Loans being demanded - a summary

[eek]

Another letter recieved today, but this is the first one direct from Felicitas. (Not even sent first class!) Using the Anti money laundering and anti terrorism act to ask for a certified photo ID and proof of address. Also the same dribble about Trustees changing and which lenders (who i'd never even heard of) are involved.

Still not a shred of evidence to say they (Felicitas) own the debt. Still no response from my dispute to Gladstones sent Months ago. I spoke to a solicitor who said I should ignore this until they actually provide the evidence and respond accordingly. (NOT adivsing anyone else to do the same)

Why would anyone provide those things to a third party without explanation? and there is no need to ask for proof of address as your reaction to the letter would confirm it to levels that would satisfy most banks.

[piebaps]

Another letter recieved today, but this is the first one direct from Felicitas. (Not even sent first class!) Using the Anti money laundering and anti terrorism act to ask for a certified photo ID and proof of address. Also the same dribble about Trustees changing and which lenders (who i'd never even heard of) are involved.

Still not a shred of evidence to say they (Felicitas) own the debt. Still no response from my dispute to Gladstones sent Months ago. I spoke to a solicitor who said I should ignore this until they actually provide the evidence and respond accordingly. (NOT adivsing anyone else to do the same)

Quite right too.

It would appear that Felicitas have been caught by the IOMFSA designated business rules and are being forced to comply with customer due diligence rules.

Designated Business

[DealorNoDeal]

The Montpelier cockup is probably the biggest of all - I almost wonder if someone paid montpelier to screw up the appeal that way (I know it wasn't the case but even I knew they had missed every single deadline).

In reality, it would have made no difference if they had appealed on time because their grounds of appeal were so utterly flimsy. All they were doing, by appealing, was delaying the inevitable.

[DanJackiels]

Another letter recieved today, but this is the first one direct from Felicitas. (Not even sent first class!) Using the Anti money laundering and anti terrorism act to ask for a certified photo ID and proof of address. Also the same dribble about Trustees changing and which lenders (who i'd never even heard of) are involved.

Still not a shred of evidence to say they (Felicitas) own the debt. Still no response from my dispute to Gladstones sent Months ago. I spoke to a solicitor who said I should ignore this until they actually provide the evidence and respond accordingly. (NOT adivsing anyone else to do the same)

No letter for me. Just have just received an email, with an attached letter. Similar to you I have never heard back on my query to their first letter months ago. I think I’ll not bother reading this latest attachment. Keep my stress levels in-check

[eek]

You've made an assumption there that Felicitas IoM has the same management as Felicitas Malta - and while it may it may not. But there are simple answers to your 2 questions:

1. He wouldn't attend court
2. They could respond that as Adrian Sacco is now the only beneficiary of the trust recovering this money will allow him to pay what is owed.

The thing is there are answers to most of the easy excuses from people hoping Felicitas won't take things further. The reality is that as none of us are Adrian or his mates (bar people who have been banned from this site) we don't know what the end plan is. We can work out what the trust needs to do but you really want any and all evidence that

1) Felicitas aren't the people responsible for the debt
2) historic paperwork that shows the paperwork Felicitas presents to the court is doctored.

[webberg]

First, I would hardly call Twitter a source of unbiased and accurate information. It's an echo chamber where the answer you want can be posted, adopted by similar minds and become the "truth".

Second, it is almost unknown for HMRC to publish details of tax debtors in public unless they have tried and failed to collect via all other means. This is generally after recourse to the Courts.

Third, are you sure it's the director who owes the alleged amount to HMRC and not the COMPANY? These are different legal entities.

Fourth, how does that actually help you if Felicitas is demanding money and has all the relevant proof? Do you really think that it is necessary for a director to turn up in Court - personally - to make the case? Do you not think that the company would employ a legally trained agent?

Wake up and smell the coffee guys!!

The personal and corporate histories of the parties involved will not be a factor in deciding if the alleged owner of your alleged debt is able to ask you for the money.

Legal cases are rarely decided by judging the character, morals, ethics of the parties.

It's been said above many times that you need to be objective, thorough, forensic and realistic in assessing your situation as demonstrated by FACTS and DOCUMENTS.

Suggesting to a Court that you should be let off a legally valid demand just because of the alleged offences of the person who owns the documents is (even if it reached Court) going to be a poor defence.

Forget the people and the gossip and the unsubstantiated claims.

Focus on what is real and progress can be made.

[DealorNoDeal]

It must be about 8 months since Felicitas/Gladstones started sending demands. Have they actually issued any court proceedings yet?

Assuming they haven't, there has to come a time (12 months, 18 months, 2 years?) when you have to question their seriousness.

[Lonerous]

Another letter recieved today, but this is the first one direct from Felicitas. (Not even sent first class!) Using the Anti money laundering and anti terrorism act to ask for a certified photo ID and proof of address. Also the same dribble about Trustees changing and which lenders (who i'd never even heard of) are involved.

Still not a shred of evidence to say they (Felicitas) own the debt. Still no response from my dispute to Gladstones sent Months ago. I spoke to a solicitor who said I should ignore this until they actually provide the evidence and respond accordingly. (NOT adivsing anyone else to do the same)

I also received a copy of this letter today via email. I'm not sending them a thing at this stage.

Edit: I should add I've already been in touch with a tax specialist team and will engage their services if and when I feel it is necessary. As there is a significant fee involved for initial representation, I suspect I (like many others) will be out of pocket whatever happens.

[piebaps]

Lonerous, Andy Wood at ETC tax has been providing intial advice free and WTT also provide an initial free consultation.

The general gist is that Felicitas must be put to proof about their connection with you. There's a thread here which may assist https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...-nutshell.html

Good luck.

[WoffleCopter]

It must be about 8 months since Felicitas/Gladstones started sending demands. Have they actually issued any court proceedings yet?

Assuming they haven't, there has to come a time (12 months, 18 months, 2 years?) when you have to question their seriousness.

Doesn't look like it..

https://www.courts.im/media/2523/civil.pdf

I think you can also safely assume that if they had won a court case, they would be emailing everyone the next day quoting their victory as leverage to get you to pay up.