West 28th Street Limited

[Fergie11]

looks like these had multiple registrations for different trusts. If anyone from another scheme has any details on the licence that would be good. My thinking is if we can prove that these licences did not cover what Trethowans are chasing then they're acting unlawfully. But also could be nothing.

Why this matters​

If there were separate registrations for:

• Garraway Trust
• Winchester Trust
• Darwin Trust
• WCS Trust

(which the linked notice pages appear to reference), then each registration may have related to lending carried out through a specific trust rather than through PITL generally.

What I would now want to know​

For the Garraway Trust registration:

• Registration number.
• Date first granted.
• Scope of activities covered.
• Whether it was in force when your alleged loans were made in 2011-2013.
• Whether it covered the lending activity now relied upon by West 28th Street Limited.

Interesting consequence​

If there were separate registrations for separate trusts, then Trethowans may need to do more than simply say:

"PITL had a licence."

They may need to show:

"The Garraway Trust registration was in force and covered the specific loans now being pursued."

That's a different proposition altogether.

So I think your email to the Isle of Man regulator is worthwhile, because the public notices prove a registration existed and was cancelled, but they don't tell us:

• what the registration authorised,
• whether it covered these loans,
• or what exemption/licensing basis Trethowans now rely upon.

 

[JD1905]

A gentle word of caution: Trethowans, West 28th and Ethica almost certainly read this thread. It would be wise not to post whether you've formally disputed, your balance, your scheme, or your dates and plans. If they do pick a few people to sue, the likeliest are those who haven't responded in writing, so don't flag that publicly. Better still, reply to the Letter of Claim in writing and dispute it.
On complaints: the Financial Ombudsman doesn't cover solicitors, and the Legal Ombudsman only takes complaints from a firm's own clients, which we aren't. For Trethowans' conduct, the route is a report to the SRA (sra.org.uk/report). For Ethica, complain to Ethica first, then go to the Financial Ombudsman after 8 weeks.
And from the Letter of Claim wording quoted above: they may issue claims before 27 Nov but say they won't serve them until 30 days have passed. So if a claim form arrives later, don't be caught off guard. Respond in time.
Not legal advice.

Why do you think they are more likely to go after people who haven’t responded and on what basis do you think it is better to respond to them?

Whilst I won’t shout my personal details from the rooftops I am absolutely concluded in my position that I am happy enough to see them in court and will not respond until just notice is served.

I’m in a fortunate position where I don’t live in the country, have no assets in the country. So that may explain my “Come and try me” attitude compared to others.

 

[coveredname]

Why do you think they are more likely to go after people who haven’t responded and on what basis do you think it is better to respond to them?

Whilst I won’t shout my personal details from the rooftops I am absolutely concluded in my position that I am happy enough to see them in court and will not respond until just notice is served.

I’m in a fortunate position where I don’t live in the country, have no assets in the country. So that may explain my “Come and try me” attitude compared to others.

Fair question. Two reasons. First, in England limitation is a defence the defendant has to raise. The court won't apply it for you, and if you don't respond nothing gets raised at all. Uncontested claims are also the cheapest for a claimant: no defence means no hearing. A defended small claim costs them solicitor time they mostly can't recover, plus hearing fees. Second, under the Debt Claims Pre-Action Protocol, a written dispute with a request for documents means they're expected to provide the documents and allow time before issuing, and if they don't it can count against them on costs. It also puts the dispute on the record for the FCA, the Ombudsman and the SRA.
Living abroad with no UK assets is a real practical shield, and serving someone outside the UK usually needs the court's permission. But a UK judgment would still stand, would show on the UK judgments register if you ever came back, and may be enforceable abroad in some countries. Your call entirely. I'd just want people to know that silence isn't the same as safety.
Not legal advice.

 

[JD1905]

Fair question. Two reasons. First, in England limitation is a defence the defendant has to raise. The court won't apply it for you, and if you don't respond nothing gets raised at all. Uncontested claims are also the cheapest for a claimant: no defence means no hearing. A defended small claim costs them solicitor time they mostly can't recover, plus hearing fees. Second, under the Debt Claims Pre-Action Protocol, a written dispute with a request for documents means they're expected to provide the documents and allow time before issuing, and if they don't it can count against them on costs. It also puts the dispute on the record for the FCA, the Ombudsman and the SRA.
Living abroad with no UK assets is a real practical shield, and serving someone outside the UK usually needs the court's permission. But a UK judgment would still stand, would show on the UK judgments register if you ever came back, and may be enforceable abroad in some countries. Your call entirely. I'd just want people to know that silence isn't the same as safety.
Not legal advice.

You are talking about a process that nobody is in yet though, which is the formal court stage. We are still currently at pre-action.

Not acknowledging them now does not mean it is uncontested. No legal action has been taken yet.

 

[Validoom]

Just a few points,

No. 1 The latest round of letters are designed to scared you, if you read very carefully they can currently only collect money from you if do so voluntarily.

No. 2 DO NOT INGORE the latest letter. This is very important. DO NOT reply until you have sought legal advice. You do not want give any more information than you have to, you also do not want to accidentally put yourself in position where you open yourself to Trethowans.

Trethowans are going to court, it is happening, this is step 1.

I can no not stress how important it is to seek legal advice before proceeding because every single interaction, any documents you send etc have / to Trethowans, West 28 and Ethica could potentially be used against you.

Trethowans are banking on people doing something that opens themselves up.

I can not stress how underhand Trethowans are, what levels they are prepared to stoop to get you into a position where you end up on hook because they know to fight them court is going to very expensive.

This is why I will stress to seek Legal Council before replying to any Trethowans

 

[tonymontana]

Why do you think they are more likely to go after people who haven’t responded and on what basis do you think it is better to respond to them?

Whilst I won’t shout my personal details from the rooftops I am absolutely concluded in my position that I am happy enough to see them in court and will not respond until just notice is served.

I’m in a fortunate position where I don’t live in the country, have no assets in the country. So that may explain my “Come and try me” attitude compared to others.

Same situation, been following this and all previous over the last decade and have absolutely not interacted in any way with these crooks. I doubt this will ever end.

 

[mikcyp20]

I am inclined to simply reply disputing everything, and reminding them I want all the previous information I requested which they haven't responded to in writing.

No form filled they sent.

 

[shampoo]

I'm going to put it out there again...............why are West 28th and Trethowans refusing to share the legally executed Deeds of assignment to validate the whole chain for each scheme / trust ? They need them to go to court, as without them West 28th have absolutely zero claim to anything.

If they have these, then I don't understand why not a single person (that I'm aware of) has ever seen them. I've seen a copy of a deed from 2013, but that's it. For most of these schemes, there would need to be at least three deeds (maybe four) to validate the chain, and that's for every scheme / trust.

It's the first thing they would have to prove, yet the very thing both West 28th and Trethowans are deadly silent about.

I have seen copies of both the Darwin and the W28th deed of assignments which will be shared with the FCA today pointing out all their irregularities.

I’m on FCA email number 5 and have shared a serious amount of documentation and listed a 100 plus inaccuracies, anomalies, gaps and impossibilities.

More holes than a hedgehogs pillow!

 

[eek]

Just a few points,

No. 1 The latest round of letters are designed to scared you, if you read very carefully they can currently only collect money from you if do so voluntarily.

No. 2 DO NOT INGORE the latest letter. This is very important. DO NOT reply until you have sought legal advice. You do not want give any more information than you have to, you also do not want to accidentally put yourself in position where you open yourself to Trethowans.

Trethowans are going to court, it is happening, this is step 1.

I can no not stress how important it is to seek legal advice before proceeding because every single interaction, any documents you send etc have / to Trethowans, West 28 and Ethica could potentially be used against you.

Trethowans are banking on people doing something that opens themselves up.

I can not stress how underhand Trethowans are, what levels they are prepared to stoop to get you into a position where you end up on hook because they know to fight them court is going to very expensive.

This is why I will stress to seek Legal Council before replying to any Trethowans

You don’t need a lawyer at he moment to dispute the debt - it’s literally a sentence and reveals nothing.

The important thing is

1) dispute it in as few words as possible
2) don’t sign into the portal - as that could trick you into doing sonething
3) get your paperwork in place because if this is going to court you will have limited time to respond.
4) speak to the Isle of Man to get all the details of the trust - they are going to seriously dislike one again having their name attached to false tax avoidance schemes - so may actually help. They may however charge in which case find others on here who need that information and share the costs between you

 

[shampoo]

Looks like Professional Independent Trustees Limited did hold a moneyslenders registartion at some point before 2014 I'm goin to email the isle of man regulator to see if they can give me the dates of when this licence was obtained. If anyone already has this info could let us know.

Based on what I've found, the registration appears to have been a Moneylenders Registration under the Isle of Man Moneylenders Act 1991 held by Professional Independent Trustees Limited as trustee of the Garraway Trust. We know that because the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading published a notice confirming the cancellation of that registration on 23 June 2014.

What that registration would typically cover​

A moneylender registration would generally permit the registered entity to carry on regulated moneylending activity within the Isle of Man regulatory framework that existed at the time. In simple terms, it is evidence that the entity was recognised as carrying on lending activity rather than acting entirely outside the regulatory system.

What it does​

The cancellation notice does not tell us:

• when the registration was first granted;
• the registration number;
• whether it was continuously in force throughout 2011-2013;
• whether it covered every loan now being pursued;
• whether the loans being claimed against you were made under that registration;
• whether any exemption was relied upon instead.

Why this is important for your dispute​

The existence of a cancellation notice actually suggests there was some form of regulatory registration prior to June 2014. That means the argument is probably no longer:


Instead, the question becomes:


That's a very different question.

I have seen said document.