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

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Sorry but the fact there is a 5% offer available may help others who hadn't received that exact offer and I'm completely at a loss as to what is confidential about the rest as there is nothing there that hasn't been posted 100 times already.

In fact the only thing vaguely new is the warning about courts considering court costs after an offer is made which is frankly worth emphasising rather than hiding. As with those stupid boundary court cases you see every couple of years or so, an argument over £50k could well end up costing you another £100k once they ask for their legal fees to be covered. Hopefully that won't be the case but it's possible and I imagine Felicitas are vindictive enough.

And yes I'm not involved - which means I'm still applying common sense and logic while others are letting their emotions control their decisions (that's great for the salesman, not great for those on the receiving end).

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

I haven't deleted the quote and I won't because the more I think about it the line about costs is very important.

Because the people at Felicitas and co are lawyers so they will profit (possibly significant additional profits) from the court costs if costs were awarded against you. And costs would be awarded against you unless you completely won (which you may but court cases are lotteries and they may have plenty of practice before your case hit the courts).

[Wtaf]

Felicitas have never given proof of loan

...so why would you even consider paying them a penny? The debt dispute letters have gone unanswered. They are throwing mud at a wall and hoping some sticks. Don't be sucked into their game and settle. Zero guarantee that would be the end.

[Superfly]

...so why would you even consider paying them a penny? The debt dispute letters have gone unanswered. They are throwing mud at a wall and hoping some sticks. Don't be sucked into their game and settle. Zero guarantee that would be the end.

Very true. That is why Gladstones have had to take a step back, as FCA rules dictate that Felicitas has questions to answer with regards to the veracity of the loan.

If Felicitas don't have the paperwork to prove the bonafides of the loan then their next tactic is to get people to admit to the loan which will relieve them of having to produce documentary evidence.

The loan crystallises if 1) Felicitas produces the documentation which proves the loan and their ownership, or 2) The alleged 'debtor' admits to the loan.

Gladstones will be back on the scene once people begin admitting to the loan as the promise of a 95% discount reels them in.

[Wtaf]

Very true. That is why Gladstones have had to take a step back, as FCA rules dictate that Felicitas has questions to answer with regards to the veracity of the loan.

If Felicitas don't have the paperwork to prove the bonafides of the loan then their next tactic is to get people to admit to the loan which will relieve them of having to produce documentary evidence.

The loan crystallises if 1) Felicitas produces the documentation which proves the loan and their ownership, or 2) The alleged 'debtor' admits to the loan.

Gladstones will be back on the scene once people begin admitting to the loan as the promise of a 95% discount reels them in.

Spot on, if they had proof they'd have complied and shown this by now. They haven't, they are dragging it out in the hope people admit it (great point) or grow tired. Don't give money to this scheme that will help them grow in power.

[uplock]

...so why would you even consider paying them a penny? The debt dispute letters have gone unanswered. They are throwing mud at a wall and hoping some sticks. Don't be sucked into their game and settle. Zero guarantee that would be the end.

Dear All - whether you wish to settle (5%) or wish to dispute, the key question that Felicitas need to answer is whether (i) a debt exsists, (ii) if so, whether Felicitas owns the debt, and (iii) they can enforce it. These questions collectively focus on proof that Felicitas owns the "so called debt" and has the power to negotiate settlement (ie 5%) or seek repayment.

If you wish to settle, without Felicitas proving the above, your wish to negotiate indicates you accept liability for the debt and they withdraw the offer and seek full repayment. Even if payment is made and settlement papers are signed, if Felicitas does not own the debt, than it could be sold on to another party and a new repayment demand for the same debt may be made in the future. This goes on and on etc...

Before considering any settlement it is important to ensure Felictias provides proof of ownership of the debt. If they do, than go ahead an settle if you wish. Until then please be cautious and seek advice on what Felicitas need to evidence by going to a Solictor, ETC, WTT etc....

Please do not take any decisions blindly, as this is how we got into this mess in the first place!

[eek]

Dear All - whether you wish to settle (5%) or wish to dispute, the key question that Felicitas need to answer is whether (i) a debt exsists, (ii) if so, whether Felicitas owns the debt, and (iii) they can enforce it. These questions collectively focus on proof that Felicitas owns the "so called debt" and has the power to negotiate settlement (ie 5%) or seek repayment.

If you wish to settle, without Felicitas proving the above, your wish to negotiate indicates you accept liability for the debt and they withdraw the offer and seek full repayment. Even if payment is made and settlement papers are signed, if Felicitas does not own the debt, than it could be sold on to another party and a new repayment demand for the same debt may be made in the future. This goes on and on etc...

Before considering any settlement it is important to ensure Felictias provides proof of ownership of the debt. If they do, than go ahead an settle if you wish. Until then please be cautious and seek advice on what Felicitas need to evidence by going to a Solictor, ETC, WTT etc....

Please do not take any decisions blindly, as this is how we got into this mess in the first place!

100% true but personally I would be focused far more on discovering whether the debt still exists and whether that debt is enforceable. Only after that would I worry about whether Felicitas actually owns it as I really doubt the owners will have screwed up ownership in ways that help you.

Being blunt there are no easy answers here - every option (settle, dispute, ignore) has risks and downsides and given how these people made their money I know they will be pushing things.

[DavidD]

There is no debt.

[eek]

<Mod: Post modified to protect a poster>

Why haven't they, because
1) Courts love to see evidence of people being "reasonable" and negotiating prior to starting court action
2) Covid ground courts down to a virtual halt so there is zero incentive to spend money on court fees when the earliest court date is months away

I'll be blunt here my entire purpose for posting on here is to try and keep things rational and stop people doing stupid things in anger (as a lot of people did in the early days when their complaints may have accidentally resulted in them accepting that the debts were valid).

And yes these people are scum but that doesn't mean they haven't screwed you hook, line and sinker

[webberg]

The above page and half or so of posts have brought the debate full cycle.

There are four parties here.

Felicitas and their connections. They want to monetise an asset that they purport to own. They may or may not have connections with the original schemes but really, does that matter? No. What matters is whether they have a valid claim to take money from the alleged borrowers. To do that, they need evidence and provenance. I'm not aware if they post to the forum or not, but if they did, then clearly they have a bias and all their posts would have to be read with that in mind.

Ex scheme users. Clearly at the sharp end of the debate and for whom this is very personal. It is however also a matter of law, practice and procedure. It is often easy for this group to become lost in the emotion here and lose sight of the objective, which is clearly to pay as little as possible, preferably nothing. Many posts stem from the source. Many make statements about the character of the above, their business ethics and the legality of their actions. i suggest that many of the statements made are devalued because they are subjective, made by people whose background in such matters is unknown.

Experienced contractors and scheme users, just not these schemes. many posters to the forum have been here for many years and are able to bring an objectivity to the issues because they have no skin in the game. Comments from such sources are perhaps worth reading.

Advisers. Every adviser is in business and have a vested interest in earning fees. We have seen a few statements in the early days saying the claims of repayment of worthless and easily dismissed. We have seen others claim that a more evidenced and legal approach is required. The only way to be sure here is to speak to the advisers and question them as to their plans.

(I would agree however that sharing details of advice from any professional source is unhelpful but as far as I can see only the "bleeding obvious" has been shared and so no harm done).

Paying something to make it go away? Been done before and is very much a subjective choice.

Paying advisers costs to make it go away? Been done before and is very much a subjective choice.

It is however time that the initial shock and outrage has expired and to focus on practical/legal/financial matters and to be as coldly objective as you can.