• 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 workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. 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 GregRickshaw View Post
    What do you mean withdraw the SD? Is this an option? And who are you trying to make withdraw the SD?
    You dispute it - the cheapest way for Felicitas to react to the dispute is to withdraw it (if they do anything else chances are all your costs would be awarded against them as they are an IoM based company abusing English courts by issuing invalid Statutory Demands).
    Last edited by eek; 19 November 2020, 16:08.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      Originally posted by eek View Post
      You dispute it - the cheapest way for Felicitas to react to the dispute is to withdraw it (if they do anything else chances are all your costs would be awarded against them as they are an IoM based company abusing English courts by issuing invalid Statutory Demands).
      So once set aside, this can then be withdrawn?

      Comment


        Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post
        So once set aside, this can then be withdrawn?
        What do you mean by set aside?
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


          Originally posted by eek View Post
          What do you mean by set aside?
          Isn't what we are applying to the court to do, to set aside the SD?

          Comment


            Interesting point on costs

            I’m looking at options and came across this interesting article.

            This links to this case (I think) Dunhill v Hughmans (a firm) [2017] EWHC 2073 (Ch) (12 June 2017)

            Costs risk on serving a statutory demand - a cautionary tale from the Court of Appeal - Stevens & Bolton LLP

            Not endorsing or otherwise this law firm. Have had no dealings.

            Also this one.
            The rise of rogue statutory demands: “Give me your lunch money or else!” - IBB Law
            Last edited by JusticeSeeker939; 19 November 2020, 19:16. Reason: Additional link added

            Comment


              From the Government web-site - on Statutory Demands ...

              Just for info ....

              This is from the Goverment web-site Make and serve a statutory demand, or challenge one - GOV.UK

              "If the debt’s over 6 years old, you cannot usually make a statutory demand. You can get legal advice instead."

              This appears to suggest that Felicitas (or anybody) cannot issue legally valid Statutory Demands for any alleged debts incurred before November 2014.

              Usual disclaimer - I am not a lawyer - in fact I am being represented by one of the companies often cited on this site - but, in the interests of fairness, I won't say which.

              The only reason I am posting the above tit-bit of info is to (hopefully) provide some reassurance for the very nervous victims of this ongoing scam ...

              I would also repeat (and shout) the advice of others - if you are being threatened by Felicitas, Gladstones, or any others - get some professional advice immediately.

              And you can get some basic facts on Statutory Demands from this page: Statutory Demands - Everything You Need to Know! | Helix Law
              "If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next ..."

              Comment


                Originally posted by dangerouswhensober View Post
                Just for info ....

                This is from the Goverment web-site Make and serve a statutory demand, or challenge one - GOV.UK

                "If the debt’s over 6 years old, you cannot usually make a statutory demand. You can get legal advice instead."

                This appears to suggest that Felicitas (or anybody) cannot issue legally valid Statutory Demands for any alleged debts incurred before November 2014.

                Usual disclaimer - I am not a lawyer - in fact I am being represented by one of the companies often cited on this site - but, in the interests of fairness, I won't say which.

                The only reason I am posting the above tit-bit of info is to (hopefully) provide some reassurance for the very nervous victims of this ongoing scam ...

                I would also repeat (and shout) the advice of others - if you are being threatened by Felicitas, Gladstones, or any others - get some professional advice immediately.

                And you can get some basic facts on Statutory Demands from this page: Statutory Demands - Everything You Need to Know! | Helix Law
                This is interesting - I used IQ in Oct 2013 to Feb 2014

                Comment


                  LATEST INFO FROM LCAG

                  This may be a better cheaper option than using Elysium especially if you have not received an SD and were not willing to pay Elysium at this stage.



                  Anybody who has been issued a statutory demand by the solicitors for Felicitas, where you are NOT being helped by WTT or Elysium Law, are urged to contact us as soon as possible via <Mod snip: not an HMRC email address>


                  A statutory demand is a formal document issued by a court and will probably be headed with words to the effect of "Statutory demand issued under section 286(1)(debt payable immediately) of the insolvency Act 1986".

                  These are not to be taken lightly and will result in enforcement of the debt if not rebutted.

                  Immediate action is required and we can help with that if you get in contact by replying to this email or via <Mod snip: not an HMRC email address>


                  We are on standby to expedite action for those that need help
                  Last edited by cojak; 20 November 2020, 10:56. Reason: removed email address

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by PJSMITH1980 View Post
                    This is interesting - I used IQ in Oct 2013 to Feb 2014
                    The date you borrowed the money bears no relationship to the date the money becomes due - which is when repayment is first requested

                    And the six years kicks off from the moment repayment is first requested not the date it was received- which may well be August 2020
                    Last edited by eek; 19 November 2020, 22:14.
                    merely at clientco for the entertainment

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by PJSMITH1980 View Post
                      LATEST INFO FROM LCAG

                      This may be a better cheaper option than using Elysium especially if you have not received an SD and were not willing to pay Elysium at this stage.



                      Anybody who has been issued a statutory demand by the solicitors for Felicitas, where you are NOT being helped by WTT or Elysium Law, are urged to contact us as soon as possible via <Mod snip: not an HMRC email address>

                      A statutory demand is a formal document issued by a court and will probably be headed with words to the effect of "Statutory demand issued under section 286(1)(debt payable immediately) of the insolvency Act 1986".

                      These are not to be taken lightly and will result in enforcement of the debt if not rebutted.

                      Immediate action is required and we can help with that if you get in contact by replying to this email or via <Mod snip: not an HMRC email address>.


                      We are on standby to expedite action for those that need help
                      Speak to someone and ensure you dispute the debt -it really doesn't matter who provided they know what you need to say and do and fill in the correct forms (as they need to be done in triplicate)
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X