West 28th Street Limited

[chasedbyloansharks]

I’ve sent a complaint to ICO and attached all emails to date.

Next up is to respond to the FCA with everything I have received.

I’d urge everyone to do this and dispute the debt. My feeling is W28 are chancing it and T will get fed up and drop out but in case they don’t, protect yourselves.

It may also be an idea to get your MP up to speed, particularly if they’re the party in government - the recall of loans part of the loan charge could be solved very simply politically.
But we need to put pressure on MPs.

 

[mikcyp20]

I'll say it one more time.

This needs to become political.
FCA to understand how important it is to keep them barred. Irrespective of ANY legal basis.

The issue is fundamentally political.

 

[MrO666]

What's interesting is that Trethowans, West 28th and Ethica have from what I'm aware entirely ignored anybody's attempts at communication or requests for documents, and pushed ahead with issuing more and more demands.

I'll admit that I'm surprised that a company that claims to be a professional law firm is completely ignoring any valid requests and trying to make them someone elses problem.

The fact that they've alluded to all along that these alleged loans are CCA Regulated, and now are stating that they are not, clearly is a premediated act of dishonesty. I just fail to see how any legitimate law firm would act in this way.

If it were me, I would now be making sure that the managing partner of Trethowans and the CEO of Lawfront were dragged into this now.

A company with a genuine and bonafide legal dispute is one thing, but that appalling way in which Trethowans are operating needs calling out.

A question to anyone who has engaged a solicitor on this. Has your solicitor managed to get any genuine interaction with Trethowans, or are they getting the same template letters or being ignored ?

 

[creativity]

Why should I respond to them at all? You say it is very important to not ignore them.. why? You also seem to know for sure that Trethowans are going to court, you cannot be certain of this.

Unfortunately this is a weakness in the system in that if you dont reply to anything, or don't attend court, the court will likely award the plaintiff.
And if you dont dispute the plaintiff whats stopping the plaintiff presenting any story to the court, or half truths or worse.
So protect yourself, you need to respond to the dispute.

 

[JD1905]

Unfortunately this is a weakness in the system in that if you dont reply to anything, or don't attend court, the court will likely award the plaintiff.
And if you dont dispute the plaintiff whats stopping the plaintiff presenting any story to the court, or half truths or worse.
So protect yourself, you need to respond to the dispute.

You are talking about responding to court proceedings or a summons. That is completely different.

When/If anything is eventually served, it is at that point where a notice of intention to defend the case can be issued. Until then it would just be responding to pre-action administrative letters.

 

[creativity]

What's interesting is that Trethowans, West 28th and Ethica have from what I'm aware entirely ignored anybody's attempts at communication or requests for documents, and pushed ahead with issuing more and more demands.

I'll admit that I'm surprised that a company that claims to be a professional law firm is completely ignoring any valid requests and trying to make them someone elses problem.

The fact that they've alluded to all along that these alleged loans are CCA Regulated, and now are stating that they are not, clearly is a premediated act of dishonesty. I just fail to see how any legitimate law firm would act in this way.

If it were me, I would now be making sure that the managing partner of Trethowans and the CEO of Lawfront were dragged into this now.

A company with a genuine and bonafide legal dispute is one thing, but that appalling way in which Trethowans are operating needs calling out.

A question to anyone who has engaged a solicitor on this. Has your solicitor managed to get any genuine interaction with Trethowans, or are they getting the same template letters or being ignored ?

Thats a good question. Has anyone engaged a solicitor (away from the groups we know about) who has had any success in a full personal response?

 

[mikcyp20]

Tell me something, because I think this BS.

Is it actually possible to sue someone, about any matter, and then say I am suing you now because I am running out of time - but in the interim I will have to apply for something else, another order to be put in place, before I can actually legally get that something I first sued you for?

Is the law not causal? In order to be able to sue someone at a moment in time don't you need to have all your ducks in order first at the time you sue?

I am not being funny - I want to ask a solicitor this specific question.

Can they here actually send court papers because of some limitation, in hope they get the vaidation order later, so that in retrospect make the court case valid?

Don't they actually HAVE to have the validation order in hand before they sue?

How exactly does this back and forth in time legally work?

 

[shampoo]

Tell me something, because I think this BS.

Is it actually possible to sue someone, about any matter, and then say I am suing you now because I am running out of time - but in the interim I will have to apply for something else, another order to be put in place, before I can actually legally get that something I first sued you for?

Is the law not causal? In order to be able to sue someone at a moment in time don't you need to have all your ducks in order first at the time you sue?

I am not being funny - I want to ask a solicitor this specific question.

Can they here actually send court papers because of some limitation, in hope they get the vaidation order later, so that in retrospect make the court case valid?

Don't they actually HAVE to have the validation order in hand before they sue?

How exactly does this back and forth in time legally work?

The simple answer is they can can ask the court for a stay whilst they workout the other issues.

 

[coveredname]

Tell me something, because I think this BS.

Is it actually possible to sue someone, about any matter, and then say I am suing you now because I am running out of time - but in the interim I will have to apply for something else, another order to be put in place, before I can actually legally get that something I first sued you for?

Is the law not causal? In order to be able to sue someone at a moment in time don't you need to have all your ducks in order first at the time you sue?

I am not being funny - I want to ask a solicitor this specific question.

Can they here actually send court papers because of some limitation, in hope they get the vaidation order later, so that in retrospect make the court case valid?

Don't they actually HAVE to have the validation order in hand before they sue?

How exactly does this back and forth in time legally work?

They can issue a claim before having the FCA order. The law makes the agreement unenforceable without an order, but doesn't stop a claim being started. In practice the court would stay it until the FCA decides. If the FCA refuses, the claim fails; if it grants an order, the claim can continue. That's why "limitation" is their reason for issuing early: issuing stops the English time limit while the FCA process runs.
Not legal advice.

 

[mikcyp20]

So then I think this is a play.
And be prepared.

The strategy can be as simple as that. And I might suspect is cheaper.

Lets sue the alices and the bobs en mass.
And at the same time ask for stays.

What is the cost of that? (I bet not the figures we discussed yesterday - a lot cheaper)

Then write back to the 6000 victims:
We issued the court order, pending the validation order:

It's on you now the victim, you can either settle and we drop the case. You avoid the costs. OR you risk us getting that validation order and go full blown trial will all costs.

What would the 6000 victims do in that case???

And let's imagine the FCA does not grand the validation order. That may be a blessing in disguise to the scammer:
We drop the case now because we don't have it.

Now honestly do me the math. What does the above cost to send court papers to everyone?

What now has been achieved?
Its 6000 victims with court papers issued.

And is a distribution, with some, settling...

How far fetched is this you think from a potential strat?