• 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

    Originally posted by shampoo View Post
    I 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!
    Good points. Sadly, if WTT hadn't been chased away from here, that question might have been answered here for the benefit of everyone.
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

    Comment


      Originally posted by shampoo View Post
      I 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!
      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...
      Last edited by eek; 13 August 2021, 10:43.
      merely at clientco for the entertainment

      Comment


        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...
        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.
        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.
            3 is not a pleasant idea, as you would note from a previous post HMRC have basically said they won't do anything to stop other schemes from allowing Felicitas (or similar) from trying to recover money in similar ways.

            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 entertainment

            Comment


              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 Post
                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.
                I'm not so sure any of this is true (apart from the SD saga) I don't think anyone is disputing anymore they are not loans.
                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 Post
                      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.
                      Are you ignoring it or disputing it?
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X