• 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

  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    That's the entire point of a statutory demand - no response = debt is valid in the eyes of a court.
    I sent a SD to Mr Eek, Broadmoor, Crowthorne, Berkshire. As there was no response do you think that is valid?

    Of course, if it was ex-parte it would be valid. You can only obtain ex-parte court orders in the "family" courts against men....

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Then it would have to be ex-parte to be valid.
    That's the entire point of a statutory demand - no response = debt is valid in the eyes of a court.
    Last edited by eek; 9 February 2021, 08:21.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    So how do you know that an SD hasn't been presented to a former address of yours?
    Then it would have to be ex-parte to be valid.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Highlandjim View Post
    Sorry but don’t agree with the above.
    I have received advice not to engage at all with these people unless a SD is presented.
    So how do you know that an SD hasn't been presented to a former address of yours?

    Leave a comment:


  • Highlandjim
    replied
    Reply to Felicitas

    Sorry but don’t agree with the above.
    I have received advice not to engage at all with these people unless a SD is presented.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by GotScrewed View Post
    This was what i was thinking too, surely any costs awarded would have been to the case as a whole, not each individual creditor/claimant? What if there were 20? Or 30? 600 each wouldnt be that smart surely. So again, surely this is just a scare tactic used?
    We don't know what the amount would be but a £100 or £200 say for a lawyer to attend an hour long meeting is probably acceptable to a court to pay.

    But as this thread is open again it's probably worth looking at Felicitas email especially as I know it will annoy them.

    On Thursday 28th January 2021, the county court at Doncaster considered the first case about debts to Felicitas.
    Apart from the date being wrong, now we know what the court case was it's interesting to note the very careful phrasing - it's about debts to Felicitas but the case wasn't initiated by Felicitas.

    The hearing followed the debtor’s failure to respond to any of the letters sent to him by Felicitas, until we served a statutory demand on him.
    Again note the careful phrasing - the reaction to the Statutory Demand seems to have been that it was either the final straw for the person involved or that the bankruptcy was already in process and he just added the debt to the list.

    The judge ordered the debtor to pay Felicitas’ costs of £XXX.
    And this is what did not make sense earlier but it now does, it's Felicitas's costs for attending a bankruptcy hearing - so again nothing that their initiated at all, however it's a few £ and it adds to the story the email is trying to imply.

    We have not yet asked a court to order the debtor to pay the debt itself, which is a substantial sum.
    And this is the interesting bit. Why hasn't Felicitas already asked for the debt to be added to the list of debts? Could it be that the amount owed elsewhere is equally substantial and it's possible that the other creditors may wish to challenge Felicitas's rights to any money? Given that the money is actually owed to an IoM company I suspect a court may if asked look closely at the demand.

    Finally as I said over the weekend - if you received an email from Felicitas and haven't told them yet that you dispute the fact you owe them money do it tonight via email
    Last edited by eek; 8 February 2021, 19:24.

    Leave a comment:


  • GotScrewed
    replied
    This was what i was thinking too, surely any costs awarded would have been to the case as a whole, not each individual creditor/claimant? What if there were 20? Or 30? 600 each wouldnt be that smart surely. So again, surely this is just a scare tactic used?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by Contractor UK View Post
    Thanks very much as well to Cojak for monitoring and eek for helping on these threads.
    I am not sure if the information is public or not. Is it possible to find out if the debtor was ordered to pay costs just to the subject company here? Or to others too? Were the costs awarded against the debtor with respect to a statutory demand as talked about here or for something else? I am just wondering how much actual, real life read across there is to those here affected by loans claimed by the subject company. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Contractor UK
    replied
    Thanks very much as well to Cojak for monitoring and eek for helping on these threads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Contractor UK
    replied
    Felicitas Emails

    Just to confirm from our understanding based on feedback from the court supplied by other forum users and as called out earlier on this thread.....


    In January there was a case in court for an insolvency case/filing for bankruptcy.
    One of the creditors mentioned is Felicitas amongst many others. This person has been at court many times.
    Nothing to do specifically with this statutory demands - a case of bankruptcy.
    Perhaps this person was involved with the loans and declared all of their respective debts including this one.
    The hearing followed the debtor’s failure to respond to any of the letters sent to him, including a statutory demand on him.
    The judge ordered the debtor to pay Felicitas’ costs of £XXX. Next hearing regarding this individual case is on the 29th March.


    Therefore our understanding is that Felicitas were in court as claimed, but this wasn't a case focussed on the loan payback specifically.

    We have asked if the company involved would like to comment to clarify anything and welcome their right to reply.

    WARNING
    Whilst this is emotive and everyone will have an opinion please ensure as Cojak has said before:
    - Do NOT publish any personal details
    - Do NOT use inappropriate language
    - Do NOT refer to your personal thoughts on this topic that are accusational etc.

    Keep the conversations factual and engaging. PLEASE.

    We want to keep these threads open to help inform other users and so people can discuss the issues/options and not have to close / delete the threads.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Contractor UK; 8 February 2021, 16:30.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X