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

  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    The person who borrowed the money from the trust is the trust beneficiary. How has that changed? I still cannot understand how selling loans to a 3rd party benefits the person who had a loan paid into their bank account.
    Beneficiaries can be changed especially when the original trust was designed to allow beneficiaries to be rapidly added (and removed)
    Last edited by eek; 12 February 2021, 11:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    See my question from a long time ago

    Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?
    The person who borrowed the money from the trust is the trust beneficiary. How has that changed? I still cannot understand how selling loans to a 3rd party benefits the person who had a loan paid into their bank account.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    See my question from a long time ago

    Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?
    Let's assume the answer is no. There's still the (somewhat philosophical, I imagine) question on whether the original trust was acting in the interest of its beneficiaries if/when it changed beneficiaries/sold the loans.
    Last edited by Paralytic; 12 February 2021, 11:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
    My emphasis. I think you mean "did the trustees act in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries?" They are legally bound by trust law to do so. For me, it remains an elephant in the room. Why did the trustees agree to sell the loans to a 3rd party, when it seems very unlikely it is in the interest of the trust beneficiaries? Webberg did respond sometime ago, but he didn't really give a straight answer to this conundrum.
    See my question from a long time ago

    Are the current trust beneficiaries identical to the previous ones or have they changed?

    Oh and Felicitas have made Statutory Demands - what they haven't done yet is enforce them by trying to secure payment or bankruptcy petitions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by jxtractor View Post
    This seems to be the same thinking Felicitas has - in that 'we don't have the signed agreement of repayment plan agreed to' but that these were 'bare loans'. So what difference does this make? Their claims or preponderance of evidence let's say, is some emails and self made statements and unverified claims never before heard or seen by contractors. Unless they've got a cat in the bag, this will not hold up. Felicitas has not yet made statutory demands, as far as I know. If or when it does, it implies they have already committed to the legal pursuit of the debt and the implications it has on them as well as whatever consequence it has on you.

    I understand Eek's point that the court is often blind to unverifiable facts and will go by stare decisis - but courts are not dumb either. Questions to ask: what was the purpose of the supposed loan? Where did the money come from? What legitimacy did the trusts have to sell these alleged loans to a private limited company and was this in the interest of the trustees? If the claims are legitimate, was there sufficient evidences provided to the supposed borrower to verify their claims? Where is the signed agreement? How many hands have changed in the process? The taxable status of these loans by HM Revenue and Customs as income.

    I'm not suggesting lower your guard on this one, but on the face of it, this is anything but a straightforward civil case.
    My emphasis. I think you mean "did the trustees act in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries?" They are legally bound by trust law to do so. For me, it remains an elephant in the room. Why did the trustees agree to sell the loans to a 3rd party, when it seems very unlikely it is in the interest of the trust beneficiaries? Webberg did respond sometime ago, but he didn't really give a straight answer to this conundrum.

    Leave a comment:


  • jxtractor
    replied
    Originally posted by Paralytic View Post
    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?
    This seems to be the same thinking Felicitas has - in that 'we don't have the signed agreement of repayment plan agreed to' but that these were 'bare loans'. So what difference does this make? Their claims or preponderance of evidence let's say, is some emails and self made statements and unverified claims never before heard or seen by contractors. Unless they've got a cat in the bag, this will not hold up. Felicitas has not yet made statutory demands, as far as I know. If or when it does, it implies they have already committed to the legal pursuit of the debt and the implications it has on them as well as whatever consequence it has on you.

    I understand Eek's point that the court is often blind to unverifiable facts and will go by stare decisis - but courts are not dumb either. Questions to ask: what was the purpose of the supposed loan? Where did the money come from? What legitimacy did the trusts have to sell these alleged loans to a private limited company and was this in the interest of the t̶r̶u̶s̶t̶e̶e̶s̶ beneficiaries? If the claims are legitimate, was there sufficient evidences provided to the supposed borrower to verify their claims? Where is the signed agreement? How many hands have changed in the process? The taxable status of these loans by HM Revenue and Customs as income.

    I'm not suggesting lower your guard on this one, but on the face of it, this is anything but a straightforward civil case.
    Last edited by jxtractor; 13 February 2021, 00:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paralytic
    replied
    Originally posted by Iter View Post
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by Iter View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iter
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by Superfly View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Contractor UK; 11 February 2021, 19:47.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X