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

[Spider2000]

That’s exactly what I received. I wonder why we and others did not receive a demand for payment?


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

No idea, but at least now if i do get a letter from the ambulance chasers, it will not be a surprise and i am better armed.

[Spider2000]

There’s also some obvious questions... what happened between 2014 when, Professional Independent Trustees (for Winchester or WCS) stopped being a moneylender and now when the ‘debt’ (as referred to in the Felicitas letter, it doesn't mention ‘loan’).

Where has our data been sat for all this time - for these organisations I’d assume it’s a GDPR nightmare and agree with many on here that Subject Access Requests will (if ever replied to) will come back with some interesting information.

Also, why now are these guys so public? Sacco is all over LinkedIn so are the other employees (assuming all real profiles). They’re either very brazen or plain daft - same goes for Gladstone’s for those affected by their letters. They’re SRA registered and their employees are easy to find too. It’s a completely different situation to the days of THL where just one or two individuals could be identified through a Companies House search. So why now have the are these guys surfacing in public?

My gut feel says these letters are their attempt to reel in the minor % of people who will cave and pay up as some did with THL in the hope their ‘loan’ will be written off. As far as I’m concerned and bearing in mind it’s a notice of transfer not a demand it carries as much weight as me sticking a post-it note through my neighbours door saying they owe me 50k.

As far as i can make out Baker Tilly an IOM accountancy firm has been
looking after the Longacre / WCS trust affairs as "administrators of the trustee" (not sure if that is the correct terminology) . I contacted Baker Tilly when the Trust Help Line / DOR Resolutions tried their little attempt to get people to have their loans written off for a payment , just to find out who actually had all of the trust paperwork. They were extremely unhelpfull, but did let slip that one of their former employees was behind THL , so i would be wary of these guys as well. I am pretty sure they have been closely involved with at least Longacre / WCS all along , in what capacity not sure.

[Spider2000]

SAR requests

If you decide to reply to these scumbags.

Use this link to see how to request a SAR.

Your right of access | ICO

It says that you can request to receive the data by email or on paper, so lets make their life difficult and costly , and request printed output.

and remind them of the deadline.

Could also send it by recorded delivery post so then they cannot deny having received it.

[webberg]

I see another surge of posters to this thread.

Some observations.

Can you "demand" money back from trusts?

It would depend on the terms of the trust deed but it is very unusual. Further, it was not you who made the contribution to the trust so it is NOT YOURS to demand back.

Can I get the FCA involved?

Well you can contact them but the FCA (previously FSA) did NOT regulate the industry and the IOM equivalent also does not regulate the industry.

Further, you do not need to be registered with any organisation in order to acquire and chase debts. Again not a regulated activity unless the original loan was made under such terms.

Interaction between tax on loan, loan charge and tax on write off

It is HMRC's position that the loan payments made to you should be treated as taxable income.

They also say that if you have a loan that is within the loan charge conditions, then you are liable to pay the loan charge. When you agree the tax charge for the year the loan was paid to you, the tax paid via the loan charge will be a credit against that.

The loan charge is essentially a payment on account of the final liability. It is NOT settlement.

In the event that you have the loan written off, then a charge can arise under section 554C. The value of that charge (called a relevant step) can be reduced by previous charging events. These would include agreeing a tax charge for the year in which the loan was made.

In theory, it should also include a reduction for anything caught under the loan charge. (I confess that the exact mechanism there is less than clear to me).

[webberg]

Another way to look at this is - I invoiced my end client, the Trust then invoiced me, I then loaned them MY money and then they repaid the loan back to ME...

Sounds ridiculous I know but this whole thing is ridiculous. I may contact Felicitas and demand they repay me the money I loaned to them, er...even though they actually paid it back anyway... seriously, the world has gone mad.

I'm sorry but the way you deal with this is to understand what you did and the legal implications and to then address the facts and the law. The above is unfortunately incorrect.

You did NOT invoice your end client. One of the entities involved in the scheme invoiced the end client (probably via an agency).

The trust did NOT invoice you. Instead the promoter vehicle made a contribution to the trust.

You did not lend YOUR money back to YOU. The trust claimed to have had the money and decided - entirely at their discretion - to lend you money. They could have decided to keep all of the money and not make a loan and there would have been absolutely nothing - legally - you could have done about that. You were entirely reliant upon the promises of people who I suggest have shown themseleves to be less than trustworthy.

Felicitas were not part of the original arrangement and consequently are an inappropriate party to demand money from, even if your analysis was correct, (which I'm afraid it is not).

I understand the anger and the frustration. It will be followed by deflection of blame and then embarrassment at having been duped by these people. Eventually though you will arrive at a place in which you can make a cold and calculated assessment of your legal position and the options available and from their you can begin to make some logical choices. It's a journey and the sooner you begin the sooner you get there.

[DealorNoDeal]

If you want peace of mind

Join webberg's WTT action.

His firm has previous experience of fending off these kind of vultures.

[Spider2000]

Illustration

I received a full illustration from WCS, comparing the % realisation of Gross Income vs Umbrella and Standard Ltd Company to WCS scheme , In there there is no mention of loans , or the fact that the 'loan' amount would be need to be deducted from the total , surely if an organisation gives you a financial illustration , and omits an amount equating to more than 50% of the total which would be deducted , does this not contravene some basic financial regulation law, otherwise how could you trust anything any financial organisation told you , and according to a previous posts WCS or Winchester would need to have been registered as a Lender in order legitimately make loans. ?

[eek]

I received a full illustration from WCS, comparing the % realisation of Gross Income vs Umbrella and Standard Ltd Company to WCS scheme , In there there is no mention of loans , or the fact that the 'loan' amount would be need to be deducted from the total , surely if an organisation gives you a financial illustration , and omits an amount equating to more than 50% of the total which would be deducted , does this not contravene some basic financial regulation law, otherwise how could you trust anything any financial organisation told you , and according to a previous posts WCS or Winchester would need to have been registered as a Lender in order legitimately make loans. ?

No, nothing is broken as schemes aren't regulated by anyone.

And they need to hide all the detail from you as otherwise you would have avoided the scheme and used an umbrella / a limited company.

[eek]

Join webberg's WTT action.

His firm has previous experience of fending off these kind of vultures.

Can I repeat the above. When angry a lot of people do things that in all likelihood may do their cases more harm than good. And I'm seeing that an awful lot on this thread.

Leave it to someone else with a calmer head to tell you what to do in a way that won't result in you saying the wrong thing and making things worse..

[BrilloPad]

No, nothing is broken as schemes aren't regulated by anyone.

And they need to hide all the detail from you as otherwise you would have avoided the scheme and used an umbrella / a limited company.

Some of these schemes pretended to be umbrellas.

Can I repeat the above. When angry a lot of people do things that in all likelihood may do their cases more harm than good. And I'm seeing that an awful lot on this thread.

Leave it to someone else with a calmer head to tell you what to do in a way that won't result in you saying the wrong thing and making things worse..

+1