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

[eek]

Semantics are important when you get down to this level.

As I said you could argue that your toil was the "advance". I could ask back the same question, why is Felicitas asking for payment to a different company than their own account if they have bought the "loan" but I don't think there is much more to be gained from you and I debating such questions on a public forum.

Yes as you are still trying to argue that the money you received was not a loan - which is fine as part of an argument when it reaches the court / mediation but it's completely irrelevant here.

Assume the court will start on the basis that it was a loan and find any and all evidence that shows it isn't. Semantics of phrase attached to receiving a sum of money may or may not be relevant - but I would hope you have a far better argument than the one you've posted on here.

[Lonerous]

Could someone enlighten me as to what would happen in the following scenario.

The court finds in favour of the loan provider, leaving contractor 'x with, say, £50K to repay. What happens if:

A) Contractor 'x' has the funds in a savings/ISA/current account but simply refuses to pay (be it on principle, or subject to appeal/judicial review)

or

B) Contractor 'x' has no funds, no assets etc, and can't afford to pay.


I suspect a lot of people will fall into category B. Some of the repayment demands could be six figures sums and who, realistically, has that sort of money just lying around?

[eek]

Could someone enlighten me as to what would happen in the following scenario.

The court finds in favour of the loan provider, leaving contractor 'x with, say, £50K to repay. What happens if:

A) Contractor 'x' has the funds in a savings/ISA/current account but simply refuses to pay (be it on principle, or subject to appeal/judicial review)

or

B) Contractor 'x' has no funds, no assets etc, and can't afford to pay.

I suspect a lot of people will fall into category B. Some of the repayment demands could be six figures sums and who, realistically, has that sort of money just lying around?

What assets do you have that could be liquidated to pay the debt - as I stated earlier there is a simple means of transferring these debts to an English (or Scottish) high court for enforcement

[Paralytic]

Could someone enlighten me as to what would happen in the following scenario.

The court finds in favour of the loan provider, leaving contractor 'x with, say, £50K to repay. What happens if:

A) Contractor 'x' has the funds in a savings/ISA/current account but simply refuses to pay (be it on principle, or subject to appeal/judicial review)

or

B) Contractor 'x' has no funds, no assets etc, and can't afford to pay.


I suspect a lot of people will fall into category B. Some of the repayment demands could be six figures sums and who, realistically, has that sort of money just lying around?

This may sound flippant/meladramatic, but it may make it real: Have you seen the TV show Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!?

If it gets to that point, it's no different to any other debt and the debtor is at the mercy of whatever process the creditor (liquidator, trust etc) decides to take them down.

[Lonerous]

What assets do you have that could be liquidated to pay the debt - as I stated earlier there is a simple means of transferring these debts to an English (or Scottish) high court for enforcement

What if someone rented and had minimal savings? Presumably you can't take what someone doesn't have, regardless of who is enforcing it. Could the court enforce wage garnishing or would it be passed over to a debt collection agency?

[eek]

What if someone rented and had minimal savings? Presumably you can't take what someone doesn't have, regardless of who is enforcing it. Could the court enforce wage garnishing or would it be passed over to a debt collection agency?

I would leave that to others who know more but I suspect that none payment would result in bankruptcy if it was deemed worthwhile.

[mrprofit]

I would rather spend all my money on lawyers, more than amount they trying to extort rather than pay those a$$oles, its a matter of principle now.
I settled with HMRC and now they want to scam me for money that I actually earned.
Speaking with Freeths law firm to build the case.

[cojak]

I would rather spend all my money on lawyers, more than amount they trying to extort rather than pay those a$$oles, its a matter of principle now.
I settled with HMRC and now they want to scam me for money that I actually earned.
Speaking with Freeths law firm to build the case.

I would suggest that you keep your cards close to your chest and not reply to anyone PMing you to ask for details on your progress.

[WoffleCopter]

If you have nothing you are declared bankrupt and the debt is wiped clean. But this means literally nothing, no house, no luxury cars (you can keep a run-about to get you to work), minimal savings.

Those that tend to get away with it live hand-to-mouth and live mainly using cash if you get what I mean.

[eek]

I would suggest that you keep your cards close to your chest and not reply to anyone PMing you to ask for details on your progress.

+1 do not share what you have with anyone else either here or elsewhere.

My only comment would be are Freeths appropriate people to handle a case that will probably be held in the IoM under IoM trust and debt laws?