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

[eek]

Still digging re Sanzar Solutions but for Sanzar Partnership I do have a letter saying all loas were repaid

But as webberg asks in the bottom line of the post you quoted do you have anything except internal (from Sanzar) letters saying the loans have been repaid. HMRC will value them at roughly the price of the paper they are printed on.

You probably have a set of bank statements showing Sanzar paying money into your bank account. Do you have any record of the money being repaid from an account in the name of the person the money was paid to.

[webberg]

Still digging re Sanzar Solutions but for Sanzar Partnership I do have a letter saying all loas were repaid

Do you have anything else?

Do you have a debit to your bank account equal to the loan that was repaid?

I can almost guarantee that you do not.

All you have is a letter from an alleged lender to an alleged borrower agreeing that some mythical creation no longer exists.

The promoters of these schemes relied upon a lack of curiosity and a focus on the reward rather than the risk to ensure that nobody did any deep diligence on them and allowed that gravy train to keep on rolling.

I'm afraid to say that many, many people allowed their sceptical faculty to be turned off when they looked at these schemes.

[Parsons Green]

Someone mentioned Partner at Freeths?

Hi everyone

First many thanks for sharing your experience here on ContractorUK - its been a boon for me - I also received the same outrageous letter a few days ago and am now armed with this great info.

Someone mentioned a conversation with a Partner at Freeths - I am keen to get a name to avoid any delay in my enquiry - does anyone have this to hand? Can't find it in the thread.

Thanks

[Wazza1882]

Do you have anything else?

Do you have a debit to your bank account equal to the loan that was repaid?

I can almost guarantee that you do not.

All you have is a letter from an alleged lender to an alleged borrower agreeing that some mythical creation no longer exists.

The promoters of these schemes relied upon a lack of curiosity and a focus on the reward rather than the risk to ensure that nobody did any deep diligence on them and allowed that gravy train to keep on rolling.

I'm afraid to say that many, many people allowed their sceptical faculty to be turned off when they looked at these schemes.

Wow. I really don't appreciate this tone at all. Many of us were young, naive and sold the scheme based on the returns given in a very convincing and devious way. With all other social and professional pressures occurring in one's life as well as these schemes being given free reign to advertise their services everywhere, it promoted the feeling of "Glad this can be taken care of so quickly and you sound like the best deal out there".

The fact that they pressured us in to going with them ("Sign quickly, send me details so I can process your payment otherwise it may be delayed for a few weeks, a month" or "if you don't go with this scheme then we can't guarantee the job".) and also hiding the true way the scheme works from you (i.e. not telling you that these were loans and that they would have to be repaid. YES! I only signed a signature page for speed of processing) doesn't make a difference? Yes it does.

These guys are vultures, grifters. They know it, we know it and a judge will know it in court. Like many specialists have said, they would have to PROVE it was a valid loan first. And if that was the case then they would have to prove that everything was above board with regards to the agreement. If the previous 2 statements could be proved easily then why did the old trusts sell this bad debt off? It's because they know they don't stand a chance.

So back to the point. I know you mean well and I know you have a lot of experience in this matter, but please be careful how you're coming across. A lot of people here suffering both mentally and physically.

[eek]

Wow. I really don't appreciate this tone at all. Many of us were young, naive and sold the scheme based on the returns given in a very convincing and devious way. With all other social and professional pressures occurring in one's life as well as these schemes being given free reign to advertise their services everywhere, it promoted the feeling of "Glad this can be taken care of so quickly and you sound like the best deal out there".

The fact that they pressured us in to going with them ("Sign quickly, send me details so I can process your payment otherwise it may be delayed for a few weeks, a month" or "if you don't go with this scheme then we can't guarantee the job".) and also hiding the true way the scheme works from you (i.e. not telling you that these were loans and that they would have to be repaid. YES! I only signed a signature page for speed of processing) doesn't make a difference? Yes it does.

These guys are vultures, grifters. They know it, we know it and a judge will know it in court. Like many specialists have said, they would have to PROVE it was a valid loan first. And if that was the case then they would have to prove that everything was above board with regards to the agreement. If the previous 2 statements could be proved easily then why did the old trusts sell this bad debt off? It's because they know they don't stand a chance.

So back to the point. I know you mean well and I know you have a lot of experience in this matter, but please be careful how you're coming across. A lot of people here suffering both mentally and physically.

They sold the debt off because they could move on to better things and probably in the eyes of the original organisers the debt didn't really exist and is worthless. In the eyes of the person buying the debt however it's game on, they have paperwork you've signed and are looking to enforce it.

As webberg said earlier today, you aren't going to get very far with woe is me and I was pressurised into signing paperwork as x years later that cannot be proven or disproved. Focus on what the legal agreement says and see where the flaws are within it that would result in loan repayments not being required (I did write look for the flaws that make the loan invalid but that could open a different set of issues)....

[Wazza1882]

They sold the debt off because they could move on to better things and probably in the eyes of the original organisers the debt didn't really exist and is worthless. In the eyes of the person buying the debt however it's game on, they have paperwork you've signed and are looking to enforce it.

As webberg said earlier today, you aren't going to get very far with woe is me and I was pressurised into signing paperwork as x years later that cannot be proven or disproved. Focus on what the legal agreement says and see where the flaws are within it that would result in loan repayments not being required (I did write look for the flaws that make the loan invalid but that could open a different set of issues)....

Thanks for this and yes I get it, but with the highlighted point above - Yes it can be proven. I have emails that show the pressure and I have an email with just the signature sheet on it asking me to sign it.

Forgive my ignorance, but when a company offers a loan, they have to abide by standard both from a financial perspective and a humanitarian perspective. Contract Law is contract law, but if it can be proven that the rules were broken then great. (and I guarantee, many rules were broken)

Has anyone got a copy of their full loan agreement including the terms and conditions (from IQ which is where I was at)? Not many people will have, because they didn't send it to you. All above board eh? Judge will clearly say "Yeah, this was so clearly a valid loan". Come on.

[Wazza1882]

They sold the debt off because they could move on to better things and probably in the eyes of the original organisers the debt didn't really exist and is worthless. In the eyes of the person buying the debt however it's game on, they have paperwork you've signed and are looking to enforce it.

As webberg said earlier today, you aren't going to get very far with woe is me and I was pressurised into signing paperwork as x years later that cannot be proven or disproved. Focus on what the legal agreement says and see where the flaws are within it that would result in loan repayments not being required (I did write look for the flaws that make the loan invalid but that could open a different set of issues)....

And really? Do they?

They use a pathetic ambulance chasing solicitors based off a golf course that has a 1 star rating from hundreds if not thousands of reviews. They use second quality paper, 2nd class stamps, break rules to do with the SRA and FCA and are demanding payment on loans that they don't even provide dates for let alone copies of credit agreements with our signatures on it.

Looks and sounds really iffy to me.

[cojak]

And really? Do they?

They use a pathetic ambulance chasing solicitors based off a golf course that has a 1 star rating from hundreds if not thousands of reviews. They use second quality paper, 2nd class stamps, break rules to do with the SRA and FCA and are demanding payment on loans that they don't even provide dates for let alone copies of credit agreements with our signatures on it.

Looks and sounds really iffy to me.

Good, you’re getting focus. Forget about second quality paper, focus on their proof of the loan and whether or not they have a valid claim.

[Culps67]

So basically webberg is calling me a liar. That I was told that it was a loan. UNTRUE.

I was made redundant in 2014 and was out of work for 18 months. I moved house in meantime and was looking to go back into computing again so was looking for a short contract to get me going again. I applied for literally hundred of jobs and was getting absolutely nowhere. Decent IT jobs in Blackpool are very hard to come by and no company wants to take you on if you live a fair distance away. One Friday afternoon I got a call out of the blue from an agency who wanted an IT specialist in Harrogate for a short term contract. They asked me if Harrogate was too far away (160 mile round trip). I was that desperate to get something after being messed about by agencies for months that I said "I'll take it defo and I can start on Monday". The agency emailed me later and recommended Target Umbrella. She said speak to Mr xxx, he's lovely. Great company, they'll sort everything for you". So I was sent forms to sign and I signed them. Please forgive me for not reading all 24 pages of the contract as I had to sort out getting to Harrogate and trying to find reasonably priced accommodation etc. There was no mention of any loan agreement, I just signed up in good faith. I read the front page of their website and all looked legitimate to me. A couple of weeks later (and I still have the emails) I messaged them to ask why my pay was so low. They said that I had to accept loan payment by email. I said to the, I thought they were spam messages as they were from a different company and it was asking me if I wanted a loan ! So the messages were re-sent to me and I accepted these loans and the money went into my bank. I started doing some research and was not happy with the way they were operating so I left them. I was only with them about ten weeks. A year after I left I was texted by Target to ask me to rejoin with promise of a loyalty bonus !

So my situation is not nearly as grave as some people who potentially have to pay back £100k +. Mine is a couple of grand but I'm not happy at being ripped off. I worked hard for that money and wasn't rewarded that much as I had to pay accommodation costs.

It's clear to see from the posts on this thread that no-one has a clue what the situation is. The fact that this could cost folk hundreds of thousands and yet no-one is clear whether it is enforceable or not it a very sad state of affairs. I'm just dismayed at being ripped off and feel sorry for the people who are in much worse situations.

[DealorNoDeal]

I doubt very much that the loan agreement is anywhere near watertight. These "loans" were never intended to be real loans, so there was no reason to have proper lending/repayment terms & conditions. The loan agreement only needed it to look as though the money was being lended.

I mean, what company in their right mind would lend millions of pounds on unsecured terms, charging no interest, with no proper repayment terms?

And, moreover, who in their right mind would take on such a worthless loan book? Chancers, that's who.