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

[eek]

Thanks and good luck. I don't quite follow the logic. It's OK to intimidate quite a few people. But not OK to intimidate one person. Weird. It is what it is, I guess.

If you think about it, it's no different from a parking firm sending the x00 letters via multiple debt collection firms as they try to get you to pay for overstaying in the private carpark they "manage".

[NotAllThere]

Since the first contact I have received 6 different settlement amounts!

Well, that should really strengthen their case, when they don't even seem to know how much they think you owe!

[neveragain]

Query

This whole thing is stressing me out.
Dunno if I should negotiate my way out of this for a better deal than 10%
Spent enough on legal now, cant afford any more.

Just found this on something. Does anyone know what the below means?

"The IQ Solution does not rely on any trust and is not an Employee Trust Solution."

[Fred Bloggs]

This whole thing is stressing me out.
Dunno if I should negotiate my way out of this for a better deal than 10%
Spent enough on legal now, cant afford any more.

Just found this on something. Does anyone know what the below means?

"The IQ Solution does not rely on any trust and is not an Employee Trust Solution."

It's weasel words, run a mile, don't get involved.

[jxtractor]

pants on fire

I want to thank people on these forums posting their advice (people like Eek!)! I've been resorting to the posts here after the mini panics with each new letter that gets sent to my 10 year old barely active email address.

I have been lucky in that my alleged loan amount is less than £5000 and the settlements have been rather attractive to get this monkey off my back - but I've been holding strong on principal to not give into these <mod snip>

For the first time I've engaged Felicitas after reading Eeks advice and I made it absolutely clear that I dispute their claim and will challenge a statutory demand, they replied back with various reassurances, including the fact that they hadn't yet issued an SD.

Pushing them for evidence, they redirected me to the portal. I refused to log-in and replied that this is no different from an elaborate online scam at this point without a signed loan agreement and repayment plan.

They then sent me about 30 attachments, probably the same documents from their portal. One of them was a GDPR doc suggesting they hold my personal information; one of them was an activity log an IP address and log-in information (I was stupid enough to login to the first portal offered after Garraway dissolved, and annoyingly gave over one personally identifying doc). They also had a list of payments marked loans in the several other docs (there were about 20 emails, all with the same statement).

Thus far they have not provided i) a loan agreement, ii) loans attributed to my bank account details, or iii) any other signed evidences or emails, or written proof that these are loans which are now owed to Felicitas.

Reading some of the other threads, I can see that HMRC staff are surprised by these attempts, too. I was hoping if we could draft an email here to send to our MPs, potentially start a Gov petition and aim to get this matter heard in parliament. The NHS is under great strain and I read that many contracting staff in the health sector were also caught up in these schemes! That could serve the death-nail in de-legitimising claims made by these firms; after all the HMRC deemed this as income and taxed it as such, it would only be in the governments interest to straighten this out and completely shut off the tiniest door to thousands of people wasting court time and (if ever bankruptcy?

[JD1905]

Thank you to everyone for the advice given so far.

I first heard of this company 10 minutes ago when I checked an old e-mail address that I never use anymore. I can see they sent a few e-mails and have claimed that I owe them a large sum of money. I've received nothing to my address and there is no evidence that has been given to say that I owe them a penny. It seems like a desperate attempt to try and get money.

Will be watching this threat to see what happens, but personally am not too worried.

[saptastic]

You do get the impression if there was substance to their case that they would not be offering 10% to pay back or negotiating on this debt or proving their case with the relevant loan agreements. Or the need to reference court cases in such an ambiguous way. Easier said then done maybe, but if you receive a letter it seems - don't panic as it only takes one case (or joint) to create the precedent and it definitely seems from the thread a drawn out way to "enforce" a "legitimate" (in speech marks as to be proven or not or published by Felicitas) loan collection.

[happychap]

Others

You do get the impression if there was substance to their case that they would not be offering 10% to pay back or negotiating on this debt or proving their case with the relevant loan agreements. Or the need to reference court cases in such an ambiguous way. Easier said then done maybe, but if you receive a letter it seems - don't panic as it only takes one case (or joint) to create the precedent and it definitely seems from the thread a drawn out way to "enforce" a "legitimate" (in speech marks as to be proven or not or published by Felicitas) loan collection.

It's not that uncommon that a company (Felicitas) purchases debt for say £100K when the original debt was £10million.

Usually, this happens when the original company thinks that the debt will be difficult to pursue or even get anything back, or wasn't real in the first place.

Therefore passing it onto a desperate company <mod snip> is a result for the orginal company.

My point being if you owe £100K in sold-called loans and they are offering £10K it's still a win for Felicitas.

Only an opinion though.

[jxtractor]

Felicitas claiming it is a 'Bare Loan'

I just got this: We have previously mentioned we have a large amount of unstructured data, and we attach a few examples of documents we hold relating to you. These include emails to two different recipients where you talk about “your loans”, and also your P45 which shows how much money you declared to HMRC during the year in question. Given that you accepted you have loans and that you didn’t declare them to HMRC, it would have been useful to refer to your loan agreement to understand the terms on which you received those loans. However we have not been able to locate this document, so the loans are essentially Bare Loans, and repayable on demand from the legal owner of the debt.


Simply put, Felicitas is supposing that my cheesy emails with (the now deceased) CHS limited where I refer to them to attain my 'loan' amounts about four years ago is sufficient enough to prove that I had agreed to a loan in the first place. Even though they are about four limited companies removed and eight years into it. They 'have not been able to locate' my loan agreement so I could refer to the terms, admitting it would have been 'useful' (how convenient).

Honestly, if they can present a signed agreement showing an agreement to repay the loans (which clearly doesn't exist), I'm game and I'll treat them with some seriousness. But there is nothing but emails and 'statements' they have conjured, and a bunch of desperate emails they allege have been written by me from the heyday.

That aside, does anyone know what a 'Bare Loan' even is and what they're trying to say here?

[eek]

A very quick google points me at

bare-gift-loan-trust-loan-agreements.pdf (canadalife.co.uk)

Which is strange because as neveragain posted earlier today no trusts are involved.

So why are they using trust terminology?