• 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 webinar: What does a post IR35 reform CV look like? : Wed, Jul 28, 2021 7:15 PM - 8:15 PM BST 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

  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Possibly, yet more likely to be extremely busy correcting the grammar in Elysium's response documents

    Leave a comment:


  • Monkeypower
    replied
    I do know said people are extremely busy with Elysium at the moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by Monkeypower View Post
    All Quiet On the Western Front !
    Yes, I was thinking that just the other day.

    With a bit of luck, they've moved on to more fruitful endeavours.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monkeypower
    replied
    All Quiet On the Western Front !

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    I was keeping out as I really had nothing to say. All I saw is that Sporty has gone about rejecting the Statutory Demand in a more formal (so more expensive) way than others (and I would) have done so. I would however suspect and grant that he is now at the very bottom of Felicitas's list of people to chase further.

    The question really comes down will Felicitas

    1) actually take people to court (outside of Statutory Demands that were not objected to)
    or
    2) they just continue to send threatening emails (carefully misrepresenting any Statutory Demand / Bankruptcy court cases as something else) - in the hope that people will give up and give them money.
    Option one is unlikely to happen because of cost and the number of cases.

    I would hope that option two has very limited chances of getting very far. After all, you can only do this a very small number of times before it becomes intimidation. There's laws against such behaviour.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by DealorNoDeal View Post
    It would be interesting to know what eek makes of this.

    He's had a pretty good grasp of it all right from the beginning, and he's one of very few here whose credentials can be 100% vouched for and no hidden agenda/ulterior motives.
    I was keeping out as I really had nothing to say. All I saw is that Sporty has gone about rejecting the Statutory Demand in a more formal (so more expensive) way than others (and I would) have done so. I would however suspect and grant that he is now at the very bottom of Felicitas's list of people to chase further.

    The question really comes down will Felicitas

    1) actually take people to court (outside of Statutory Demands that were not objected to)
    or
    2) they just continue to send threatening emails (carefully misrepresenting any Statutory Demand / Bankruptcy court cases as something else) - in the hope that people will give up and give them money.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Bloggs
    replied
    I like that this thread exists in the public domain. Without CUK and this thread, the claimants may well have had significant success. The value of this and other similar threads is almost immeasurable against what might have been. I expect the people behind this are actually losing money on their "investment". And that's a very good thing. There's bound to be several more of these claims waiting and watching on the sidelines before going down the same route of calling loans in.

    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    It would be interesting to know what eek makes of this.

    He's had a pretty good grasp of it all right from the beginning, and he's one of very few here whose credentials can be 100% vouched for and no hidden agenda/ulterior motives.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    [QUOTE=happychap;n4161331]
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post


    We owe somebody something as we took out loans from somebody, just who that is right now is the unclear part.

    Wow! Greg - you seem eager to pay more money to someone else...
    Believe me I am not eager to pay money to anyone ever! As stated in my very first post I have settled 'for me this ends now'

    I just think this denial of loans has become futile.

    Now though just who has the legal right to collect then that is of course the question here and has been from the very start.

    Leave a comment:


  • happychap
    replied
    [QUOTE=GregRickshaw;n4161266]


    We owe somebody something as we took out loans from somebody, just who that is right now is the unclear part.

    Wow! Greg - you seem eager to pay more money to someone else...

    Leave a comment:


  • WJK
    replied
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post

    I am not sure this is any different to having the SD set aside is it? Forgive me if I am wrong.

    I can't really see capitulation here, unless I am missing the legalise of this. Have they attempted to take you to court (aside from the SD)?

    They have agreed to give up chasing you by this action?


    If you initially disagreed/disputed FS claim then an SD cannot be issued, I suspect therefore your solicitor has managed to have the SD set aside so not so sure you in the clear?

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Originally posted by Sporty View Post

    I am no legal expert but the way I am seeing this is when my solicitor set my SD aside they also put in an application for a court hearing.
    With the consent order signed by both parties Solicitors the SD will now be withdrawn by Felicitas, I will withdraw the court hearing date and no party will pay any costs to each other, this is case closed in my view as Felicitas have backed down by withdrawing the SD.

    Hopefully that means that this will be the end of it for me because if they try and do something like this in the future then I have all the legal letters and documents saying that they have agreed to withdraw the SD which says to me they definitely don't think they will win this case if it goes to court and it could cost them a lot of money.
    Felicitas are trying to scare and threaten people to pay up even if its 5% of what they supposedly owe, think about it if 100 people pay £3000 that's £300,000 and they have probably sent thousands of letters out.

    My solicitor has been speaking to a proper Solicitor from Felicitas regarding this not Gladstone's or Statutory Law who we received our SD from so that definitely tells me something.

    All I can say is don't give up and don't pay Felicitas a penny we owe them nothing, they are after a quick and easy payday. If they were so sure we all owe these loans they would be taking us all to court not offering us to pay a small percentage back.

    Be safe all and don't give up there is light at the end of the tunnel.
    I really hope you are correct, though I really suspect they have done nothing more than set aside the SD.

    I have an awful feeling you and your solicitor have done nothing more than stop the SD. Interesting to hear your solicitor is speaking with a proper solicitor at the other end, this is progress as I don't think anyone has got this far.

    We owe somebody something as we took out loans from somebody, just who that is right now is the unclear part.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sporty
    replied
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post

    I am not sure this is any different to having the SD set aside is it? Forgive me if I am wrong.

    I can't really see capitulation here, unless I am missing the legalise of this. Have they attempted to take you to court (aside from the SD)?

    They have agreed to give up chasing you by this action?


    I am no legal expert but the way I am seeing this is when my solicitor set my SD aside they also put in an application for a court hearing.
    With the consent order signed by both parties Solicitors the SD will now be withdrawn by Felicitas, I will withdraw the court hearing date and no party will pay any costs to each other, this is case closed in my view as Felicitas have backed down by withdrawing the SD.

    Hopefully that means that this will be the end of it for me because if they try and do something like this in the future then I have all the legal letters and documents saying that they have agreed to withdraw the SD which says to me they definitely don't think they will win this case if it goes to court and it could cost them a lot of money.
    Felicitas are trying to scare and threaten people to pay up even if its 5% of what they supposedly owe, think about it if 100 people pay £3000 that's £300,000 and they have probably sent thousands of letters out.

    My solicitor has been speaking to a proper Solicitor from Felicitas regarding this not Gladstone's or Statutory Law who we received our SD from so that definitely tells me something.

    All I can say is don't give up and don't pay Felicitas a penny we owe them nothing, they are after a quick and easy payday. If they were so sure we all owe these loans they would be taking us all to court not offering us to pay a small percentage back.

    Be safe all and don't give up there is light at the end of the tunnel.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Originally posted by Sporty View Post

    We have put in a Consent Order which has been agreed by both parties and sent to the court.
    Just received the below which was signed by both parties solicitors and legal document.

    By Consent it is ordered that:
    1. Felicitas Limited withdraws its Statutory Demand
    2. The Application of myself is withdrawn and the court hearing listed xxxxxx 2021 is vacated.
    3. There is no Order for costs.

    Hope this helps.
    I am not sure this is any different to having the SD set aside is it? Forgive me if I am wrong.

    I can't really see capitulation here, unless I am missing the legalise of this. Have they attempted to take you to court (aside from the SD)?

    They have agreed to give up chasing you by this action?



    Leave a comment:


  • DealorNoDeal
    replied
    Originally posted by Sporty View Post

    We have put in a Consent Order which has been agreed by both parties and sent to the court.
    Just received the below which was signed by both parties solicitors and legal document.

    By Consent it is ordered that:
    1. Felicitas Limited withdraws its Statutory Demand
    2. The Application of myself is withdrawn and the court hearing listed xxxxxx 2021 is vacated.
    3. There is no Order for costs.

    Hope this helps.
    That is a pretty telling capitulation by Felicitas. Basically, when push comes to shove (actually going to court), they throw the towel in.

    Well done!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X