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

[cojak]

Another repost.

I think this thread has reached a point where my input is now adding little and therefore until the next wave of letters, I will cease posting here.

My summary of the key points is as follows.

1. Take the letters seriously. In almost all instances a legal document exists which details rights and obligations and this is the basis of a claim being made. Ignoring hard evidence is foolhardy.

2. Be careful how you engage with the alleged owner of the loan or their agent. Put them to the test. They are obliged to prove their claim and if they cannot, there is no claim.

3. Go and find as much paperwork as you can because you may need it.

4. Be catholic about the advice here and elsewhere. You have read a lot of views and some will be more correct than others. Take a balanced and weighted view of them all. Who has verifiable knowledge or experience? Who is simply venting? Come to a view that is sensible, not one that gives you the answer you first thought of and which suits you.

5. Keep details of the advisers here for future use.

Thanks.

[stevematch]

Licking lips

Also there are bad actors who will try to keep you away from those advisors who can help.

Yeah one bad actor in particular. Shame you reopened this forum as no one has learnt a thing.

[cojak]

Yeah one bad actor in particular. Shame you reopened this forum as no one has learnt a thing.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that stevematch. Not at all...

[eek]

Now this is very interesting

Exactly mate...

Fiduciary Duties
A fiduciary relationship arises between the trustees and the beneficiaries. Trustees must at all times consider what is in the best interests of those beneficiaries and of the trust as a whole.

Level of Skill and Care
Trustees have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the role of trustee.

Should trustees act outside of their powers or in breach of trust they may be liable to claims from the beneficiaries subject to the extent that any indemnity provision may protect them.

As is this (from google when I search for "trust beneficiaries change")

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web






If the trust is a revocable trust—meaning the person who set up the trust can change it or revoke it at any time–the trust beneficiaries other than the settlor have very few (if any) rights. Because the settlor can change the trust at any time, he or she can also change the beneficiaries at any time.

Which means that the current beneficiaries of the trust may no longer be the historic beneficiaries and the trustees may now be being made to do things they would prefer to not have to do...

Now I don't know this to be 100% true but it wouldn't surprise me and it's the only reason that would make something suggested to me even vaguely sensible.

[pnr8uk]

Interesting.

Now this is very interesting



As is this (from google when I search for "trust beneficiaries change")



Which means that the current beneficiaries of the trust may no longer be the historic beneficiaries and the trustees may now be being made to do things they would prefer to not have to do...

Now I don't know this to be 100% true but it wouldn't surprise me and it's the only reason that would make something suggested to me even vaguely sensible.

Your last paragraph sounds of interest to all of us but I am a little confused, I know absolutely zero about Trusts and beneficiaries etc., I have read your first paragraph as being a bad thing but I'm not sure.

Are you able to enlighten me (us) on here?

Thanks

[eek]

Your last paragraph sounds of interest to all of us but I am a little confused, I know absolutely zero about Trusts and beneficiaries etc., I have read your first paragraph as being a bad thing but I'm not sure.

Are you able to enlighten me (us) on here?

Thanks

I don't know everything but last night I read the posts of the poster who has been banned and that one showed a level of knowledge (which is suspicious) when all the others

• directed people on a wild geese chase,
• expressed anger at some people (that might be real or fake)
• and advice that went from join etc to don't pay a penny (and that advice may be 100% correct or 100% biased and wrong).

What I don't however know is his motive so see my last paragraph.

But if the beneficiaries have changed it's bad news - if the trust exists (or a new version of the trust exists with the assets of the old trust) and the beneficiaries of the trust are changed, the interest of the new beneficiaries overrides the interests the old ones. And in all likelihood the trust was revocable as that allowed people to be added to it as it was being used so it's possible the beneficiaries have once again changed.

Now as previous beneficiaries you received "loans" and if you are still the beneficiaries there would be no reason to ask for repayment (unless it was to your benefit as it might have been for loan charge purposes). But if you are no longer beneficiaries then the trusts have to maximise the assets of the trust for the new beneficiaries which (probably) means recovering those loans.

But I don't know what the impact is as no-one has the complete picture here

• So I don't know if the beneficiaries have really changed (but its probably they have as were it me looking for a final pay off why wouldn't I remove other beneficiaries if I could).
• and I don't know how far the trustees would then need to go - it's possible that they could argue negotiating a settlement with ETC and saying that is as good as you are going to get meets their legal requirements, its possible that they need to head to court.
• And it's possible that the trustees don't like the "new" beneficiaries so are only putting in token effort or they do like them and wish to maximise the return - in which case they will be heading towards court.
• Edit to add - We also know that to go to court the trustees will need funds to do so, so do they have appropriate funds to do so (which could explain the change in advice the banned poster was giving). And if they now have the money required to go to court your best response is the opposite of the best response if they don't have the money. And that's a hell of a interesting version of the prisoner's dilemma.

And until you know the answers to those 3 questions (or at least your personal viewpoint of those 3 answers) you won't know what to do.

[pnr8uk]

And until you know the answers to those 3 questions (or at least your personal viewpoint of those 3 answers) you won't know what to do.

Thanks EEK I have had a somewhat chastened experience of all of this now and I although I still have a stance regarding the debt dispute etc., I realise more and more it's just a tiny part in all of the huge picture.

I'll be honest since reading your latest posts again in a new light, I always took the whole thing seriously, there is a whole new mindset I need to apply to this.

Best.

[shampoo]

I would regard this one as more important here



But its clear that the posters here wish to live in their fantasy world - So I hope it works out for you but I suspect it won't.

I have however told people what the problem is and what to look for so at least I know I've done my best when the very large demands arrive.

Law of England based on Darwin contract ~2011

[eek]

UK Law

doesn’t actually exist - it’s either Scottish law, English law or most likely Isle of Mann law

[shampoo]

doesn’t actually exist - it’s either Scottish law, English law or most likely Isle of Mann law

Corrected ... Law of England based on Darwin contract ~2011