• 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.
  • FREE webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Mon, May 10, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST More details here.

Loan demands - a summary

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Loan demands - a summary

    There are now quite a few threads running on the above and this is an attempt to pull them together.

    I've also mentioned what we are others are doing (to the extent that I'm aware of the action).


    Prior to the action of the IOM FSA which removed a number of licensed companies from the control of the former owners, demands were raised for 10% of the outstanding loans on the basis that this would "prove" that they were really loans. At the time made, that claim was dubious (in my opinion) and the subsequent decision in Rangers (July 2017) made it clear that a partial repayment would mean little or nothing in tax terms.

    We have subsequently seen claims for a "success fee" in the form of a loan based on the fact that the Morse review removed the loan charge for pre December 2010 periods and therefore the scheme "worked". Again, we are of the view that the terms of the fee/loan claimed are not met by a change of retrospective legislation.

    K2/Hyrax and FS Capital

    FS claim to have been assigned the loans arising from the above schemes. The assignor was a trust based in the BVI which in turn had acquired the loans from the original trusts involved at the time the schemes were current.

    Demands were made for repayment but with terms offered for write off upon payment of a lower value.

    As far as we are aware, the advisers behind K2/Hyrax are of the view that all communications with FS should be via a legal representative as otherwise there is a risk of various financial crimes being inadvertently carried out. Obviously we have no access to any discussions that may have taken place between FS and those advisers. If you are part of the scheme, we suggest that you check with them for the latest update.

    ETC appear to have some involvement here but we are not aware of the details. Again, we suggest that you check for an update.

    We have a decent size group and are pursuing a strategy of our own.

    FS have been inactive for some time now.

    Felicitas/Fiscus - Winchester, IQ, Darwin, Sanzar, Infinity, Garraway,

    Loans arising out of the above schemes - mainly post Dec 2010 - were apparently assigned from their previous trust host to Felicitas. The company subsequently instructed Gladstones to request repayment. The IOM FSA has subsequently asked Felicitas to complete certain KYC/AML checks on the "customers".

    We are aware that there is now a UK version of Felicitas and that this may become active shortly. Quite what the purpose of this entity is, remains unclear for now.

    Again ETC have a strategy and that seems to involve legal action via a barrister.

    We have our own strategy that may in due course require the use of legal resources in the IOM with whom we have been in contact for a little while.

    We are aware that Freeths (solicitors) have been mentioned, but we have no idea what they are doing.

    We and ETC discuss common goals here (even if we do not always agree on how to achieve them). We have invited Freeths to join that discussion but we have had no response.

    Grant Thornton - Best Employment Services

    Ian Richardson is the liquidator of Best Employment Services and has issued demands for loans that were made in 2015 with a five year term. There is a response deadline of early November.

    There is (in our view) some doubt as to the bona fides of the loans, their ownership and their terms.

    We are taking action to investigate and resolve those doubts before we would be advising any individuals to make the repayment demanded.

    ETC may have their own strategy - we have not discussed that with them.


    1. In all the above scenarios it is important to separate the legally objective matters from the personal subjective issues. A Court is not interested in an opinion from a borrower that the (new) lender has dubious morals or ethics. Energy spent railing against the alleged character of individuals is energy wasted and does not progress the issues. We understand the anger and frustration but it is not helpful and clouds what needs to be done. We do not under any circumstances condone threats or personal insults.

    2. The loan issues are separate from the tax issues. Do not think that settling the tax means that the loans are no longer viable. (This is an error that we have seen a trustee make very recently).

    3. Collect your evidence on the basis that anything and everything is important. If you have a "confirmation" that you we told the loans would never be recalled, that is useful but has to be in writing.

    4. Consider carefully your strategy for resisting repayment. Do not choose a strategy based upon up front cost - that is false economy. This is a situation in which you will be unlikely to benefit from joining more than one strategy as you may eventually have to choose between them.

    5. All the parties above would, I'm sure, be happy to discuss where they are and what the next steps are. Speak to them.

    6. Stay calm.

    Mod: Here is the older version of this post -
    Last edited by webberg; 26 October 2020, 08:50. Reason: upon request
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

    Thank you, that's a good initiative.
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.


      I'll put the older thread in webberg's post and replace the sticky with this one.
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...


        I will add the following here as it's likely to come up again and it's best it's on the front page.

        Originally posted by webberg View Post
        There is no "mis-selling" and attempts to go down that path will cost you fees for very little result.

        The claim is that these are loans from an employer or a party connected to an employer.

        There is no regulation of such lenders and no minimum terms or conditions that have to be met.

        Unlike businesses who are financial traders - making profit from lending money or advancing credit - there is no authority such as the FCA or any Ombudsman structure.

        You have not been "mis-sold" anything and consequently have no actionable course.

        You are better off directing your energies into undertaking an objective assessment of what you signed up for and how that plays out now.
        merely at clientco for the entertainment


          pre Dec 2010

          You mention that "Loans arising out of the above schemes - mainly post Dec 2010". Can you give some details about the schemes prior to Dec 2010?