Originally posted by shampoo
View Post
- 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
Collapse
-
Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k. -
Originally posted by shampoo View PostI 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!
And the SDs would probably have worked out for them if this site hadn't told people how to respond to them.
IoM courts are expensive and don't allow contingency deals so Felicitas need a lot of money paid upfront to launch an IoM court case.
Now you would expect the latest offer to be higher than previous offers so I do find the 1.5% offer very interesting - as I cannot work out WTF they are asking for such a small amount...
Last edited by eek; 13 August 2021, 10:43.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
Originally posted by eek View Post
You have to remember these loans are subject to IoM law (and probably IoM trust law) in most cases - which is why they previously used Statutory Demands to try and enforce payment in the UK - for Felicitas are cheapstakes and so are doing stuff as cheaply as possible.
And the SDs would probably have worked out for them if this site hadn't told people how to respond to them.
IoM courts are expensive and don't allow contingency deals so Felicitas need a lot of money paid upfront to launch an IoM court case.
Now you would expect the latest offer to be higher than previous offers so I do find the 1.5% offer very interesting - as I cannot work out WTF they are asking for such a small amount...
Any of those are possible.Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.Comment
-
I personally have no intention of parting with any money until I receive a legal document from a practicing solicitor/ Barrister that will ratified by my Barrister. Then and only then I will consider payment.Comment
-
Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
1 There is no case. 2 The case is too expensive/risky to action. 3 Last roll of the (low cost) dice before they move on to pastures new?
Any of those are possible.
I suspect a lot of scheme users will be writing letters to dispute Statuary Demands in the future - as Felicitas repeat their playbook.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
-
It looks to me like Felicitas are on a fishing exercise. They want people to come on record and admit to the loan in order to crystalize its legitimacy. The 1.5% is the bait that is used to reel in the big money. Once some correspondence starts to exchange, they will have enough evidence on record to go for the full amount.
If people admit to the loan on record and agree to this latest 'offer', Felicitas can take the 1.5% now and come back for the remaining 98.5% plus interest at a later date now that the veracity of the loans cannot be questioned.
With whatever flimsy paperwork they have at the moment, they have been unable to do anything for the last one and a half years, despite threats of court, letters from solicitors. They have misrepresented court cases as victories for themselves. They have misused statutory demands as they have nothing within the legal channels to enforce the alleged loan. All this should tell people how weak their case is. They are trying to strengthen their case by getting some communication going between them and the people they are trying to screw, so that people will divulge something on record and they can return back to the legal process and use it within the legal parameters to enforce the alleged debt.Last edited by Superfly; 13 August 2021, 14:46.Comment
-
Originally posted by Superfly View PostIt looks to me like Felicitas are on a fishing exercise. They want people to come on record and admit to the loan in order to crystalize its legitimacy. The 1.5% is the bait that is used to reel in the big money. Once some correspondence starts to exchange, they will have enough evidence on record to go for the full amount.
If people admit to the loan on record and agree to this latest 'offer', Felicitas can take the 1.5% now and come back for the remaining 98.5% plus interest at a later date now that the veracity of the loans cannot be questioned.
With whatever flimsy paperwork they have at the moment, they have been unable to do anything for the last one and a half years, despite threats of court, letters from solicitors. They have misrepresented court cases as victories for themselves. They have misused statutory demands as they have nothing within the legal channels to enforce the alleged loan. All this should tell people how weak their case is. They are trying to strengthen their case by getting some communication going between them and the people they are trying to screw, so that people will divulge something on record and they can return back to the legal process and use it within the legal parameters to enforce the alleged debt.
What most are disputing (as with most loan cases) is do they have the rights to collect them.
I think WTT and others are basing their entire cases on the purchase of loans process.
They haven't really need to do anything, as people have been settling the whole time, so they have no real need to accelerate or apply any more pressure. As to communications I don't understand what you mean, most of us who are (or have been) involved have already communicated thoroughly or had parties communicate on our behalf.
Comment
-
So yesterday I was shown a "demand" from Felicitas for the full alleged outstanding amount. Again, the working was very amateur like and none of the dates added up, but that aside, there was no form of offer.
For those that did receive "offers", are you able to say which scheme you used ? I wonder whether they're now taking a different approach depending on what scheme it was ?Comment
-
I received the same, no offers of a % reduced payment, just full payment demand within 7 days..
Although the amount was not to the full original amount but around 1/3rd less.Comment
-
Originally posted by 78paul View PostI received the same, no offers of a % reduced payment, just full payment demand within 7 days..
Although the amount was not to the full original amount but around 1/3rd less.merely at clientco for the entertainmentComment
Partners
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Today 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Today 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Yesterday 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Yesterday 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment