• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Things about to get very serious and much more real? / Felicitas Letters"

Collapse

  • Socialsarah73
    replied
    Originally posted by neveragain View Post
    Has anyone contacted them or taken up their offer or considering it?
    I did last year - made an offer, paid a small amount (for piece of mind) and not heard from them since. Sharing information with loan charge action group

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by dammit chloe View Post
    Yes. It it is the real Ray Trew then he may well know a lot about creating and flogging a schemes such as Horizon/Castlemaine. Associated with mr Barington "Barry" Davis.
    Then I look forward to hearing further from Mr Trew. I am sure he could have a lot of helpful insights to explain some of the gaps in the story so far. Should he be minded to do so. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • dammit chloe
    replied
    Yes. It it is the real Ray Trew then he may well know a lot about creating and flogging a schemes such as Horizon/Castlemaine. Associated with mr Barington "Barry" Davis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Contractor UK
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Bloggs View Post

    The public good that CUK has acheived by being here and facilitating this and many other discussions can't be measured. I don't think it's too strong a view to say that CUK has literally saved lives along with probably millions of ££££s for many people. Even people who never heard of CUK. Long may it continue.
    Thank you very much Fred. The forum we know has helped so many people on their contracting journey. As long as this thread stays constructive it provides positive engagement and support for those affected and are concerned about the financial and legal implications of these historic schemes. We have had “requests” to delete the thread and that is why it is moderated so much, but important to stay open. And it is important that this thread is not personal and is based on support, facts and opinion and no wrongful allegations. Of course the companies mentioned are also entitled to post on here so that they can give an explanation and provide the clarity that seems to be missing. For us it is essential that there is an independent forum for advice and engagement as we know there are many questions in contracting about many issues. ContractorUK likewise acknowledges and massively appreciates the time from individuals and service providers that provide neutral advice on here to the wider community, such as yourself Fred and Eek and many more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    "If" our recently joined poster "Ray Trew" happens to be Raymond Arthur Trew (perhaps said new member might care to confirm) regular posters here might care to take a look at information readily accessible in the public domain about Mr Trew and his businesses. Personally, I find it fascinating to read and I am left wondering what actually motivated Mr Trew to post on this thread (if that's genuinely who he is).

    On the other hand, it could just be any random person choosing that user name at random. Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Fair enough, I have another example so I’ll remove and repost.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    The only thing we agree about is the scruples and ethics of this company, but the rest of your post is indeed tosh.

    As I pointed out in 2014

    But the point is IF. There is no evidence that this company can legally owns these loans and they have been remarkably coy about proving that in court.

    So you are jumping into this thread and making statements without the knowledge of the situation.
    That's not the best example here - as it's not HMRC chasing after the loan, it's the Trustees.

    And in any case HMRC probably weren't going after the loan they were going after the "income" (of which the "loan" was a part) on which the full amount of tax had not been paid..

    One thing this forum has ensured I'm very careful about is ensuring i double check what I say in a post.
    Last edited by eek; 13 September 2021, 15:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by RayTrew View Post

    Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.
    The only thing we agree about is the scruples and ethics of this company, but the rest of your post is indeed tosh.

    As I pointed out in 2010
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    If the loans are "safe" doesn't that mean that one sunny day your 'employer' can demand that you repay the loan?

    Just a thought...
    But the point is IF. There is no evidence that this company can legally owns these loans and they have been remarkably coy about proving that in court.

    So you are jumping into this thread and making statements without the knowledge of the situation.
    Last edited by cojak; 13 September 2021, 17:27. Reason: Replaced the 2014 quote with a 2010 quote.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    1) we don't know if they have
    2) remember my previous comments about open membership trusts and the risk that beneficiaries may be removeable.

    3) the legality of flogging the loan book is surely something that would need to be tested in court (and in an IoM court given where the trust is based). And what is the one thing the people seeking repayment of the loans are seemingly doing everything and anything to avoid doing...
    Too true. All we've got is Felicitas' word that they are the legal holders of the loans.

    I can't believe they're still carrying on with this charade. Haven't they got any more legit lines of business to pursue?

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
    1) we don't know if they have
    2) remember my previous comments about open membership trusts and the risk that beneficiaries may be removeable.

    3) the legality of flogging the loan book is surely something that would need to be tested in court (and in an IoM court given where the trust is based). And what is the one thing the people seeking repayment of the loans are seemingly doing everything and anything to avoid doing...

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    One thing I do agree with is that there is something highly dubious about Trustees flogging off the loan book to another party. I'd like to see them justify how that's in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by RayTrew View Post

    Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.
    this topic is not about scheme members asking for their loans to be written off, it's about the bullying scheme members are being subjected to in an attempt by people unknown claiming to be the scheme administrators to collect money with malice

    Now if you want to post comments like the one above could you go and do so in a more appropriate thread in the HMRC Scheme Enquiries section or even create a new thread.

    But this particular thread is about Felicitas trying to force / bully / trick people into repaying "loans" from a particular set of schemes they have details of.

    As for all your other comments -

    1) you claim to have knowledge of this area yet we don't have any evidence to back things up
    2) what I do know is that you haven't a clue what a paragraph is and that makes reading what you post virtually impossible so all I can do comment on the bits I can pick up
    3) I do see what appears to be an attack on me for reasons unknown and some other poster from 4 years ago who isn't me who seems to have changed his mind over writing loans off).
    4) However, given that there are a lot of reasons as to whether it's worth getting a loan written off or not I do wonder if there was nuancing in the situations (say different schemes) that you didn't pick up on.
    Last edited by eek; 13 September 2021, 14:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • RayTrew
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    Duly saved so that when called out for the load of tosh this post is, the OP won't be able to go back and edit it.
    Childish comment and totally without foundation but then again you and your cohort "Eek" often rubbish other peoples posts without any justification, so I shouldn't have expected anything different really. I came on here over 4 years ago warning people about asking Trusts to have their loans to be written off and the consequences they would face if they did so. A well-known poster on here said at that time I was talking "tosh" and didn't know what I was talking about, yet some months later that very same person was then advising people not to request loans to be written off and I wonder what that was. I can tell you why because I was right and I know what I am talking about. I don't care what you or "eek" think of my post or me personally. My intentions were honourable and my sole purpose was to alert people what to expect. I think what this company is doing is unscrupulous and totally unethical and If you don't want to heed my advice then that's your prerogative.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by cojak View Post

    Duly saved so that when called out for the load of tosh this post is, the OP won't be able to go back and edit it.
    I can't be bothered to read it let alone correct it. If anyone else wants to go ahead but personally it's gibberish not worth responding to.

    I do however note the phrase "I do believe" - while talking about HMRC and neither believe nor HMRC are anything to do with the issues discussed in this topic. It would be nice if HMRC were doing something to stop schemes from recovering "loans" but HMRC have explicitly said they won't help.
    Last edited by eek; 13 September 2021, 13:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by RayTrew View Post
    This matter was brought to my attention recently and whilst I don't want to add to peoples woes, what has taken place has very serious consequences and will add insult to injury. Under normal circumstances, the only person who can call in loans is the Trustees of the Trust and not scheme providers as suggested. If a scheme provider had ultimate control over a Trust which I find hard to believe, it would have made the whole Trust a sham from the very outset. The whole ethos of EBT's, Discretionary Trusts etc is to have independent Trustees, who no one can assert influence or control over. If a Trustee in their wisdom called in outstanding loans which I can see some very good reasons for doing so, which I will elaborate on a little later, then those monies would accumulate in the Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries. So in effect, anything that gets paid in will find its way back to the beneficiary. It goes without saying the Trustees would in such circumstances, levy a small charge for doing so to cover their administration and banking costs, but I would expect even in a worst-case scenario 99.5% of those monies being returned. However, I am given to understand with these Felicitas loans, that the Trustees either sold the loan book or assigned it to Felicitas, which in itself raises several issues because at all times Trustees have to act in the best interests of beneficiaries and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out they have done so in this circumstance. I believe these Trustees who incidentally are a Top 10 firm of Accountants, have left themselves open to litigation for the pecuniary losses suffered by the beneficiaries. This now brings me back to my opening paragraph when I referred to adding to peoples woes. In my opinion, the actions of the Trustees have caused an Exit Event and as many of you will be aware, that will give rise to an IHT charge being levied by HMRC. So in effect not only will one have to pay the loan charge you will now face an IHT charge on top. The same in the case of loans that are written off. This obviously doesn't take account of any monies one eventually pays Felicitas and make no bones about that, despite what they are doing is despicable and unscrupulous, the fact remains those loans are real loans and are payable upon demand, albeit if you have received no notifications of interest or sums outstanding, then they may well fall outside the statute of limitations. Now I will return to the point I made about there being merit in the Trustees actually calling in the loans. As I eluded to earlier the money has to get paid back out to the beneficiaries and in normal circumstance any distribution received from a Trust you would have to account on the Trust pages of SA on SA107 and it would give rise to a tax charge. However, I do believe that these monies do not give rise to a charge as the monies would have already been taxed under the loan charge and the Revenue can't tax the same monies twice. I have actually sought clearance from HMRC for clarification on this point because this would put an end to the threat of any unscrupulous opportunist trying to make money from peoples misery by calling in loans.
    Duly saved so that when called out for the load of tosh this post is, the OP won't be able to go back and edit it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X