West 28th Street Limited

[MrO666]

I'm not a social media user, but if I were, I'd be making sure that the same factual criticisms were aired and directed at those companies on those platforms too. No ranting or emotion, just pure fact.

 

[Sidegate]

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

Im not a victim of this, someone I know well is though, but I know a few people in the isle of Mann who worked in payroll. And the man who was behind it all is well known over there. Noone ever talks about him. He put thompson and all the others in the firing line while he collected the ££. And spent most of it paying for divorces and addictions

 

[Superfly]

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.

The transfer of alleged loans out of the trust in violation of the interests of the beneficiaries constitutes a fraud on the power.

West 28th Street Demands: Why Contractors Should Wait - Elysium Law

Elysium Law has engaged with West 28 Street on behalf of over 650 clients. The alleged debts were assigned from Felicitas, a specially formed company in the Isle of Man

elysium-law.com

 

[david se london]

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

If someone can clarify what Trethowans refer to by "Due to limitation constraints ... prior to expiry of 30 day period" it would be v useful. Have they only got one shot to go for people now or could they come back later. Is it to do with statute barred limitations etc? - not convinced. Maybe its pure logistics - +3000 envelopes etc

 

[Fergie11]

If someone can clarify what Trethowans refer to by "Due to limitation constraints ... prior to expiry of 30 day period" it would be v useful. Have they only got one shot to go for people now or could they come back later. Is it to do with statute barred limitations etc? - not convinced

In my Letter of Claim response I asked this around limitation.

• Please explain why you contend the alleged claims are not statute barred.
• Your correspondence refers to limitation constraints. Please explain why such constraints exist
when schedules supplied state repayment due dates of 5 October 2026.

 

[Alphacom]

The FCA register also shows :
"Requirements relating to vulnerable customers
05 NOV 2026
CLOSE
Print Page
3. The Firm must use its best endeavours to ensure that the 23 individuals whom it has identified as falling within its “red” vulnerability category are not named as defendants in any proceedings concerning the recovery of sums claimed by West 28 under the Relevant Agreements.

4. Where proceedings have already been commenced against any of those 23 individuals, the Firm must use its best endeavours to take all reasonable steps available to it to procure that proceedings against that individual are discontinued and that the individual is removed as a defendant, as appropriate."

How does one end up in the "red" category? Seems the FCA really are putting Un-ETHICA under the spotlight

 

[eek]

I'm not a social media user, but if I were, I'd be making sure that the same factual criticisms were aired and directed at those companies on those platforms too. No ranting or emotion, just pure fact.

I suspect this We are proud to share that we have once again been named in The Times Best Law Firms 2027, recognising Trethowans among the leading legal practices in England and Wales. Mike Watson, Managing… | Trethowans would be a perfect thread to attach references to the 2 FCA articles to.

 

[strawberry]

TRETHOWANS TRUST PILOT REVIEW - pre-warning

Have just received an email from Trustpilot saying I need to explain further and substantiate my experience with Trethowans, they are obviously noticing and being affected and trying to take them all down. I will be very happy to oblige. I strongly suggest people keep posting reviews, we are not lying after all.

 

[tonymontana]

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

So not engaging with them in any way may be the better option.

 

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

If you access that FCA announcement, there;s a button at the bottom "Was this page useful?"
The link to yesterday's announcent is here:

FCA acts to protect consumers facing demands for disguised remuneration scheme loan repayments

We've intervened and Ethica Resolve Limited (Ethica), an FCA authorised firm that services and collects debt on behalf of creditors, has agreed to restrictions. These follow demands it made for people to repay loans, or purported loans, provided as part of disguised remuneration schemes.

www.fca.org.uk

Might be worth others clicking on it and providing feedback? I've pasted an image of my response below: