West 28th Street Limited

[looperevil]

I have stated before a few posts back that I have paid into the group with Elysium to close this problem out. No amount of AI searching or wishful thinking is going to resolve the issue. I would rather pay into the cause than sit on the bylines waiting for others to resolve it. That said, Elysium need to be proactive and go at west 28th, if they don't, then I will need to reconsider my position and look for an alternative solution.

They have been "going at them" for years and it's gone nowhere and still going nowhere.

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

Kudos to cojak for contributing to this latest Contractor UK article published just this morning. For those who want a summary of most of what has been discussued in this thread, you can access this article here: https://www.contractoruk.com/news/lo...or-contractors

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

They have been "going at them" for years and it's gone nowhere and still going nowhere.

I agree and I can't decide if this is being strung out because thay are pursuing an overly ambitious litigation strategy or if this is simply a 'side hustle' to extract more cash. I'm partucularly struggling with these 2 facts:
1. That Trethowans / W28 mass-mailing pack dated 24th April included an unheaded sheet of paper with a recommendation to take legal advice. It then listed Elysium Law and 2 other solicitor practices that "may already be instructed by others in respect of this particular matter." What was their motive for specifically referencing them ?
2. Elysium Law's website contains a number of case studies including one from a few years ago under Tax / Loan Charge Contractors. This referred to the previous recall attempts by Felicitas where they took them to mediation on behalf of over 150 individuals and "rebutted the claims on the grounds of collateral contract, misrepresentation and breach of trust". So why are now they seeking even more clients to pay in substantial sums to effectively 'rinse and repeat' their defence? The link is here: https://elysium-law.com/case-studies/?po_practice_area[]=tax

I remain hopeful that Dan Neidle's investigative report 'follows the money' and his scope extends beyond just the people behind West 28.

[Baggo]

Is it worth waiting for Dan's article ot be published before looking at sending any SAR? HMRC's guidance, updated on 3 June 2026, states: "The loan will be unenforceable if the original lender was not authorised with the appropriate FCA lending permission. Any third party the original lender has transferred the loan to that is seeking to recover the debt from you without the appropriate FCA lending permission or exemption would be acting unlawfully."

And crucially the forum post from this morning noted that West 28th Street, Limelight Solutions and Coldbath Solutions are not FCA regulated. If that's correct, enforceability is in serious doubt regardless of anything else.

What do you guys think about that before contacting any of these companies?

[eek]

SAR will take at least a month to process - send them now as it just creates work for them to deal with

[ScotchBonnet]

My SAR has been declined this afternoon. I have received an email which includes:

We are aware that this request has been made in the context of a claim made against you by West 28^th Street. We also have evidence that suggests that your request is part of a wider co-ordinated social media campaign advocating the making of subject access requests with the intention of overwhelming us and causing disruption.

In view of the above and having taken advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), we consider that your request is manifestly unfounded and/or excessive. We are therefore denying your request for personal data under Article 12(5) of the UK GDPR which permits us to refuse to act on your request if we determine your request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.

[Wtaf]

You can disagree with their findings, request this so called 'evidence' and let them know that this will be used by you in your complaint to the ICO.

So it was OK for them to send excessive paperwork but it's not OK to ask for a SAR?

[MrO666]

My SAR has been declined this afternoon. I have received an email which includes:

We are aware that this request has been made in the context of a claim made against you by West 28^th Street. We also have evidence that suggests that your request is part of a wider co-ordinated social media campaign advocating the making of subject access requests with the intention of overwhelming us and causing disruption.

In view of the above and having taken advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), we consider that your request is manifestly unfounded and/or excessive. We are therefore denying your request for personal data under Article 12(5) of the UK GDPR which permits us to refuse to act on your request if we determine your request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.

So a solicitor/law firm is refusing to comply with a SAR because they think you're being unreasonable and creating them work basically.

I think I would appeal it and also include the ICO in that formal appeal.

Trethowans have contacted you out of the blue making a number of claims in relation to alleged historical loans. You have never heard of Trethowans, and quite rightly want to understand what information that they hold on you, and where it came from.

I would also ask them for the evidence which they're basing their claim on.

Trethowans cannot just refuse to comply with SAR requests because it creates work for them, which is more or less what they appear to be claiming.

I would ensure Dan Niedle was made aware of this, as it's yet a further thing that really doesn't look very good for a law firm.

[MrO666]

On a side note.......

Given it's approaching three weeks since Dans letter, I wonder what the delay in publication is.

The original latter stated that a report would be published the following weeks, and asked both West 28 and Trethowans two questions.

If no response was given (I find it hard to believe Trethowans would ignore such an approach), then I wonder why there's been no report.

Equally, if a response was given (quite likely from Trethowans at least), then I wonder if that response now needs investigating, hence the delay.

[looperevil]

My SAR has been declined this afternoon. I have received an email which includes:

We are aware that this request has been made in the context of a claim made against you by West 28^th Street. We also have evidence that suggests that your request is part of a wider co-ordinated social media campaign advocating the making of subject access requests with the intention of overwhelming us and causing disruption.

In view of the above and having taken advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), we consider that your request is manifestly unfounded and/or excessive. We are therefore denying your request for personal data under Article 12(5) of the UK GDPR which permits us to refuse to act on your request if we determine your request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.

My feeling was they would use this as a way to get out of doing the SAR. Ordinarily this is used if you are asking for information with no purpose and creating them unnecessary. Hence you need to raise a complaint to the ICO saying they are making claims of these so called loans and you want the information they have that backs up these claims.