Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

[MrsPatricia]

Thanks for this information.
Am I completely screwed then as I’m assuming they think I’ve ignored a SD even though I haven’t received any paperwork from this new company? The last thing I’ve received was from Felicitas and that was a long time ago.

[cojak]

And I’d like to thank Dbup for this post.

I've posted this example reply I used to refute a Statutory Demand a couple of years ago, just in case the supposed 'new' lot at West 28th Street follow the same path as Felicitas (although I doubt they will). Perhaps some of those new to this thread may also want to draft a few bullet points of their own for future 'insurance purposes'. It cost me nothing except the recorded delivery postage. Here you go and hope it might help someone out there:

Dear Mr. xx
Your Ref: 12345
(Garraway/ Original Provider name) scheme ref: 12345

I am in receipt of your undated Statutory Demand made by your creditor Felicitas Solutions Limited in respect of alleged loan payments during the period (x date) and (y date).

Please treat this letter as a formal request to have this demand withdrawn and the court to set aside. This is based on information including, but not exclusive to the following points:

• I believe this alleged debt does not constitute either in form or intent, an employer or business loan but that this was a disguised remuneration scheme.
• Your letter is in breach of “pre-action protocol”, in that you have not adhered to the series of steps that must be taken to bring a claim or resolve a dispute in court.
• You have misused a Statutory demand as this is not a debt recovery procedure but a way to prove that an individual or a company cannot pay their liabilities as they fall due and are therefore cashflow insolvent.
• You have not applied due diligence in establishing the validity of the claim.
• You have failed to take into consideration the scheme’s arrangements with (X) who administered funds paid into (Garraway/ Original Provider name) as well as those paid out.

You claim to be acting on behalf of Felicitas Solutions Limited who in turn allege they are acting on behalf of the scheme trustees. However, I am in receipt of documentation issued by (x) on behalf of Garraway Consultants describing the ‘Garraway Consultants EMPLOYED Solution’ that states the following ‘The new solution does not rely on any trust and is not an Employee Benefit Trust solution.’

I have kept meticulous records of all physical and electronic communication received from the scheme promoters and their numerous agents including those who have made a series of ‘final settlement offers’ over the years including offers to settle by paying 5%, 6% and 10% of the total alleged claim. These include CHS Ltd, DOR Resolutions Limited, Trust Help Line, Dynamic Partners Consultants Limited, Gladstones, Felicitas Solutions Limited and now you on behalf of Statutory Law Limited.

I would expect any claim would be withdrawn immediately any parties carried out their due diligence and well before this demand was made so I believe this to be no more than vexatious litigation. In light of the information provided in this letter, please confirm in writing that any claim against me will be withdrawn. Should you decide to pursue this claim further, I give notice of my intention to vigorously defend my case. I will also make an application for costs in respect of my time and money plus the emotional distress caused to both myself and my family.

Furthermore I will also request you supply me with the following information for my records:

• You have listed moneys paid out between x date and y date. Please also provide the details of the corresponding payments made into (x) on my behalf over the same period.
• Please provide the name of the plaintiff against whom I will need to make my counter-claim including costs.

I look forward to receiving your reply by return. Yours etc etc

[cojak]

So we have another push, do we?

If yet another debt collector is involved, you might find that you have something called a Statutory Demand land on your doorstep.

Here is some info on it:

The key thing that needs to happen if you receive a SD, is just to be able to prove that there's a genuine dispute over the alleged debt.

This could take the form of:

1) Disputed numbers

2) Disputed paperwork

3) Dispute for any other reason.

The key thing is just being able to fully claim that there is a dispute, and be able to state why. Providing you can do that, then a judge should throw it out. It's worth noting though, that if the judge does throw it out, at that point your solicitor can also apply for costs against the claimant.

Remember a SD can never legally be used to try and pursue payment of a disputed debt. SD's should only be used to try and enforce payment of an accepted debt.

- MrO666
——————————
Statutory Demands have fixed (and very short) timescales - if you have received one you have less than 2 weeks to deal with it and hiding away without responding will result in whoever is issuing the demand winning.

The one thing you can't do is ignore it - Statutory Demands - Everything You Need to Know! | Helix Law has a decent overview of what you need to do but really is:-

1) Don't ignore it
2) Get all your paperwork
3) Find a solicitor and dispute it

Also reading this website Statutory Demands - Debt Collection I will add

4) Don't use time as an argument that the debt is invalid, the time frame is 5 / 6 years from the time the money was demanded not the date you received the money.


- eek

(Thanks to MrO666 and eek for this post.)

Take a look at the original thread for more information https://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc...ml#post2844367

[MrsPatricia]

I’ve had the same call from Town & Country. They’ve been told by WB that the payment owed is from HMRC who instructed Felicitas and then Felicitas sold that debt to WB.
I informed them this was wrong and I require my original contract and all documentation to be posted to me. Looks like I’ll need to instruct a solicitor.

[looperevil]

I just got a call through from Town and Country Legal Services on behalf of W28 services or whatever they are called. Keep an eye out for it. I refused to speak to them - they said they are sending something in the post. They are a debt collection agency

[Monkeypower]

[QUOTE=eek;n4240130]WTT posted this on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/graha...3302603778-BdQ

Has anyone heard anything further regarding this shambles ?

Nothing received as yet from W28 since their initial threatening letter , but still expecting something to come through, its a matter of time.

[MrO666]

Has anyone heard anything further regarding this shambles ?

[hudson]

So hang on here.........

Elysium took money from people to get involved against Felicitas, and are now asking the same people they took money from for more money to now do the same thing against W28, even though the argument against W28 is exactly the same as it was against Felicitas ?

Assuming that is correct, then I would tend agree that it's all starting to look highly suspicious. So people pay again, then W28 "sell" the rights on and then these same people ask for yet more money to do the same thing.

Surely the work done around Felicitas is exactly the same argument against W28, so why does it require yet more money ?

These group action things are all very good, but if none of them are ever actually getting finality then what's the point of them, they're worthless, as this whole merry go round will continue yet again. ? That's a question I'd like Elysium and whoever else to answer, although I doubt anyone will.

So here's another one to ponder.........there were many more schemes in play out there than the ones which this bunch of muppets are trying to pursue, yet to the best of my knowledge no other scheme promoters have attempted to reclaim money. Now I'm sure it's not because other scheme promoters are lovely people and just don't want to, it's because they know there's no grounds to do so. If all other promoters thought they could easily rake in millions then I have no doubt at least some of them would have tried by now.......so why haven't they ?

As others have stated before, the original trustees have to legally act with the best interests of the members in mind, and selling off any alleged "loan book" to a debt agency is quite clearly contrary to any notion of that, as in no way could it ever been seen as in the members best interests. In addition any "loan" book would need to have been sold for a figure representative to the book value, as again otherwise it's a fairly easy challenge (you don't sell a genuine £50m loan book for £1)......which again brings us onto the fact that if Felicitas bought the book for a substantial sum, then that money belongs to the trust members, not to the trustees.....where is it ?

The whole thing from start to finish is pure swiss cheese, Felicitas knew it, W28 know it (remember they would need to prove everything was 100% legit and above board from the trustees all the way to them), that's why in my belief they will threaten (as Felicitas did), but they won't want to go anywhere near a court with this, as they know the odds would be heavily against them, and they would need to provide information to back up their case which I'm sure they would rather not have to explain.

I hope everyone involved in this has made a SAR request to W28, make things difficult for them too, this isn't a game.

So what exactly are Elysium proposing to do here ?

Very good post.

You have to remember that the professionals are incentivised by these attempts, without the crooks there would be no need for the police, medical firms would go out of business without illness.

Webberg has responded to your post on his Linkedin (as pointed out by Greg) soon after you posted, glad to see he is still checking the forum.

[eek]

Partial, relevant part of post from Webber on LinkedIn today

"At least 25 schemes have seen their loan books "assigned" to third parties. These include names such as Sanzar, Darwin, Infinity, Hyrax. K2, Winchester, Garraway. Here the new "owners" have tried to collect money by using (or abusing) a number of legal devices.

There are groups extant defending against such claims. One of the problems they face is basically whack a mole. Action against one party starts, they engage, then disappear and move the book on. This means that although the legal argument remains the same, it has to begin again against a new party."

Possibly what EL are trying to erase the whack a mole continuing.

Subtext WTT are trying to offer the same....

Here we go again comes to mind

Subtext I think WTT and EL are working on this together. Whether I would spend money on their plan is a different matter.

[GregRickshaw]

Partial, relevant part of post from Webber on LinkedIn today

"At least 25 schemes have seen their loan books "assigned" to third parties. These include names such as Sanzar, Darwin, Infinity, Hyrax. K2, Winchester, Garraway. Here the new "owners" have tried to collect money by using (or abusing) a number of legal devices.

There are groups extant defending against such claims. One of the problems they face is basically whack a mole. Action against one party starts, they engage, then disappear and move the book on. This means that although the legal argument remains the same, it has to begin again against a new party."

Possibly what EL are trying to erase the whack a mole continuing.

Subtext WTT are trying to offer the same....

Here we go again comes to mind