Loans being demanded - a summary

[webberg]

I can see how useful that could be where interest has not been demanded within the given period but presumably until a repayment demand for the principal is made, the period cannot start?

I would also check what you have carefully as it may be wider than just interest.

Good and useful material though - thanks.

[woolyhatman]

I can see how useful that could be where interest has not been demanded within the given period but presumably until a repayment demand for the principal is made, the period cannot start?

I would also check what you have carefully as it may be wider than just interest.

Good and useful material though - thanks.

yes, I'm still in a pickle over the capital arrangement and they did "remind me" of their entitlement to request full payment of the loans at a month's notice... charmers indeed.

one fight at a time.

[Nanas1]

Received an email from Felicitas this morning giving me until 1st June to accept a 5% Final payment to clear the loan.
Payment in full or up to 5 years to pay.

I think I will counter and offer them 1% to just go away.


Thoughts?

[DealorNoDeal]

Received an email from Felicitas this morning giving me until 1st June to accept a 5% Final payment to clear the loan.
Payment in full or up to 5 years to pay.

I think I will counter and offer them 1% to just go away.


Thoughts?

Some people have just received an email writing the "debt" off:

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...ml#post2767468

Personally, I wouldn't pay them a penny.

[Where did it all go wrong]

Received an email from Felicitas this morning giving me until 1st June to accept a 5% Final payment to clear the loan.
Payment in full or up to 5 years to pay.

I think I will counter and offer them 1% to just go away.


Thoughts?

...They haven’t got a leg to stand on. Personally I wouldn’t give them anything.

[yeahitsphil]

...They haven’t got a leg to stand on. Personally I wouldn’t give them anything.

This.

Don't offer them a single penny and they WILL go away eventually. In fact their entire 'business' model is to install fear and pray that people make any kind of offer. There are v many numerous reasons why you are safe to ignore, but to start with the main one - if they had any legal right then do you really think they would be making 'offers'? They would've had you in court along time ago, they cant nor wont though.

[DealorNoDeal]

This.

Don't offer them a single penny and they WILL go away eventually. In fact their entire 'business' model is to install fear and pray that people make any kind of offer. There are v many numerous reasons why you are safe to ignore, but to start with the main one - if they had any legal right then do you really think they would be making 'offers'? They would've had you in court along time ago, they cant nor wont though.

Feck, you are a breath of fresh air around here.

[Superfly]

This.

Don't offer them a single penny and they WILL go away eventually. In fact their entire 'business' model is to install fear and pray that people make any kind of offer. There are v many numerous reasons why you are safe to ignore, but to start with the main one - if they had any legal right then do you really think they would be making 'offers'? They would've had you in court along time ago, they cant nor wont though.

I think people on this forum did question why Felicitas would be open to offers rather than pursuing the whole amount, but Webberg shot that argument down (incorrectly in my opinion).

Whatever Felcitas are offering, if the legality of their claims is indeed on solid legal ground as you suggest No I do not suggest this. I'm saying that their claim has entirely different characteristics from the "parking fine" example you used. We are asking Felicitas to prove their claim and once we have whatever proof is available (not much that is compelling at the moment) we will form an opinion as to the strength of their claim and therefore the next steps. then why would they not pursue the whole amount? I think you'll find that they are but they are alos offering a faster (for all parties) option. Makes commercial sense if you are them. - reference #1056

I will admit that I am not a supporter of Webberg. I find it quite disgraceful how he has behaved recently and, in my opinion expended a lot of energy and effort setting out his stall for BG Mk2 by building up the case for legitimisation of the shady loans on the main loan demands thread, scaring people into joining his new group by lacing his posts with a generous sprinkling of 'chanceries' and 'judges' and the stress of 'court cases' when we are not near that point. I know this has caused a lot of stress for people. Very early on he was talking about revised pricing structures. The problem is his business model means that he is incentivised by a long, protracted period of engagement so it is not in his firms interest to sort this out quickly.

[DealorNoDeal]

I will admit that I am not a supporter of Webberg. I find it quite disgraceful how he has behaved recently and, in my opinion expended a lot of energy and effort setting out his stall for BG Mk2 by building up the case for legitimisation of the shady loans on the main loan demands thread, scaring people into joining his new group by lacing his posts with a generous sprinkling of 'chanceries' and 'judges' and the stress of 'court cases' when we are not near that point. I know this has caused a lot of stress for people. Very early on he was talking about revised pricing structures. The problem is his business model means that he is incentivised by a long, protracted period of engagement so it is not in his firms interest to sort this out quickly.

And, to make matters worse, loan scheme users (BG members) are virtually his firm's only source of income.

Most other tax and law firms are not reliant on a single group of appellants to keep them afloat.

[Where did it all go wrong]

And, to make matters worse, loan scheme users (BG members) are virtually his firm's only source of income.

Most other tax and law firms are not reliant on a single group of appellants to keep them afloat.

Interesting... not in BG. Maybe I got this wrong.
I thought that BG was for litigation? Therefore the 15+ VAT per month and any other BG joining fee shouldn’t be income? As surely it’s to go towards paying for the BG JR lawyers / QC. When is that JR starting anyway?


Are they charging subscriptions to tell those companies asking for loan repayments to fk off also? Think I can email that myself for free. ?