after six or seven years I have never had any communication about these till now.

Has anybody else seen documents like these?

Loan Doc extract

Repayment

3.1. The loan shall become due and payable one month after the service of a written demand
by the Lender on the Borrower, on the fiftieth anniversary of this Agreement, or on the death
of the borrower, whichever is sooner.

3.2. The loan must be repaid in Sterling; repayment in any other currency will not be
accepted.

4. Interest

The Borrower shall pay the Lender interest at the rate of 1.07% per annum on the amount
outstanding on the Loan from time to time such interest to accrue daily and be calculated on
the basis of a 365 day year (without compounding the same) and paid when demanded or
otherwise at the date of repayment of the Loan.

----
I am with ETC as well and hopeful of a good result. I just hope the masses don't cave and pay

[corsair]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

[MrO666]

The little turd that ran contractor helpline gave them or sold them the info claiming to be a Garraway trustee is my guess.

......and if that turns out to be the case, then that same person will have some very serious and potentially legal questions to answer I'd imagine.

[Spider2000]

I have a suspicion.

I think that someone that once worked for Garraway is now working for Felicitas.

I also think it’s the same person that set up the whole contractor helpline thing a coupLe of years ago and then tried to get money to issue write offs.

And that person transferred the loans as part of their move of employment.

Anyone else have any such concerns?

<mod snip>

[webberg]

......and if that turns out to be the case, then that same person will have some very serious and potentially legal questions to answer I'd imagine.

Ten minutes research will show that the "same person" will not have any such questions to answer.

The loans in these cases were almost all made from an "employer".

That employer was often the "trustee of xxx trust".

The employer/trustee later disappeared and in most instances, one of two wholly owned vehicles of Baker Tilly in the IOM, assumed the role of trustee.

These vehicles now claim to have "assigned" the alleged loans to Felicitas.

In doing so, contact data would also have been assigned, giving the latter enough to send the papers you have.

So a better question might be - How did Felicitas or its officers know that the alleged loans (trust assets) were with the trustees and how did they persuade the trustees to make the assignment?

From that question flows a river of enquiry.

(We have asked this question of various parties - last week - but so far have had no answers).

In general it's better to research and pose questions based on the known facts, than to waste time and energy speculating as to motive and whether the character of the individuals is something that makes any difference.

[Fred Bloggs]

Very interesting how this is unfolding. Begs the question, why have the trustees seemingly acted against the interests of the beneficiaries? That's not the role of a trustee. Likely I have missed something here.

[DealorNoDeal]

Very interesting how this is unfolding. Begs the question, why have the trustees seemingly acted against the interests of the beneficiaries? That's not the role of a trustee. Likely I have missed something here.

Good point.

I'm not 100% clear on this but presumably, when the scheme was operating, the trustees lent money from the trust to the beneficiaries.

It now appears the trustees have assigned the loans to a 3rd party (Felicitas), and the trustees no longer control what happens to these loans. Is that allowed? What's the point in having a trust if the trustees can pass the interests of the beneficiaries to any old tom, dick or harry?

[stevematch]

Chancers

Very interesting how this is unfolding. Begs the question, why have the trustees seemingly acted against the interests of the beneficiaries? That's not the role of a trustee. Likely I have missed something here.

Spot on mate, they wouldn't know a thing about the role of the trustee. The words good faith / act fairly?

Fiduciary Duties ? Do they apply?

A fiduciary relationship arises between the trustees and the beneficiaries. Trustees must at all times consider what is in the best interests of those beneficiaries and of the trust as a whole.

Any powers given to the trustees must be exercised properly and in good faith, for the purposes for which they are given and in the interests of the beneficiaries.

Trustees have a duty to act fairly and disinterestedly in respect of the interests of the various beneficiaries. Trustees must always comply with the terms of the trust deed and must not act beyond the express powers given to them under the trust deed or under the terms of trust law.

[stevematch]

Good point.

I'm not 100% clear on this but presumably, when the scheme was operating, the trustees lent money from the trust to the beneficiaries.

It now appears the trustees have assigned the loans to a 3rd party (Felicitas), and the trustees no longer control what happens to these loans. Is that allowed? What's the point in having a trust if the trustees can pass the interests of the beneficiaries to any old tom, dick or harry?

Exactly mate...

Fiduciary Duties
A fiduciary relationship arises between the trustees and the beneficiaries. Trustees must at all times consider what is in the best interests of those beneficiaries and of the trust as a whole.

Level of Skill and Care
Trustees have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the role of trustee.

Should trustees act outside of their powers or in breach of trust they may be liable to claims from the beneficiaries subject to the extent that any indemnity provision may protect them.

[Fred Bloggs]

Exactly my point. I am merely an interested bystander. But now I see this unfolding, I am totally baffled how the trustees can act like this. It seems to me totally against the role of the trustee with respect to the trust beneficiaries. I don't understand how the trustees can transfer loans from a trust to essentially commercial debt collectors without breaking trust deeds. If a big name in finance like Baker Tilley really is involved, it baffles me even more. I am sure webberg has his reasons for not explaining this, but it stumps me completely.