• 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.

Best Employment Services Limited liquidation 'loan' repayments

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

    #41
    Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
    You seem to be in denial. Oral claims are worth nothing if there is a written agreement. I do wonder how this would play out in court though.

    Pleb: Mister Judge, this was not a real loan - I used this to get around paying proper tax. This loan was never meant to be reclaimed. They pinky sweared.
    Judge: So you admit this was a loan? Next!
    "Oral claims" as you call them can indeed be contracts or collateral contracts to the main loan agreement.

    But it is a question of evidence. And you miss the point that even if it is a loan, to enforce it may be "unconscionable" - consider the "unfair relationships" provisions of the CCA, which apply to all agreements entered into with individual debtors. They apply to regulated, exempt and completely unregulated
    agreements AND consider the effects of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
    Regulations 1999 ("UTCCRs"), which apply to terms in
    contracts between a consumer and a provider of services
    (such as financial services) or a supplier of goods.


    Your view si that there is a "loan" that must be paid...without consideration of all the other matters, both contractual and statutory.

    I want to challenge these in court, but having several contractors supporting me, confirming what I was told was the same as that told to them - "similar fact" is the term in evidence, assists us all. BUT I NEED THE OTHER CONTRACTORS FOR mutual collaboration of what we were told, to establish all the facts.

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Best Employee View Post
      "Oral claims" as you call them can indeed be contracts or collateral contracts to the main loan agreement.

      But it is a question of evidence. And you miss the point that even if it is a loan, to enforce it may be "unconscionable" - consider the "unfair relationships" provisions of the CCA, which apply to all agreements entered into with individual debtors. They apply to regulated, exempt and completely unregulated
      agreements AND consider the effects of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
      Regulations 1999 ("UTCCRs"), which apply to terms in
      contracts between a consumer and a provider of services
      (such as financial services) or a supplier of goods.


      Your view si that there is a "loan" that must be paid...without consideration of all the other matters, both contractual and statutory.

      I want to challenge these in court, but having several contractors supporting me, confirming what I was told was the same as that told to them - "similar fact" is the term in evidence, assists us all. BUT I NEED THE OTHER CONTRACTORS FOR mutual collaboration of what we were told, to establish all the facts.
      Slight problem - the loans are explicitly exempt from the consumer contracts act as it's employment related and the rates were probably very low (see https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/18...c-march-12.pdf especially the top of the second column).

      And you can ask for as many people as you want but my advice will be the same to anyone looking

      Use WTT or someone else who understands what is going on here and is not directly involved as you need to take a logical and rational view of the proceedings while BestEmployee is both acting from emotion (he/she is still in the anger / denial phase) and still does not understand that the actual issue is not as clear cut as they think it is.
      Last edited by eek; 29 December 2020, 15:15.
      merely at clientco for the entertainment

      Comment


        #43
        Zip it!

        Eek is correct, people should seek proper legal advice & it's also worth reminding people NOT to post what they think are defence arguments on this or any other public forum. Scheme providers & others read these forums & there's no point giving them time to prepare a counter-argument. Don't give them any freebies! Loose lips sink ships.

        Remember: Zip it! Got it? Good!

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Best Employee View Post
          "Oral claims" as you call them can indeed be contracts or collateral contracts to the main loan agreement.

          But it is a question of evidence. And you miss the point that even if it is a loan, to enforce it may be "unconscionable" - consider the "unfair relationships" provisions of the CCA, which apply to all agreements entered into with individual debtors. They apply to regulated, exempt and completely unregulated
          agreements AND consider the effects of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
          Regulations 1999 ("UTCCRs"), which apply to terms in
          contracts between a consumer and a provider of services
          (such as financial services) or a supplier of goods.


          Your view si that there is a "loan" that must be paid...without consideration of all the other matters, both contractual and statutory.

          I want to challenge these in court, but having several contractors supporting me, confirming what I was told was the same as that told to them - "similar fact" is the term in evidence, assists us all. BUT I NEED THE OTHER CONTRACTORS FOR mutual collaboration of what we were told, to establish all the facts.
          You keep posting here, presumably looking for advice. You have already been given the best advice there is both by eek and by others. Now calm down, face up to reality and go and talk to WTT* to properly understand the mess you may have got yourself into.

          *other advisers are available.
          Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
          Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

          Comment


            #45
            Scheme providers & others read these forums

            Originally posted by balton9 View Post
            Eek is correct, people should seek proper legal advice & it's also worth reminding people NOT to post what they think are defence arguments on this or any other public forum. Scheme providers & others read these forums & there's no point giving them time to prepare a counter-argument. Don't give them any freebies! Loose lips sink ships.

            Remember: Zip it! Got it? Good!
            I concur ………….

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post
              You keep posting here, presumably looking for advice. You have already been given the best advice there is both by eek and by others. Now calm down, face up to reality and go and talk to WTT* to properly understand the mess you may have got yourself into.

              *other advisers are available.
              A COUPLE OF POINTS

              1 I am not seeking advice or am "in denial" (which is a bit insulting is it not?...but let's not discuss this aspect further)

              2 I and other contractors do not need to be told to go WTT or similar. They are tax advisors. This is a legal (NOT A TAX) issue. And in any event I am not looking for advisors. I do not want/need legal advice but am looking for EVIDENCE to corroborate my case. (but yes any nice clever arguments that have not been thought about, are always welcome)

              3 I need others who can support the oral representations made to me and can corroborate what is said. This "similar fact" evidence will be admissible in Court.

              It is important we all (Contractors) stick together.

              MY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CONTACTS IS HERE:

              [SIZE=3]<modsnip>/SIZE]

              PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU WANT TO HELP ME (or you wish me to help you in your case)


              And 2 consumer credit points:

              A your own link shows:

              Carrying on consumer credit business without a licence
              is an offence. The provision of loans to employees is
              considered to be consumer credit business. However,
              where a person only provides consumer credit
              “occasionally”, they are not considered to be carrying on
              consumer credit business and therefore do not need
              a licence. The meaning of the word “occasionally” is,
              unhelpfully, not defined. The provision of a one-off loan is
              unlikely to be an offence and loans made to a few senior
              executives are unlikely to cause problems. However, the
              position is less clear where such loans are made once
              to a whole workforce or on a regular (e.g. annual) basis.
              Where loans are provided more than occasionally (and no
              exemptions apply), the employer will have to apply to the
              OFT for a consumer credit licence.

              B Look at S140A and 140B Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding unfair loans. S 140A is set out below.

              AND

              A PS

              Why not discuss legal issues here? Don't you think that all claims and defences will be considered by those claiming monies.

              Best are, I now realise (I did not do so at the time) crooks. They told lies to contractors and have made our lives a misery. I was naive then, but am not now.


              ------
              The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—
              (a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
              (b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
              (c)any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

              mod note: you may not post your email address. People may contact you via pm, but should be careful as we have had posters offering help who were either working for the Dodgy scheme providers, or were hoping to profit from people's misery.

              Comment


                #47
                The reason why I said to speak to WTT is because

                Originally posted by webberg View Post
                We've been kindly mentioned above and at risk of breaching whatever rules apply, I can confirm that WTT has a number of clients who made use of Best Employment Services and a number of related entities which are now under the control of Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

                We are presently collecting information and reviewing the circumstances of the alleged loans. Once complete, (perhaps by the end of this week), we will formulate a plan and calculate the likely costs.

                We are happy to take enquiries from concerned parties.

                I would also point out that I am not the only "expert" available and that a brief scan of the threads in this section would reveal others who are equally (or better) "expert".
                As for everything else you've written did you not notice that the person who posted before your last post is Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

                I would suggest you read his post.
                merely at clientco for the entertainment

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by eek View Post
                  The reason why I said to speak to WTT is because



                  As for everything else you've written did you not notice that the person who posted before your last post is Mr Richardson of Grant Thornton in Leeds.

                  I would suggest you read his post.
                  It seems some folk are beyond help to be honest.
                  Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
                  Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by Best Employee View Post
                    A COUPLE OF POINTS

                    1 I am not seeking advice or am "in denial" (which is a bit insulting is it not?...but let's not discuss this aspect further)

                    2 I and other contractors do not need to be told to go WTT or similar. They are tax advisors. This is a legal (NOT A TAX) issue. And in any event I am not looking for advisors. I do not want/need legal advice but am looking for EVIDENCE to corroborate my case. (but yes any nice clever arguments that have not been thought about, are always welcome)

                    3 I need others who can support the oral representations made to me and can corroborate what is said. This "similar fact" evidence will be admissible in Court.

                    It is important we all (Contractors) stick together.

                    MY EMAIL ADDRESS FOR CONTACTS IS HERE:

                    [SIZE=3]<modsnip>/SIZE]

                    PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU WANT TO HELP ME (or you wish me to help you in your case)


                    And 2 consumer credit points:

                    A your own link shows:

                    Carrying on consumer credit business without a licence
                    is an offence. The provision of loans to employees is
                    considered to be consumer credit business. However,
                    where a person only provides consumer credit
                    “occasionally”, they are not considered to be carrying on
                    consumer credit business and therefore do not need
                    a licence. The meaning of the word “occasionally” is,
                    unhelpfully, not defined. The provision of a one-off loan is
                    unlikely to be an offence and loans made to a few senior
                    executives are unlikely to cause problems. However, the
                    position is less clear where such loans are made once
                    to a whole workforce or on a regular (e.g. annual) basis.
                    Where loans are provided more than occasionally (and no
                    exemptions apply), the employer will have to apply to the
                    OFT for a consumer credit licence.

                    B Look at S140A and 140B Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding unfair loans. S 140A is set out below.

                    AND

                    A PS

                    Why not discuss legal issues here? Don't you think that all claims and defences will be considered by those claiming monies.

                    Best are, I now realise (I did not do so at the time) crooks. They told lies to contractors and have made our lives a misery. I was naive then, but am not now.


                    ------
                    The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following—
                    (a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement;
                    (b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement;
                    (c)any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

                    mod note: you may not post your email address. People may contact you via pm, but should be careful as we have had posters offering help who were either working for the Dodgy scheme providers, or were hoping to profit from people's misery.



                    Fair enough to remove my email address but if anyone wishes to contact me by Personal Messenger on this site for any reason I will respond. I understand that Promoters or those seeking to profit may read this.

                    The fact that Promoters or liquidators (or HMRC) may read what is said is in this case irrelevant. There is no 'deal to be done' on terms, or some funny 'negotiation', but a court case to determine liability.

                    How can any tax consultants help me (or anyone else) with that? Or am I missing something?

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Best Employee View Post
                      [/B]


                      Fair enough to remove my email address but if anyone wishes to contact me by Personal Messenger on this site for any reason I will respond. I understand that Promoters or those seeking to profit may read this.

                      The fact that Promoters or liquidators (or HMRC) may read what is said is in this case irrelevant. There is no 'deal to be done' on terms, or some funny 'negotiation', but a court case to determine liability.

                      How can any tax consultants help me (or anyone else) with that? Or am I missing something?
                      There are no promoters involved here.

                      Your tax issues were caught in the loan charge

                      The loan issue is between you and a liquidator who has a built in success fee on amounts recovered.

                      WTT have already spent a lot of time looking at this case in far more detail than I believe you could have done (I'm sorry but they are dispassionate and no post of yours shows the level of unbiased level judgement required here).

                      And I know this will come to court but you will only have a single chance / law firm to protect yourself. To everyone reading this - choose wisely
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X