• 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

  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    So one final question - how do we ensure other people who have received emails from Felicitas yesterday find these posts and tell Felicitas where to go?
    A good question eek!

    For now I will add this, in case they receive any Statutory Demands:
    Originally posted by cojak View Post
    If the scheme was based in the IoM and you don’t consider it a loan, then you can just dispute based on that.

    Look here at how to challenge: Make and serve a statutory demand, or challenge one : Challenge a statutory demand - GOV.UK

    And here is form IAA... Form IAA: Apply to the court about an insolvency issue ('application notice') - GOV.UK
    How to apply
    Download and fill in form IAA.

    Make 3 copies of the completed form and either post them to the court named on your statutory demand or give them to the court in person.

    What happens next
    You’ll usually hear back from the court within 10 working days of applying.

    If the court does not agree with your application, it can give the creditor permission to issue a bankruptcy petition against you.

    If the court agrees with your application, your case will be passed on to a bankruptcy registrar. They’ll look at your case and arrange a hearing.

    What happens at the hearing
    Both sides will present their case to a registrar or judge. They’ll either make a decision then, or ask you and the other party to give more evidence at another hearing.

    You’ll usually get a decision at the end of the final hearing.

    If you win your case, you’ll get an order from the court setting aside the statutory demand. The deadline for paying the debt will be suspended.

    If you lose, you’ll have to pay back your debt within the 21 day time limit. The creditor can apply to bankrupt you if you do not pay in time and your debt is £5,000 or more.
    Just to note, set-asides are the only things we’ve heard about in these types of cases. It’s almost as if judges are annoyed at SD’s being abused in such a fashion...
    But first, call the court to find out if a Statutory Demand has actually been raised against you in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    So one final question - how do we ensure other people who have received emails from Felicitas yesterday find these posts and tell Felicitas where to go?

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    Felicitas letter re Doncaster court hearing

    I to recieved said email re above.
    Since their first contact back on Jan 2019 I have repeatedly asked for hard copy documents showing with my signature on that I knowingly signed a loan agreement they have not responded!
    Since then they have sent many emails giving various amounts to settle I have refused all based on the fact they have not produced that which I requested.
    They set up a URL for metro see documents they had bit that was.just statements and an "Assignment of Loan Agreement"
    between a 3empty company and themselves this does not be army signature and as I understand the law any transfer of loans to another the recumbent has to be notified NO such was recieved.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Lonerous View Post
    This was also my thought. Erring on the side of caution, would Felicitas be naïve enough to issue a a very specific statement that could be proved demonstrably false via a simple phone call and potentially impact their chance of recouping the loans? Maybe, maybe not. Frankly little surprises me any more where this matter is concerned.

    As someone caught up in this mess (albeit I have legal representation) I'll be watching closely how this unfolds.
    And I think we now have an answer - which is Yes they are that stupid.

    Remember Felicitas may or may not have ownership of the loans but they are definitely cheapstakes and have been doing everything they can to avoid having to spend actual money.

    But that email oversteps the mark (in a lot of ways) and Felicitas has finally as I said earlier screwed up.

    So send them an email saying that you never received a statutory demand and that you dispute that owe them money.

    Then report it to the police, Hackney Trading standards and the IoM Trading Standards / FSA and wait to see what happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • GotScrewed
    replied
    Originally posted by happychap View Post
    There was never a case for Felicitas or any of their other organizations associated that took place on the 28th of Jan or ever.

    The County court manager has confirmed this and is indeed calling this a scam and a waste of court's time, they are also doing some investigation work into this.

    The suggestion was to take it up with the Police and MP as it's fraud and they are trying to defraud people of monies that are not due.
    Well at least that corroborates what i was told too.

    Email being pinged off to the IoM financial ombudsman right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • happychap
    replied
    Update from Doncaster County Court

    There was never a case for Felicitas or any of their other organizations associated that took place on the 28th of Jan or ever.

    The County court manager has confirmed this and a waste of court's time, they are also doing some investigation work into this.

    The suggestion was to take it up with the Police and MP as it's fraud and they are trying to defraud people of monies that are not due.
    Last edited by Contractor UK; 5 February 2021, 11:48.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lonerous
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
    Just a thought, but I'm assuming that any case couldn't possibly have been in the name of Fiscus or another etc ?

    I know it obviously shouldn't be, but we're not dealing with logic here.

    I've not a seen one of those mythical SD's, so I have no idea what it contains with regards to who was claiming the debt. I assume it was Felicitas, but I don't know.

    I'm with eek though. If this does turn out to be completely made up, then that's it, it's game over for them. They won't go anywhere near a court if the "defendant" can provide evidence that they're claiming court cases took place when they didn't....that's fraud, plain and simple.........and they 100% will not want to be answering questions about that in front of a judge.

    They were so so close............
    This was also my thought. Erring on the side of caution, would Felicitas be naïve enough to issue a a very specific statement that could be proved demonstrably false via a simple phone call and potentially impact their chance of recouping the loans? Maybe, maybe not. Frankly little surprises me any more where this matter is concerned.

    As someone caught up in this mess (albeit I have legal representation) I'll be watching closely how this unfolds.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrO666
    replied
    Just a thought, but I'm assuming that any case couldn't possibly have been in the name of Fiscus or another etc ?

    I know it obviously shouldn't be, but we're not dealing with logic here.

    I've not a seen one of those mythical SD's, so I have no idea what it contains with regards to who was claiming the debt. I assume it was Felicitas, but I don't know.

    I'm with eek though. If this does turn out to be completely made up, then that's it, it's game over for them. They won't go anywhere near a court if the "defendant" can provide evidence that they're claiming court cases took place when they didn't....that's fraud, plain and simple.........and they 100% will not want to be answering questions about that in front of a judge.

    They were so so close............

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by GotScrewed View Post
    See its that part that really pissed me off. There is no money. Any money there was, was put there by US, skimmed and then sent back. So to try and claim this is beyond absurd.

    I will keep everyone posted if i get an answer back from Doncaster.
    The argument against that is that the money went to a trust and the entire way a trust works is that it "lends" it's assets to the trust beneficiaries. So if you look at the narrowest definition and contract you have borrowed money from the trust - especially as a court could ignore how the money got there in the first place.

    This is the thing you need to be careful about - the tricks used to avoid paying tax on the money initially means other people may have a valid claim on the money.

    Leave a comment:


  • GotScrewed
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    Thanks eek. These guys either really do have solid and provable rights to claim the money, or they have committed an offence with respect to intimidation with intent to defraud. If the whole Doncaster thing is a fabrication I would be on my way to see the police and then my MP with the paperwork. This, it seems, has run far enough now. I think it's now a criminal matter.

    See its that part that really pissed me off. There is no money. Any money there was, was put there by US, skimmed and then sent back. So to try and claim this is beyond absurd.

    I will keep everyone posted if i get an answer back from Doncaster.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X