West 28th Street Limited

[creativity]

@eek I did say I am paranoid about this and I meant it.

To me filling a form with a single tick I choose to dispute gives them more information than I want to. I still have to sign this form. And I do not want them to see my wet signature.

And if these forms, are formal templates to a process, then I may not want to gamble it with what my current - different - wet signature is only to be later be told I cannot win argument due to failure on following due process on filling a form.

As far as I can recall, 10y+ ago I never signed anything. Not even electronically.
As far as further I know, my actual wet signature does not feature anywhere.

I won't be producing my signature now and even risk them forging it on a document they may use in court.

This goes on the article that contractorUK posted today. It has this statement somewhere:

"Contractors should also be aware that deadlines in formal Letters of Claim and court documents may require a response even where liability is disputed"

And I ask again: does this response need to be on the templates or can it be plain prose on a letter we draft back.

Good question and totally understandable, this is an AI response:

If the solicitor requiring the signature is on the opposing side, you must exercise extreme caution.
You are almost certainly not required to sign their Letter of Claim. Under the UK Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), a Letter of Claim is written and signed by the claimant (the opposing party) or their lawyer. As the recipient (the potential defendant), you are only required to provide a written Letter of Response. [1, 2, 3]
If they are trying to get you to sign a document they drafted—such as an admission of liability, a settlement form, or a waiver—your instinct to protect your signature is entirely correct.

 

[mikcyp20]

Like I said. Anything I signed, was with a fake signature. It would be really funny if I see that signature pasted in photocopied document allegedly I signed over a decade ago. Setting the trap.

And to folks who are responding with email, in my mind it is the equivalent of signing. Unless you are using a different email now to what back then.

The act of signing or emailing reveals information about you you may not want to share.

Thanks @creativity but I won't just rely on ai on this for now. I need to understand what's statutory.

 

[looperevil]

Don’t give them any information beyond the fact you dispute any money is owed - i wouldn’t trust them with the other data they are asking for

One of the legal firms working on this wanted to submit all the paperwork we had to them...

 

[corsair]

@eek I did say I am paranoid about this and I meant it.

To me filling a form with a single tick I choose to dispute gives them more information than I want to. I still have to sign this form. And I do not want them to see my wet signature.

And if these forms, are formal templates to a process, then I may not want to gamble it with what my current - different - wet signature is only to be later be told I cannot win argument due to failure on following due process on filling a form.

As far as I can recall, 10y+ ago I never signed anything. Not even electronically.
As far as further I know, my actual wet signature does not feature anywhere.

I won't be producing my signature now and even risk them forging it on a document they may use in court.

So I don’t understand how so many people on this forum are adamant they didn’t sign anything.
We wouldn’t be here without some kind of digital record. A digital signature. You would have been sent an email saying ‘agreement has been granted from trustees just click the button to accept and be paid’ and there would have been a link and a tick box saying ‘Iv read and agree to t&cs’ or similar.

I know it’s well over a decade but if you were paid money by a scheme (not a loan, a disguised payment for work) and avoided PAYE on that money then there will be a record of it.

The scheme managers didn’t simply pay people without process and records, we wouldn’t be here if they did. We must concentrate on the fact that it’s not a loan it’s a disguised renumeration for tax avoidance. No one is owed money, no one has lost out. It was a scheme. There isn’t a bank or finance house which has lost its capital. No repayment schedules were set up because it wasn’t supposed to be repayable. No consumer records were created because it wasn’t a consumer loan. And it’s all statute barred anyway.

If you stand in court and deny signing anything as if ‘none of this ever happened’ and then they prove you did in a court case all other arguments become moot.

 

[sb2026]

Is it really necessary to legally have to use their forms to dispute and not just write our own dispute again ?

I personally will use their reply form to dispute the debt, attach the letter that I already sent to dispute the debt, no signature just print name, no financial information, scan the form into a PDF and reply ready to be sent on the night of 26th November via email.

 

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

Also leave a review here

697 reviews of Trethowans LLP in Southampton

Trethowans LLP in Southampton is rated 4.6/5 from 697 client reviews on ReviewSolicitors. Areas of law: Housing & Property; Commercial Property; Family Law; Wills, Trusts & Probate.

www.reviewsolicitors.co.uk

A specific question for this particular solicitors review site, but also a general question to all those who already have, or plan to leave publicly accessible reviews.
This site allows you to select 'Anonymous' but then asks for your email address. Similarly Trip Advisor asks you sign in. Are you leaving your genuine details on reviews?

 

[eek]

@eek I did say I am paranoid about this and I meant it.

To me filling a form with a single tick I choose to dispute gives them more information than I want to. I still have to sign this form. And I do not want them to see my wet signature.

And if these forms, are formal templates to a process, then I may not want to gamble it with what my current - different - wet signature is only to be later be told I cannot win argument due to failure on following due process on filling a form.

As far as I can recall, 10y+ ago I never signed anything. Not even electronically.
As far as further I know, my actual wet signature does not feature anywhere.

I won't be producing my signature now and even risk them forging it on a document they may use in court.

This goes on the article that contractorUK posted today. It has this statement somewhere:

"Contractors should also be aware that deadlines in formal Letters of Claim and court documents may require a response even where liability is disputed"

And I ask again: does this response need to be on the templates or can it be plain prose on a letter we draft back.

So use a signature that isn’t yours - they aren’t going to know that until you reveal what your real signature was in court

 

[looperevil]

So I don’t understand how so many people on this forum are adamant they didn’t sign anything.
We wouldn’t be here without some kind of digital record. A digital signature. You would have been sent an email saying ‘agreement has been granted from trustees just click the button to accept and be paid’ and there would have been a link and a tick box saying ‘Iv read and agree to t&cs’ or similar.

I know it’s well over a decade but if you were paid money by a scheme (not a loan, a disguised payment for work) and avoided PAYE on that money then there will be a record of it.

The scheme managers didn’t simply pay people without process and records, we wouldn’t be here if they did. We must concentrate on the fact that it’s not a loan it’s a disguised renumeration for tax avoidance. No one is owed money, no one has lost out. It was a scheme. There isn’t a bank or finance house which has lost its capital. No repayment schedules were set up because it wasn’t supposed to be repayable. No consumer records were created because it wasn’t a consumer loan. And it’s all statute barred anyway.

If you stand in court and deny signing anything as if ‘none of this ever happened’ and then they prove you did in a court case all other arguments become moot.

Because many didn't. In my case, I was sent a pack to sign in the post well after I had been onboarded about this so called loan agreement. They asked for me to sign it. I refused to sign it and never sent it back to them.

 

[mikcyp20]

Memory may not serve fully here, and all I said is that I do not recall what went back over 10y.

I am not going to assist them with retrofitting a single data point. They have to do ALL the work. They would.

Also some of us I really suspect they are far removed between the end client where work was done by us as contractors. vs who was providing payment in the end.

In my case it was 2 umbrellas in between, and even heard cases of 3.

So if the last umbrella signed something with the scheme provider on level 5-6. And I for instance was sitting on level 2 then they better act and prove my consent whilst I might be defending fraud.

To this day I don't even know who was the EBT trust, if there was one.

So no. No original emails. No original signatures. Not even original addresses.
ALL the work to be done by them.

You cannot be accidentally be helping them to piece the story together now via your own negligence.

I know I overdid it with these series of replies - but I am genuinely keeping it honest with you all.

 

[lillybean]

If these were genuinely intended to operate as substantial personal loans Vs a solution mechanism what evidence does West 28 have that at the time we were properly informed of the repayment obligations and risks (failure to pay, you know the usual script) and that the applicable lending requirements such as afforability checks were followed. BIG FAT ZERO.