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

[eek]

If this is a made up story, it surely has to be actionable in law? It's fraud and it's intimidation to defraud? The police should be interested if the Doncaster story is fabricated?

1) we know there is a long delay for all court cases
2) I know there is a stay of execution for all corporate insolvencies until April 1st 2021 see Statutory Demands - HelixLaw - I cannot imagine personal bankruptcies are any different.
3) there is no way a statutory demand results in a bill for anything - the only end result is the right to for full payment or for Felicitas to recover the money via bankruptcy.

If it were me and were I to have the email and a demand letter I would be off to the police but there we have a problem - as Felicitas are on the Isle of Man.

So firstly I would be forwarding the email here to the IoM FSA and Office of Fair Trading

Here is the response I received from Isle of Man FSA: IOMFSA
Thank you for your e-mail regarding Felicitas Solutions Limited (“Felicitas”) which is registered with the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority (“the Authority”) to provide moneylending services as defined in the Designated Businesses (Registration and Oversight) Act 2015 (of Tynwald) (“the Act”).

The Act requires those carrying on certain “designated business activities”, which activities have been deemed as subject to the Island’s AMLCFT Code 2019 (“the Code”) (the general equivalent of England’s AMLCFT Regulations), to register with the Authority for the purposes of oversight of their compliance with the Code. A reference copy of the Code is available here: https://www.iomfsa.im/media/1520/appendixa.pdf

All money lenders are also required to be registered with the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”). The OFT also perform the role of Ombudsman for money lenders, so complaints against registered money lenders should be made to the OFT by telephone on 01624 686500 or email at [email protected].

and then we get to the interesting bit

Fiscus Management Limited are in the UK - and I'm sure the Metropolitan Police won't mind a few reports of demanding money with fake emails about that company and the director involved.

They are in Hackney so the appropriate Trading Standards are at Hackney Council - Trading Standards

* I'm 99.99999% certain but I'm not the one with any right to make phone calls and there is little need as GotScrewed has that issue well covered.

The only thing to add is:-

Don't pay them any money

I think this email should be enough to protect you were they to try and go any further especially if you have a police /trading standards reference. With this email they've finally screwed up.

So Felicitas if and when you read this - you so nearly did it - shame you screwed up at the final hurdle.

[Fred Bloggs]

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.

[eek]

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.

The thing is I really do think they were close to pulling it off.

But to add - now I've slept on it and had a coffee to think...

Now you have an email saying that they have sent you a statutory demand - you may want to reply and

1) Ask what address they sent it to as you haven't received it having moved over the years.
2) dispute you owe them any money

Don't mention anything about Doncaster- keep things very simple and clear cut.

And when they reply asking for your address tell them the IoM FSA state that you do not need to provide it under the duty of care rules.

And when they reply to that say that you will need to check with the IoM FSA whether you should provide the details (just cc the IoM FSA in to the email chain at that point).

[Paralytic]

There are lots of alarm bells ringing here for me. Least of all the fact that this all apparently happened on the 28th jan? Seeing how many of us have had these ‘letters’ that seems a little odd to expect that ‘all’ of our cases were heard on the same day??

I'd not be surprised if the whole Doncaster thing was made up, but Felicitas did not say that the cases for each person who received the email have been heard. They said that one case was heard and that the recipients of the email are in the similar situation as that person so should consider their position - a thinly-veiled threat that you could be next.

If I received this, I'd be contacting the authorities (as per eek's post above), also flagging it up as a Scam attempt (calling it this might get it more noticed, as Scams are a big thing in the media just now and have grown significantly during the pandemic).

[eek]

I'd not be surprised if the whole Doncaster thing was made up, but Felicitas did not say that the cases for each person who received the email have been heard. They said that one case was heard and that the recipients of the email are in the same position as that person so should consider their position - a thinly-veiled threat that you could be next.

I suspect we will know some point this morning that no case was heard at Doncaster - but the email does say it was a single case (i.e. it's not you but the next time it will be) and it was merely designed to increase the pressure.

But in reality it offers a get out as you now have an email saying they've sent out a Statutory Demands. And you can reply to that email with:-

1) Ask what address they sent it to as you haven't received it having moved over the years.
2) dispute you owe them any money

Don't mention anything about Doncaster - keep things very simple and clear cut.

And when they reply asking for your address tell them the IoM FSA state that you do not need to provide it under the duty of care rules.

And when they reply to that say that you will need to check with the IoM FSA whether you should provide the details (just cc the IoM FSA in to the email chain at that point).

[GotScrewed]

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.

[eek]

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.

[MrO666]

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............

[Lonerous]

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.

[happychap]

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.