• 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.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

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

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

  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by shampoo View Post

    I find it unbelievable that a judge in the County Court at Newcastle's Civil and Family Courts and Tribunals Centre is au fait with the technicalities of tax avoidance schemes. What an unbelievable coincidence!

    The other thing I don't get is the fact they referred to a particular scheme that I never used. Each scheme had its own T&C's, supporting artefacts etc so why would one alleged win in court make a difference to someone who's never used the scheme in question?
    This is nothing to do with schemes - that requires going to a court in the IoM.

    this is to do with the statuary demands and the likelihood that they have helped trigger a couple of bankruptcy decisions for people who were close to it anyway (or at least I hope they were and this isn’t the only trigger for their decision to seek bankruptcy protection

    Leave a comment:


  • MrO666
    replied
    It'll be interesting to see what actually has happened, assuming somebody gets to the bottom of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • shampoo
    replied
    Originally posted by jxtractor View Post

    I have emailed Newcastle County Court but I can't seem to find a direct number. I have a contact number for crown court. Let's see what they come back with.
    I find it unbelievable that a judge in the County Court at Newcastle's Civil and Family Courts and Tribunals Centre is au fait with the technicalities of tax avoidance schemes. What an unbelievable coincidence!

    The other thing I don't get is the fact they referred to a particular scheme that I never used. Each scheme had its own T&C's, supporting artefacts etc so why would one alleged win in court make a difference to someone who's never used the scheme in question?

    Leave a comment:


  • jxtractor
    replied
    Originally posted by shampoo View Post
    The latest correspondence is such a poor effort ... . I wish they would stop being so childish and actually take people to court ... its getting so boring! Well over 12 months of hollow threats.

    I’ve got a single document (Amongst a lot of others) that I’m very very confident will blow them clean out of the water, I’d love to have to present it in court. I’m so confident I wouldn’t spend money on a solicitor to represent me.

    Stay strong everyone and make sure you reach out to friends and family if this is impacting your mental health ... This will pass in due course.
    I have emailed Newcastle County Court but I can't seem to find a direct number. I have a contact number for crown court. Let's see what they come back with.

    Leave a comment:


  • shampoo
    replied
    The latest correspondence is such a poor effort ... <mod snip>. I wish they would stop being so childish and actually take people to court ... its getting so boring! Well over 12 months of hollow threats.

    I’ve got a single document (Amongst a lot of others) that I’m very very confident will blow them clean out of the water, I’d love to have to present it in court. I’m so confident I wouldn’t spend money on a solicitor to represent me.

    Stay strong everyone and make sure you reach out to friends and family if this is impacting your mental health ... This will pass in due course.
    Last edited by cojak; 28 March 2021, 12:59. Reason: Keeping the post on the straight and narrw

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post

    All fair points.

    Can it be confirmed that this isn't a process that Felicitas have initiated - genuine question ?
    I suspect the clerk's department at the court is going to be tired of the number of phone calls they get in the morning asking exactly that.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post

    All fair points.

    Can it be confirmed that this isn't a process that Felicitas have initiated - genuine question ?
    If Felicitas had initiated the case I suspect they would have announced that fact front and centre.

    Hence why I suspect it's another bankruptcy case where Felicitas are just a part of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrO666
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    I don't think the word promise matters here.

    The important word is repay as that means it was a "loan".

    Either way this isn't anything Felicitas has initiated for that requires spending actual money and Felicitas have form for not actually spending money.

    All fair points.

    Can it be confirmed that this isn't a process that Felicitas have initiated - genuine question ?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
    I've been shown the letter that has been sent and it's very unclear as to whether Felicitas have started the action against the alleged individual due to not responding to a SD, or whether they were merely part of another action (which has already been mentioned).

    Again though it's all bulltulip. There's section in the letter that says "The background was that in 2013, the debtor had borrowed money from IQ Consultants Limited, having signed a loan deed in which he promised to repay the money". Promisesd......what sort of legal argument is that ?

    Would be good to understand what the court says about this.
    I don't think the word promise matters here.

    The important word is repay as that means it was a "loan".

    Either way this isn't anything Felicitas has initiated for that requires spending actual money and Felicitas have form for not actually spending money.


    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by MrO666 View Post
    Again though it's all bulltulip. There's section in the letter that says "The background was that in 2013, the debtor had borrowed money from IQ Consultants Limited, having signed a loan deed in which he promised to repay the money". Promisesd......what sort of legal argument is that ?

    Would be good to understand what the court says about this.
    Maybe it was a pinky-promise

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X