Reply to: West 28th Street Limited

[looperevil]

Could it be this KC Rober Venables Jury to consider verdicts as the trial of KC accused of dodging £2m in tax comes to an end – Mouse in the Court ?

I was on IQ Contractors and IQ Consultants.

That's exactly who it is.

[Superfly]

Just wanted to come back to what Eek suggested, as I think it's very important practical advice and something that each of us can do, at least to some degree.

If you've been caught up in one of these schemes, I think it's important to establish exactly what trust your money was supposedly lent from, and who is now claiming to have the right to that alleged debt.

A lot of people have been getting demands for years now from companies claiming they've bought the debt. But before accepting what they're saying, people really need to go back to the beginning and work through the whole chain.

What trust was the money supposedly lent from?

What was the actual document that created the alleged loan?

Who originally held the alleged liability?

Who subsequently acquired it?

And on what basis?

I'd be looking at the Deeds of Assignment, but also the trust deed, declarations of trust, deeds of appointment or variation, any instruments transferring the trust assets or the alleged debt, notices of assignment, and anything else being relied on to show that the liability was actually transferred from one party to the next.

The important bit is not just looking at the latest company waving a document around and saying "we own this". You need to look at the whole chain back to the original trust and see whether the transfers actually happened in the way they're claiming and whether the proper trust processes were followed at each stage.

I'm not saying that doing this automatically means a claim is invalid. But if somebody is demanding money from you on the basis that they acquired an alleged debt, surely they're going to have to be able to demonstrate where that debt came from and how it got from the original arrangement to them.

That's basically the point Eek was making, and I think it's worth people going back over it carefully rather than just dealing with whoever happens to be the latest claimant.

[cojak]

Yes I do. But it's relevant to the scheme I was on. The QC was...wait for it...Robert Venables

Ah yes, the Venerable Mr Venables…

https://forums.contractoruk.com/umbr...ml#post1951410

[DanJackiels]

I looked thru the stack of waffle from April. There is a “notice of assignment” that my 10 year old could have typed up. But no actual “deed”

I’ll ask again … Has anyone received a deed of assignment between Felicitas and West28th?

I haven’t seen one.

[shampoo]

I’ll ask again … Has anyone received a deed of assignment between Felicitas and West28th?

I haven’t seen one.

[LandmarkTower]

Yes I do. But it's relevant to the scheme I was on. The QC was...wait for it...Robert Venables

Could it be this KC Rober Venables Jury to consider verdicts as the trial of KC accused of dodging £2m in tax comes to an end – Mouse in the Court ?

I was on IQ Contractors and IQ Consultants.

[LandmarkTower]

On this matter, valid to all readers here.
We are in this together, because as soon as West 28th got a single person paying, they have a precedent that gives value to the whole book. They could sell it on at a higher value because "some people has paid". If that was not valid, still whatever payments they received allow them to build a litigation war chest, to keep pushing ever harder.

In other words: strategically is best not not pay anything. And let's keep looking for a legal case to write these loans as phony, fraudulent, and unenforceable. (on this one, the saying "if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks as a duck... it is a duck" helps, because if a loan "arises from invoices backed by timesheets, carry 0% interest rate, lack signature, and do not have an expiry date but are callable by the Employee Based Trust which has been set up to look after the interest of the employee, and it is not in the employee's interest to pay the loans, and HMRC (which represents the Country) has seen them as disguised remuneration ... those are not loans but payments ... thus unrecoverable for the issuer).

Full disclosure: I am going to send SAR requests for West 28th and for Ethica.
Also: Mine is not legal advice, as I am a Scientist. Please do not hesitate to comment/argue at length about my reasoning above.

[eek]

Yes I do. But it's relevant to the scheme I was on. The QC was...wait for it...Robert Venables

It was always Robert Venables...

[looperevil]

Does anyone have any proof supporting the original promoters mentioning a "QC opinion" validating the alleged loans from ETBs? Their marketing was "umbrella company, payment structure, a QC's opinion about area of the law lacking legislation (a hole HMRC started addressing in 2011 and got it enacted by Parliament in 2017 with retroactive effect). I remember asking about it, pressing them on by email to provide the details of the QC, until eventually I was told it was not possible to produce them.

The main point being that proving the QC was mentioned, and could not be produced as being non-existen, will classify the whole set up as fraud. Thus, loans were fraudulent (they had 0% interest, had no expiration date (they were presented as callable loans), lacked the signature of the borrower, and there was no provision to take legal advice before accepting them).

The illustration scenarios sent by marketing talked only about a higher % take-home-pay, not about taking loans. Also, all the payment were backed by invoices and timesheets, thus they were payments for work performed, not loans.

Also, if they were loans, were they unsecured? They were issued with timesheets, invoices, and payments from the contractor's clients. Thus, they have been paid already, before being issued, because the money was paid upfront before issuance.

I don't have a degree in Law at all. Anybody here who could validate/tear down this arguments of mine?

Yes I do. But it's relevant to the scheme I was on. The QC was...wait for it...Robert Venables

[eek]

A document with a lot of mentions of the word loan

I would be deleting that as I don't think it does you any favours at all..

[lillybean]

Not a ******* chance!

Send a SAR and save yourself a few bob.

I've been taking free advise Greenwoods have made available publicly, they seem to have a sensible and measured approach.

[chasedbyloansharks]

Is anyone joining Elysium now on the back of these letters?

Not a ******* chance!

Send a SAR and save yourself a few bob.

[chasedbyloansharks]

Hi eek, yes a bit of an old one, digging through paperwork, I have signed copies of the Deeds of assignment dated 10th Jan 2020 from my trusts to "Felicitas Solutions Limited, a company incorporated in the Isle of man under 131081C" and giving an IOM address .... so do we have 3 Felicitas Solutions Limited ?. I have no other real tangible DOA's.

I have the exact same Monkeypower and no other DOAs either.

[LandmarkTower]

Does anyone have any proof supporting the original promoters mentioning a "QC opinion" validating the alleged loans from ETBs? Their marketing was "umbrella company, payment structure, a QC's opinion about area of the law lacking legislation (a hole HMRC started addressing in 2011 and got it enacted by Parliament in 2017 with retroactive effect). I remember asking about it, pressing them on by email to provide the details of the QC, until eventually I was told it was not possible to produce them.

The main point being that proving the QC was mentioned, and could not be produced as being non-existen, will classify the whole set up as fraud. Thus, loans were fraudulent (they had 0% interest, had no expiration date (they were presented as callable loans), lacked the signature of the borrower, and there was no provision to take legal advice before accepting them).

The illustration scenarios sent by marketing talked only about a higher % take-home-pay, not about taking loans. Also, all the payment were backed by invoices and timesheets, thus they were payments for work performed, not loans.

Also, if they were loans, were they unsecured? They were issued with timesheets, invoices, and payments from the contractor's clients. Thus, they have been paid already, before being issued, because the money was paid upfront before issuance.

The fundamental question being; "where did the funds to produce those loans came from?" and the answer is "from the payments of invoices generated by the work of the contractor". Thus, the loans were paid before issuance. HMRC was right, they were not loans, they were payments disguised as loans to avoid tax. Result: these loans are unenforceable because they were already paid for to generate them.

I don't have a degree in Law at all. Anybody here who could validate/tear down this arguments of mine?

[shampoo]

A word of caution ... don't believe anything the free version of Google Gemini tells you ... it's wrong most of the time!

Specifically when it comes to the topic of IoM and UK credit law etc.