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

[lowpaidworker]

That is completely off topic for this thread so if you want to continue this argument please start a new thread.

every thread goes off topic when it suits.....

[cojak]

every thread goes off topic when it suits.....

...until brought back by a Mod.

[DaveB]

Thank you really appreciate this. I did have a look at the ADR bodies you suggested and there are truly non on there which jump out as being anywhere near experienced enough to solve this massively complex issue.

I am a gambling man so I would say this is yet another pressure point being applied, though this time I'm taking notice. Mainly because of what you said regarding IOM etc., I along with a lot of others are looking at working with specialists lawyers recommended by ETC.

Thank you for all your help and please keep your insights coming, a lot of us are lost and vulnerable right now, me included

Mediation / ADR are court appointed services, you have no choice in who is involved, they are appointed by the court. There is no cost to either side.

It's there as an alternative to going to court in order to save the courts time an money hiring cases that could have been resolved before reaching that stage. It doesn't involve any kind of legal representation or argument. It works best in cases where one party admits that there is a debt or legal obligation but is unable or unwilling to pay it, and is a means whereby a legally binding commitment to pay over time or some other arrangement that satisfies the both sides can be arrived at without having to go through the courts. The outcome is reported to the court and is entered as part of the record of the case. If wither side then breaks that agreement then the original case can be presented and the failure to comply with the agreement would count heavily against you.

It is essentially a 3 way telephone conversation between the parties and a mediator. The parties do not communicate directly on the call, all conversation is carried out with the mediator who relays the information in an effort to reach a resolution. If neither party is particularly willing to reach an agreement then it is generally a wasted effort, however going through it looks good in court to support your case if you can argue that the other side wasn't willing to reach an agreement to settle the case.

[cojak]

If neither party is particularly willing to reach an agreement then it is generally a wasted effort, however going through it looks good in court to support your case if you can argue that the other side wasn't willing to reach an agreement to settle the case.

Just remember that it is Felicitas who are pushing mediation and that you are 'the other side'...

[DaveB]

Just remember that it is Felicitas who are pushing mediation and that you are 'the other side'...

It depends on where in the process they are. If Felicitas have issued court proceedings then the mediation service is offered by the courts automatically. Neither side has to request it although either can refuse to take part.

If this is something that Fleicitas are pushing on their own account then it is a different situation and as with the other posters I would be very wary of entering into it without knowing exactly whats going on.

[eek]

Mediation / ADR are court appointed services, you have no choice in who is involved, they are appointed by the court. There is no cost to either side.

It's there as an alternative to going to court in order to save the courts time an money hiring cases that could have been resolved before reaching that stage. It doesn't involve any kind of legal representation or argument. It works best in cases where one party admits that there is a debt or legal obligation but is unable or unwilling to pay it, and is a means whereby a legally binding commitment to pay over time or some other arrangement that satisfies the plaintiff can be arrived at without having to go through the courts. The outcome is reported to the court and is entered as part of the record of the case. If wither side then breaks that agreement then the original case can be presented and the failure to comply with the agreement would count heavily against you.

It is essentially a 3 way telephone conversation between the parties and a mediator. The parties do not communicate directly on the call, all conversation is carried out with the mediator who relays the information in an effort to reach a resolution. If neither party is particularly willing to reach an agreement then it is generally a wasted effort, however going through it looks good in court to support your case if you can argue that the other side wasn't willing to reach an agreement to settle the case.

This is not English law though unless things go very differently from the way I believe they will. This is mediation & court from within the Isle of Man.

Now I don't 100% know what is going on here but my initial concern is that mediation sounds like the sort of thing people think they can do themselves (and in this case I really, really, really don't think that is the case). This is a hideous intersection of loans and revocable trusts with current beneficiaries that are not the ones who previously received loans. So it isn't the sort of straightforward business law case with straightforward facts that ADRs usually deal with. And that's before the secondary issue which is that the money flows (that were to all intents and purposes loans) rarely have any paperwork connected to them (weak documentation is great when you are trying to hide intent from all parties for multiple reasons - but no so great when you want to argue that the money you received from a trust wasn't a temporary loan.

[GregRickshaw]

It depends on where in the process they are. If Felicitas have issued court proceedings then the mediation service is offered by the courts automatically. Neither side has to request it although either can refuse to take part.

If this is something that Fleicitas are pushing on their own account then it is a different situation and as with the other posters I would be very wary of entering into it without knowing exactly whats going on.

Felicitas approached the two bodies representing most of us ETC and WTT and asked those bodies to represent us in the mediation.

ETC have advised they can't take this on as it's not their skillset, however they have engaged a specialist lawyer(s) to represent on our behalf. This is a relief to a degree, but still feels like F are serious if they are the ones driving it forward. Though why would they be prepared to go to this step if they weren't confident the mediation would go their way.

Worrying, confusing times.

[cwah]

I'm fully prepared to go to court to be honest.

What would happen if going to court the money comes from my own invoice, it's a tax avoidance scheme and I've already settled with HMRC paying the 40% tax on it?

Surely there must be some level of common sense in court

[GregRickshaw]

I'm fully prepared to go to court to be honest.

What would happen if going to court the money comes from my own invoice, it's a tax avoidance scheme and I've already settled with HMRC paying the 40% tax on it?

Surely there must be some level of common sense in court

The HMRC tax avoidance part has little to do with this now I'm afraid.

I suspect you've never been to court, there is no common sense in court applied, just two 'facts' which will be judged.

Not using common sense, or being plain naïve and a little bit thick (in my case a lot thick) got us into this mess.

We have to deal with just facts now. Which facts are true or not is what the judge will decide.

[eek]

I'm fully prepared to go to court to be honest.

What would happen if going to court the money comes from my own invoice, it's a tax avoidance scheme and I've already settled with HMRC paying the 40% tax on it?

Surely there must be some level of common sense in court

To HMRC it's a tax avoidance scheme, to the IoM court it's money from a trust that was lent to you and which the trust is seeking to be returned.

Where the money started off is completely irrelevant here - what is important is the steps from the point the money was in the trust and what happened to it after that.

Sadly (but very importantly as you need to understand this) how the money get to the trust is not going to be relevant to this court case.