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

[Wazza1882]

But it was already classified as Income Tax by HMRC, they cant tax it twice.... Can they?

Therefore, If the Income tax has already been settled with HMRC, even if its still going through, then IF Gladstones' letter is true to their word, then making that one off payment would write those "loans off including all interest"... And covering two Laws..
Will it make it all go away so you can move on with your lives? I don't know. I do know that for the last 5 plus years I have been dreading those HMRC letters and now we have this..

Ever since Wednesday I have been feeling so low about all this.. I just want this all to go away, I have enough on my plate without this..
I can see the appeal to bend over and cave in and do it... I'm not saying I will, I find it all completely out of order and cant believe I got myself into this mess..
And this is what they want, to pick on the vulnerable and make some quick cash.

I know it is hard to deal with and with the help of people on here and certain groups like the Loan Charge Action Group, we can all work together to either minimise the stress and financial implications involved or eradicate them all together.

I personally would do what has been advised with the previous attempts to scam over the last year or two (ref Montpellier and DORS etc.) and ignore these people.

As for HMRC, I hope things will ease. I have 3 Tax Years in question, one of which I have paid HMRC for and settled. The other 2 2014/2105 and 2015/2016 I have not even received enquiries about. (Strange) but that could happen any time. I don't even know how long they are allowed before it gets classed as unrecoverable or being unable to investigate (if there indeed is a time frame). However, they have relaxed the payment terms (a bit) and hopefully with more people and more groups and more court cases and more MPs throwing stuff at them they might relent even more and call a halt to it all.

If they come knocking on my door, then 2 years tax payments at no more than half my disposable income and spread over a minimum of 3 years is good enough for me.

As for these vultures that want their "loans" back? Well, I would commit a crime before they get a penny off me. Not happening.

[Wazza1882]

Why don't you ask Gladstones or Felicitas or both to prove provenance?

Because I don't trust them currently (with how they've approached me and the quality of info they've approached me with) to give them my details.

I am amazed that they even found my new address (I've moved twice).

And in all honesty, with the amount they say I owe to them re the loans, then they won't get it anyway as I will be declared bankrupt.

[webberg]

Because I don't trust them currently (with how they've approached me and the quality of info they've approached me with) to give them my details.

I am amazed that they even found my new address (I've moved twice).

And in all honesty, with the amount they say I owe to them re the loans, then they won't get it anyway as I will be declared bankrupt.

So, you don't know if the party that presently claims ownership of the loan has actually got that, not how they got it, but you don't want to ask them?

How are you going to answer your own question above about who actually has the loan?

[DealorNoDeal]

Why don't you ask Gladstones or Felicitas or both to prove provenance?

I'd be careful if contacting them that you don't say anything (especially in writing) which they could later use against you. (eg. inadvertently acknowledging that they were real loans)

These are slippery feckers, so be on your guard.

[Wazza1882]

So, you don't know if the party that presently claims ownership of the loan has actually got that, not how they got it, but you don't want to ask them?

How are you going to answer your own question above about who actually has the loan?

Well I guess I am hoping I don't have to know the answer, but if it gets to a stage where I have to then I will ask.

Maybe that is not the right thing to do? Maybe you can advise? Maybe you might not want to? I am just wary about the motives of these people. I am not sure what they would do with my information or my admission to being the person who inadvertently signed up to these "loans".

You can see how it's confusing for people (as to what is the best thing to do or not).

[piebaps]

A different scheme - but some comments from a judge about the directors of a company who entered into it. I've "bolded" the judge's comments which appear pertinent.

"Conclusion
96.In my judgment the payments made from the capital reserves of the Company into EBT 09, EBT10, the IIP, and the payments in June 2013 to shareholders had the character of distributions. None of the distributions are supported by board minutes identifying "relevant accounts" or recording a consideration of such accounts. There is an absence of any relevant resolutions.


97.This will appear to the Respondents to be a harsh conclusion. I have some empathy with their position. Mr Ross and Mr Bell described themselves as cautious by nature but attracted, as they were, by the spectre of tax-free distributions, they failed to take independent legal advice and failed to read opinions from leading counsel provided to the promotor of the schemes. They did not seek comfort directly from HMRC before causing the Company to enter the schemes. In my view when entering the schemes, they chose to take a risk which they did not entirely understand. The lack of understanding had the effect of handicapping the directors from making decisions in accordance with their statutory obligations owed to the Company.


98.I have found that Mr Ross and Mr Bell are honest and were honest in their dealings. Failing to take the simple steps I have mentioned however, cannot be described as reasonable conduct for a director faced with such a large financial decision on behalf of the Company. As liability is strict, the Company is entitled to its statutory remedy. "

The full case is here Toone & Ors v Ross & Anor, Re Implement Consulting Ltd [2019] EWHC 2855 (Ch) (30 October 2019)


You are among (mostly) friends here. We all understand your outrage at these scumbags. But as webberg said, fairness isn't necessarily the most relevant issue. The judge above has suggested three things should've been done before the signing in this particular matter. Take independent advice, see the legal opinions on which the scheme was founded and consult HMRC to check whether the arrangements were in order.

Clearly the timing practicalities, the sales pressure, the no sign/no work position and all the other variables will mean that those steps are likely to be unfeasible in the real world however we're crossing from the real world to the legal world and they may well be relevant.

[webberg]

Well I guess I am hoping I don't have to know the answer, but if it gets to a stage where I have to then I will ask.

Maybe that is not the right thing to do? Maybe you can advise? Maybe you might not want to? I am just wary about the motives of these people. I am not sure what they would do with my information or my admission to being the person who inadvertently signed up to these "loans".

You can see how it's confusing for people (as to what is the best thing to do or not).

I think the problem at the moment is that this thread now approaching 300 posts, is a scatter gun which fires good ideas, bad ones, terrible ones, impossible ones, potentially illegal ones and everything in between. Consequently, picking the wheat from the chaff is becoming increasingly difficult.

New thoughts and reiterations of of old ones are being fired off at random.

This means that no coherent strategy is being advanced or pursued. For example, there is mention of a law firm being engaged. I have heard of them but have no idea how much they know about the background to the loans here; whether that makes any difference: whether they have enough information to make a strategy yet; how they intend to execute whatever instructions they have. I do not expect to be included in whatever they are doing either.

I'm guessing that almost all the posters here are not legally qualified. Therefore ideas are being generated and spread and some of them frankly, are hopeless. UNtil the good from the less good are known, no coherent strategy can happen.

The alleged loans' owners are banking on that.

If strategies are developed they will certainly not be detailed here.

[Wazza1882]

I think the problem at the moment is that this thread now approaching 300 posts, is a scatter gun which fires good ideas, bad ones, terrible ones, impossible ones, potentially illegal ones and everything in between. Consequently, picking the wheat from the chaff is becoming increasingly difficult.

New thoughts and reiterations of of old ones are being fired off at random.

This means that no coherent strategy is being advanced or pursued. For example, there is mention of a law firm being engaged. I have heard of them but have no idea how much they know about the background to the loans here; whether that makes any difference: whether they have enough information to make a strategy yet; how they intend to execute whatever instructions they have. I do not expect to be included in whatever they are doing either.

I'm guessing that almost all the posters here are not legally qualified. Therefore ideas are being generated and spread and some of them frankly, are hopeless. UNtil the good from the less good are known, no coherent strategy can happen.

The alleged loans' owners are banking on that.

If strategies are developed they will certainly not be detailed here.

??

Would you be so kind as to let us know if a strategy has been found within your domain and if that requires payment then let me know as I would be interested? Thanks.

[ManOnTheRun]

This is fraud and Theft

Just a few things. When I spoke to HMRC about 1 year ago - when they were trying to get me to settle, the person I spoke to said I would not be liable to pay the loans back. I asked her explicitly regarding this, as I explained that I was being approached by these people, aggressively telling me I need to pay them, so that I wouldn't have any tax to pay HMRC. And I confirmed her answer that I would not owe any more to anyone after paying HMRC the outstanding tax. I have her name for my reference, and can check my phone records for the date and time of that call.

One thing is absolutely clear, if the loans are valid and can be enforced, then having agreed to pay full PAYE tax on these loans would not be owed. I'm sure HMRC won't be happy about this.

Next, I have in my possession, I nice email from the person who sold me one of the loans. In this email, one statement is that the loan would not be due until my 70th birthday. At which point, the loan could be extended. It also goes on to say, that what ever happens, the trustees of the loan would ALWAYS act in my best interests.

Yes - I have this in an email from the person selling the loan before I took it out.

These actions contradict what I was sold. I'm also in quite a unique position, in that I still owe HMRC the majority of the money, and will now be pausing any payments to them until this is resolved.

I will also NOT under any circumstances, pay a single penny to these scum bags. They are wasting up valuable air with each breath. Fortunately, I believe in Karma.

I have notified Gladstones I won't be paying and why. As I've already lost my house and my marriage due to this, there's nothing left for anyone to take. I'm also unable to give to much time or energy to this due to circumstances that make this look quite insignificant - but if there is an action group - I'm all up for being part of that and sharing the info I have.

Finally, I seem to remember some car companies selling a product that they claimed to be more environmentally friendly than they really were. This attracted more buyers as the car tax was lower. When it came to light, was the tax applied to the customers - NO. Was there any retrospective car tax applied - NO. The car companies were still in existence and were liable. Surely therefore, if these scumbags have bought the loans, they should therefore have also bought with the value of the loans, and liability. I have regular personal calls with HMRC which I so look forward to. I'll be pushing this back to them as something that should be acted upon.

I'm also in the process of writing to several MP's about this as I feel as someone who is being asked to pay a lot of tax - I'm getting nothing in return for it including protection from those who should be considered to be fraudsters.

[Scrogbank]

Call us. It's free, no obligation, you can stay anonymous if you wish.

This is a personal opinion, please all stop the part of the feeling brain and engage the rational brain. Everyone please listen to Webberg his advise is solid and I feel empathy when he is attacked for it.

If you want to fight this, the WTT costs are minor, sign up now; whether or not you are fighting just the loan/interest demands or the tax implications.

I, many years ago, taught the basics of contract law and, from memory, everything Webberg has posted is correct.

Contract law is based upon the law of tort which is decided, not on proof but on the balance of probability as seen by a reasonable man! In law it is normally accepted that the only reasonable man is the judge!!
So it can always go either way ?

It would be good if Matt could finesse a communication between his friends at Freeths and WTT, Matthew about it ?

Stick with this all we will prevail