Reply to: Montpelier & Newquay 10% loan repayment demands

[washed up contractor]

2. It is over 6 years (in my case) since I used the loan schemes and the first contact they made about loan repayment was this year. Therefore the loan is not legally enforceable.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the Limitations Act. Just because 6 years has past does not mean a loan is not legally enforceable. The devil will be in the terms of the original loan, specifically, repayment.

Generally, the cause of action, which is the time from when the Limitations period start and is calculated, begins from when you become in default of the repayment terms.

If you're not in default, ie the lender has asked you to repay and you havent done so, the provisions of the Limitations Act have not yet been invoked. Further, if you acknowledge the 'debt' in any way at any time during the Limitations period, the clock is re set from that date and the 6 year calculations starts again.

Different provisions apply to Scotland.

[webberg]

Are we missing key facts here.
1. Even if they get a judicial jdudgement in the isle of man it can't be enforced in the UK.

2. It is over 6 years (in my case) since I used the loan schemes and the first contact they made about loan repayment was this year. Therefore the loan is not legally enforceable.

Do you know - for certain - that an IOM Judgement will not be supported by a UK Court?

I'm not a lawyer but an hour yesterday searching what I might call "consumer" information, did not leave me with that view.

Your second point is wrong.

The 6 year limitation starts when the loan has been demanded to be repaid by the lender.

At that date, if you refuse to repay and the lender takes no action for 6 years, you are probably free of liability.

I appreciate that people are rightly worried on this point.

However, spreading inaccurate information will do nothing except confuse, give false hope and perhaps lead some people to take decisions that will hurt them.

By all means share information, but please make it accurate.,

[here4beer]

Are we missing key facts here.
1. Even if they get a judicial jdudgement in the isle of man it can't be enforced in the UK.

2. It is over 6 years (in my case) since I used the loan schemes and the first contact they made about loan repayment was this year. Therefore the loan is not legally enforceable.

Hi, can you elaborate please? I'm told verbally my loan will only be 'asked' for a repayment every 10 years. I then have to decline, as "now isn't good for me to repay". Where is the info about not being enforceable? I'm aware it's a non secured personal loan from IOM. Is that it?

[CUK1357819]

lets hope that threatening people with 1 week to come up with 10% or face a full 100% loan recall and a judicial decision that may bankrupt them and prevent them working again fails the test of reasonable and also looking after your beneficiaries best interests I do also vaguely recall that amongst the lies sold and witnessed by many is that the fees will cover the trust admin and as there is now no activity in these trust's there can hardly be much in expenses to cover oh yes I forget dawn wants to keep up her lavish lifestyle she has been boasting about on Facebook for years at the expense of other people's children

Are we missing key facts here.
1. Even if they get a judicial jdudgement in the isle of man it can't be enforced in the UK.

2. It is over 6 years (in my case) since I used the loan schemes and the first contact they made about loan repayment was this year. Therefore the loan is not legally enforceable.

[QUODM]

Repaying Loans

But for a contractor who is paid by means of a loan, repaying any amount would seem to be a foolish thing to do.

So whats your answer then to avoiding liability for a loan after having paid the loan charge to HMRC?
Is there a solution to this other than hoping they'll write it off as a goodwill gesture?

[webberg]

I appreciate your frustration is real and a sense of outrage at how you have been treated may also be appropriate.

However, you are now in a situation where the actions of the trustee are governed by Manx law and consequently if you want to challenge those actions, you have a set of rules that are in the public domain, subject to judicial oversight and disputes will be aired in public.

This is a time to be clinical and objective and to marshall evidence that is relevant to the point at hand.

[contractor20]

No. Paying themselves a proper wage is not a direct conflict. It is invariably expressly allowed in the trust deed. And I have read lots and lots of trust deeds. But even if it is not, IoM law explicitly states that a professional trustee can charge reasonable remuneration out of the trust funds for any services provided. The only exception to that is if the trust deed specifically limits things (and no professional trustee would ever take it on if it did).

Just to be clear, I'm very far from support the spivs who promoted these thing or those who are trying to scare people to generate fees, etc. But for a contractor who is paid by means of a loan, repaying any amount would seem to be a foolish thing to do.

By all means contact the IoM regulator and/or take the trustee to court. But on the question of whether you would be able to show that a trustee could not charge costs and reasonable remuneration against the trust fund, you would lose hands down.

lets hope that threatening people with 1 week to come up with 10% or face a full 100% loan recall and a judicial decision that may bankrupt them and prevent them working again fails the test of reasonable and also looking after your beneficiaries best interests I do also vaguely recall that amongst the lies sold and witnessed by many is that the fees will cover the trust admin and as there is now no activity in these trust's there can hardly be much in expenses to cover oh yes I forget dawn wants to keep up her lavish lifestyle she has been boasting about on Facebook for years at the expense of other people's children

[Iliketax]

Even if you are a beneficiary, most (read, all) trust deeds where there is a professional trustee allow the trustee’s remuneration (and any other costs) to be paid from the trust fund ahead of the beneficiaries.

So if the trustee has not had any cash for the last seven years to pay themselves, guess what will happen when you pay them some

which is in direct conflict with their obligation to look after their beneficiaries and why the IOM fsa has a lot to answer for if it allows it's trust's to blatantly swindle and steal from a public who on the whole did not have the background to know what they were letting themselves in for - shameless extortion

No. Paying themselves a proper wage is not a direct conflict. It is invariably expressly allowed in the trust deed. And I have read lots and lots of trust deeds. But even if it is not, IoM law explicitly states that a professional trustee can charge reasonable remuneration out of the trust funds for any services provided. The only exception to that is if the trust deed specifically limits things (and no professional trustee would ever take it on if it did).

Just to be clear, I'm very far from support the spivs who promoted these thing or those who are trying to scare people to generate fees, etc. But for a contractor who is paid by means of a loan, repaying any amount would seem to be a foolish thing to do.

By all means contact the IoM regulator and/or take the trustee to court. But on the question of whether you would be able to show that a trustee could not charge costs and reasonable remuneration against the trust fund, you would lose hands down.

[contractor20]

[QUOTE=Iliketax;2608759]Even if you are a beneficiary, most (read, all) trust deeds where there is a professional trustee allow the trustee’s remuneration (and any other costs) to be paid from the trust fund ahead of the beneficiaries.

So if the trustee has not had any cash for the last seven years to pay themselves, guess what will happen when you pay them some

which is in direct conflict with their obligation to look after their beneficiaries and why the IOM fsa has a lot to answer for if it allows it's trust's to blatantly swindle and steal from a public who on the whole did not have the background to know what they were letting themselves in for - shameless extortion

[Iliketax]

Even if you are a beneficiary, most (read, all) trust deeds where there is a professional trustee allow the trustee’s remuneration (and any other costs) to be paid from the trust fund ahead of the beneficiaries.

So if the trustee has not had any cash for the last seven years to pay themselves, guess what will happen when you pay them some cash now.

[contractor20]

A few facts.

The IOM FSA exists to protect the financial reputation of the IOM. It does not exist to protect the rights of individuals.

IOM FSA does not regulate trusts. It sets minimum standards of conduct.

IOM Law does have rules for trustees to follow. A decent guide is here. See section 4.

https://www.applebyglobal.com/public...ruary-2016.pdf

In some trusts, you may be surprised at who the beneficiaries actually are. Check the trust deed.

If you are NOT the beneficiary then the trustee has no duty of care toward you.

in which case as MP repeatedly told their clients they were the beneficieries either they lied so fraud and mis selling or they are the beneficiaries in which case their conduct is way out of line

[webberg]

these trustees are regulated by the Iomfsa the trustees duty is towards their beneficiaries sounds like fraud to me I would get legal advice or complain to the Iomfsa it's the only way they will back off the Iomfsa duty is to regulate the industry so it does not bring disrepute on the iom they won't like this neither will the local gov or the courts and I for one will make my life's quest to publicise all these incidents until the regulators act and close the lying scum down

A few facts.

The IOM FSA exists to protect the financial reputation of the IOM. It does not exist to protect the rights of individuals.

IOM FSA does not regulate trusts. It sets minimum standards of conduct.

IOM Law does have rules for trustees to follow. A decent guide is here. See section 4.

https://www.applebyglobal.com/public...ruary-2016.pdf

In some trusts, you may be surprised at who the beneficiaries actually are. Check the trust deed.

If you are NOT the beneficiary then the trustee has no duty of care toward you.

[piebaps]

https://www.iomfsa.im/media/1518/tru...tedpractic.pdf

Here are the guidelines for an IOM Trustee.

[contractor20]

Yes, repay the loans, take the repaid funds out of trust as full taxable income and pay whatever tax due on it at that point.
As an idea, you don't escape the tax but avoids loan charge, and clears any further loan liabilities so does terminate this (IHT unknown). MP agreed this plan and I think it would work if they hadn't just lied and run off with the money.

Despite what you hear on here though, noone has a solution to you still owing money to lenders as well as paying tax to HMRC. This is what gets me with HMRC interjecting in the middle of a fully legal loan as even if I pay their charge, I am sure these loans are going to be passed to vulture debt collectors and we're stuffed twice. Not HMRCs problem though. I am hoping LCAG can address this issue next as its a fraudulent misrepresentation to Parliament that this is in the interests of fairness.
The only real solution to that double whammy is repaying the loans which avoids the charge and clears any outstanding loan and you paying whatever tax is due on them when the money is returned (maybe being offshore helps but seems unlikely). But the truthful reality is you can't trust any of the providers with returning the money, they may not have been properly put into the trusts in the first place and any efforts to repay them meets bemused ears and triggers a delayed response realising they can scam you again if they agree.
So repaying the loan does solve the problem but is a practical impossibility and I am sure HMRC knew this...

I presume at least this repayment is off my loan charge balance (since they won't talk to me I don't know) but I might end up paying this 3 times, HMRC, MP and a vulture loan company...).

these trustees are regulated by the Iomfsa the trustees duty is towards their beneficiaries sounds like fraud to me I would get legal advice or complain to the Iomfsa it's the only way they will back off the Iomfsa duty is to regulate the industry so it does not bring disrepute on the iom they won't like this neither will the local gov or the courts and I for one will make my life's quest to publicise all these incidents until the regulators act and close the lying scum down

[QUODM]

Expectation fail...

So you repaid the full loan in the expectation of receiving taxable income in return but received nothing, did I get this right?

Yes, repay the loans, take the repaid funds out of trust as full taxable income and pay whatever tax due on it at that point.
As an idea, you don't escape the tax but avoids loan charge, and clears any further loan liabilities so does terminate this (IHT unknown). MP agreed this plan and I think it would work if they hadn't just lied and run off with the money.

Despite what you hear on here though, noone has a solution to you still owing money to lenders as well as paying tax to HMRC. This is what gets me with HMRC interjecting in the middle of a fully legal loan as even if I pay their charge, I am sure these loans are going to be passed to vulture debt collectors and we're stuffed twice. Not HMRCs problem though. I am hoping LCAG can address this issue next as its a fraudulent misrepresentation to Parliament that this is in the interests of fairness.
The only real solution to that double whammy is repaying the loans which avoids the charge and clears any outstanding loan and you paying whatever tax is due on them when the money is returned (maybe being offshore helps but seems unlikely). But the truthful reality is you can't trust any of the providers with returning the money, they may not have been properly put into the trusts in the first place and any efforts to repay them meets bemused ears and triggers a delayed response realising they can scam you again if they agree.
So repaying the loan does solve the problem but is a practical impossibility and I am sure HMRC knew this...

I presume at least this repayment is off my loan charge balance (since they won't talk to me I don't know) but I might end up paying this 3 times, HMRC, MP and a vulture loan company...).