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

[H20]

Calm Down

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.

HMRC have been to court ( Supreme Court) and have a ruling that these 'Loans' were in fact disguised remuneration. This is now law. For anyone to be able to extort monies from us, they will need to go to court and challenge the ruling of the Supreme Court. Are these muggy little outfits on IOM and their muggy little solicitor operating out of an office on a golf course really going to do that. Ignore, dispute, laugh at them.... Chancers !!

[lowpaidworker]

95% (Number of schemes involving a loan agreement) of the poeple on here are in the same boat. All on the same journey but just some have a few more waves to contend with right now. I would say about the same percentage of people on here are sympathetic and are trying to offer help free time.

Fortunately my loan hasn't been called in. However I have no doubt well see many of these loans re-called as HMRC put pressure on and try to close down these schemes, force promotors hands and no doubt some promotors seeing a fast buck to be made. It wouldn't suprise me if the person behind this has used his golf course to send the letters from. The whole thing seems a scam. Hence some obscure address.

I would heed the advice thats been pretty much repeated on a number of occassions. Firstly I would keep all the letters including the envelope they were posted in and pretty much ignore them based on the fact they havent been sent recorded delivery from an individual prersepctive

Lastly I would all club together if thats possible and go get some paid advice splitting the cost and get one very severve reponse sent back to them. ... recorded delivery of course. Then I would leave it there... ball back in their court

[eek]

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.

And those "chancers" will do anything they can to scare you into paying. So you need to, calmly look at what evidence you have that shows that nothing is owed and that no repayment is required / or that the loan wasn't a loan and then work out how you can get them to take you to court or leave you alone as otherwise they will just pass the claim down to the next debt collector who will kick everything off again.

[Culps67]

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.

Not according to Webberg who keeps mentioning contract law yet doesn't know himself what the situation is. If I was to pay someone money to give me advice then I'd at least expect to know exactly what my situation is not just "I think this" or "I think that" or "its likely this will happen". That's no good to anyone !

[H20]

Not according to Webberg who keeps mentioning contract law yet doesn't know himself what the situation is. If I was to pay someone money to give me advice then I'd at least expect to know exactly what my situation is not just "I think this" or "I think that" or "its likely this will happen". That's no good to anyone !

Guy's I may be in a little bit of a different situation to most of you, whereby I have settled all my affairs with HMRC for an exorbitant amount of money. In fact 2 weeks ago I had a letter from HMRC offering a possible refund of monies paid prior to 2010, ( notwithstanding the outcome of the current Loan charge review). However, the fact remains that I the eyes of the law these ar disguised remuneration not loans. If these guy's ( chancers) are chasing repayment of loans, they will need to prove they are loans in the eyes of the law. Hence they can't both be right , regardless of tax law and contract law. If the HMRC Supreme Court ruling gets challenged and is overturned happy days I get my money back. If the Big Group challenge wins and it is deemed the employers are liable for the tax and not the employees, happy days I get my money back.
Unless someone challenges the HMRC ruling I wouldn't worry about paying back any 'loan' that in the eyes of the law doesn't exist. Not a comfort for those of you I know who are still dealing with the HMRC loan charge.

[eek]

Not according to Webberg who keeps mentioning contract law yet doesn't know himself what the situation is. If I was to pay someone money to give me advice then I'd at least expect to know exactly what my situation is not just "I think this" or "I think that" or "its likely this will happen". That's no good to anyone !

I'm sure webberg and others will be happy to fully research your case but it would cost £x00 an hour and probably end up being £10,000+ only to provide a if this then that answer with vague levels of probability.

HMRC tax schemes were a rich man's play thing where they are happy to spend £50,000 on the off chance of saving £250,000... Tax advice is skilled work and hence very expensive and while the loan itself isn't a tax issue it's attached to a tax issue which means things rapidly become very legally complex with if buts and maybes that mean a lot of options solve 1 issue but create a bigger one on the other side.

So personally I would be happy that there are tax experts like webberg who are happy to provide any advice for you as most tax advisors aren't working on contract based schemes because it wasn't profitable enough for them...

[DealorNoDeal]

Not according to Webberg who keeps mentioning contract law yet doesn't know himself what the situation is. If I was to pay someone money to give me advice then I'd at least expect to know exactly what my situation is not just "I think this" or "I think that" or "its likely this will happen". That's no good to anyone !

webberg can sometimes come across as a bit high and mighty BUT he absolutely knows what he's talking about. He fended off repayment demands from another promoter (Montpelier) a couple of years ago, so he's done this before.

The point he has been trying to make is that just because:
a) HMG/HMRC are adamant that the loans are disguised remuneration (and introduced the LC to tax them as such)
b) The Supreme Court ruled some loans were remuneration
c) People have settled with HMRC on the basis that the "loans" were taxable income

does not mean that the "loans" cannot, at the same time, be borrowed money in another area of law.

[piebaps]

For loans based on Isle of Man law, Gladstones are knackered. there is no "no win no fee" process in the Isle of Man and only an Isle of Man advocate (a cross between a solicitor and a barrister) can appear in Court. To get a successful claim, the sharks behind this will need to shell out cash up front for an Isle of Man loan and its unlikely they'll do that.

Naturally, if they did spend the cash then they could seek their costs from the other party (if the claim was successful) but to me, the whole thing is simply a speculative punt.

See this one https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ght=montpelier

[DealorNoDeal]

For loans based on Isle of Man law, Gladstones are knackered. there is no "no win no fee" process in the Isle of Man and only an Isle of Man advocate (a cross between a solicitor and a barrister) can appear in Court. To get a successful claim, the sharks behind this will need to shell out cash up front for an Isle of Man loan and its unlikely they'll do that.

Naturally, if they did spend the cash then they could seek their costs from the other party (if the claim was successful) but to me, the whole thing is simply a speculative punt.

See this one https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ght=montpelier

This.

It's also a low risk punt because it doesn't cost much to send a load of letters.

[Wazza1882]

This.

It's also a low risk punt because it doesn't cost much to send a load of letters. Even if only a handful of people capitulate, it will probably more than cover their costs.

Not only this, but I don't know if people realise. The actual text in the letter, if you read it fully, is not asking for loans to be repayed. Not at all. What it's asking for (for one of my apparent 4 loans with them) is payment of interest accrued from 2015 totalling a few grand. And then interest will also be due every April, with the next due April 2020. But, they do add that as a one time offer, they can cancel all loans and interest for a one off payment of £xk.

They carry on with a threat and say that if they don't receive any payment then they will use the 30 day notice to call in the loans.

So that's the pressure tactic all for a few quid here and there.

£1-£10k Interest or £5-£20k settlement payments x 400 of the 4-5k people that are affected by this means a nice tidy sum of close to £1m.