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

[webberg]

In early 2016 some of our clients had demands from Montpelier for partial repayment of their "loans".

We engaged a City law firm and a series of exchanges took place.

In July 2016, given the absence of information of counterclaim from the alleged lender, a final letter was sent saying that the liability had not fallen due and would not be repaid.

We have heard nothing since.

For a number of obvious reasons I am not going to detail how we arrived at that situation nor what was in the letters.

For largely the same reasons, I am not going to detail the strategy behind those letters and exchanges nor how this may be similar to or vary from the present crop of demands.

[TZ46]

ECS Debt Letter!!!

Hi webberg,

I have also received a letter to inform me of the debt transfer.

Have already settled with HMRC too.

I would like to join in collectively as a group to be helped by yourselves on this mess i got myself into.

However they have not requested any payment yet ( no doubt that will follow at some point).

Can i have the contact details please and who to speak to regarding this mess plus fee charges please.

Also i do remember signing something with IQ but cannot remember what it entailed but i don't think its said anything about paying back (cannot find the copy still looking for it).

are these loans secured in anyway? as i dont want to remortgage my property for these scumbags.

I dont know what my rights are in this situation.

Any help on this would be grateful.

Thanks

[WoffleCopter]

I've read all this thread and I still am unsure how to proceed.

I've made this point before, but without a response, i.e. I've yet to see any advantages in engaging with them preemptively at all. I'm sure WTT do an excellent job (and I am thinking of joining), but would the same results not be achieved by just stonewalling these lowlifes until they put their money where their mouth is and actually instigate legal proceedings?

AFAIK, unless an actual court document arrives on your doormat, any action you take is just flapping up and down at their behest.

[webberg]

I've read all this thread and I still am unsure how to proceed.

I've made this point before, but without a response, i.e. I've yet to see any advantages in engaging with them preemptively at all. I'm sure WTT do an excellent job (and I am thinking of joining), but would the same results not be achieved by just stonewalling these lowlifes until they put their money where their mouth is and actually instigate legal proceedings?

AFAIK, unless an actual court document arrives on your doormat, any action you take is just flapping up and down at their behest.

HMm.

Our view is that if you have a demand that you consider to be wholly incorrect then it is entirely sensible to at least question the reasoning of the demand issuer and test their resolve.

If you do nothing and eventually the issue goes to Court, might a judge not ask why you did nothing if you thought the demand was spurious or incorrect?

However, this is a complex matter and I suggest that you at least seek some advice.

[Sense1]

I have engaged with WTT, but not taken them up on their offer as yet, [/QUOTE]

On same page; Webber, waiting for WTT to respond back;

[Smudge67er]

In early 2016 some of our clients had demands from Montpelier for partial repayment of their "loans".

We engaged a City law firm and a series of exchanges took place.

In July 2016, given the absence of information of counterclaim from the alleged lender, a final letter was sent saying that the liability had not fallen due and would not be repaid.

We have heard nothing since.

For a number of obvious reasons I am not going to detail how we arrived at that situation nor what was in the letters.

For largely the same reasons, I am not going to detail the strategy behind those letters and exchanges nor how this may be similar to or vary from the present crop of demands.

Many thanks. That was what I was hoping to hear. I also wouldn't expect you to go into detail here.

[webberg]

I said earlier that a few minutes on Google and an hour reading the thread would answer pretty much all your points.

I repeat that.

This is my last response to you.

For Sense1

[Locumconractor]

HMRC advice

I received a rather unpleasant letter today (5 Feb 2020) from a solicitor requesting that I pay back the full loan amount (£100k+) within 14 days.

It mentions that it has acquired my loan from a third party. The period I was with the umbrella company that used this scheme was 2013 - 2014

In 2018/2019 I have received several messages suggesting to pay part of the loan, in exchange for waiving the full amount. Several people, including my accountant advised that this was very likely either a scam or a message with no legal teeth.

As this comes suspiciously quickly after the HMRC letter, last week, I was wondering if any of you have received similar letters.

What would you advise as a response to this?

Is the best way forward to hire a solicitor?

Any advice or thoughts are very much appreciated!

Hi,

I also had emails from thl (The Trust Helpline) regarding paying a percentage of loans in order to have them written off, which I ignored. I have submitted settlement packs for the years I was receiving "loans" and was informed by HMRC counter avoidance that if tax is paid on the "loans" then it is deemed that tax has been paid on income and so there is no longer a loan and I didn't have to pay it back. However I have now received a letter from Felicitas Solutions informing me of Notice of Acquisition of lender's rights and a list of original and prior lenders and trusts, which I never heard of during the years I was with IQ Consulting Ltd.

I've informed HMRC of this letter and am waiting a reply.

I too would like to know how to join the big group.

Thanks.

[corsair]

I find it hard to believe that people think that settling with HMRC for avoiding tax using these loans schemes has any impact on a contract you had with one of these dodgy companies. People seem so sure that settling demands by HMRC somehow rewrites history and changes the past.

We have very few rights on our side on this and very few friends we can rely on. I get very little sympathy from Even good friends on this subject.

No amount of anger and denial is going to make these people go away.

It’s just a shame that with all these IT pros on here in this position, no one here has the right set of skills to make these records disappear...

[WoffleCopter]

HMm.
If you do nothing and eventually the issue goes to Court, might a judge not ask why you did nothing if you thought the demand was spurious or incorrect?

I can think of a few responses..

(1) Thought they were bluffing and would give up
(2) You consider them to be scam artists and don't want to engage directly with them
(3) You want to set a case-law precedent so that others may benefit

HMm.
However, this is a complex matter and I suggest that you at least seek some advice.

Agreed!