• 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.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Mon, May 10, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

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

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

    Originally posted by jxtractor View Post
    This is the first I've heard of the matter being set before a judge! I read that Felicitas did withdraw the statutory demand once challenged. Which county court is this and do you have a solicitor? What is his / her advice?

    My dilemma is that challenging this before a judge and taking up legal services will cost me more than this 5% offer (whether it's even legitimate or not or even legally binding).
    All SD's and disputes go before a judge (provided they're not withdrawn first, obv). It's up to the judge to set aside the SD.

    And no, it doesn't cost much to issue a dispute yourself:
    Statutory Demands - what they are and what you do if you get one
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

    Comment


      Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
      My emphasis. That's the elephant in the room I have referred to several times but nobody can explain. It completely flies in the face of how the trusts, trustees and beneficiaries relationships are supposed to work. I am also at a loss that nobody can explain why this angle hasn't been used to disarm the various claims about loans bring sold to third parties. (Maybe it has but it's not in the public domain?)
      If the loan is governed by Isle of Man law then any dispute would be in an Isle of Man court. Similarly if an Isle of Man trust is involved, then the deed will likely say that Isle of Man law applies and once again, any dispute should be heard in an Isle of Man court. Reading the loan agreement and the trust deed should clarify.

      The IOM courts do not operate on a no win/no fee basis so anyone bringing proceedings must be prepared to fund their own legal costs and those of the other side if they lose. Felictas have no interest in doing this. They're simply trying to extort settlement fees by offering the 5%, 10% etc etc and the only tactics deployed so far are threats and UK based legal proceedings which are free of charge.

      Comment


        Originally posted by piebaps View Post
        If the loan is governed by Isle of Man law then any dispute would be in an Isle of Man court. Similarly if an Isle of Man trust is involved, then the deed will likely say that Isle of Man law applies and once again, any dispute should be heard in an Isle of Man court. Reading the loan agreement and the trust deed should clarify.

        The IOM courts do not operate on a no win/no fee basis so anyone bringing proceedings must be prepared to fund their own legal costs and those of the other side if they lose. Felictas have no interest in doing this. They're simply trying to extort settlement fees by offering the 5%, 10% etc etc and the only tactics deployed so far are threats and UK based legal proceedings which are free of charge.
        Thanks. Understand all that. I don't understand given the various groups that have been active for years now, but no one appears to have challenged the actions of the trustees in all this? Not one of the various groups out there which collectively must have loan exposure in the millions of pounds appears to have actively challenged trustees who acted against the interests of trust beneficiaries? Maybe they have. But it's a secret if so.
        Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
        Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

        Comment


          Agreed Fred. The victims however (my terminology by the way) have had their contract fee paid. Partly by wages and partly by loan.
          They have mostly also settled with HMRC.
          They don't have the funds to bring action against the Trustees for breach of fiduciary duty. If the trustees are professionals they'll be lawyered up and possibly even have professional indemnity insurance too.

          Also, we've not seen the trust deeds and exactly who ALL the beneficiaries are. So while I agree that the trustees appears to be an unexplored avenue, it could easily be a dead end too.

          Comment


            Originally posted by piebaps View Post
            Agreed Fred. The victims however (my terminology by the way) have had their contract fee paid. Partly by wages and partly by loan.
            They have mostly also settled with HMRC.
            They don't have the funds to bring action against the Trustees for breach of fiduciary duty. If the trustees are professionals they'll be lawyered up and possibly even have professional indemnity insurance too.

            Also, we've not seen the trust deeds and exactly who ALL the beneficiaries are. So while I agree that the trustees appears to be an unexplored avenue, it could easily be a dead end too.
            Everything you say is right. But that's why I pointed to the various groups. Some (one?) of which have been running several years and paying into a pot to defend their case, sharing the cost. Nobody has come forward to say why the actions of trustees in these cases has apparently not been explored. (It might have been, and ruled out, but nobody is saying so).
            Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
            Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
              Everything you say is right. But that's why I pointed to the various groups. Some (one?) of which have been running several years and paying into a pot to defend their case, sharing the cost. Nobody has come forward to say why the actions of trustees in these cases has apparently not been explored. (It might have been, and ruled out, but nobody is saying so).
              Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

              Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.

              Comment


                Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
                Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

                Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.
                Fair point, BP.
                Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
                Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
                  Anyone would have thought CUK was a public forum and that HMRC read the posts.

                  Remember Huitson where CUK posts where presented in court? These days anyone with any sense uses a closed forum.
                  In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...
                  merely at clientco for the entertainment

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by eek View Post
                    In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...
                    Long may it continue, too.
                    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
                    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by eek View Post
                      In the case here we know Felicitas do read this forum as we know I've annoyed them by telling people how to escape their Statutory Demand scam...
                      Thus alerting them to the way round and enabling them to come up with something else.

                      If those affected by Felicitas got a private forum(like NTRT, WTT, LCAG etcetc.) and those affected kept their thoughts private then Felicitas would go away. They can only get the lowest hanging fruit. As they are just scam artists. Seeing people post about Doncaster crown court having 20 phone calls from worried people means they think that is some who will pay up(which will then fund action against others).

                      Oh well. Does not affect me. I spent years posting on CUK warning people about schemes. Does anyone bother checking out how they are paid? Nope - they just go and habd their hard earned money to scamsters then come to CUK looking for sympathy. Can't even be bothered to get a private forum. Wish I had their contact details as I have a magic bean company based in the Dutch Antilles. QC approved!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X