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

[DealorNoDeal]

Gladstones are set up for cheap work, why would you spend more than absolutely necessary for what is probably a tick box exercise before the next steps...

I suppose they've got a perfect excuse now for not having already commenced those next steps. The courts are shut.

I still reckon they're just here today, gone tomorrow opportunists.

[DealorNoDeal]

And I'd like to add...

Unless you have very good reason to believe that these firms will actually litigate, please don't speculate. People have enough to worry about at the moment without adding to their stess.

[eek]

And I'd like to add...

Unless you have very good reason to believe that these firms will actually litigate, please don't speculate. People have enough to worry about at the moment without adding to their stess.

What evidence do you have that they won't litigate? All the experts seem to be working on the basis that its a strong possibility.

My viewpoint has always been don't do or say anything that could be used against you, beyond that I'm would leave things to the experts of which I'm not sure you are one... Equally I'm not sure saying nothing is the best approach, if you haven't explicitly disputed the demand when it goes to court it won't be a complex dispute it could just be a very straightforward enforcement request.

[webberg]

Gladstones are an SRA regulated law firm. They are a gun for hire and are heavily involved in chasing car parking fines and the like. (Arguably a little too closely involved if the public record is to be believed).

Their business is collecting small claims and looking at their staff there appears to be a fair bit of experience in such matters, legal and operational, in their number.

However, they are a gun for hire and in this case have been hired by Felicitas.

They will therefore continue to use their knowledge of debt collection, legal, psychological and operational until their client tells them to stop.

In looking at Gladstones and casting aspersions on them and making complaints to the SRA and whomever, you're looking at the wrong target. I suspect criticism to them is water off a ducks back and just proves to them that their demands are striking home.

The plan here must be to keep Gladstones at arms length whilst undermining the claims at source.

Don't waste your time attacking Gladstones. They don't care and you are not attending to the real issue.

[acg]

First time poster:

Like most, in 2011/2012 signed up to Q as I was advised by the contract to do so between work. Again, like most payed HMRC following and investigation later down the line.

Second Gladstones letter received. Like all its completely out of the blue and obviously concerned that its was something I'd have addressed in 2013, not 2020 when made first aware. In Plain English, what is the best way forward as an individual? We obviously know its an 'ambulance chaser' organisation and the history of IQ. Does anyone have any clear advice on the way forward to close this situation for good without all the anger of the situation? Its all a bit messy in the forum.

Many thanks,
Banana2020

I want to echo this exact statement, is there any clear specific advice on what needs to be done to close down these threats?

[webberg]

What evidence do you have that they won't litigate? All the experts seem to be working on the basis that its a strong possibility.

Possibility? Yes.

Strong possibility? Perhaps.

Gladstones will continue working for as long as their client pays them or perhaps they have some sort of percentage deal whereby they keep x% of what they collect. (I'm not sure that is actually possible by the way).

Most of us "experts" are probably planning for the worst (and hoping for better).

Again though, don't assume that because Gladstones make their money chasing small claims and have a poor reputation (which appears to be based on shoot the messenger) and/or that those behind Felicitas - and now their connections - have a chequered history in the contractor space, means that a Court will hold their claims to be invalid.

This thread should have moved beyond outrage and name calling and should be focusing on practical measures to resolve/mitigate the issues.

Whilst there can and have been some good ideas and suggestions from "lay" folk here, making statements as to the intent, operation, likely next steps and potential outcomes of those making repayment claims is unhelpful if not backed by some commercial intelligence or professional qualification.

This is a serious situation and needs a serious response.

Put aside your anger and speculation and let's have a discussion about this based on knowledge.

[BrilloPad]

IMO people should take the advice they want to hear. I think there is no chance of this reaching court. If people are stressed then get an adviser.

But feel free to choose other advice. I will even return what you paid me.

[webberg]

IMO people should take the advice they want to hear.

This though is a professional forum which is meant to be a place for professionals to dispense such information and advice and knowledge as they consider is helpful or useful.

I understand perfectly that there has to be a venting of frustration and anger, but that should - must - pass.

Instead there needs to be a discussion on what is sensible, legal, practical.

If some of the views above about the likelihood of litigation and the abilities or otherwise of the legal agents of the principal are backed by prior experience or informed knowledge - great - but please say so.

If they are based on little more than hoping for the best and the ability of a Court to ignore legal documents because the money "was always ours", I suggest that we have now heard all variations of that tune. Repeating them does not add any strength to their position.

[BrilloPad]

This though is a professional forum which is meant to be a place for professionals to dispense such information and advice and knowledge as they consider is helpful or useful.

I understand perfectly that there has to be a venting of frustration and anger, but that should - must - pass.

Instead there needs to be a discussion on what is sensible, legal, practical.

If some of the views above about the likelihood of litigation and the abilities or otherwise of the legal agents of the principal are backed by prior experience or informed knowledge - great - but please say so.

If they are based on little more than hoping for the best and the ability of a Court to ignore legal documents because the money "was always ours", I suggest that we have now heard all variations of that tune. Repeating them does not add any strength to their position.

Sorry but this is unpaid so a place for amateurs. And even if it was for professionals, or experts, how often are they wrong? Though clearly if advice is totally rubbish I hope the mods will do the necessary.

I am absolutely certain there will be no court action over this. But I understand why people are worried. I do have a very good reason - but I am not going to go into a publicly. I have been wrong before and no doubt will again.

As ever I fully respect your opinion and your right to make your comments and can fully understand why people may take your advice. You have done huge amounts to help people - I doff my cap to you Sir.

[webberg]

As ever I fully respect your opinion and your right to make your comments and can fully understand why people may take your advice.

I just want to move this debate past the righteous outrage stage into the "what can/should we be doing".

I think we've all seen the attempted rise and swift demise of schemes designed to "solve" outstanding loans for tax and other purposes. The legacy of those has largely been to leave people more exposed than they were before.

I fear that the longer there remains uncertainty, desperation and frankly hopeless suggestions being made and wild guesses as to likely actions from experienced lawyers, the more likely it is that a "solution" will arise (probably from a paid professional) seeking to take advantage of those with few choices.

It's happened before and although many of them have promised much and delivered not a thing, there is a lot of money here.