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

[piebaps]

I would be very surprised if that was written down anywhere. It was a cornerstone of the sales pitch. But of course, that means nothing really. They told lies in the sales pitch.

Many used commission based intermediaries to sell. Commission based pay is the root of many problems, such as PPI for example. If the salesman has to pay his mortgage he'll tell you that up is down, just to earn his commission. I have no doubt that the scheme operators either knew or suspected this, or in some cases were selling direct. The whole thing is just nasty.

[JD1905]

Any way I can use this as an excuse to visit the Isle of Man and go to the pub?

[JD1905]

Many used commission based intermediaries to sell. Commission based pay is the root of many problems, such as PPI for example. If the salesman has to pay his mortgage he'll tell you that up is down, just to earn his commission. I have no doubt that the scheme operators either knew or suspected this, or in some cases were selling direct. The whole thing is just nasty.

I was very young and very naive when I started using these companies. I actually took home less that I would have if I just set up my own LTD company, these sales people had an easy job with me.

I wonder if any financial checks were made before these 'loans' were issued. Surely issuing over 100k in loans to somebody in their teens there would have been some sort of checks to ensure that these would be affordable?

[Nic53]

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.

I'm afraid Fecilitas have started issuing Statuayory Demands, I received one back at the begining of the year which I am currently going through the courts with and have started proceedings to get it set aside. The initial stages have happened and a judge at the local county court has reviewed my evidence and a hearing date for August has been set for the case. If anybody else receives on of these demands my advice is to seek professional help immediatly DO NOT DELAY.

[Fred Bloggs]

I was very young and very naive when I started using these companies. I actually took home less that I would have if I just set up my own LTD company, these sales people had an easy job with me.

I wonder if any financial checks were made before these 'loans' were issued. Surely issuing over 100k in loans to somebody in their teens there would have been some sort of checks to ensure that these would be affordable?

No, they appear to be entirely unregulated.

[JD1905]

God loves a trier, but I don't think they've a leg to stand on here.

[Fred Bloggs]

The Trustees in Trust Law have a duty to the beneficiaries. The Trustees are also bound by the rules of the Trust.
To determine how that applies here, we really need to see;

1. The original Trust deed together with any amendments made to it.
2. The contract between the victim and the parasites (using victim for scheme user and parasite for scheme operator).
3. The loan agreement
4. the sale/assignment agreement(s) between the original Trustees and whoever claims to own the loans now.

If the matter comes before an IOM Court (assuming an IOM loan of course) the judge (known as a Deemster over here) is likely to make an Order for those documents to be disclosed, were someone to apply for one. Felictas know this and are simply playing a bluff hand. The directors are clearly wretched specimens of humanity.<modsnip>

#4 - That's the one that I cannot understand. By any stretch I fail to see how selling the loans to a 3rd party is in the interests of the scheme user. Nobody has come close to explaining that bit.

[eek]

#4 - That's the one that I cannot understand. By any stretch I fail to see how selling the loans to a 3rd party is in the interests of the scheme user. Nobody has come close to explaining that bit.

That's an issue for the courts to decide - and until someone (Felicitas) actually goes to court to prove things it won't stop them hassling people.

[Fred Bloggs]

That's an issue for the courts to decide - and until someone (Felicitas) actually goes to court to prove things it won't stop them hassling people.

Indeed. I agree, if it gets that far. For me as a layman, this entire business of selling loans to a 3rd party who demand repayment without any conclusive proof of entitlement is attempting to drive a coach and horses through many decades of trust law. Fundamental fact is that on the face of it, none of this is in the interest of trust beneficiaries. I suppose Felicitas fully understand this.

[DavidD]

Indeed. I agree, if it gets that far. For me as a layman, this entire business of selling loans to a 3rd party who demand repayment without any conclusive proof of entitlement is attempting to drive a coach and horses through many decades of trust law. Fundamental fact is that on the face of it, none of this is in the interest of trust beneficiaries. I suppose Felicitas fully understand this.

I tested and tested this with K2 and was assured that the trust would never ever do anything that was not in the best interest of the employees and that legally they couldn't.. I am still to be convinced that recalling a loan (that has now been taxed as income) is in my best interest...

I'll never ever pay in any circumstance, the attempts to recall the "loans" are a shakedown and a scam.