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

[cojak]

I'm pretty sure that means the offer is made without prejudice. ie. one cannot use it as evidence that the loan amount is lower that they claim. It does not mean that, after accepting the offer, the remainder of the balance could be chased. Of course, that only works if the "letter, signed by a company director" is worded as such, and I'd not naturally trust that to be the case.

Ah, ok.

[Fred Bloggs]

I'm pretty sure that means the offer is made without prejudice. ie. one cannot use it as evidence that the loan amount is lower that they claim. It does not mean that, after accepting the offer, the remainder of the balance could be chased. Of course, that only works if the "letter, signed by a company director" is worded as such, and I'd not naturally trust that to be the case.

The simple fact it is open to some interpretation means that statement is unfit for purpose as it stands.

I guess 1.5% could well be attractive if a legally water tight line can actually be drawn under the entire mess.

Loathe as I would be to hand over a penny. Everything has its price and if this is genuinely workable I can understand that some folks might think getting their life back is worth 1.5%?*** What a shame WTT got chased away from the forum, it would be fascinating to hear what they think of this.

*** On the other hand, the loan book owners settling for 1.5% of what they allege is owed does tend to encourage the thought that there is little real threat of a full loan repaymemt ever being made?

[eek]

The simple fact it is open to some interpretation means that statement is unfit for purpose as it stands.

I guess 1.5% could well be attractive if a legally water tight line can actually be drawn under the entire mess.

Loathe as I would be to hand over a penny. Everything has its price and if this is genuinely workable I can understand that some folks might think getting their life back is worth 1.5%?*** What a shame WTT got chased away from the forum, it would be fascinating to hear what they think of this.

*** On the other hand, the loan book owners settling for 1.5% of what they allege is owed does tend to encourage the thought that there is little real threat of a full loan repaymemt ever being made?

That was my thought as well - which is why I didn't make any other comment as an offer that low makes little sense, I'm almost wondering if it was a typo so we need some other recipients to check what thier their offers look like..

[Fred Bloggs]

That was my thought as well - which is why I didn't make any other comment as an offer that low makes little sense, I'm almost wondering if it was a typo so we need some other recipients to check what thier their offers look like..

Potentially a bullet in the foot, albeit unintentional?

[Superfly]

I cannot see any evidence within the mail only txt that I shared.

Footnote to mail:
If you will not or cannot pay the due amount, then we would prefer to avoid your bankruptcy if at all
possible. We have reviewed your file and calculate that it would be preferable to offer to settle the matter
with you at discount. This offer is made without prejudice to our right to enforce repayment of the
outstanding balance. If you repay £xxxxx, we will accept it in full and final settlement of the loans
shown in the schedule. We will write off the remaining. £xxxxxxxxTo accept this offer, please make
payment to our agent as follows. You will automatically receive a letter, signed by a company director.

What kind of letter? What will it say? (that they want more money ) Signed by a company director??? which director? from which company? What kind of a statement is that. I've seen some dodgy paperwork but this is up there amongst the most amateurish.

[WJK]

That was my thought as well - which is why I didn't make any other comment as an offer that low makes little sense, I'm almost wondering if it was a typo so we need some other recipients to check what thier their offers look like..

Whether it was a typo I have it on black n white.
If I did accept this latest offer they would need to prepare by a practicing solicitor/Barrister a written document and reviewed by my own solicitor before anything happens.

[Fred Bloggs]

Whether it was a typo I have it on black n white.
If I did accept this latest offer they would need to prepare by a practicing solicitor/Barrister a written document and reviewed by my own solicitor before anything happens.

Good luck, if it works for you. At least you might get your life back if it does.

[MrO666]

So I've spoke to three people caught up in all of this, and none of them have received anything from Felicitas.

Could it be that they're now being selective on who they're approaching and with what "offer" ?

[eek]

So I've spoke to three people caught up in all of this, and none of them have received anything from Felicitas.

Could it be that they're now being selective on who they're approaching and with what "offer" ?

Pass - I believe the SD demands were sent in batches so I wonder if these letters will be as well.

Either way I wish they would actually either go to an IoM court to try and enforce payment or give up...

Sadly, given the current offer I suspect it's going to be neither of those things.

[shampoo]

I was wondering what schemes the latest correspondence relates to?

My view is they have copies of T&C's for some of the later schemes that call out the loan element and clauses on potential repayment etc and they're applying that rule of thumb for all the schemes for which they claim to have obtained the loan book.

It wouldn't be worth chasing most individuals for 1.5% and it would suggest they're not in a strong position legally to recover the alleged loans ... if they were we'd have all been forced to pay them by now or had bailiffs at our door.

Isn't agreeing to pay 1.5% as good as admitting it's a loan and agreeing you owe the money? I'd ensure the legal jargon is watertight before the xfer of any funds ... if it seems too good to be true and all that!