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

[dammit chloe]

Yes. It it is the real Ray Trew then he may well know a lot about creating and flogging a schemes such as Horizon/Castlemaine. Associated with mr Barington "Barry" Davis.

[Contractor UK]

The public good that CUK has acheived by being here and facilitating this and many other discussions can't be measured. I don't think it's too strong a view to say that CUK has literally saved lives along with probably millions of ££££s for many people. Even people who never heard of CUK. Long may it continue.

Thank you very much Fred. The forum we know has helped so many people on their contracting journey. As long as this thread stays constructive it provides positive engagement and support for those affected and are concerned about the financial and legal implications of these historic schemes. We have had “requests” to delete the thread and that is why it is moderated so much, but important to stay open. And it is important that this thread is not personal and is based on support, facts and opinion and no wrongful allegations. Of course the companies mentioned are also entitled to post on here so that they can give an explanation and provide the clarity that seems to be missing. For us it is essential that there is an independent forum for advice and engagement as we know there are many questions in contracting about many issues. ContractorUK likewise acknowledges and massively appreciates the time from individuals and service providers that provide neutral advice on here to the wider community, such as yourself Fred and Eek and many more.

[Fred Bloggs]

"If" our recently joined poster "Ray Trew" happens to be Raymond Arthur Trew (perhaps said new member might care to confirm) regular posters here might care to take a look at information readily accessible in the public domain about Mr Trew and his businesses. Personally, I find it fascinating to read and I am left wondering what actually motivated Mr Trew to post on this thread (if that's genuinely who he is).

On the other hand, it could just be any random person choosing that user name at random. Thanks.

[cojak]

Fair enough, I have another example so I’ll remove and repost.

[eek]

The only thing we agree about is the scruples and ethics of this company, but the rest of your post is indeed tosh.

As I pointed out in 2014

But the point is IF. There is no evidence that this company can legally owns these loans and they have been remarkably coy about proving that in court.

So you are jumping into this thread and making statements without the knowledge of the situation.

That's not the best example here - as it's not HMRC chasing after the loan, it's the Trustees.

And in any case HMRC probably weren't going after the loan they were going after the "income" (of which the "loan" was a part) on which the full amount of tax had not been paid..

One thing this forum has ensured I'm very careful about is ensuring i double check what I say in a post.

[cojak]

Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.

The only thing we agree about is the scruples and ethics of this company, but the rest of your post is indeed tosh.

As I pointed out in 2010

If the loans are "safe" doesn't that mean that one sunny day your 'employer' can demand that you repay the loan?

Just a thought...

But the point is IF. There is no evidence that this company can legally owns these loans and they have been remarkably coy about proving that in court.

So you are jumping into this thread and making statements without the knowledge of the situation.

[DealorNoDeal]

1) we don't know if they have
2) remember my previous comments about open membership trusts and the risk that beneficiaries may be removeable.

3) the legality of flogging the loan book is surely something that would need to be tested in court (and in an IoM court given where the trust is based). And what is the one thing the people seeking repayment of the loans are seemingly doing everything and anything to avoid doing...

Too true. All we've got is Felicitas' word that they are the legal holders of the loans.

I can't believe they're still carrying on with this charade. Haven't they got any more legit lines of business to pursue?

[eek]

One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

1) we don't know if they have
2) remember my previous comments about open membership trusts and the risk that beneficiaries may be removeable.

3) the legality of flogging the loan book is surely something that would need to be tested in court (and in an IoM court given where the trust is based). And what is the one thing the people seeking repayment of the loans are seemingly doing everything and anything to avoid doing...

[DealorNoDeal]

One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

[eek]

Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.

this topic is not about scheme members asking for their loans to be written off, it's about the bullying scheme members are being subjected to in an attempt by people unknown claiming to be the scheme administrators to collect money with malice

Now if you want to post comments like the one above could you go and do so in a more appropriate thread in the HMRC Scheme Enquiries section or even create a new thread.

But this particular thread is about Felicitas trying to force / bully / trick people into repaying "loans" from a particular set of schemes they have details of.

As for all your other comments -

1) you claim to have knowledge of this area yet we don't have any evidence to back things up
2) what I do know is that you haven't a clue what a paragraph is and that makes reading what you post virtually impossible so all I can do comment on the bits I can pick up
3) I do see what appears to be an attack on me for reasons unknown and some other poster from 4 years ago who isn't me who seems to have changed his mind over writing loans off).
4) However, given that there are a lot of reasons as to whether it's worth getting a loan written off or not I do wonder if there was nuancing in the situations (say different schemes) that you didn't pick up on.