Originally posted by DealorNoDeal
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Topic is closed
-
merely at clientco for the entertainment -
Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View PostThis may prove an interesting behavioural experiment on the scammers.
----------------
As an aside, I think they're a bit dumb demanding large sums of money. They would have been better off charging a few hundred quid admin fee for writing off the loans and providing advice on settlement, IHT etc.
Webberg lost me when he said that the loan is still valid. He said look at the facts, well the facts are that I have not signed any loan agreement, nor was any loan mentioned to me... there is nothing. On the one side he said look at the facts, and on the other side he said the loan is valid even though the facts do not bear out his assertion.
It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here. I don't know as much about all this as he does, but this is most certainly not a loan and would be ready to argue that with a judge.
Oh and by the way, I have it on record that the payments made to me are not repayable (a bit of a strange comment I thought at the time [why would I ever have needed to pay it back???] but there you go).
I'm hoping my little experiment will help demonstrate that those that ignored the letters are no worse off than those that paid for the services of these advisers... lets see what you get for your money.Last edited by Superfly; 3 March 2020, 10:18.Comment
-
Originally posted by Superfly View PostFor the record, I will be most certainly be one those who are ignoring.
Webberg lost me when he said that the loan is still valid. He said look at the facts, well the facts are that I have not signed any loan agreement, nor was any loan mentioned to me... there is nothing. On the one side he said look at the facts, and on the other side he said the loan is valid even though the facts do not bear out his assertion.
It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here. I don't know as much about all this as he does, but this is most certainly not a loan and would be ready to argue that with a judge.
Oh and by the way, I have it on record that the payments made to me are not repayable (a bit of a strange comment I thought at the time [why would I ever have needed to pay it back???] but there you go).
I'm hoping my little experiment will help demonstrate that those that ignored the letters are no worse off than those that paid for the services of these advisers... lets see what you get for your money.
The fact is that loans (albeit disguised as other things) were used in these schemes - I can't remember the exact word that appears somewhere in this thread but in the same way PAYE is actually an advance payment (loan prior to due date) to the government, you were given advanced payments by this scheme.
As a side before once the money was paid into the scheme it became Schrodinger money where every party (apart from the contractor) looks at it and sees it the way they want to see it (HMRC see taxable income, the new scheme owners see loans and a payday).merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by Superfly View PostFor the record, I will be most certainly be one those who are ignoring.
Webberg lost me
Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.
On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.
If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.
As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.
Good luck with your quest.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by Superfly View Post
It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here.
There is no mask and I have never attempted to create one or hide behind one.
I represent a commercial organisation that lives on fees. That has always been clear.
In my humble opinion, I have always striven to offer honest advice and have always been clear as to how far I can go without compromising my clients.
We have no alliances with scheme promoters or parties associated with them. I'm unclear therefore as to which "straw men" I'm meant to be supporting?
However, you are entitled to a view and others here can agree or disagree with it.Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.
(No, me neither).Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostIn EVERY case we have investigated, there is a signed loan agreement.
Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.
On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.
If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.
As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.
Good luck with your quest.Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
Originally posted by webberg View PostIn EVERY case we have investigated, there is a signed loan agreement.
Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.
On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.
If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.
As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.
Good luck with your quest.Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Superfly View PostI was with Sanzar, there was no loan agreement.
I was with Sanzar, I did not realise the contract I signed contained a loan agreement.Comment
-
Originally posted by Paralytic View PostI'd read this as:
Unless you signed nothing, or have had a tax/contract lawyer review what you did sign and confirm it was not a loan, then I'd be erring on the side of caution. A loan agreement does not have to have the word "loan" in it.
The only thing I signed was a contract for employment with sanzar, I signed NOTHING else. The contract of employment for sanzar contains nothing which could even be remotely attributed to being paid in loans.
Those are the bare facts. I did not sign anything else, I have all the paperwork.
Right that's enough discussion. I'd better get back to my work.Last edited by Superfly; 3 March 2020, 11:08.Comment
Topic is closed
Partners
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment