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

[MrO666]

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with this.

Look at it this way.........if any legitimate lender believed that a borrower genuinely owed them £50,000, and where confident in their legal ability to prove this in a court of law, then why would that lender make the offer of paying only 12% to wipe the debt clear.............they wouldn't would they.

Also, how would any creditor explain to a court that they never at any point contacted the borrower to request repayment of the alleged loan in full, but that their first communication with the alleged borrower was to offer them settlement at only 12% of the alleged debt. It all makes absolutely no sense, other than trying to hustle any level of money out of someone that they can, on the basis that they know they probably have a cat in hells chance of legally enforcing repayment, so are just trying to get smaller sums voluntarily.

Can anyone really see a judge taking this kind of approach seriously ?

[Kingsshilling]

The Helpline

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with this.

Look at it this way.........if any legitimate lender believed that a borrower genuinely owed them £50,000, and where confident in their legal ability to prove this in a court of law, then why would that lender make the offer of paying only 12% to wipe the debt clear.............they wouldn't would they.

Also, how would any creditor explain to a court that they never at any point contacted the borrower to request repayment of the alleged loan in full, but that their first communication with the alleged borrower was to offer them settlement at only 12% of the alleged debt. It all makes absolutely no sense, other than trying to hustle any level of money out of someone that they can, on the basis that they know they probably have a cat in hells chance of legally enforcing repayment, so are just trying to get smaller sums voluntarily.

Can anyone really see a judge taking this kind of approach seriously ?

I am sure we all remember The Helpline who previously advised for a fee they would wipe the loan. They have recently closed down the company as advised by companies house. No doubt the current bunch asking for fees / repayments will go the same way

[Kblack101]

Hi
This morning I had a letter from Felititas it was a notice of acquisition of lenders rights. I had already settled with HMRC in respect of tax on the scheme I had been involved in for only a few months. in 2014 and so was surprised to have this bit of past come up. From reading previous posts I am now expecting a nasty letter demanding nearly 24k. I regard this as earnings and the loan payment was prepaid by my then employer. I will be unable to join the big group mentioned as it will not be financially viable for me. Any advice or recommendations would be very welcome.

[DealorNoDeal]

I think some people are getting a bit carried away with this.

Look at it this way.........if any legitimate lender believed that a borrower genuinely owed them £50,000, and where confident in their legal ability to prove this in a court of law, then why would that lender make the offer of paying only 12% to wipe the debt clear.............they wouldn't would they.

Also, how would any creditor explain to a court that they never at any point contacted the borrower to request repayment of the alleged loan in full, but that their first communication with the alleged borrower was to offer them settlement at only 12% of the alleged debt. It all makes absolutely no sense, other than trying to hustle any level of money out of someone that they can, on the basis that they know they probably have a cat in hells chance of legally enforcing repayment, so are just trying to get smaller sums voluntarily.

Can anyone really see a judge taking this kind of approach seriously ?

Good point.

I think a Judge would have a hard time keeping a straight face with a firm that:

a) lent £50,000 to someone, interest free, on an unsecured basis
b) didn't specify any repayment schedule
c) left it years to ask for any of the money back
d) and then, as you say, agreed to write it all off for a fraction of the money supposedly owed

[piebaps]

But logically, why would the original trustees pass it on to a different group who then use an ambulance chasing solicitor with 1 star reputation to threaten people for money?

We can never really know the answer to this. My own research has however shown that Schemes change ownership more often than you would think. Take this hypothetical scenario.

1. Tax planning expert thinks he's found a loophole. He gets his QC opinion and markets it to wealthy clients.
2. Once he's made his wedge he sells his idea to someone else. The new owner expands the initial idea and turns it into a mass marketed scheme.
3. Knowing he's treading on thin ice, the owner makes a few quid and then sells again. He sells to his staff (like a management buyout).
4. The staff them window dress the initial scheme but once it has a new name or new company identity it runs basically the same as before.
5. The owners are far from the experts who initially had it but understand the risks. The take their cash then sell out internally again.
6. By now the operators of the scheme are basically administrators who have no idea of the risks or probably what they're actually doing. They squeeze as much as they can and when
they feel its done, they have one more final dip and ask for loan repayments/or interest. This is really a final throw of the dice and using no win/no fee lawyers minimizes their costs.

This is a dog eat dog industry and in this case you can see two advisors arguing in Court about who owned the scheme Isle of Man Judgments Online

[DealorNoDeal]

This is a dog eat dog industry and in this case you can see two scamsters arguing in Court about who owned the scheme Isle of Man Judgments Online

FTFY

I had the "pleasure" of dealing with both of them.

[dh1981]

For the record, I will NEVER:

1. Be a contractor again
2. Not read every single word of what I am signing up to before I sign up for it
and
3. Go with an idea that seems too good to be true.

Lesson learned. I just want the anxiety, the stress, the panic, the stinging eyes, the pain in the shoulders and chests, the fuzzy heads, the lack of focus and the tiredness to stop.

Same. It's caused so much stress and anxiety over the last few years, along with another tax issue I had from just before this due again to my own stupidity (ignorance maybe, but understandably HMRC don't take that as an excuse).

I'm almost 9 months pregnant and can't bring myself to try to explain this latest development to my husband, as we're already having to release a hefty amount of equity from our home to pay HMRC - and still currently no idea how much I owe or if the equity will cover it!!

I'm trying to take a sensible, non emotional approach and have a call set up with WTT next week. I want to move on with my life and never think about it again.

Luckily my whole period of stupidity/misjudgment lasted under 3 years (only 14 months with Garraway and the rest just self employed with a tulip accountant) so my position isn't as bad as many.

[jonesi]

Assignor notice only so far received

Hi All,

Today I have received from ECS International Trustees an Assignor notice which has on the back of it a Notice of Acquisition of Lender's Rights from Felicitas - both parts of this are dated 5th Feb 2020. It makes no demand for payment but did indeed spook me (it has now and then crossed my mind that the "loans " might end up being sold on and as I did not take up any previous offers of settlement it might not be over with yet.. big sigh). So I hurried to this forum and to my dismay my worries are being realised - did anyone else receive this notice prior to receiving any demands for payment? (Forgive me if this is posted elsewhere - I haven't looked - and don't just now have the time).

Regards

[jules75]

Citizen's Advice on Debt Older than 6 Years

Hello all, fascinating read for all the wrong reasons. Just got a letter myself this morning. No specific demand for payment, just that the "loan" has been transferred. I'm sure a demand is also in the post.

I only got through the first 16 pages of this post, so hopefully this isn't a repost, but I found this on the Citizen Advice's website: Check if you have to pay a debt - Citizens Advice

The two points I took away from it were:

You might not have to pay a debt if: it’s been six years or more since you made a payment or were in contact with the creditor

and

If you need to check the details of a debt, you can phone your creditor. It’s important you don’t contact a creditor in writing if you think the debt might be statute barred. This includes sending a text or an email, or talking to them on webchat.

Writing to them could make it look like you’re agreeing you owe the money. This might reset the time limit - this means it will be another 6 years before the debt is statute barred.

The last one is the most interesting to me.

Hope this helps a little, and I will be watching this thread with interest and I look forward to my next contact with them.

[stevematch]

Twitter

All,

I have used Twitter today to contact the SRA Solicitors Regulation Authority, they responded within minutes. I have used this opportunity to send them an email with details. Will keep you posted.

Some guys on here like to shoot people down... just trying to help people who have asked in the past.

I settled my Tax and I am trying to sort the legal side etc. Hopefully MOD I haven't broken rules by adding this content?