• 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.

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

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

  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by JD1905 View Post
    I was very young and very naive when I started using these companies. I actually took home less that I would have if I just set up my own LTD company, these sales people had an easy job with me.

    I wonder if any financial checks were made before these 'loans' were issued. Surely issuing over 100k in loans to somebody in their teens there would have been some sort of checks to ensure that these would be affordable?
    No, they appear to be entirely unregulated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nic53
    replied
    Originally posted by jxtractor View Post
    This seems to be the same thinking Felicitas has - in that 'we don't have the signed agreement of repayment plan agreed to' but that these were 'bare loans'. So what difference does this make? Their claims or preponderance of evidence let's say, is some emails and self made statements and unverified claims never before heard or seen by contractors. Unless they've got a cat in the bag, this will not hold up. Felicitas has not yet made statutory demands, as far as I know. If or when it does, it implies they have already committed to the legal pursuit of the debt and the implications it has on them as well as whatever consequence it has on you.

    I understand Eek's point that the court is often blind to unverifiable facts and will go by stare decisis - but courts are not dumb either. Questions to ask: what was the purpose of the supposed loan? Where did the money come from? What legitimacy did the trusts have to sell these alleged loans to a private limited company and was this in the interest of the trustees? If the claims are legitimate, was there sufficient evidences provided to the supposed borrower to verify their claims? Where is the signed agreement? How many hands have changed in the process? The taxable status of these loans by HM Revenue and Customs as income.

    I'm not suggesting lower your guard on this one, but on the face of it, this is anything but a straightforward civil case.
    I'm afraid Fecilitas have started issuing Statuayory Demands, I received one back at the begining of the year which I am currently going through the courts with and have started proceedings to get it set aside. The initial stages have happened and a judge at the local county court has reviewed my evidence and a hearing date for August has been set for the case. If anybody else receives on of these demands my advice is to seek professional help immediatly DO NOT DELAY.

    Leave a comment:


  • JD1905
    replied
    Originally posted by piebaps View Post
    Many used commission based intermediaries to sell. Commission based pay is the root of many problems, such as PPI for example. If the salesman has to pay his mortgage he'll tell you that up is down, just to earn his commission. I have no doubt that the scheme operators either knew or suspected this, or in some cases were selling direct. The whole thing is just nasty.
    I was very young and very naive when I started using these companies. I actually took home less that I would have if I just set up my own LTD company, these sales people had an easy job with me.

    I wonder if any financial checks were made before these 'loans' were issued. Surely issuing over 100k in loans to somebody in their teens there would have been some sort of checks to ensure that these would be affordable?

    Leave a comment:


  • JD1905
    replied
    Any way I can use this as an excuse to visit the Isle of Man and go to the pub?

    Leave a comment:


  • piebaps
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    I would be very surprised if that was written down anywhere. It was a cornerstone of the sales pitch. But of course, that means nothing really. They told lies in the sales pitch.
    Many used commission based intermediaries to sell. Commission based pay is the root of many problems, such as PPI for example. If the salesman has to pay his mortgage he'll tell you that up is down, just to earn his commission. I have no doubt that the scheme operators either knew or suspected this, or in some cases were selling direct. The whole thing is just nasty.

    Leave a comment:


  • piebaps
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    Indeed. But how does that alter the fact someone has a loan from a trust and the same person then finds out the loan has been bought by a 3rd party? How do the trustees get away with acting against the interest of that beneficiary? Being able to add or remove beneficiaries at will has nothing to do with it. That has to be the case as people join/leave the scheme. If you have an outstanding loan you're still a trust beneficiary. So the trustees are bound by law to act in your best interest at all times. But it seems they aren't doing so. Why? How can this happen? This a large elephant in the room.
    The Trustees in Trust Law have a duty to the beneficiaries. The Trustees are also bound by the rules of the Trust.
    To determine how that applies here, we really need to see;

    1. The original Trust deed together with any amendments made to it.
    2. The contract between the victim and the parasites (using victim for scheme user and parasite for scheme operator).
    3. The loan agreement
    4. the sale/assignment agreement(s) between the original Trustees and whoever claims to own the loans now.

    If the matter comes before an IOM Court (assuming an IOM loan of course) the judge (known as a Deemster over here) is likely to make an Order for those documents to be disclosed, were someone to apply for one. Felictas know this and are simply playing a bluff hand. The directors are clearly wretched specimens of humanity.<modsnip>

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by JD1905 View Post
    Did they ever state that the loans were not re-payable on their website or elsewhere? You can always look back at old archived websites and dig out this information. I had a look through my personal e-mails but i've lost alot of records in the years that have passed.
    I would be very surprised if that was written down anywhere. It was a cornerstone of the sales pitch. But of course, that means nothing really. They told lies in the sales pitch.

    Leave a comment:


  • JD1905
    replied
    Did they ever state that the loans were not re-payable on their website or elsewhere? You can always look back at old archived websites and dig out this information. I had a look through my personal e-mails but i've lost alot of records in the years that have passed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    Beneficiaries can be changed especially when the original trust was designed to allow beneficiaries to be rapidly added (and removed)
    Indeed. But how does that alter the fact someone has a loan from a trust and the same person then finds out the loan has been bought by a 3rd party? How do the trustees get away with acting against the interest of that beneficiary? Being able to add or remove beneficiaries at will has nothing to do with it. That has to be the case as people join/leave the scheme. If you have an outstanding loan you're still a trust beneficiary. So the trustees are bound by law to act in your best interest at all times. But it seems they aren't doing so. Why? How can this happen? This a large elephant in the room.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    The person who borrowed the money from the trust is the trust beneficiary. How has that changed? I still cannot understand how selling loans to a 3rd party benefits the person who had a loan paid into their bank account.
    Beneficiaries can be changed especially when the original trust was designed to allow beneficiaries to be rapidly added (and removed)
    Last edited by eek; 12 February 2021, 11:59.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X