• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Wed, Jul 28, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

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

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by creativity View Post
    I understand more than you know, and believe me this will not be going to court. Perhaps you are not clear on what substance over form means? Or perhaps you have a very low standard of service, not all solicitors are equal...but judges in this land will throw this case out (and that's not just my opinion!).
    Eek It makes me wonder if you are associated with Felicitas, all of your messages seem to indicate this? just a thought

    Comment


      Originally posted by Shay58 View Post
      Eek It makes me wonder if you are associated with Felicitas, all of your messages seem to indicate this? just a thought
      I can personally vouch for eek, he is an interested, dispassionate observer and NOT associated with Felicitas.
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        Originally posted by Shay58 View Post
        Eek It makes me wonder if you are associated with Felicitas, all of your messages seem to indicate this? just a thought
        Nope - I'm just sneaky enough to have worked out what Felicitas were planning once I had identified that this is their 1 final attempt to grab every penny they can get (come next April it's going to be a lot harder to run contractor type schemes so they are probably thinking about retirement or at least a new business model).

        Which is why I was telling people to settle back in August when they were offering 10% or even 5% deals because once they had raised enough money from those deals it was game on for everyone else.
        Last edited by eek; 13 November 2020, 12:48.
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


          Originally posted by cojak View Post
          I can personally vouch for eek, he is an interested, dispassionate observer and NOT associated with Felicitas.
          I wouldn't say dispassionate

          Comment


            Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
            I wouldn't say dispassionate
            Yep - Felicitas and co rather annoy me - I've seen enough suicides from people who were tricked into these schemes. I wasn't happy when I discovered in August what the game plan was and that paying a small amount would be the best solution (which I know is beyond annoying and does not feel right) but given today's news my advice then was the best outcome.
            Last edited by eek; 13 November 2020, 13:14.
            merely at clientco for the entertainment

            Comment


              Originally posted by eek View Post
              Yep - Felicitas and co rather annoy me - I've seen enough suicides from people who were tricked into these schemes. I wasn't happy when I discovered in August what the game plan was and that paying a small amount would be the best solution (which I know is beyond annoying and does not feel right) but given today's news my advice then was the best outcome.
              I have today received, by registered post, Statutory demand under section 268 (1) (debt payable immediately) of the Insolvency Act 1986
              with a name appearing for the signatory: NIGEL POWELL ON BEHALF OF STATUTORY LAW LTD, REGISTER NO 11213609, A BODY CORPORATE OF WHICH NIGEL POWELL IS THE SOLE MEMBER

              Basically demanding payment within "if you do not apply to set aside within 18 days or otherwise deal with this demand as set out in the notes within 21 days after its service on you, you could be made bankrupt and your property and goods taken away from you"

              Anyone can download this form from the HMRC website.

              Has anyone else received a statutory demand?



              <Mod note - subsequent posts merged, duplications removed>

              Comment


                Originally posted by Shay58
                I have received a Statutory Demand and the signatory of 'Authorised Agent' is NIGEL POWELL ON BEHALF OF STATUTORY LAW LTD, REGISTER NO 11213609, A BODY CORPORATE OF WHICH NIGEL POWELL IS THE SOLE MEMEBER.

                Has anyone else received the same?

                Also anyone can download this form from HMRC website at no cost.
                Yes but 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 Nigel's 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.
                Last edited by eek; 13 November 2020, 13:39.
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  Looks like another friend from Knutsford......

                  They have certainly raised the scaremonger stakes by doing this, although that's clearly their intention.

                  So let me understand this........

                  If someone receives a Statutory Demand and uses a solicitor to apply for it to be set aside, if that is successful, then I believe an application can then be made against the creditor for costs (happy to be proven wrong, but that's how I understand it). So if everyone disputes the debts and they get set aside, then Felicitas could themselves wind up with some very large costs to pay, although I suspect they are just planning to vanish anyway, so they won't pay and won't care.

                  Felicitas are clearly either VERY sure of their case here, or are assuming/hoping that people won't go down that route and will hopefully reach a settlement instead. Again, chances are that many cases are similar, so if one claim were to be set aside, then it's likely many others would be too (no guarantee I know). I wonder what Felicitas thinking is behind this..........a last roll of the dice to see who pays up, or are they genuinely happy to stand in a court and prove their case.

                  To the best of my knowledge, I still don't believe that Felicitas have provided evidence that they own these alleged debts, or have the legal right to collect on them. I've seen heavily redacted photocopies of Deeds of Transfer from the alleged prior lenders to Felicitas, but that's it. For these debts to be enforceable in a court, then Felicitas will need to prove unquestionably that they are the legal owners of these alleged debts, and that the people they "purchased" them from were also the legal owners. Now maybe they can do this without a problem, but if that's the case, then why are they not already providing this info ?

                  Out of interest, I wonder which schemes these SD have been delivered in relation to, or whether it's every scheme and every user. Also, I wonder whether it's some of those people who were foolish enough to confirm their details to Felicitas as per the request.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
                    I wonder whether it's some of those people who were foolish enough to confirm their details to Felicitas as per the request.
                    The answer to that question goes a long way to understanding the answers to the other points you made too.
                    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
                    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

                    Comment


                      Statutory Demand

                      Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
                      Looks like another friend from Knutsford......

                      They have certainly raised the scaremonger stakes by doing this, although that's clearly their intention.

                      So let me understand this........

                      If someone receives a Statutory Demand and uses a solicitor to apply for it to be set aside, if that is successful, then I believe an application can then be made against the creditor for costs (happy to be proven wrong, but that's how I understand it). So if everyone disputes the debts and they get set aside, then Felicitas could themselves wind up with some very large costs to pay, although I suspect they are just planning to vanish anyway, so they won't pay and won't care.

                      Felicitas are clearly either VERY sure of their case here, or are assuming/hoping that people won't go down that route and will hopefully reach a settlement instead. Again, chances are that many cases are similar, so if one claim were to be set aside, then it's likely many others would be too (no guarantee I know). I wonder what Felicitas thinking is behind this..........a last roll of the dice to see who pays up, or are they genuinely happy to stand in a court and prove their case.

                      To the best of my knowledge, I still don't believe that Felicitas have provided evidence that they own these alleged debts, or have the legal right to collect on them. I've seen heavily redacted photocopies of Deeds of Transfer from the alleged prior lenders to Felicitas, but that's it. For these debts to be enforceable in a court, then Felicitas will need to prove unquestionably that they are the legal owners of these alleged debts, and that the people they "purchased" them from were also the legal owners. Now maybe they can do this without a problem, but if that's the case, then why are they not already providing this info ?

                      Out of interest, I wonder which schemes these SD have been delivered in relation to, or whether it's every scheme and every user. Also, I wonder whether it's some of those people who were foolish enough to confirm their details to Felicitas as per the request.

                      I'd like to know, how are these Statutory Demands being served. I for one have never received anything from Felicaitas other than a couple emails to my junk inbox asking for me to sign in to some portal.

                      According to the www.gov./statuorydemands/how-to-serve info this has to be delivered to you and signed for.

                      Is this whats happening?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X