West 28th Street Limited

[mikcyp20]

One further suggestion if I may, to those having access to contractorUK the portal.

Surely it's been thought but someone has to bring to the fact that the FCA has been made aware, and that they posted that info piece on their website.

Even if, for arguments sake, the trail of deed if assignments were ever going to be proven to be bullet proof the FCA will have to feel the burden and public scrutiny before granting them any right to collect any alleged debt.

Everyone is aware what happens here.
But they act differently when they act naked before the public eye.

The point here is regardless of the fact that if those deeds have holes. It applies as equally had they been fully robust.

 

[shampoo]

Worth pausing for breath.

Step 1 for 28 whopper street is to approach the FCA to validate the unenforceable loans … it takes 12 months plus for the process to play out, costs money and is by no means guaranteed a positive outcome … it can also be challenged via a tribunal.

In the meantime have your response to their letter of claim drafted and ready to go … check the dates but you have until ~27th November to reply … its your time so maximise it but make sure you respond before the deadline.

If you’re disputing it you don’t need to sign and return anything … just tick the one page disputing, scan it and attach it to your email response … job done.

 

[mikcyp20]

What I meant to say. ContractorUK should do a reported document on this addressing the FCA and that they responded with that info piece. Publically.

 

[shampoo]

One further suggestion if I may, to those having access to contractorUK the portal.

Surely it's been thought but someone has to bring to the fact that the FCA has been made aware, and that they posted that info piece on their website.

Even if, for arguments sake, the trail of deed if assignments were ever going to be proven to be bullet proof the FCA will have to feel the burden and public scrutiny before granting them any right to collect any alleged debt.

Everyone is aware what happens here.
But they act differently when they act naked before the public eye.

The point here is regardless of the fact that if those deeds have holes. It applies as equally had they been fully robust.

I have no idea what you have just said.

 

[mikcyp20]

Let me retry.

I am saying the fact that people gotten complaints to the FCA. And fact that the FCA put on their website that info piece, should also gain some publicity.

I think it is a good idea for contractorUK to report on this story.

Further a more personal view:
Even if for argument sake these deeds of transfer were legally robust, the FCA still has the burden to grant w28 that they are enforceable.

The public scrutiny should make this all the tougher. Hence why I think reporting publicly on the topic helps.

 

[MrO666]

Having looked at a Deed of Settlement from 2013, it clearly states that the agreement is between "Garraway Limited - 008808V and a named person".

It then states that the "Lender" enters the deed in it's capacity as the sole trustee of a settlement know as "The Garraway Settlement".

I have a question for people........has anyone ever heard of The Garraway Settlement ? I can't find any reference to it anywhere.

I've checked the whole document and there's no mention whatsoever of Professional Independent Trustees Ltd at all. Also, I can confirm that Garraway Limited (008808V) was not ever registered as a money lender in the IoM.

 

[shampoo]

Professional Independent Trustees Limited (126044C) — the official incorporation and moneylender-registration dates, and how to check the same for your own settlement


A few of us are circling the same question — whether the company named as "lender/trustee" on these agreements actually existed, and was actually registered to lend, when the agreement is dated. For the Darwin Trust I now have this confirmed in writing by the Isle of Man authorities, so I'll set out the dates and then exactly how you can get the equivalent for your own settlement.

The Darwin Trust position (confirmed):

1. Professional Independent Trustees Limited (126044C) was incorporated on 15 June 2011 (Isle of Man Companies Registry).
2. Its moneylender registration, as trustees of the Darwin Trust, was first granted in August 2011 — the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading has confirmed in writing, from the register under the Moneylenders Act 1991, that the certificate ran three years to 1 August 2014 (later cancelled at the company's request from 23 June 2014). The registration was specific to the Darwin Trust capacity.

So an agreement naming 126044C as lender dated before 15 June 2011 predates the company's existence, and one dated before August 2011 predates that registration. These are register dates; they don't change.

How to check this for your own settlement (anyone can do this, including non-IoM residents):

• Incorporation date: search your lender's company number on the Isle of Man Companies Registry.
• Moneylender registration: email the Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading (General.Fairtrading@gov.im) and ask, under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, for the register details of the named lender/trust under the Moneylenders Act 1991 — the date registration was first granted, the period, and any renewals. They answered mine under the Code even though I'm UK-resident.
• Then compare those dates against the date on your own agreement, and against the trustee/lender actually named on it.

I'm not stating any legal conclusion — the consequences are for each person's own circumstances and for the authorities. But the FCA is currently weighing validation of historical agreements of this kind, a process that looks at consumer harm, so it is useful for people to establish these dates independently and from the register.

I'm not collecting anyone's documents or data — just pointing to how to check your own.

 

[GregRickshaw]

Would it be fair to say no sod actually has a clue?

 

[shampoo]

Would it be fair to say no sod actually has a clue?

I’m not getting the context … are you referring to whopper street?

 

[looperevil]

The scheme that I was on was UK based, not IoM. As such, they were never a authorised lender according to the FCA. The only time IoM entered my chain was when Felicitas got involved.