West 28th Street Limited

[coveredname]

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?

Plausible in a smaller form, but not cheap. The issue fee is paid when the claim is issued, whether or not it's later stayed: £455 for £5k–£10k, and 5% of the claim value between £10k and £200k. Across thousands of borrowers that's millions up front. A claim form also has to be served within 4 months (6 if you're in Scotland or abroad), and a stay has to be applied for or agreed, so don't agree to one. If they later drop claims, the claimant normally pays the defendant's costs on discontinuance. And "settle or face full costs" would be misleading for small claims, which is exactly the undue pressure the FCA warned about on 2 Nov. Most likely is a limited batch, so if papers arrive, respond in time and don't agree to a stay or a quick settlement without advice.
Not legal advice.

 

[mikcyp20]

Thank you so very dearly for that response.

From the heart!

 

[mikcyp20]

It is a campaign.
We have 6000 victims.

Lets sample the population with progressive escallation.

Lets see how much we get from each shakedown.

Let that fuel the next round.

Now they don't have to beat everyone,
And those they beat they dont need to beat at 100% of the 'face value' of the loans.

It might just suffice to target a sample of 100-200 people, get enough fuel to begin with, and play the above strat in small scale.

Say the average amount is 100k.
Therefore fees to the tune half a million.

Strategy wins if 10-15% settle on a 50% discount.

That may be the play.

 

[PhenDi]

I've had the same letters - not looked at them, and have absolutely no intention of checking them unless I see a court summons from these disgusting piece of sh17 cowboys. They will try to intimidate people in the hope some low hanging fruit can be got at, i.e. some people pay them - don't do it !

We will also get some noddy debt collector letters etc, it all means nothing. They'll do nothing!

In order for them to beat me in Court and get the Judge to uphold the claim, they better have their ducks in a row, all of the paperwork, signed, dated with proof of payment to me (not a flippin spreadsheet), all the FCA nonsense about loans better be water tight - I doubt this will happen. They will need to take each one of us on individually, the first one of us to go to Court and win, means the game is over for them! The first person to get a Court date (doubt it'll happen) we all throw our weight behind him/her. They have to pay to take us to Court - they'll only pay Court fees if they think they can win - oh and the person can actually afford to pay them if they win. Can't wait to let them know I got squat and they can chase my ex wife if they want some money, but i'll save that nugget til last minute.

They're paying some minimum wage kid to sit with a laptop and printer, and send out letters, they can't even get that simple job right.

Total disgrace to do this to people... I say F em!

 

[coveredname]

It is a campaign.
We have 6000 victims.

Lets sample the population with progressive escallation.

Lets see how much we get from each shakedown.

Let that fuel the next round.

Now they don't have to beat everyone,
And those they beat they dont need to beat at 100% of the 'face value' of the loans.

It might just suffice to target a sample of 100-200 people, get enough fuel to begin with, and play the above strat in small scale.

Say the average amount is 100k.
Therefore fees to the tune half a million.

Strategy wins if 10-15% settle on a 50% discount.

That may be the play.

That's a more realistic version, and a limited batch of larger claims is probably the likeliest play. But the numbers look different once you add in how West 28th is funded and what happens on the costs side.
1. Where the money for fees would come from. The issue fee is paid upfront: 5% of the claim value between £10k and £200k, so £5,000 on a £100k claim. A batch of 100 would cost about £500k before any solicitor time. West 28th Street's own accounts to March 2026 (Companies House, 13231491) show about £22k cash, about £4.1m of "other loans" from a lender that isn't named and has no registered security, and net liabilities of about £1.1m. So it can't fund a batch like that from its own money. Someone would have to put more in: the undisclosed lender, the shareholders, or a litigation funder.
2. It's been funder-backed before. In April 2021 its subsidiary, West 28th Capital, granted a charge over its "Net Recoveries" to Katch Fund Solutions, acting for the Katch Litigation Fund in Luxembourg (Companies House, form MR01 on 13231579). In plain terms, a litigation fund financed the operation and took security over what was recovered from borrowers. That charge was marked satisfied in April 2025, and Legal Futures reported in December 2025 that the Katch Litigation Fund has been in self-liquidation since September 2025. So the original funder is winding down, and who is funding them now isn't public.
3. Why bigger claims are riskier for them, not cheaper. Claims of around £100k go to the multi-track, where costs generally follow the result: the loser pays the winner's legal costs. Those borrowers are the most likely to have solicitors. If a claim fails because there's no validation order, the debt is time-barred, title can't be proved, or the relationship is found unfair, West 28th can be ordered to pay the borrower's costs, and that can be far more than the court fee. On a company with net liabilities, that risk lands on whoever is funding it. Courts can, in some circumstances, order a litigation funder to pay costs too.
4. What a funder would weigh up. Any funder looking at a batch like this would be asking: will the FCA grant a validation order (which it said on 2 November is "by no means guaranteed")? How many borrowers will defend, and with lawyers? What happens if one loses and sets a precedent for everyone else? Paying fees upfront, with adverse costs risk if it fails, while the regulator is publicly warning against undue pressure, is a hard bet to fund.
5. What that means for us. If they do pick a few people, it's most likely to be larger balances. That's exactly why your idea of a shared defence fund matters. A properly funded defence for the people picked is what breaks the strategy, because one well-defended win becomes a template for everyone else. And if anyone is sued: respond in time, don't agree to a stay or standstill, and don't accept a "settle now to avoid costs" offer without advice.
Not legal advice. Sources: Companies House filings for 13231491 and 13231579; Legal Futures, 8 Dec 2025; FCA statement, 2 Nov 2026.

 

[tonymontana]

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.

I agree, shaking the tree to see what falls. Divide and conquer tactics. My personal stance is to not engage. If the day comes for court, I'll deal with it the best I can. Personally, looking back at the past, I think this will likely continue on and off permanently because that is the nature of these scammers.

 

[eek]

This.
Clearly we were mis-sold. Lured into an EBT scheme, only to find out it was a scam all along.
Follow the money (our salary) and its clear what this actually is.

Problem is that may or may not help you here.

If the judge looks at the full picture they are going to laugh Trethowens and co out of court.

If however they just look at the ebt and the loans you’ve got a problem - which is why we are saying get all your paperwork in place because we all suspect there are gaps which means W28th don’t own what they are claiming to own and the debt disappeared some time in the past when the company involved was liquidated

 

[mikcyp20]

I want to debate this a bit.
Is the cost of suing 1000 for an average of £10000 actually potentially not better?
Same cost. 1/2mil. Bigger sample to shake for same actual cost.

This is to potentially counter argue that big sums are potentially at higher risk than smaller. I may think not quite.

And the second point:
There will be no trial for anyone in the end.
All would happen in the time between:
Issuing court papers and until the FCA discards the validation order claim.

That time is useful to the scammers.
They offer settlement. Settlement takes place.

Noone actually is trialled.

Maybe now, I missed your point: if the defendant does not agree to a stay what does that actually mean?

 

[coveredname]

I want to debate this a bit.
Is the cost of suing 1000 for an average of £10000 actually potentially not better?
Same cost. 1/2mil. Bigger sample to shake for same actual cost.

This is to potentially counter argue that big sums are potentially at higher risk than smaller. I may think not quite.

And the second point:
There will be no trial for anyone in the end.
All would happen in the time between:
Issuing court papers and until the FCA discards the validation order claim.

That time is useful to the scammers.
They offer settlement. Settlement takes place.

Noone actually is trialled.

Maybe now, I missed your point: if the defendant does not agree to a stay what does that actually mean?

On the maths you're right: 1,000 claims of around £10k cost about the same in issue fees (£455 each) as 100 at £100k (5% each), and small claims carry far less costs risk for them, because neither side recovers much in legal costs. But that cuts both ways. They can't recover their own costs on defended claims either, each defended claim costs them a solicitor's time plus a £346 hearing fee, and a "settle or face costs" threat would be largely untrue on the small claims track. That's exactly the undue pressure the FCA warned about.
I agree the real play is probably settlements in the window between issue and the FCA decision, not trials. The counter is simply knowing that a stayed claim can't be enforced without an order the FCA says is "by no means guaranteed".
On stays: a stay is either agreed or ordered by the court. If you don't agree, they have to apply to the court and justify it, and you can oppose it. Depending on the case, you may be able to ask the court to strike out the claim or give summary judgment because it can't succeed without a validation order, or because it's time-barred, or because the court lacks jurisdiction. If no stay is granted, they have to prove the debt is enforceable now. Agreeing to a stay hands them the pause for free, and agreed stays often come with conditions like standstill agreements or acknowledgments. So don't agree to one without advice.
Not legal advice.

 

[MrO666]

Just saying, but if they were to make a claim for say £5k against someone, and that same someone had other alleged loans that didn't form part of the claim, then if it were me, I would counter for those other claims at the same time.

It runs a risk, but it would also potentially move the claim to the multi-track route, meaning as others have said that costs are recoverable both ways....and at the same time, I'd be submitting a court application for Security of Costs. If West 28th want to bring a case like that, then I'd be asking a court to make them pay potential costs on account, as you would have zero chance of recovering it from them afterwards.