Reply to: West 28th Street Limited

[clause out]

"Trethowans and West 28th have been working together since 2022. First fighting them as EBT loans, but now as CCA."

There are so many links between the nefarious entities going way way back. Good to see the dots being joined.

[cojak]

Whether that's the cause for the silence or not who knows, but at the very least you would assume that the people who run Trethowans would be keen to not have their name associated with what is universally accepted as tax avoidance scheme(s).

Equally, if they try and claim they're just trying to recover debts, then seeing as they don't appear keen to respond to a single SAR (from what I've heard), it would rather complicate their approach in court I'd assume. Telling someone you're taking them to court at the same time as saying they won't honour a SAR isn't going to do them any favours is it.............and for a law firm to act in this manner, I think that says all you need to know about Trethowans.

One thing is for sure, if this ends up in court, then the gloves are going to be off on both sides, and at that point, the press coverage for Trethowans won't look good. Id' be doing everything I could to get their name and association with this mess up in lights for all to see.

As for W28, they don't care what they look like, as it's basically a shell company anyway, and will just dissolve and move on.

Only because this has blown up in their faces and has got national attention.

Trethowans and West 28th have been working together since 2022. First fighting them as EBT loans, but now as CCA.

https://caseboard.io/cases/b8eed28f-...3-572b6d289163

I quite agree Mr O666, Trethowans aren't exactly what we originally thought they were...

[MrO666]

Whether that's the cause for the silence or not who knows, but at the very least you would assume that the people who run Trethowans would be keen to not have their name associated with what is universally accepted as tax avoidance scheme(s).

Equally, if they try and claim they're just trying to recover debts, then seeing as they don't appear keen to respond to a single SAR (from what I've heard), it would rather complicate their approach in court I'd assume. Telling someone you're taking them to court at the same time as saying they won't honour a SAR isn't going to do them any favours is it.............and for a law firm to act in this manner, I think that says all you need to know about Trethowans.

One thing is for sure, if this ends up in court, then the gloves are going to be off on both sides, and at that point, the press coverage for Trethowans won't look good. Id' be doing everything I could to get their name and association with this mess up in lights for all to see.

As for W28, they don't care what they look like, as it's basically a shell company anyway, and will just dissolve and move on.

[eek]

It's up to the ICO if a SAR can be refused or not.

I was thinking more about what would happen in court if W28 / Trethowans took it that far given their unwillingness to make what under the circumstances would be a very valid request..

It's why I'm wondering if Dan Neidle showing an interest has scared Trethowans away as they don't want their name attached to a beyond dodgy scam connected to a tax avoidance scheme...

The silence is deafening...

[shampoo]

Except SARs have been ignored and/or refused.

You can always go direct to W28 and make a complaint to the ICO.

[Wtaf]

It's up to the ICO if a SAR can be refused or not.

[eek]

Except SARs have been ignored and/or refused.

The refusal to provide an SAR would be a bit problematic were Trethowans LLP to pursue anything.

[ScotchBonnet]

That's why a SAR is important!

Except SARs have been ignored and/or refused.

[clause out]

It's The Magic-money -go-round ft Charlotte's Web

[Diagnose b4 u prescribe]

Anyone else from the WTT group getting really annoyed with Elysium now?

I went into this through WTT, paid WTT and never actually chose or dealt with Elysium myself. I decided I'm not paying to join their latest retainer, but still the requests for more money keep coming (on a Friday as usual).

Now there's another payment being requested for old “disbursements”, given the substantial amounts many of us have already paid through WTT, it's not the relatively small amount being asked for that annoys me, it's Elysium seemingly scraping the barrel for yet another payment. Every time one route comes to an end there seems to be another retainer, another cost or another reason for them to want more money.

There's already plenty of scepticism about Elysium on here, and stuff like this really doesn't help their case.

Anyone else from the WTT group feeling the same? And has anyone asked WTT for a proper breakdown of where the money we already paid has actually gone and received a reply?

Worth taking a look at this article: https://www.contractoruk.com/news/lo...or-contractors
There's a line in there "But a law firm acting for a group of contractors contesting the claims, Elysium Law, claims to have 650 clients."

Hmmm. I have no idea what benefit people got from WTT. I chose to ignore demands and stay silent with the exception of writing a letter to respond to that dodgy Statutary Demand tactic which resulted in 'Nigel' withdrawing it within a week. I suspect everyone who has signed up or been passed onto Elysium Law is bound by some sort of non-disclusure clause, but if you take their own claim of 650 clients and multiply that by the fees they are charging each individual (I'm guessing 2-3K each?), the running total would be between £1.3 to £2 MILLION. That's a great income stream for a firm with just 1 Barrister and a couple of other employees. And for what exactly? I still wonder if that Trethowans / W28 April 2026 mailing that purported to redefine these loans as Consumer Credit Loans was as ill-considered as we all assume. Was it just some sort of misdirection to line the pockets of yet another player in the game?

For the record I have zero legal qualifications so it is up to each individual to decide if they get an ROI from joining some larger group.

For me, I'm thinking it's now been over 3 months of radio silience since those letters dropped on the doormats, so I'm still intrigued to see if there's any follow up from West 28 this time. As stated in my previous post, I put more faith in the work being done by Contractor UK and Dan Neidle. Let's see how that plays out shall we?

[Wtaf]

I wouldn't be happy shelling out money knowing that I'm in the same position as someone who hasn't paid for legal representation.

[shampoo]

I don't fully remember the ins and outs of the scheme when we entered it over a decade ago. And for me, most of the details were discussed over the phone, which I now see gave them a great barrier between us. There's little I have on paper that can be held against them
What I do seem to remember though is that it was sold as 'we' were the trust. The loans were essentially from ourselves to ourselves, and clearly we'd never call them back in.
If that was the case, which I appreciate sounds a bit wishful, surely we would have had some say on whether the trust got broken up and sold on?

That's why a SAR is important!

[TW2001]

Anyone else from the WTT group getting really annoyed with Elysium now?

I went into this through WTT, paid WTT and never actually chose or dealt with Elysium myself. I decided I'm not paying to join their latest retainer, but still the requests for more money keep coming (on a Friday as usual).

Now there's another payment being requested for old “disbursements”, given the substantial amounts many of us have already paid through WTT, it's not the relatively small amount being asked for that annoys me, it's Elysium seemingly scraping the barrel for yet another payment. Every time one route comes to an end there seems to be another retainer, another cost or another reason for them to want more money.

There's already plenty of scepticism about Elysium on here, and stuff like this really doesn't help their case.

Anyone else from the WTT group feeling the same? And has anyone asked WTT for a proper breakdown of where the money we already paid has actually gone and received a reply?

[cojak]

Yes, without the paperwork anything that was said over the phone was irrelevant.

[Jumper]

You were never the trust, you were a beneficiary of it and were not and could not be in control of it.