Reply to: Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters

[cojak]

Good grief, is this still going on? Thought that the legs and head had already fallen off this zombie clawback.

[creativity]

They (Felicitas) didn't make take a penny from me.
I did take something from him, however.
Andrew William Thompson.
I don't think this has the legs to continue.

[GregRickshaw]

It's worth remembering that precedent has now been set and that for any claim like this to actually succeed (short of just scaring people into paying up), they will now most likely need to prove to a judge that:

1) The alleged "loan" was in fact a genuine loan and legally enforceable, and that all paperwork leaves no doubt to that being the case.

2) That the sale of the trusts assets for a nominal sum was genuinely in the best interests of the trust members (worth reading eek's comment from 06-Jul-23)

The last point in is very interesting, and that's where a similar (not identical) challenge fell down I believe. This is why I think this all seems to have stopped, as it's exceptionally difficult to argue point 2 in any genuine capacity, and no doubt very expensive and risky to try.

Who knows what if anything will happen, however nearly a year on and I don't believe people have had any further contact.

Points 1 and 2 have been argued and fought over for a long number of years neither side managing to prove or disprove so whilst there is still a degree of ambiguity about these 'loans' there will be someone willing to take it up again. The threats however are possibly exhausted not sure how many people are actually 'untouched' compared to how many were involved.

Point 3

They did come back after lengthy breaks previously in various guises trying to collect the same amounts. Many will remember TFL who tried and then two years later it was Felicitas, I'm sure there were more iterations before TFL etc., to be perfectly honest though I do believe they have stopped now after making someone a very tidy sum of money.

[MrO666]

It's worth remembering that precedent has now been set and that for any claim like this to actually succeed (short of just scaring people into paying up), they will now most likely need to prove to a judge that:

1) The alleged "loan" was in fact a genuine loan and legally enforceable, and that all paperwork leaves no doubt to that being the case.

2) That the sale of the trusts assets for a nominal sum was genuinely in the best interests of the trust members (worth reading eek's comment from 06-Jul-23)

The last point in is very interesting, and that's where a similar (not identical) challenge fell down I believe. This is why I think this all seems to have stopped, as it's exceptionally difficult to argue point 2 in any genuine capacity, and no doubt very expensive and risky to try.

Who knows what if anything will happen, however nearly a year on and I don't believe people have had any further contact.

[GregRickshaw]

Out of interest, did anything ever come of the threats? I ended up settling for a small amount, but I still check on here to see what the state of play is.

If you mean did they get people to pay up? Then we'd have to say yes something did come of the threats. I too settled for a ridiculously small amount just to get piece of mind and my life back after years of crap around loans, schemes, EBTs etc.,... so if the object of the exercise (the threats) was to get money then I would say they had great success.

For those who didn't pay anything you can bet any money on just around the corner comes a new slew of claims and counter claims etc.,

[Whowouldhavethought]

Out of interest, did anything ever come of the threats? I ended up settling for a small amount, but I still check on here to see what the state of play is.

[eek]

Interesting.......

....they now have a second hurdle of trying to prove that the trustee selling a trust asset, knowing that the alleged loans would then be called in , was in the best interests of the members..............

Going back to a point I made a very long time ago

That depends on whether the current members of the trust are the same of those who originally benefited from the loans...

Note - this was more me highlighting a potential issue than pointing at an actual issue...

[MrO666]

Interesting.......

So whilst this will be unlikely to apply in all cases, what it will probably do is make any potential "purchaser" of an alleged loan book think twice, which I suspect in a majority of cases will be all that's needed.

The argument about the original trustees selling off the "assets" being in the best interests of the trust members was brought up years ago when the whole Felicitas debacle started, and at last it seems like this train of thought is starting to prevail, and in this specific case been tested in court.

I very much think it's the end game now for this sort of thing, as anyone trying to claim repayment of alleged loans now knows that they're going to need to prove the validity in court, which is going to be very risky not to mention expensive. Even if the paperwork trail was perfect (which it isn't for any scheme), they now have a second hurdle of trying to prove that the trustee selling a trust asset, knowing that the alleged loans would then be called in , was in the best interests of the members..............

[GregRickshaw]

Someone posted on the HMRC Enquiry section

FS Capital judgment on validity of assignment of contractor loans

No idea how to link it....sorry

Which although doesn't mean it's totally over, it does look very likely the passing of debts where trusts are involved is either not allowed or very difficult.

May mean a flurry of activity or the final demise of such actions.

I see it as good news for those still caught up

[MrO666]

Over 8 months now since W28 contacted some people, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing further (well not for the people I know who were initially contacted).........

[Fred Bloggs]

Hello, that's a really useful distinction - thank you.

Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?

The money didn't disappear. You agreed to give it via the scheme operator to the trustees less the scheme's charges. The trustees then loaned the money to you. That would be the normal route the money took. The money can be both a loan and income at the same time.

[VillageIdiotDan]

The money flowed like this:

Client --(1)--> Management Company --(2)--> Trust --(3)--> You.

Rangers found that (2) was taxable, not (3).

Hello, that's a really useful distinction - thank you.

Can I ask a naive question: if there's a chance of the Trust recalling the loan (3) from the contractor, does the opportunity not flow up? i.e. the money the Client (in this instance I see that as my limited company?) to the Mgt Company (1) can't of just disappeared right, so that liability could be claimed back by the Client?

[GregRickshaw]

Exactly.

'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.

No one is using that as a defence.
The rest of us are quite satisfied with dividing the two.
HRMC declared them as income, that's really the end of that story
Bodgit & Scarper want the money they loaned out back, that's the beginning of that story.

[GoneSurfing]

recalls are what happens to loans…

Exactly.

'Repayable on demand' was a common clause in the loan agreements but the defence isn't that 'these aren't loans because HMRC taxed them'.

[cojak]

I didn't realise it was a ticketed event that you were gatekeeping, but if you must know I'm here because of morbid curiosity and that fact that I might very well be subject to a recall at some stage.

I’m a mod, I can challenge anyone. And recalls are what happens to loans…