West 28th Street Limited

[MrO666]

....and this is why it's so important to always state that you don't accept or acknowledge that any loan exists or ever existed

 

[grizzly704]

Loans to employees are explicitly outside the remit of the CCA.

That may not however be the get out clause you want it just means the CCA approach is invalid (and that may be their intent, get you to agree it’s a loan, pull the CCA bit and proceed to recover the loan as before).

thats the point, my contract stipulates im a Contractor, and with that they must have been registered and incorporated at the time of issuing loans... and they were not.

 

[shampoo]

A note on the "money-lender exemption" — please check it before repeating it


There's a fair bit flying around at the moment about whether the lender had to be registered as a money-lender in the Isle of Man — and in particular a claim that registration wasn't needed where the borrower was an "employee." I want to keep us on solid ground, because getting this wrong in either direction helps no one, and the other side reads this thread too.


Here's the public position, so you can verify it yourself rather than take anyone's word for it (mine included):

1. The relevant law is the Isle of Man Moneylenders Act 1991. Its exemptions go to the lender's status, not the borrower's employment. The recognised exemptions are things like licensed deposit-takers (banks), certain IoM building societies, authorised insurers, body-corporate-to-body-corporate transactions (and only from 2013), and anyone the Office of Fair Trading has specifically exempted.
2. I can find no "loans to employees" exemption anywhere in that list. If anyone believes one exists, please point to the exact section or regulation — the burden is on the person making the claim, and so far nobody has cited chapter and verse.
3. The published guidance actually runs the other way for most of us: transactions with a self-employed individual / sole trader are not exempt. A lot of us hold paperwork describing us as self-employed contractors — if that's you, the "employee" argument doesn't even get off the ground.

So before repeating the "they didn't need to register because we were employees" line, two sanity checks:

• Were you actually an employee, or a self-employed contractor? Check your own contracts.
• Even if you were employed, was the lender your employer? If the money came from a trust, the trust almost certainly wasn't — so an employer/employee point wouldn't reach it in any event.

How to establish the facts for yourself (this is the important bit):

• The Act: read it on legislation.gov.im.
• Incorporation date of the company named as lender: search the company number on the Isle of Man Companies Registry.
• Money-lender registration: email the IoM Office of Fair Trading (General.Fairtrading@gov.im) and ask, under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, for the register position of the named lender under the Moneylenders Act 1991 — when registration was first granted, the period, and any renewals. They'll answer even if you're UK-resident.
• Exempt status (this is the one the current rumour turns on): in the same request to the OFT, ask whether the named lender/trust was recorded as an exempt person under the Act for the relevant dates, and if so on what basis. That tests the "they were exempt" claim against the register itself, rather than assuming it either way. If someone tells you an exemption applied, this is how you make them — or the record — prove it.
• Your own file: if you haven't already, get your full disclosure / SAR and read every page.

A plain-English summary of the Act and its exemptions is here if it helps: Moneylending In The Isle Of Man | Appleby


I'm not giving legal advice and I'm not drawing conclusions for anyone's individual case — the consequences are for each person's own circumstances and for the authorities. All I'm asking is that we deal in what the register and the statute actually say, not what we hope or fear they say. There's more than enough genuine substance here without muddying it with claims we can't stand behind.


Check it — don't just repeat it.

 

[grizzly704]

Loans to employees are explicitly outside the remit of the CCA.

That may not however be the get out clause you want it just means the CCA approach is invalid (and that may be their intent, get you to agree it’s a loan, pull the CCA bit and proceed to recover the loan as before).

and equally my email exchanges clearly state how im paid as an employee. The files they have dont make sense clearly and shows exactly what the system is.

 

[mikcyp20]

In the chain:

1. Place you worked for.
2. Payroll umbrella.
3. Scheme provider.
4. EBT Trust.

Which was the common structure back then, who is the employer?

 

[Wtaf]

This made me wonder. If you don't have bank statements from over 10 years ago and they just have a spreadsheet saying they paid it, and they haven't got proof of electronic transfer, where is the proof? And who in their right mind would sign up for their wages to be repayable loans, with amounts such as 1,527.03 (after basic NI and tax deductions). Which CCA loan operates like this?! the whole thing beggars belief and I hope these criminals are finally exposed (Thompson, Sacco's wife and another one) for what they are.

You can request bank statements going beyond 10 years from your bank. I got copies of mine.

 

[GregRickshaw]

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

I meant everyone seemingly involved, no one actually seems to have a clue what is right what is wrong, what is legal what is not, what is a CCA, what is a loan and what isn't. Somewhere out there is the truth I think the problem all round is there is no legal precedence or legal procedure. As I said no sod anywhere seems to have anything better than really good advice and documentation.

 

[strawberry]

Loans to employees are explicitly outside the remit of the CCA.

That may not however be the get out clause you want it just means the CCA approach is invalid (and that may be their intent, get you to agree it’s a loan, pull the CCA bit and proceed to recover the loan as before).

what do you mean, I don't understand sorry

 

[creativity]

what do you mean, I don't understand sorry

I think eek is implying this would then fall under unregulated loans. So they could take you to court as an individual outside of any CCA and use standard contract law. This, from my limited research, is by no means an easy route for them. Jumping from saying regulated to unregulated is problematic for them, the CCA still applies in important ways and the fact they jumped is very damning for them.

 

[strawberry]

You can request bank statements going beyond 10 years from your bank. I got copies of mine.

Thanks. I called them and they said 6 years max because of GDPR