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

[cojak]

Yes just recieved Felicitas mail apologising for wrong date used. Can we not get written confirmation from the court that No hearing ever took place?

You will have to do that for your individual case.

[happychap]

answer

Yes just recieved Felicitas mail apologising for wrong date used. Can we not get written confirmation from the court that No hearing ever took place?

it did take place see #508

[Fred Bloggs]

Yes, you're right regarding declaring all debts in bankruptcy proceedings. So the court reference is someone else's bankruptcy, not your Statutory Demand being put before a judge.

That in itself should be investigated by the police and the court service. I think that in itself is likely an offence.

[happychap]

answer

Yes, you're right regarding declaring all debts in bankruptcy proceedings. So the court reference is someone else's bankruptcy, not your Statutory Demand being put before a judge.

Cojak - it was never about my SD, I have never received anything, the original letter "Felicitas in court" was with reference to taking someone else to court because they had not acknowledged any emails or letters etc so they took them to court.

The point was Felicitas were harassing me (and seems many many others) that the same will happen to us unless we take up the offer.

The point is they are openly telling lies to play on anxious stressed individuals who are close to breaking point.

[MrO666]

Hi all,

One of the Creditors mentioned is Felicitas amongst many others. This person has been at court many times (poor chap) in 2020. Next hearing is on the 29th March.

Nothing to do with SDs etc a simple case of bankruptcy.

So, the original letter from Felicitas quite clearly states that the "debtor" ignored all correspondence until Felicitas served a SD. Yet according to the lady at the court, this wasn't anything to do with SD etc, plus as eek quite kindly pointed out, there are very strict constraints with regards to costs etc, and this doesn't appear to fall in line with that.

So in a nutshell.....Felicitas has on the face of it, potentially been involved (at some level) in a bankruptcy case, but they have then used that non-related case, embellishing the details to suit them (all of which would appear to be somewhat questionable) , and tried to use it as a stick to frighten people into paying up.

I'm sure that can't be legal.

Also, I've just been forwarded the "correction" email. Talk about jokers.........it's not even a formal letter of correction, it's a bloody two line email.

I stand by what I said earlier. I think some IoM people have read this forum and realised just how big a hole they've dug, and are now looking for absolutely any angle to deflect what could potentially be a whole heap of tulip coming down on them.

This is getting comical now.

[cojak]

Cojak - it was never about my SD, I have never received anything, the original letter "Felicitas in court" was with reference to taking someone else to court because they had not acknowledged any emails or letters etc so they took them to court.

The point was Felicitas were harassing me (and seems many many others) that the same will happen to us unless we take up the offer.

The point is they are openly telling lies to play on anxious stressed individuals who are close to breaking point.

OK, understood.

[lespaulzep]

First of all, I must mention that the lead time to get a hearing are of the order of a few weeks in most county courts. They are not all backed up.

I am am looking into the issues with Felicitas for several people.
Having read the above we have to consider that it is quite possible (probable?) that he declared bankruptcy and called in multiple creditors, including the contended debt against Felicitas, hence their presence. Costs may have been awarded to creditors because of their attendance.
Looking into it further.

LPZ

[eek]

I think the other thing to add is that Felicitas don't seem to be the petitioner in this case as if they were the ones petitioning for bankruptcy the court would have known about them.

Which means they are riding on the coat tails of this sad story and using it to imply far more than is actually the case.

So we are back to where we were this morning.

Thank Felicitas for the email saying that they've sent statuary demands

State that you haven't received it and ask what address they sent it to
And dispute that any money is owed.

The case they are (ab)using, has nothing to do with Felicitas beyond the additional stress they've added to the person going bankrupt.

[Fred Bloggs]

I think the other thing to add is that Felicitas don't seem to be the petitioner in this case as if they were the ones petitioning for bankruptcy the court would have known about them.

Which means they are riding on the coat tails of this sad story and using it to imply far more than is actually the case.

So we are back to where we were this morning.

Thank Felicitas for the email saying that they've sent statuary demands

State that you haven't received it and ask what address they sent it to
And dispute that any money is owed.

The case they are (ab)using, has nothing to do with Felicitas beyond the additional stress they've added to the person going bankrupt.

Despicable behaviour.

[MrO666]

Despicable behaviour.

Did any of us expect anything less ?