West 28th Street Limited

[NickLeeson2]

Or do both. The loans need to be legally written off, by what ever method, or this will never end.

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

I'm sure I will get banned because apparently advising people not to ignore any letters or demands and to seek legal advice with anybody they are comfortable with is a bad thing lol...

I have at no time recommended anybody to go to Elysium or any other Legal Firm.

This is very easily to check.

I have simply said that they should legal advice.

West 28 are simply not going to away no matter what anybody thinks. This matter is not simply going to go away no matter what anybody thinks.

West 28 have already made significant profit from this and they prey on those who think that they can either ignore everything or handle it themselves.

Lots of people like to play Internet Lawyer, good luck to them, however in a matter which is as complex as this, that has dragged on for years now, that has caused significant mental anguish for thousands of people and has cost them their homes, personally I would seek advice from a professional but hey, again apparently that is bad advice on this sub.

This will be my last post as I have already been threatened with being banned of which I have no doubt that will happen now.

I wish all those good fortune and I sincerely hope that everyone involved finds a favourable resolution.

Validoom I personally don 't feel people need to seek legal support at this stage but if I've misunderstood your motives and you only intended to offer advice then I do apologise.
To make my own position clear, if I was threatened with court action by a bona fide company who felt they had a legitimate claim against me, then I would of course seek legal advice. However in this case my position remains the same. These are crooks who know their claims are bogus so will use every tactic at their disposal SHORT OF COURT ACTION to extract more money from their prey. I cannot envisage a scenario where they will risk exposing their dodgy and probably criminal activities in court.
Let's all sit tight for now and wait to see if Dan's timely and welcome intervention will make them scurry back to their rat holes

[eek]

Dan has just posted a story about Robert Venables (the QC whose opinion is at the heart of a lot of these schemes) and his tax evasion criminal case - so we may not see the other story today..

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/29/...s-prosecution/

One thing to note is that in 2014-16 Robert Venables made £2.5m from his advice regarding schemes.

[cojak]

And to repeat Dan’s note regarding Venables:

Given the UK’s contempt of court rules, we will not be saying anything further, and comments are disabled on [Venables’] post.

[shampoo]

The FS Capital v Adams Court of Appeal judgment from January 2025 is the controlling case law that directly governs your situation. Combined with your specific documents, you have an exceptionally strong position. Let me now lay this out comprehensively. (I've not posted everything as it will be pages and pages long)


The Controlling Case: FS Capital v Adams [2025] EWCA Civ 53


This Court of Appeal judgment, handed down just in January 2025, directly mirrors your situation. The appeals arose out of transactions by which FS Capital Limited purchased loan assets from three Jersey trusts. Basic consideration was paid and deferred contingent consideration was capped at a maximum of £1,176,033.93 — while the book value of the loan assets was £410 million, subsequently reduced to £279 million.


Read that again. They paid a tiny fraction of face value for a loan book they were then trying to enforce at full value against individuals. This is the business model you are facing.

The High Court and then the Court of Appeal made these critical findings: Mr Justice Edwin Johnson decided, amongst other things, that the Disposal was effected for an improper purpose and, as a result, constituted a breach of the Trusts and was void in equity. He also decided that FS Capital was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in relation to the loan assets and that it held them subject to the beneficiaries' equitable interests and was required to reconstitute the Trusts.

The assignment chain from your original IoM EBT to Felicitas to West 28th Street is almost certainly caught by exactly the same legal principles.

The Fraud on the Power Point from FS Capital

Collateral Contract / Contractual Variation


Beyond estoppel, the document may actually constitute a collateral contract — a side agreement that the loan would not be enforced on exit. This would be binding on the original trust, and any assignee takes subject to equities, meaning West 28th Street cannot be in a better position than the original trust.


Critically, the Court of Appeal in FS Capital confirmed that the Disposal was effected for an improper purpose and constituted a breach of the Trusts. The trustees had no proper power to assign these loans to a third-party enforcement vehicle precisely because doing so was against the interests of the beneficiaries. The "peace of mind" document you hold is direct evidence that even the trust itself acknowledged the loans had no real substance — making the assignment for enforcement purposes even more clearly improper.


The Structure of the Assignment Chain — And Why Each Link Is Weak


Your chain is: IoM EBT → Felicitas → West 28th Street

Each link has serious problems:

Link 1 (IoM EBT to Felicitas):

• Felicitas was a specially formed company in the Isle of Man, one of whose directors was Adrian Sackless, who has been disqualified from being a director in England and Wales and also in the Isle of Man.
• The assignment was arguably a fraud on the power — made to benefit the assignee, not the beneficiaries

Link 2 (Felicitas to West 28th Street):

• Following a Mediation and their Letter of Response, Felicitas Solutions Limited was dissolved after the debts were purportedly assigned to West 28th Street Limited.
• Felicitas was dissolved — conveniently removing itself from any counterclaims — immediately after assigning to West 28th Street
• A dissolved company cannot defend counterclaims or provide warranties

The Entire Chain: If the first assignment (EBT to Felicitas) was void — as the FS Capital case strongly suggests — then nothing valid was ever transferred. You cannot assign something you don't validly own. West 28th Street may have paid for nothing.


It Goes to the Loan Charge Context

The object of such schemes was to avoid tax by treating income paid to employees or contractors as loans provided through the mechanism of the relevant loan scheme. HMRC has already determined that these payments were earnings, not loans. If they were earnings — as courts have now confirmed — then simultaneously treating them as enforceable loans is an attempt to have it both ways that courts will not accept.


The Limitation Problem — Potentially Statute Barred

Many of these loans were advanced in 2010–2015. Under the Limitation Act 1980, a simple contract debt becomes statute-barred 6 years after the cause of action arises — which for an on-demand loan is when demand is made. West 28th Street admit they couldn't charge you before, and are resetting the clock to try to make the loan enforceable again from now on.

However, this "reset" argument is very dubious legally. The Felicitas demand in 2020 was disputed and withdrawn. A disputed, withdrawn demand does not restart the limitation clock in the normal way.

Plenty to digest.

[lillybean]

Dan has just posted a story about Robert Venables (the QC whose opinion is at the heart of a lot of these schemes) and his tax evasion criminal case - so we may not see the other story today..

https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2026/05/29/...s-prosecution/

One thing to note is that in 2014-16 Robert Venables made £2.5m from his advice regarding schemes.

I still have the Winchester sales brochure which states approved by Robert Venables QC

[Superfly]

The FS Capital v Adams Court of Appeal judgment from January 2025 is the controlling case law that directly governs your situation. Combined with your specific documents, you have an exceptionally strong position. Let me now lay this out comprehensively. (I've not posted everything as it will be pages and pages long)


The Controlling Case: FS Capital v Adams [2025] EWCA Civ 53


This Court of Appeal judgment, handed down just in January 2025, directly mirrors your situation. The appeals arose out of transactions by which FS Capital Limited purchased loan assets from three Jersey trusts. Basic consideration was paid and deferred contingent consideration was capped at a maximum of £1,176,033.93 — while the book value of the loan assets was £410 million, subsequently reduced to £279 million.


Read that again. They paid a tiny fraction of face value for a loan book they were then trying to enforce at full value against individuals. This is the business model you are facing.

The High Court and then the Court of Appeal made these critical findings: Mr Justice Edwin Johnson decided, amongst other things, that the Disposal was effected for an improper purpose and, as a result, constituted a breach of the Trusts and was void in equity. He also decided that FS Capital was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in relation to the loan assets and that it held them subject to the beneficiaries' equitable interests and was required to reconstitute the Trusts.

The assignment chain from your original IoM EBT to Felicitas to West 28th Street is almost certainly caught by exactly the same legal principles.

The Fraud on the Power Point from FS Capital

Collateral Contract / Contractual Variation


Beyond estoppel, the document may actually constitute a collateral contract — a side agreement that the loan would not be enforced on exit. This would be binding on the original trust, and any assignee takes subject to equities, meaning West 28th Street cannot be in a better position than the original trust.


Critically, the Court of Appeal in FS Capital confirmed that the Disposal was effected for an improper purpose and constituted a breach of the Trusts. The trustees had no proper power to assign these loans to a third-party enforcement vehicle precisely because doing so was against the interests of the beneficiaries. The "peace of mind" document you hold is direct evidence that even the trust itself acknowledged the loans had no real substance — making the assignment for enforcement purposes even more clearly improper.


The Structure of the Assignment Chain — And Why Each Link Is Weak


Your chain is: IoM EBT → Felicitas → West 28th Street

Each link has serious problems:

Link 1 (IoM EBT to Felicitas):

• Felicitas was a specially formed company in the Isle of Man, one of whose directors was Adrian Sackless, who has been disqualified from being a director in England and Wales and also in the Isle of Man.
• The assignment was arguably a fraud on the power — made to benefit the assignee, not the beneficiaries

Link 2 (Felicitas to West 28th Street):

• Following a Mediation and their Letter of Response, Felicitas Solutions Limited was dissolved after the debts were purportedly assigned to West 28th Street Limited.
• Felicitas was dissolved — conveniently removing itself from any counterclaims — immediately after assigning to West 28th Street
• A dissolved company cannot defend counterclaims or provide warranties

The Entire Chain: If the first assignment (EBT to Felicitas) was void — as the FS Capital case strongly suggests — then nothing valid was ever transferred. You cannot assign something you don't validly own. West 28th Street may have paid for nothing.


It Goes to the Loan Charge Context

The object of such schemes was to avoid tax by treating income paid to employees or contractors as loans provided through the mechanism of the relevant loan scheme. HMRC has already determined that these payments were earnings, not loans. If they were earnings — as courts have now confirmed — then simultaneously treating them as enforceable loans is an attempt to have it both ways that courts will not accept.


The Limitation Problem — Potentially Statute Barred

Many of these loans were advanced in 2010–2015. Under the Limitation Act 1980, a simple contract debt becomes statute-barred 6 years after the cause of action arises — which for an on-demand loan is when demand is made. West 28th Street admit they couldn't charge you before, and are resetting the clock to try to make the loan enforceable again from now on.

However, this "reset" argument is very dubious legally. The Felicitas demand in 2020 was disputed and withdrawn. A disputed, withdrawn demand does not restart the limitation clock in the normal way.

Plenty to digest.

Lol, 'Adrian Sackless', I presume that is a pun rather than a typo... or maybe autocorrect.

[shampoo]

Lol, 'Adrian Sackless', I presume that is a pun rather than a typo... or maybe autocorrect.

It was deliberate my friend!

[redredwine]

I still have the Winchester sales brochure which states approved by Robert Venables QC

I was with Winchester … and the only document I am missing is the sales brochure .. I don’t suppose you can provide a copy of yours to me so I have a complete document set if I ever need it …

[NickLeeson2]

Has Dan Neidle published his report?