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

[layedoff]

Webberg's narrative across many posts appears to be, in summary, that any recipient of a loan from these schemes should abandon all hope and accept the situation i.e. accept that any loans are fully legal, legitimate, regulated loans without any holes in their construction, selling, documentation, provision or management and there's no hope that you will NOT have to repay them at some point. I may be wrong, but that's how it reads.

Its like herding sheep the majority of the flock run in the same direction but you get the odd straggler or break away, not acting in the manner expected. Wahoooo

[stevematch]

Adrian Sacco on Linkedin

Someone on linkedin doesnt like him - some interesting posts against each one of Adrian's replys. Seems he has a tax barrister who doesnt like him.

Seems his website at Felicitas is "structuring is our passion".

[winlaw]

Direct contact from Felicitas

On Tuesday 14th April I received an email from "[email protected]" it had my name at the top but I feel it was a generic letter as follows...

Thank you for your request to see your file, including the evidence of your loans. We have now made sure that the evidence in your file doesn't include other people's personal data. You can log back into the Client Gateway to see your file.

We are working through a large cache of documents looking for anything else of relevance. The documents were given to us by the prior lenders, from who we acquired our right to receive your repayments and/or any payments of interest that might be due from you. If we find further evidence, we will add it to your file so that you can see it.

If you have questions regarding the evidence we have provided, simply reply to this email. Please allow 14 days for us to reply to you.

Kind regards,
Felicitas Solutions Ltd

Sent it on to ETC who promptly responded back to Felicitas. I would add I have never logged onto their Portal/Client Gateway...

[happychap]

same here

On Tuesday 14th April I received an email from "[email protected]" it had my name at the top but I feel it was a generic letter as follows...

Thank you for your request to see your file, including the evidence of your loans. We have now made sure that the evidence in your file doesn't include other people's personal data. You can log back into the Client Gateway to see your file.

We are working through a large cache of documents looking for anything else of relevance. The documents were given to us by the prior lenders, from who we acquired our right to receive your repayments and/or any payments of interest that might be due from you. If we find further evidence, we will add it to your file so that you can see it.

If you have questions regarding the evidence we have provided, simply reply to this email. Please allow 14 days for us to reply to you.

Kind regards,
Felicitas Solutions Ltd

Sent it on to ETC who promptly responded back to Felicitas. I would add I have never logged onto their Portal/Client Gateway...

Had the same email Tuesday then again on Thursday even though ETC is representing me and specifically asked for communications to go to them.

Thanks again ETC (Andy Wood).....

[webberg]

Webberg's narrative across many posts appears to be, in summary, that any recipient of a loan from these schemes should abandon all hope and accept the situation i.e. accept that any loans are fully legal, legitimate, regulated loans without any holes in their construction, selling, documentation, provision or management and there's no hope that you will NOT have to repay them at some point. I may be wrong, but that's how it reads.

In that case I have erred.

My posts should be read as saying that many people have signed agreements which have legal standing and therefore in contesting the effect of those agreements, you have to give them due weight.

It is not enough to say that it was unfair or that the money was always yours or that there are flaws - morally and ethically - that a Judge would say means the agreements are null and void.

You must have evidence to support whatever action you are taking to resist payment.

As I've said before, for us (WTT) this is not the first time our clients have seen such demands and to date, none of them have paid a penny.

We have a full range of defences ready and those plans are already in motion.

My posts are saying - don't rely on what you were told but cannot prove. Don't rely on a Judge allowing ethical considerations or fairness to override the law. Don't expect a Judge to analyse the situation differently from the decided tax cases without good cause.

[webberg]

Disappointed but not surprised

I see that whilst I was away from forum this weekend, it's been suggested that my contributions have somehow morphed into a form of support for the various parties seeking "loan repayment".

Whilst I could have perhaps anticipated this as it follows patterns seen in other threads, I do find myself disappointed.

My post above summarises what I think. In short, resist loan demands but do so on grounds that are realistic, evidence based and that probably means with the help of a professional.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that the scheme worked any differently from how it actually did but look at the facts as coldly and objectively as you can.

Once you have a picture of what really happened, you can plan and execute a proper defence.

Regardless, it seems that some people are not quite there yet and instead remain in "blame the messenger" mode. I don't know why this surprises me because it has happened before.

I do not support repaying loans. We have active and wide ranging actions going ahead right now in defence of claims. We have extensive contacts in the IOM finance and legal community and are using them. We have our own legal team active and working here. None of our clients has paid a penny in loan repayments since we saw the first demands in April 2016.

I'll not stop posting on this issue but equally I will stop responding to posts that I feel are trying to paint a picture of what I and my firm are doing that is inaccurate.

[Sid Sewell]

I see that whilst I was away from forum this weekend, it's been suggested that my contributions have somehow morphed into a form of support for the various parties seeking "loan repayment".

Whilst I could have perhaps anticipated this as it follows patterns seen in other threads, I do find myself disappointed.

My post above summarises what I think. In short, resist loan demands but do so on grounds that are realistic, evidence based and that probably means with the help of a professional.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that the scheme worked any differently from how it actually did but look at the facts as coldly and objectively as you can.

Once you have a picture of what really happened, you can plan and execute a proper defence.

Regardless, it seems that some people are not quite there yet and instead remain in "blame the messenger" mode. I don't know why this surprises me because it has happened before.

I do not support repaying loans. We have active and wide ranging actions going ahead right now in defence of claims. We have extensive contacts in the IOM finance and legal community and are using them. We have our own legal team active and working here. None of our clients has paid a penny in loan repayments since we saw the first demands in April 2016.

I'll not stop posting on this issue but equally I will stop responding to posts that I feel are trying to paint a picture of what I and my firm are doing that is inaccurate.

Keep up the good work, some of us very much appreciate what WTT do.

[MrO666]

For what it's worth, I think the contributions made by WEBBERG have been balanced and honest.

Just because people don't like the situation they're potentially in, that doesn't make any claim against them instantly null and void. As WEBBERG and ETC have been clear to state, one must refute these claims based on fact and not based on emotion. Emotion has absolutely no part to play in this situation at all. You play with the cards you have, not the cards you want.

[pnr8uk]

I see that whilst I was away from forum this weekend, it's been suggested that my contributions have somehow morphed into a form of support for the various parties seeking "loan repayment".

Whilst I could have perhaps anticipated this as it follows patterns seen in other threads, I do find myself disappointed.

My post above summarises what I think. In short, resist loan demands but do so on grounds that are realistic, evidence based and that probably means with the help of a professional.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that the scheme worked any differently from how it actually did but look at the facts as coldly and objectively as you can.

Once you have a picture of what really happened, you can plan and execute a proper defence.

Regardless, it seems that some people are not quite there yet and instead remain in "blame the messenger" mode. I don't know why this surprises me because it has happened before.

I do not support repaying loans. We have active and wide ranging actions going ahead right now in defence of claims. We have extensive contacts in the IOM finance and legal community and are using them. We have our own legal team active and working here. None of our clients has paid a penny in loan repayments since we saw the first demands in April 2016.

I'll not stop posting on this issue but equally I will stop responding to posts that I feel are trying to paint a picture of what I and my firm are doing that is inaccurate.

Yip forum descended into the usual 'I know best', 'bury our heads in the sands', we'll win by being naïve vernacular.

Keep up the great work please

[Barry Lister]

Help please !

Just joined, so pleased I found this forum ! I have received the "Notice to Charge Interest" letter from Felicitas. I have recently moved house so the letter has taken a while to get to me and my Royal Mail forwarding service ends in a week or so, so my question is should I reply disputing the debt but giving my new address or just ignore the letters and see if they catch up with me at a later date ? Could really use some good advice here. Thanks.