West 28th Street Limited

[mikcyp20]

i think their plan on economics alone was always to send court papers to just a few, then march on with sending letters to ALL 3029 that they have done so, and come in the end and offer a nice 10-15% settlement plan for all.

The FCA incident raised the stakes dramatically for the strategy for 2 key reasons.

A. If you are not served court papers by 13Nov - then I think its safe to say you are in the clear.
B. They are suffocating them from any interim cashflows extracted directly from the low hanging fruit of their strategy. They would now have to finance this out of their pockets fully.
C. There is severe risk of reputation damage now - they need to be extra ruthless to pursue the whole strategy: get aa many to settle even if papers were not served.

Where I am actually not yet clear, is where there is any advantage from the FCA incident for those unlucky folks that WOULD actually be served with court papers.

I am not clear on that because the same facts applied to even before the incident.

 

[david se london]

i think their plan on economics alone was always to send court papers to just a few, then march on with sending letters to ALL 3029 that they have done so, and come in the end and offer a nice 10-15% settlement plan for all.

The FCA incident raised the stakes dramatically for the strategy for 2 key reasons.

A. If you are not served court papers by 13Nov - then I think its safe to say you are in the clear.
B. They are suffocating them from any interim cashflows extracted directly from the low hanging fruit of their strategy. They would now have to finance this out of their pockets fully.
C. There is severe risk of reputation damage now - they need to be extra ruthless to pursue the whole strategy: get aa many to settle even if papers were not served.

Where I am actually not yet clear, is where there is any advantage from the FCA incident for those unlucky folks that WOULD actually be served with court papers.

I am not clear on that because the same facts applied to even before the incident.

If the FCA dont grant a Validation Order then West 28th are blocked from pursuing further Court actions, certainly not to seek default CCJs - thats my read

 

[MrO666]

I thought Trethowans were stating that they may make the court claim earlier, but that papers would not be served until at least 30 days after the letter of claim ?

Has something the FCA said changed that, or have I misunderstood what people were told ?

 

[david se london]

I thought Trethowans were stating that they may make the court claim earlier, but that papers would not be served until at least 30 days after the letter of claim ?

Has something the FCA said changed that, or have I misunderstood what people were told ?

Correct, papers (particulars of claim) not served before @end of Nov earliest. You then have 14 days after being served to agree to pay or dispute. If you dont reply at all then normally "the creditor can immediately request a Default Judgment (a CCJ in default)". The FCA have blocked this possibility pending granting of the Validation Order. Thats my read

 

[strawberry]

Andrew thompson was a hired hand, are you covering for the real ubo behind all this? Not questioning their a rat, but aim your gun at the real rat?

Thompson was Eximius / Infinity / Choice, he was Felicitas too

 

[strawberry]

i think their plan on economics alone was always to send court papers to just a few, then march on with sending letters to ALL 3029 that they have done so, and come in the end and offer a nice 10-15% settlement plan for all.

The FCA incident raised the stakes dramatically for the strategy for 2 key reasons.

A. If you are not served court papers by 13Nov - then I think its safe to say you are in the clear.
B. They are suffocating them from any interim cashflows extracted directly from the low hanging fruit of their strategy. They would now have to finance this out of their pockets fully.
C. There is severe risk of reputation damage now - they need to be extra ruthless to pursue the whole strategy: get aa many to settle even if papers were not served.

Where I am actually not yet clear, is where there is any advantage from the FCA incident for those unlucky folks that WOULD actually be served with court papers.

I am not clear on that because the same facts applied to even before the incident.

I am sending you a direct message

 

[CosmicPorridge17]

I’m still unsure exactly how to respond to the letter of claim. Tick box or send original dispute letter asking for documentation. Anything else to add given the new FCA developments? Or not respond until the 13th to see if anything else turns up…

 

[mikcyp20]

That's my read to david. But with the addition of the 13th Nov 2026 deadline.

To me this is important information. First time we ever heard of an actual date for something, and by mere fact that we have seems to almost certainly imply there are limitations.

So, if one does not receive court papers now, and as any validation order would only arrive post that date, how then would that person be pursued in the future of 13Nov?

I think they would be time barred.

And that is the essential blow to the campaign.

Previously you could write to people threaten court.
Previously you could write to people state that you took some to court and threaten that they would do the same to you if you don't settle.
Now with the FCA incident is crisp that they can not do this.

So this to me looks a serious blow to the campaign.

You cannot any longer threaten people you will take to court unless they settled post 13Nov.

Else why is this 13Nov important all of a sudden.

There is a fair chance now the whole thing is dumped and cut their losses.

To me a strong signal is send here:
The campaign would no longer be able to make money out of voluntary settlements offered to the 6000 or the 3028 for that matter.

The FCA have put the stops.
They can only do so with a granted court order

 

[david se london]

Ive been looking at what might be in scope for what FCA can consider as questionable "Conduct" re W28. There is an argument that the original transfer of assets from the contractor EBTs to companies like Felicitas was a "breach of trust" enacted for improper corporate gain, potentially invalidating the entire legal chain of assignment. This BoT might be a good point in disputing the debt and also to point out to FCA. Which I shall do today. CosmicPorridge1 might do this too.

 

[MrO666]

All I will say to people, is please don't take your eye off the ball. They may reconsider their position, they may not, but I think there's a bit more push in them left yet.

It does appear that they have got an uphill battle to get to a point that any of this would be legally enforceable in a court, but that doesn't mean they won't try.

You do wonder how long Trethowans especially want to carry on unless there's something very good in it for them. Trustpilot isn't a good look for them right now, and whether they claim to care about that or not, behind closed doors they will. No firm, regardless of whether it's a law firm or a dustbin seller wants to be consistently and openly criticised in public, especially when "most" of the reviews are hard fact, so it's not like Trethowans can just get them removed as fake.