• 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.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

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

  • MrO666
    replied
    This is all a bit unusual, as I can't see anyone in their right mind agreeing to pay back 50% anything if they were not willing to pay Felicitas 5% (or less). Not sure whether this is just a tactic for them to try and come back round for reduced figures (exactly as Felicitas did) or what.

    One things for certain, most people won't be paying anything until a judge orders them to do so. As we know, that takes money on behalf of the claimant to bring a case like that, and also carries a fair degree of risk, because if they were to loose (and from what I've heard and seen so far, nobody including legal minds think they would win) then the whole house of cards collapses at their expense.

    I'm fully expecting that they will try and make some type of claim, no doubt through a very low budget legal outfit (like Gladstones), as why else would they spend money sending letters when they could just have emailed people like last time. As others have said, I would just dispute each and every claim or letter in writing, and keep evidence of doing so.

    Something else that someone said to me last week, was what happens if the people that are being chased have moved home in the preceding 10+ years and the contact details that this crowd have are no longer valid (so they don't know they're being chased). I don't know what happens then, although I'd be very surprised if this new bunch of chancers invested the time and money to track people down.

    Also, for anyone that received a letter from W28, I would urge you to submit a SAR. Two reasons for this, one, it shows you exactly what information they have, and two, SAR's are a royal pain the arse for a company to legally have to respond to in the allotted timeframe, so this will cost them time and possibly money too.
    Last edited by MrO666; Today, 10:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    It's clear EL's motives are to attack, which is great and I really hope they can and they are seeking funding for this. Attack is also a form of defence. All I meant was be certain what you are signing up for.

    Leave a comment:


  • HarveyBains
    replied
    Originally posted by GregRickshaw View Post
    Did you read Caroline's article properly? Or even between the lines? As long as you know what you have signed up to fund. EL want to get funding not to defend these claims but to launch an attack on this new bunch all of us involved would love to see that happen just as long as you realise what EL are doing.
    Please explain further about Elysium. I don't understand what your reply.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by ian1066 View Post

    Have you tried enailing them to dispute their fantasy ? I guarantee you wont get a reply.
    You don’t need a reply. You want a paper trail for when this never hits a court

    Leave a comment:


  • ian1066
    replied
    Originally posted by eek View Post

    WTT state that you should dispute the claim. I would do that and then ignore everything until they go away which they inevitably will
    Have you tried enailing them to dispute their fantasy ? I guarantee you wont get a reply.

    Leave a comment:


  • ian1066
    replied
    Originally posted by HarveyBains View Post
    I received letter from West 28th Street at the start of this month. They say I need to respond by end of this November as to whether I want to dispute or accept their case before they move onto to next stage. So I'm feeling worried as to what I should do.
    I'm thinking I'll ignore them as best I can until it gets serious and then I will join Elysium.
    Can they send bailiffs to my house to do you think. My house is under mortgage so that's the property of mortgage company.
    The likelihood of Bailiffs is slim to none. They dont want to pay money out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diagnose b4 u prescribe
    replied
    I've posted this example reply I used to refute a Statutory Demand a couple of years ago, just in case the supposed 'new' lot at West 28th Street follow the same path as Felicitas (although I doubt they will). Perhaps some of those new to this thread may also want to draft a few bullet points of their own for future 'insurance purposes'. It cost me nothing except the recorded delivery postage. Here you go and hope it might help someone out there:

    Dear Mr. xx
    Your Ref: 12345
    (Garraway/ Original Provider name) scheme ref: 12345

    I am in receipt of your undated Statutory Demand made by your creditor Felicitas Solutions Limited in respect of alleged loan payments during the period (x date) and (y date).

    Please treat this letter as a formal request to have this demand withdrawn and the court to set aside. This is based on information including, but not exclusive to the following points:
    • I believe this alleged debt does not constitute either in form or intent, an employer or business loan but that this was a disguised remuneration scheme.
    • Your letter is in breach of “pre-action protocol”, in that you have not adhered to the series of steps that must be taken to bring a claim or resolve a dispute in court.
    • You have misused a Statutory demand as this is not a debt recovery procedure but a way to prove that an individual or a company cannot pay their liabilities as they fall due and are therefore cashflow insolvent.
    • You have not applied due diligence in establishing the validity of the claim.
    • You have failed to take into consideration the scheme’s arrangements with (X) who administered funds paid into (Garraway/ Original Provider name) as well as those paid out.
    You claim to be acting on behalf of Felicitas Solutions Limited who in turn allege they are acting on behalf of the scheme trustees. However, I am in receipt of documentation issued by (x) on behalf of Garraway Consultants describing the ‘Garraway Consultants EMPLOYED Solution’ that states the following ‘The new solution does not rely on any trust and is not an Employee Benefit Trust solution.’

    I have kept meticulous records of all physical and electronic communication received from the scheme promoters and their numerous agents including those who have made a series of ‘final settlement offers’ over the years including offers to settle by paying 5%, 6% and 10% of the total alleged claim. These include CHS Ltd, DOR Resolutions Limited, Trust Help Line, Dynamic Partners Consultants Limited, Gladstones, Felicitas Solutions Limited and now you on behalf of Statutory Law Limited.

    I would expect any claim would be withdrawn immediately any parties carried out their due diligence and well before this demand was made so I believe this to be no more than vexatious litigation. In light of the information provided in this letter, please confirm in writing that any claim against me will be withdrawn. Should you decide to pursue this claim further, I give notice of my intention to vigorously defend my case. I will also make an application for costs in respect of my time and money plus the emotional distress caused to both myself and my family.

    Furthermore I will also request you supply me with the following information for my records:
    • You have listed moneys paid out between x date and y date. Please also provide the details of the corresponding payments made into (x) on my behalf over the same period.
    • Please provide the name of the plaintiff against whom I will need to make my counter-claim including costs.
    I look forward to receiving your reply by return. Yours etc etc

    Leave a comment:


  • Wtaf
    replied
    I tried to object to Felicitas being struck off but was told that you can only do this if legal action is being taken by the company. Has anyone ever had legal action taken against them by Felicitas? Doubtful and perhaps their threats never were going to go any further because they knew down the line that it would stop them being stuck off? This new lot seem to be Felicitas v2, don't give them a penny!

    Leave a comment:


  • GregRickshaw
    replied
    Did you read Caroline's article properly? Or even between the lines? As long as you know what you have signed up to fund. EL want to get funding not to defend these claims but to launch an attack on this new bunch all of us involved would love to see that happen just as long as you realise what EL are doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • HarveyBains
    replied
    I've bitten the bullet and joined Elysium at a fixed all-inclusive fee of £950+vat.
    I'm one of 50 other contractors (thus so far) in their group. I think they will defend robustly.
    I can update the group if anyone else wants to know how Elysium proceeds against West 28th street.

    To be fair I think their fixed price fee is very reasonable normally it would cost that much just to have an initial conversation with a legal tax expert.
    Last edited by HarveyBains; 30 November 2022, 18:39.

    Leave a comment:


  • eek
    replied
    Originally posted by creativity View Post
    Good article.
    Let's hope West 28th do bring thier solicitors to the table - which will likely be a waste of time and erode more of thier funds.

    Of course we all know its just a sham company created recently whose only business is to try another mail box drop scam. I'm sure it won't be the last either, until the vermin behind such companies are ten foot under.
    Did no one pay attention to what the previous lot did - they will do everything they can to make your life a misery while spending as little as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • creativity
    replied
    Good article.
    Let's hope West 28th do bring thier solicitors to the table - which will likely be a waste of time and erode more of thier funds.

    Of course we all know its just a sham company created recently whose only business is to try another mail box drop scam. I'm sure it won't be the last either, until the vermin behind such companies are ten foot under.
    Last edited by creativity; 29 November 2022, 21:30.

    Leave a comment:


  • HarveyBains
    replied
    I am a new contributor to this forum just sharing and airing my concerns in full public view. It kind of helps me to de-stress.
    This news article below sums up my current knowledge to date of this West28th situation:
    https://www.computerweekly.com/news/...-from-new-firm
    Last edited by HarveyBains; 29 November 2022, 18:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrO666
    replied
    So I've spoken to two different people who were being chased by Felicitas, yet only one of them has received the letter from West 28th, the other has not had anything.

    Interesting......

    Leave a comment:


  • hudson
    replied
    I believe Andrew William Thompson is the common thread in all of this, right from the scheme days. He is the puppet-master pulling the strings. I have spoken to this scumbag, I remember him retrospectively talking about an 'appetite for risk' to scheme users when it was never mentioned during the hard sell.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X