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

[eek]

Is there not a 6 year statutory period after which you are not obliged to keep financial records such as bank statements?

In my recent personal experience unrelated to this subject, with Barclays they told me they can only provide backdated list of transaction for up to 6 years.


Therefore users should not feel any legal obligations to provide list of financial transactions.

But the issue there is that statutory period limits actually kick off from when repayment was first requested not when the money was received (and that is probably February 2020 rather than 2011 as people on here may be hoping).

As such not having the bank statements may be a problem as it could be their word against yours and they could have the bank statements showing £x was paid into your account over the period.

As I've being saying now for a very long time:-

1) Tell Felicitas that you don't believe you owe them money.
2) Get any and all paperwork you have ready in case you need it

[luxCon]

But the issue there is that statutory period limits actually kick off from when repayment was first requested not when the money was received (and that is probably February 2020 rather than 2011 as people on here may be hoping).

As such not having the bank statements may be a problem as it could be their word against yours and they could have the bank statements showing £x was paid into your account over the period.

As I've being saying now for a very long time:-

1) Tell Felicitas that you don't believe you owe them money.
2) Get any and all paperwork you have ready in case you need it

Agree, I was referring to the fact that there is no statutory requirements for the users to provide list of financial transaction as they are not obliged to keep records after 6 years.

That puts onus on Felicitas to provide evidence, rather than user incriminating themselves.

Best case Felicitas has no access to the transaction list and will not get it now as they have no authority over the old banking accounts, and even failing that if they did produce a list, they need to still prove the payments were loans. As opposed to it could be anything, salary, payment for services, payment for invoice and etc.

[happychap]

Where did the money come from !

Agree, I was referring to the fact that there is no statutory requirements for the users to provide list of financial transaction as they are not obliged to keep records after 6 years.

That puts onus on Felicitas to provide evidence, rather than user incriminating themselves.

Best case Felicitas has no access to the transaction list and will not get it now as they have no authority over the old banking accounts, and even failing that if they did produce a list, they need to still prove the payments were loans. As opposed to it could be anything, salary, payment for services, payment for invoice and etc.

If this does all end up in court - surely the original trust company will also be brought into court and asked why did you sell this so-called debt to Felicitas or did that never happen and to that point HOW DID YOU RAISE THESE FUNDS SO THAT YOU COULD OFFER THESE SO-CALLED LOANS.

Mmmmm - just on that point did you pay tax on that money to HMRC.....

[eek]

If this does all end up in court - surely the original trust company will also be brought into court and asked why did you sell this so-called debt to Felicitas or did that never happen and to that point HOW DID YOU RAISE THESE FUNDS SO THAT YOU COULD OFFER THESE SO-CALLED LOANS.

Mmmmm

Sadly, possibly, completely irrelevant.

The only thing a court may care about is the last transaction between you and the whatever entity "lent" you the money.

Don't assume that a court will care about anything beyond that - you may be lucky but I wouldn't gamble anything on it.

[balton9]

Stop!

I posted the below on the Best Employment Thread (#43) a few weeks ago but it could equally apply here. Remember this is a public forum and you shouldn't give away any freebies to whoever is watching your posts or whoever might be potentially diverting the conversation to fish for info:

Eek is correct, people should seek proper legal advice & it's also worth reminding people NOT to post what they think are defence arguments on this or any other public forum. Scheme providers & others read these forums & there's no point giving them time to prepare a counter-argument. Don't give them any freebies! Loose lips sink ships.

Remember: Zip it! Got it? Good!

[Brendan Clarke]

I posted the below on the Best Employment Thread (#43) a few weeks ago but it could equally apply here. Remember this is a public forum and you shouldn't give away any freebies to whoever is watching your posts or whoever might be potentially diverting the conversation to fish for info:

Thank you. I have taken your advice and deleted my previous post

[NotAllThere]

Keep your guard up around this jxtractor feller, he's not all he seems to be. Dont believe everything he says about receiving letters from Felicitas as he may be trying to get a certain reaction and steer people down a certain path.

Warning: no accusations here please. If you have issues, report to the moderators. We can do some digging. I mean, I checked your registration email address (I didn't) and it was felicitas@*********.us (it isn't).

[Iter]

Sadly, possibly, completely irrelevant.

The only thing a court may care about is the last transaction between you and the whatever entity "lent" you the money.

Don't assume that a court will care about anything beyond that - you may be lucky but I wouldn't gamble anything on it.

And what about the transaction going in the opposite direction from the users bank account to a ‘management’ (so called trust’ ) company? Could we not also loosely
determine that this was also a ‘loan’ to the scheme in the first place! Seems to be a very one way argument here that favours the conmen when there is no clear terms. How can you prove if a trust actually existed or was just invented as a fictitious entity. It always surprised me how quickly after transferring money, it was returned back minus a fee almost immediately.

[eek]

And what about the transaction going in the opposite direction from the users bank account to a ‘management’ (so called trust’ ) company? Could we not also loosely
determine that this was also a ‘loan’ to the scheme in the first place! Seems to be a very one way argument here that favours the conmen when there is no clear terms. How can you prove if a trust actually existed or was just invented as a fictitious entity. It always surprised me how quickly after transferring money, it was returned back minus a fee almost immediately.

Pass - my single point on this part of the topic is don't assume or bet on a court looking at anything beyond the immediate issue of money was paid into your account from this account.

This isn't a tax case where the entire transaction path is of interest, the court may be interested in just a tiny part of the whole chain.

[Paralytic]

And what about the transaction going in the opposite direction from the users bank account to a ‘management’ (so called trust’ ) company? Could we not also loosely
determine that this was also a ‘loan’ to the scheme in the first place!

Did the monies actually go from the contractors bank to the trust, or did it go directly from the agency to the trust?

If the former, do you have any paperwork to back up the thinking that the monies going from the contractor to the trust was a loan?

I doubt it, but if so, a claim for the repayment of that loan would be interesting...

(as eek said though, this is completely separate from the trust asking for repayment of the loan for which it (claims it) has paperwork)