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

[eek]

This may prove an interesting behavioural experiment on the scammers.

----------------

As an aside, I think they're a bit dumb demanding large sums of money. They would have been better off charging a few hundred quid admin fee for writing off the loans and providing advice on settlement, IHT etc.

We don't know who the new owners of the loans are - it's possible they had little to do with the original scheme and just see this as a pay day opportunity.

[Superfly]

This may prove an interesting behavioural experiment on the scammers.

----------------

As an aside, I think they're a bit dumb demanding large sums of money. They would have been better off charging a few hundred quid admin fee for writing off the loans and providing advice on settlement, IHT etc.

For the record, I will be most certainly be one those who are ignoring.

Webberg lost me when he said that the loan is still valid. He said look at the facts, well the facts are that I have not signed any loan agreement, nor was any loan mentioned to me... there is nothing. On the one side he said look at the facts, and on the other side he said the loan is valid even though the facts do not bear out his assertion.

It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here. I don't know as much about all this as he does, but this is most certainly not a loan and would be ready to argue that with a judge.

Oh and by the way, I have it on record that the payments made to me are not repayable (a bit of a strange comment I thought at the time [why would I ever have needed to pay it back???] but there you go).

I'm hoping my little experiment will help demonstrate that those that ignored the letters are no worse off than those that paid for the services of these advisers... lets see what you get for your money.

[eek]

For the record, I will be most certainly be one those who are ignoring.

Webberg lost me when he said that the loan is still valid. He said look at the facts, well the facts are that I have not signed any loan agreement, nor was any loan mentioned to me... there is nothing. On the one side he said look at the facts, and on the other side he said the loan is valid even though the facts do not bear out his assertion.

It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here. I don't know as much about all this as he does, but this is most certainly not a loan and would be ready to argue that with a judge.

Oh and by the way, I have it on record that the payments made to me are not repayable (a bit of a strange comment I thought at the time [why would I ever have needed to pay it back???] but there you go).

I'm hoping my little experiment will help demonstrate that those that ignored the letters are no worse off than those that paid for the services of these advisers... lets see what you get for your money.

I would still be sending them the etctax letter rather than doing nothing - the fact you do that may be enough to move you to a different (deal with later) pile.

The fact is that loans (albeit disguised as other things) were used in these schemes - I can't remember the exact word that appears somewhere in this thread but in the same way PAYE is actually an advance payment (loan prior to due date) to the government, you were given advanced payments by this scheme.

As a side before once the money was paid into the scheme it became Schrodinger money where every party (apart from the contractor) looks at it and sees it the way they want to see it (HMRC see taxable income, the new scheme owners see loans and a payday).

[webberg]

For the record, I will be most certainly be one those who are ignoring.

Webberg lost me

In EVERY case we have investigated, there is a signed loan agreement.

Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.

On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.

If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.

As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.

Good luck with your quest.

[webberg]

It was at that point that I felt that the mask slipped a bit and thought to myself, he's just propping up straw men here.

As an aside, I think the above is a little unfair.

There is no mask and I have never attempted to create one or hide behind one.

I represent a commercial organisation that lives on fees. That has always been clear.

In my humble opinion, I have always striven to offer honest advice and have always been clear as to how far I can go without compromising my clients.

We have no alliances with scheme promoters or parties associated with them. I'm unclear therefore as to which "straw men" I'm meant to be supporting?

However, you are entitled to a view and others here can agree or disagree with it.

[Fred Bloggs]

In EVERY case we have investigated, there is a signed loan agreement.

Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.

On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.

If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.

As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.

Good luck with your quest.

That in itself is remarkable given the (thousands of?) posts here on CUK that nobody knew they were agreeing to a loan. Thank you.

[Superfly]

In EVERY case we have investigated, there is a signed loan agreement.

Calls for evidence that the "loans" are not repayable have been met with vague recollections of conversations with people from the schemes of no known provenance.

On the basis of the above, we reach our view of what action is appropriate.

If you have not signed a loan agreement and have evidence from a lender that they never expected repayment, you would be a unique record in our database.

As such, clearly the advice/actions we are recommending are not for you.

Good luck with your quest.

I was with Sanzar, there was no loan agreement.

[piebaps]

Superfly - see post #219

[Paralytic]

I was with Sanzar, there was no loan agreement.

I'd read this as:

I was with Sanzar, I did not realise the contract I signed contained a loan agreement.

Unless you signed nothing, or have had a tax/contract lawyer review what you did sign and confirm it was not a loan, then I'd be erring on the side of caution. A loan agreement does not have to have the word "loan" in it.

[Superfly]

I'd read this as:



Unless you signed nothing, or have had a tax/contract lawyer review what you did sign and confirm it was not a loan, then I'd be erring on the side of caution. A loan agreement does not have to have the word "loan" in it.

I did not sign a loan agreement means "I did not sign a loan agreement".

The only thing I signed was a contract for employment with sanzar, I signed NOTHING else. The contract of employment for sanzar contains nothing which could even be remotely attributed to being paid in loans.

Those are the bare facts. I did not sign anything else, I have all the paperwork.

Right that's enough discussion. I'd better get back to my work.