User Profile

[eek]

Yes

Edit - remember that in the recent court case one of the witnesses was his gardener who he tried to pay via a EB trust.....

[eek]

People's opinion of you is based on the company you keep - and the LAST company I would use is one that is suggested by a law firm trying to scare me into given money to them.

Because you didn't tell Trethowans to F off, you became tarred with being part of the same scam.....

[eek]

The SRA has been found to be unfit for purpose - the only issue we don't know is when will the replacement be created......

[eek]

You dispute the debt - this is not something where sticking your head in the sand is going to help you. You very much want to be on the list of these people are too much hassle to deal with instead of the list of people who we may be able to scare with another letter.

That isn't going to...

[eek]

No - because they are not allowed to. Even running cycle to work schemes is too problematic with HMRC for many to still run them

[eek]

does what carry any weight?

Assuming the demand is for the same things West 28th are trying to claim for it's likely to be statutory barred......

[eek]

If it was vexatious why didn't they say so before asking for your details - it doesn't make much sense.....

[eek]

Let's take a step back - you have a letter demanding payment from Felicitas in July 2020 - that's over 6 years ago.

If West 28th Street are relying on their assignment from Felicitas it's now time barred......

[eek]

I reported this back in April - if people haven't picked up on it until now that's on them.....

[eek]

Except paying them anything won't solve the problem because some of the people who paid Felicitas are being chased again https://www.contractoruk.com/news/co...-chased-131000...

[eek]

I don’t see what a group gives you here. I would personally just keep on responding with a blanket I dispute the debt is valid until they either walked away or spent actual money and went to court...

[eek]

Ever letter both you and I have suggested be sent has had 2 things in it

1) we deny that we owe any money
2) alongside said denial this is an SAR request (so we can work out wtf you are talk about)

so I can see why a law firm trying to do absolutely the bear minimum would...

[eek]

Or they see it as a relatively easy payday following some successful work elsewhere - having explained the shortfalls in their plan but failed to estimate the seriousness of said shortfalls...

[eek]

Just dispute the debt - I wouldn’t pay a pound in case they use it to argue that you accept the loan is a CCA one.

If you don’t have a lawyer able to dispute things perfectly I would keep everything as simple as possible. At the moment I wouldn’t even be querying the CCA stuff until...

[eek]

Send another dispute letter referencing the first...

[eek]

The CCA stuff is easy to deal with please show the entire history of the loan and the CCA authorization of every firm in that history from the Monet you claim they lent me money.

Later on you ask for the other items such as affordability checks that CCA loans require (note you would need...

[eek]

Judge could equally say) utterly irrelevant under the bits of law relevant to this case

this is the thing you need remember - you have to cover a lot of possible attack points and have a relevant reason as to why West 28th are not owed a penny...

[eek]

Our tax isn’t exactly difficult and FreeAgent does the calculations and the form submissions...

[eek]

No accountant, a mettle or Natwest bank account to get FreeAgent and do it yourself it really isn’t difficult...

[eek]

You are making the same mistake others have made here - you have referenced decisions from different branches of the court / law as one and the same.

West 28th Street Ltd v Halstead Associates [2024] EWHC 1698 - is from the BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
TECHNOLOGY...