IQ Consultants, Felicitas Solutions, ECS Trustees - loan repayment demands

[webberg]

So if I'm reading that link right, some firms working on behalf of contractors tried to negotiate a settlement which leaves the contractor having to pay up a percentage at best and that the debt is genuine? I do understand that they are helping and may get the so called debt down considerably but that appears to be a defeat or stalemate at best. So potentially, legally, they have won? Or is it an ADR approach? What happens in the next round, the next company who takes the debt on, if they then implement 'pre-action protocol'? Its a pity the link did not mention that these loans were payed in, in the first place by the contractor themselves.

Surely worth waiting to see what transpires in the finance bill?

PS
I would NOT open any link from them, who knows what small print you are agreeing to, by doing so!

I think more accurately, those firms who are active here are saying that a negotiated settlement is one of a number of options.

Such a negotiated position does not necessarily acknowledge that the debt is real but perhaps says that establishing the integrity of the claim is going to be an expensive and uncertain journey for all concerned. Whoever blinks first will lose that battle. Therefore who has the greater incentive, resource and knowledge?

Defeat? Not sure what you mean? At the end of the day documents were signed and rights and obligations established. These may not be what you thought they were but they were attractive enough at the time the documents were signed. The fact that the tax has not worked as expected does not mean that the rest of the arrangements are now to be reimagined.

You would also have to hope that any negotiated settlement would see a permanent end to claims and all rights and obligations settled. No point in the exercise otherwise.

The piece I've highlighted int he original post above - just not true.

The sequence was that the contractor did some hours at the end client and the END CLIENT PAID THE EMPLOYER/PROMOTER.

The PROMOTER and the contractor agreed - in writing - that the salary to be paid would be minimum wage.

The PROMOTER then - out of the goodness of his heart because there was certainly no legal obligation - paid money to a third party.

The third party - out of the goodness of their heart because there was certainly no legal obligation - made a loan to the contractor.

The money was not "payed (sic) in" by the contractor but by the PROMOTER.

Test this sequence. If the employer had received funds from the end client and decided NOT to pass on funds to a third party, would you have had any rights to reclaim that money? Unless you have used one of the two schemes out of the 150+ I have researched, the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Part - a very important part - of the process here is to turn the harsh light of reality onto the scheme you did and to examine the steps in an unblinkered way. Forget much of the sales speak that you chose to believe and instead examine the facts. I suspect that if you do, not only will you see that the original scheme was flawed but that the legacy is a series fo legal rights and obligations that remain to be dealt with.

[webberg]

From what I gather some contractors owe six figures in loans and many others owe any amount up to this.

If they (Felcitias) really thought the loans were genuine and they could win the full amount in court then they would pursue it. They aren't offering a £950 payment and 6% settlement out of the goodness of their heart.

Until I see solid evidence and court action then I'll be ignoring them. The similarities with the parking companies is rather striking, it's all conducted on extremely shaky legal ground.

And they're not.

The £950/6% package is FS Capital in respect of loans from K2/Hyrax.

Felicitas are offering a 12% exit cost.

Piece I've highlighted. Do you have evidence or knowledge here. I'm going to suggest that in the parking fine world of the millions of notices posted each year a very tiny percentage are on "shaky legal ground".

In the contractor world, acknowledge that a legal agreement was signed. Claims many years later that it was in some manner defective or that you were told it was something else or that somebody told you it was just some paper to make the tax work, don't hold much water perhaps.

[webberg]

thanks for your input much appreciated
For clarity HMRC contacted me in 2013 to confirm Darwin had been classed as a tax avoidance scheme and they handed me a significant tax bill along with the confirmation letter.Tried to contact Darwin who had gone into liquidation but googled an Isle of Man number who confirmed this but assured me that two of Darwin directors were now tax advisors who would for a fee help me lol
I bit the bullet and did the honourable thing paid the HMRC tax bill

Paying the tax bill DOES NOT mean that the loan is not also repayable.

[Chillaxing]

And they're not.

The £950/6% package is FS Capital in respect of loans from K2/Hyrax.

Felicitas are offering a 12% exit cost.

Piece I've highlighted. Do you have evidence or knowledge here. I'm going to suggest that in the parking fine world of the millions of notices posted each year a very tiny percentage are on "shaky legal ground".

In the contractor world, acknowledge that a legal agreement was signed. Claims many years later that it was in some manner defective or that you were told it was something else or that somebody told you it was just some paper to make the tax work, don't hold much water perhaps.

Whatever Felcitas are offering, if the legality of their claims is indeed on solid legal ground as you suggest then why would they not pursue the whole amount? And if PPI can be proven to be verbally mis-sold to millions then so can these schemes I'm sure. And these aren't 'reputable' banks they are obvious swindlers.

Also, I'm not sure if your comment about the parking fines was a typo but the percentage of parking fine cases that actually reach, let alone win, in a court of law is miniscule. Once again, if they were legally solid then this would not be the case.

It's my opinion that these people are clearly scammers with no intention of going to court.

[happychap]

Will this ever go away

Whatever Felcitas are offering, if the legality of their claims is indeed on solid legal ground as you suggest then why would they not pursue the whole amount? And if PPI can be proven to be verbally mis-sold to millions then so can these schemes I'm sure. And these aren't 'reputable' banks they are obvious swindlers.

Also, I'm not sure if your comment about the parking fines was a typo but the percentage of parking fine cases that actually reach, let alone win, in a court of law is miniscule. Once again, if they were legally solid then this would not be the case.

It's my opinion that these people are clearly scammers with no intention of going to court.

Hello all, I was with Sanzar Partnership and Sanzar Solutions then Garraway from 2008-2013 and paid £85k to HMRC for my wrong doing. Taxable income not loan. Mmmmmm

Thought I was clear but apparently not.

EBT= taxable income end off

Can I just ask all you people in the know was the loans unsecured? If they are then what exactly can they do I have no money they can’t touch the house it’s in the wife’s name so take me to court and place a £450k unpaid debt against me for 6yrs I’ll survive and they get nothing.

Just to say I’m also in Scotland and haven’t heard anything from these Scheme providers since they were closed down in 2013, so 7 yrs.

I’ve contacted a number of agency’s today including Financial investigation unit IOM,Action fraud Scottish Police, IOM fair trading, and others. The people behind this are scammers and I’d luv to see them locked up.

Rant over

Happychap - stay safe all

[pnr8uk]

Hello all, I was with Sanzar Partnership and Sanzar Solutions then Garraway from 2008-2013 and paid £85k to HMRC for my wrong doing. Taxable income not loan. Mmmmmm

Thought I was clear but apparently not.

EBT= taxable income end off

Can I just ask all you people in the know was the loans unsecured? If they are then what exactly can they do I have no money they can’t touch the house it’s in the wife’s name so take me to court and place a £450k unpaid debt against me for 6yrs I’ll survive and they get nothing.

Just to say I’m also in Scotland and haven’t heard anything from these Scheme providers since they were closed down in 2013, so 7 yrs.

I’ve contacted a number of agency’s today including Financial investigation unit IOM,Action fraud Scottish Police, IOM fair trading, and others. The people behind this are scammers and I’d luv to see them locked up.

Rant over

Happychap - stay safe all

There is a good sticky about all of the myths surrounding these loans definitely worth a read, particularly the 'no contact for 6 years' one.

As regards what 'they' can do, I have no idea to be honest that is a good question. What I do know about my loan - it was 100% NOT secured, may be yours was.

I too hope the things you hope.

Stay strong and safe.

P

[why]

As regards what 'they' can do, I have no idea to be honest that is a good question. What I do know about my loan - it was 100% NOT secured, may be yours was.

P

Not a clue since these 'loans' had no formal format. My understanding is a loan should have T&Cs such as

1: Interest rates
2: Period of loan and repayment terms
3: Unsecured - generally less than 25k
4: Credit agreement for all of the above laid out and a copy given to the borrower

Not quite sure how anybody in court could justify a so called loan without the above t&Cs being given to the borrower, how on earth is a borrower supposed to know/pay off if there wasn't any formal repayment terms and conditions, nor any communication for the past how many years and then slapped with interest rates which were not agreed. I mean come on surely the justice system in this country could see that.

On top of that, in the case of Darwin (pre April 2011) a DARWIN FAQ was sent out with the P11D stating Item H and explaining that this was the time your loan was paid off.

[webberg]

Whatever Felcitas are offering, if the legality of their claims is indeed on solid legal ground as you suggest No I do not suggest this. I'm saying that their claim has entirely different characteristics from the "parking fine" example you used. We are asking Felicitas to prove their claim and once we have whatever proof is available (not much that is compelling at the moment) we will form an opinion as to the strength of their claim and therefore the next steps. then why would they not pursue the whole amount? I think you'll find that they are but they are alos offering a faster (for all parties) option. Makes commercial sense if you are them. And if PPI can be proven to be verbally mis-sold to millions then so can these schemes I'm sure. And these aren't 'reputable' banks they are obvious swindlers. I thought we had dealt with PPI and its complete lack of application here? PPI is insurance. That is a regulated industry. The banks were shown to have either breached the regulations and/or to have hidden the fact that a regulated product was being sold as a package. Contracting and contracting schemes is NOT regulated. Tax schemes are NOT regulated products. There is no correlation between PPI and this situation. There has been no mis-selling because the promoters were offering an OPINION on tax effectiveness rather than a product that had to work according to a set of regulations. If you have endless time and deep pockets and can find the often disappeared entities and then pierce the corporate veil, you may have some hope. I wish you well in that pursuit.

Also, I'm not sure if your comment about the parking fines was a typo but the percentage of parking fine cases that actually reach, let alone win, in a court of law is miniscule. Once again, if they were legally solid then this would not be the case.

It's my opinion that these people are clearly scammers with no intention of going to court.

And you are entitled to your opinion and may well be correct.

However going into a Court and saying to a Judge, "these people are clearly scammers" with no evidence is a risky strategy.

[webberg]

Can I just ask all you people in the know was the loans unsecured? Certainly the vast majority of hte loans were unsecured. If they are then what exactly can they do I have no money they can’t touch the house it’s in the wife’s name so take me to court and place a £450k unpaid debt against me for 6yrs I’ll survive and they get nothing. You need to discuss this with a qualified insolvency practitioner.

Just to say I’m also in Scotland and haven’t heard anything from these Scheme providers since they were closed down in 2013, so 7 yrs. Not really relevant.

Speak to an Insolvency Specialist before making an assumption.

[webberg]

Not a clue since these 'loans' had no formal format. My understanding is a loan should have T&Cs such as

1: Interest rates
2: Period of loan and repayment terms
3: Unsecured - generally less than 25k
4: Credit agreement for all of the above laid out and a copy given to the borrower

Not quite sure how anybody in court could justify a so called loan without the above t&Cs being given to the borrower, how on earth is a borrower supposed to know/pay off if there wasn't any formal repayment terms and conditions, nor any communication for the past how many years and then slapped with interest rates which were not agreed. I mean come on surely the justice system in this country could see that.

On top of that, in the case of Darwin (pre April 2011) a DARWIN FAQ was sent out with the P11D stating Item H and explaining that this was the time your loan was paid off.

The £25k limit is usually used to distinguish consumer finance from loans. There are various Consumer Credit Acts for such loans.

A loan agreement has to be SIGNED by the borrower. The legal assumption is that by signing the agreement the borrower has read and understood the contents of the agreement. In the majority of cases we have seen the interest/repayment terms are included in the agreement even if often they are unclear.

As to the lack of action on the part of the lender to enforce all or some of the terms and whether such lack of action invalidates the agreement, our legal advice is that unless there has been some form of gross dereliction of obligations, it matters little that the lender has been silent or inactive.

If a Court thinks that the agreement does NOT reflect the arrangements, then they can set them aside and make their own interpretation. However, they start from "what did you - the "borrower" - think the money was when paid?"

That puts many into a Catch 22. If you thought it was "your" money arising to you because of "your" work, one characteristic of that is tax being applied. Tax not being applied does not indicate that it was not remuneration but it weakens the case in the mind of a Chancery Judge who may not be deeply versed in where the tax argument is. Therefore to argue it was not a loan but remuneration, you are accepting the taxable nature of the money.

The statement in the P11D is worthless I'm afraid. A P11D is a form required to be prepared and submitted by an EMPLOYER to HMRC. A copy to you is not legally required. An employer is obliged to tell you what taxable benefits have arisen but that is all.

The statement in the P11D that the loan has been "paid off", cannot be proven. You cannot demonstrate that money passed through your bank account to the lender to repay the loan. You have no agreement with a third party who agreed to take on your loan. A tax judge might conclude that the P11D is a work of fiction designed to make tax avoidance work. A Chancery Judge may decide that the P11D is a piece of tax compliance and nothing else.