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

[why]

Once again you clutch at straws provided by someone who (like me) isn't a lawyer but unlike me is involved and therefore may not be thinking rationally.

Clean Hands Doctrine: UK law; Principles of Unclean Hands has an explanation of it - I don't think it offers you the miracle / hope you think it does.

And as I should have made clear you need to ensure that if and when this comes to court the first case is one that stops the claims in it's tracks otherwise the decision will be made and you will have lost.

Mate, I'm not clutching at anything. Read again, I'm trying to address the facts here and narrow it down to EXACTLY what the legal situation is and given some of the more open points raised here.

So whats your stance then, do you have a letter?

[eek]

Mate, I'm not clutching at anything. Read again, I'm trying to address the facts here and narrow it down to EXACTLY what the legal situation and given some of the more open points raised here.

So whats your stance then, do you have a letter?

You posted the phrase "Clean Hands" which no one else except a none expert has used as it isn't relevant

As for your question As I've stated numerous times on here:

1) I never have nor would use a scheme.

2) I'm posting here to try and stop angry people posting replies and doing other things that may result in them ending up in a worse place than they currently are...

3) I probably have better things to do with my time - but if I stop one person foolishly posting a letter that inadvertently agrees a loan exists it would be worthwhile.

4) As you will note I'm probably the only forum regular who posts in the HMRC forum. I do it because if I had been a few years older and the internet didn't arrive exactly when it did I probably would be WTT or someone - tax to me is interesting as I like the ambiguities it offers.

[jbryce]

and breathe...

Ok - so I have just spoken to a Lawyer, an expensive one (but free as a colleague of my cousins).
His view was that a collective approach to this would likely prove too tricky for a company like Gladstones. They will be hoping for low hanging fruit to cave in rather than a protracted, and expensive, set of court actions. I, for example, would be bankrupted by having to repay the loans and the courts would likely look very carefully at the detail and purpose of the loans. in addition, court action would likely lift the rock on a lot of slugs ho ould rather remain hidden.

From a Trust perspective, settlement and a write off would allow them to move on. He considered the acions by Baker Tilly shortsighted given the reputational damage to them and IoM as a finance centre.

He stressed that collections such as LCAG, BigGroup and others (for instance EtcTax) should be able to push back on this and come to some form of agreement as regards writing off of loans for a nominal and realistic fee.

He also recommended an approach to MPs as there is a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys here; something politicians like.

[DealorNoDeal]

Ok - so I have just spoken to a Lawyer, an expensive one (but free as a colleague of my cousins).
His view was that a collective approach to this would likely prove too tricky for a company like Gladstones. They will be hoping for low hanging fruit to cave in rather than a protracted, and expensive, set of court actions. I, for example, would be bankrupted by having to repay the loans and the courts would likely look very carefully at the detail and purpose of the loans. in addition, court action would likely lift the rock on a lot of slugs ho ould rather remain hidden.

From a Trust perspective, settlement and a write off would allow them to move on. He considered the acions by Baker Tilly shortsighted given the reputational damage to them and IoM as a finance centre.

He stressed that collections such as LCAG, BigGroup and others (for instance EtcTax) should be able to push back on this and come to some form of agreement as regards writing off of loans for a nominal and realistic fee.

He also recommended an approach to MPs as there is a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys here; something politicians like.

This.

[Plato]

I'm aware of the various attempts being made to hold MPs personally responsible for their actions in approving not just the loan charge but also, by omission, allowing themselves to be fooled by HMRC and thereby aiding the perceived attack on contractors.

I'm aware that - as here - there are some who believe that promoters, former promoters, third party loan acquirers, those offering "solutions", etc have no moral or ethical standards and are therefore fair game to be insulted, vilified, called names, etc.

For the record.

No professional in this area and no professional firm in this space should reduce themselves to using threats against named individuals.

To my knowledge no professional or professional firm has done that and I for one hope that remains the case.

If there are clear and unequivocal instances of individuals acting unlawfully or being corrupt, then there are routes to be used which do not involve leaking personal information in the hope(?) that the implied threat will bring these people to a different view.

As is said above, this is a public forum. It can (and has) been quoted in other places.

If anybody wants to reduce the debate to the playground and name calling, I suggest this is not the place.

Please can member caught up in this mess think back, have you during your engagements incurred legitimate expenses payable by the end client. All subject to client pre-approval and final approval on submission.
I don’t think I can be the only one here. Despite email/phone calls including screenshot of approvals being told we don’t do expenses. It was hard enough just getting pay slips.

This monies being misappropriated and not being reimbursements, instead being incorporated into their alleged loan schemes. As I am not a lawyer here, but misappropriation of funds and depriving me of genuine out of pocket expenses and to top their fraudulent behavior deduct a 15% fee for the privilege seems to cross that line of operating legally. After all smaller chinks have brought down many WELL ADVISED others.

In my case this was not a singular occurrence and again I urge member to check their records for any such transactions or transactions where there fee was not warranted and them benefiting at your expense.
https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/w...cember2015.pdf
Now admittedly on reading the above I am bemused how they have not been prosecuted previously, knowing they operate in the shadows and grey aspects of the law being very careful to stay JUST inside the law. There have been very clever and able to get away with this for years.

Again if this is deemed to be a fraudulent action I would think all monies being passed or operated through any individuals/companies or trusts maybe subject to money laundering investigations and rightly so. I would hope this should include all individuals past and present involved in ANYWAY, including all activities conducted in the Isle of Man who have benefited regardless how small. https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ies/violin.gif

Now in my case in relation to Felicitas/Gladstone the fact they have outlined my alleged loans and the supposed transfer/ownership/acquisition of such alleged loans and illustrated of accrued interest stating this has become due. Implicates them in any due process and potential prosecution if any collaboration should be found, regardless where they operate from as the matter become criminal rather than contractual.https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ras/comp26.gif

[Nitram]

Ok - so I have just spoken to a Lawyer, an expensive one (but free as a colleague of my cousins).
His view was that a collective approach to this would likely prove too tricky for a company like Gladstones. They will be hoping for low hanging fruit to cave in rather than a protracted, and expensive, set of court actions. I, for example, would be bankrupted by having to repay the loans and the courts would likely look very carefully at the detail and purpose of the loans. in addition, court action would likely lift the rock on a lot of slugs ho ould rather remain hidden.

From a Trust perspective, settlement and a write off would allow them to move on. He considered the acions by Baker Tilly shortsighted given the reputational damage to them and IoM as a finance centre.

He stressed that collections such as LCAG, BigGroup and others (for instance EtcTax) should be able to push back on this and come to some form of agreement as regards writing off of loans for a nominal and realistic fee.

He also recommended an approach to MPs as there is a clear demarcation between the good guys and the bad guys here; something politicians like.

in summary, tell them to FO.

Thanks for sharing ??

[why]

Please can member caught up in this mess think back, have you during your engagements incurred legitimate expenses payable by the end client. All subject to client pre-approval and final approval on submission.
I don’t think I can be the only one here. Despite email/phone calls including screenshot of approvals being told we don’t do expenses. It was hard enough just getting pay slips.

This monies being misappropriated and not being reimbursements, instead being incorporated into their alleged loan schemes. As I am not a lawyer here, but misappropriation of funds and depriving me of genuine out of pocket expenses and to top their fraudulent behavior deduct a 15% fee for the privilege seems to cross that line of operating legally. After all smaller chinks have brought down many WELL ADVISED others.

In my case this was not a singular occurrence and again I urge member to check their records for any such transactions or transactions where there fee was not warranted and them benefiting at your expense.
https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/w...cember2015.pdf
Now admittedly on reading the above I am bemused how they have not been prosecuted previously, knowing they operate in the shadows and grey aspects of the law being very careful to stay JUST inside the law. There have been very clever and able to get away with this for years.

Again if this is deemed to be a fraudulent action I would think all monies being passed or operated through any individuals/companies or trusts maybe subject to money laundering investigations and rightly so. I would hope this should include all individuals past and present involved in ANYWAY, including all activities conducted in the Isle of Man who have benefited regardless how small. https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ies/violin.gif

Now in my case in relation to Felicitas/Gladstone the fact they have outlined my alleged loans and the supposed transfer/ownership/acquisition of such alleged loans and illustrated of accrued interest stating this has become due. Implicates them in any due process and potential prosecution if any collaboration should be found, regardless where they operate from as the matter become criminal rather than contractual.https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ras/comp26.gif

Part of my contract with DARWIN was we couldn't submit expenses, despite once I left that scheme and went with a legit Umbrella, I could submit certain expenses incurred. Dunno if that is any use or not.

[Plato]

Part of my contract with DARWIN was we couldn't submit expenses, despite once, I left that scheme and went with a legit Umbrella, I could submit expenses incurred. Dunno if that is any use or not.

I would think it should, I will be honest here I am neither legal or professional accountant and do not claim to be. I am just an other joe caught up in this pile of mess.
But i do urge other to look into the there affairs any post if appropriate, after all how can any such alleged scheme exists if in the eye of the law it has operated illegally.

[piebaps]

Now admittedly on reading the above I am bemused how they have not been prosecuted previously, knowing they operate in the shadows and grey aspects of the law being very careful to stay JUST inside the law. There have been very clever and able to get away with this for years.

You're not very clear Plato about exactly what offence you think has been committed. Have you spoken to the Police?

Ahh just seen #713

Nobody as far as I know has said the schemes were illegal. HMRC are saying that they don't have the tax effect that the promoters claimed. The HMRC view hasn't been fully tested in the tax courts yet.

[eek]

You're not very clear Plato about exactly what offence you think has been committed. Have you spoken to the Police?

Ahh just seen #713

Nobody as far as I know has said the schemes were illegal. HMRC are saying that they don't have the tax effect that the promoters claimed. The HMRC view hasn't been fully tested in the tax courts yet.

And that tax test has zilch to do with this thread which is about the current incarnation of the scheme organiser's "loan providers" seeking interest and repayment of these loans.

And as I've continually warned about throughout this thread, Plato is another poster looking at irrelevant issues and clutching at straws. Nothing they've written helps anyone including them deal with people asking for a loan to be repaid...

That requires deciding not to do anything, having a discussion with WTT or getting a copy of the letter someone else has offered (can't remember who offhand) and sending the appropriate response. At this stage you don't want to do anything else - it just gives the other side more options and may result in you inadvertently agreeing that the loan is valid.