West 28th Street Limited

[PixelPulse]

I can't imagine West 28th, Trethowans or Ethica thought that the FCA would get stuck into this in the way they have. Someone at the FCA clearly is not impressed.

It's hard to see why Trethowans would want to be involved in this. I thought it might be a bit of a profit share, but I've been told that apparently a law firm can't really act in that way......although I don't know if that's true or not. If it's not that, then their now involved in some bad news stuff that really isn't a good look for a supposedly reputable law firm.

I bet Ethica are a bit worried too now. The FCA can pull their licence at the drop of a hat, so this now puts them firmly on the FCA radar......which isn't good for them.

it not just the firm, their practitioner (individual) are also register and approved. Give that one is also a lawyer/barrister i hope the both have sanctions imposed and stuck off so they can't performed the magical phoenix routine.

 

[Thunderpants]

Rating down to 4.5 from 4.8 👊👌🏼

4.4 and diving

 

[looperevil]

Yes but I think they are planning to send court claims to 3,028 people not all 5,754 plus FCA has placed the following restrictions:

6. The Firm must not demand payment from any Relevant Individual

Yes but I think they are planning to send court claims to 3,028 people not all 5,754 plus FCA has placed the following restrictions:

6. The Firm must not demand payment from any Relevant Individual who is named as a defendant to the Court Claim unless and until the sum claimed is legally due and recoverable following determination by the court and the grant by the Authority of any Validation Order required in respect of the relevant agreement.

7. The Firm must ensure that any person acting on its behalf does not demand payment from any Relevant Individual who is named as a defendant to the Court Claim unless and until the sum claimed is legally due and recoverable following determination by the court and the grant by the Authority of any Validation Order required in respect of the relevant agreement.

who is named as a defendant to the Court Claim unless and until the sum claimed is legally due and recoverable following determination by the court and the grant by the Authority of any Validation Order required in respect of the relevant agreement.

7. The Firm must ensure that any person acting on its behalf does not demand payment from any Relevant Individual who is named as a defendant to the Court Claim unless and until the sum claimed is legally due and recoverable following determination by the court and the grant by the Authority of any Validation Order required in respect of the relevant agreement.

Those numbers you have provided are really precise. Where did you get them from?

 

[PixelPulse]

on FCA restister, find Ethica Resolve.
scroll down to restrictions and click on more information for all the restrictions.

NewRegister

register.fca.org.uk

 

[PixelPulse]

 

[strawberry]

View attachment 4330821

so why, if 5,754 individuals were part of the schemes, only 3,028 are having to deal with this? Anyone?

 

[Fergie11]

My letter of claim gives me upto the 27th November so does this mean I'm in the other group of people?
"Court Claim" as anticipated proceedings against approximately 3,028 individuals to be issued on or before 13 November 2026.

 

[david se london]

I think the Court Claim (initial actions, governed by "limitation constraints") can and will go in parallel with the 1 month Letter of Claim 'need to respond' period - so you cant draw any conclusion about whether you will be in the Band of Brothers. Thats my take anyway ... happy to be corrected

 

[creativity]

Is there 3028 people who have buried there heads in the sand, or made no dispute, moved country, whatever, basically gone missing and these scammers are attempting to trap them using defaults?

 

[PixelPulse]

so why, if 5,754 individuals were part of the schemes, only 3,028 are having to deal with this? Anyone?

A number of people have received these demand, in my case 201X-2014, however the original Gladstone demands under Felicitas included demands had dates after 2014. They did not include the in the current demands/Letter of Claim. So they will be the difference.
I know they Transfers some of the to EBT trust by the payroll scheme was in Dec. Although considered simple contract, they will be claiming 12 Years as they transfer all previous purported advances/loans as a DEED. Not sure how they are claiming transitions made in 201X is not statue barred as exceeds the 12Yr limitation anyway. Its not when they made the transfer to the TRUST it the date they made the payment that counts.
As I understand it.