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

[WoffleCopter]

I do believe time is a useful strategy, as has been said many time 'low hanging fruit' is what (I believe) these crooks are after. I do not believe they possess the will or in most cases the financial strength to push through what is IMHO a series of unwinnable cases just to get back what is essentially a series of bad debts....

If they can persuade some people to pay them back or even a small % back they will have got what they came for - money for nothing.

They will have to have deep pockets, a strong will and importantly a strong chance of winning to take this forward to court. HOLD THE LINE.

Exactly.

If I were in their position AND I was confident of the loans being enforceable, I would already have pushed through a legal test-case to set precedent and then use that result in all correspondence to threaten people even further.

[webberg]

I am not affected by Felicitas.
But I do have experience with loans and the IoM Baker Tilly and associates.
I personally dealt with the tax on my loans by communicating to HMRC directly, there was inevitable delays but I found them consistent and successfully brokered a very decent settlement. Settlement terms from HMRC follow an internal policy and ALL people get the same settlement. If you have done better than the one size fits all scheme, well done you. However the issue here is not tax but loans. HMRC cannot, does not and could not influence the exercise or otherwise of loan rights and obligations. the alleged owners of loans, care nothing if the tax position has been agreed or not.
I am not going into details here, but if you were to see their offices, meet these directors you would feel alot better in knowing that these people are not professionals. We have done that and explored (in the case of Baker Tilly) their membership of a reputable international aggregator of accounting firms. I have no reason to consider that the qualifications of the people we met at BT were in any manner false or unearned. In order to belong to BT INternational, there are also certain standards. I do not say that I approve of what they have done but bear in mind that professionals do as their clients ask. The client may be advised against (or for) a particular action, but ultimately the client decides. the adviser has done a professional job however. The professional here is NOT driving the recovery action - that is being done by somebody whose qualifications, professional or otherwise, I have not investigated.
It's my opinion that these cowards would never go as far as court to apply their tenuous legal position, and never in front of a judge. A judge would throw them out! Why? Prima facie, there is a signed loan agreement, evidence that money has passed and therefore a liability. Why would a Judge throw that out? What reason is there?
So wait it out, six years will pass quickly and the clock is already ticking.

That's my stance, like it or not. You can of course hire professionals who will direct you in correspondence. But most likely your letters go unopened. I'm not sure what this means. Professional firms rely upon letters and similar to suggest that somebody would take money and then ignore correspondence is utter nonsense.

See above.

You are of course entitled to a view and opinion.

Where that includes suggesting a strategy - active or passive - it might help if we knew something about your knowledge or experiences - it would add weight.

Here you have experience of a professional firm somewhat removed from those who claim ownership of the loans. I'm not sure how much weight that adds?

You also imply that because you sorted out your tax on the loan amounts, you have some insight as to how to deal with the entirely separate matter of whether the loan rights and obligations have any credence. In my view, these are separate matters and being able to deal with one does not mean that there is experience in dealing with the other.

It is my view that "doing nothing" is not a sensible strategy.

[webberg]

I note that Weberg states "none of his clients have paid a single penny". I would respectfully counter by asking how many non-clients have been ordered to repay these "loans" by a court. If the answer is also "none", one wonders what is to be gained by engaging.

I would add that some people who are now clients, paid some of the demands prior to joining us, and we and they have been unable to recover those sums.

The loan holders here rely upon a certain number of people paying the demands.

if they have any sense, they use those funds to pursue the more reluctant payers.

The numbers here are HUGE. Even a small percentage of the gross loans is a lottery win. Why would loan holders not invest?

[webberg]

There are probably a number of strategies available to those being asked to repay loans. Some are passive, some are active.

The passive strategies will be relying upon the owner of the alleged loans giving up their case because either they have collected money from those fooled into paying or the cost of pursuing the debt (time and money) becomes not worth it.

Active strategies rely upon disputing liability and putting up legal and practical hurdles to the owners of the alleged loans and forcing them to contemplate how much they are prepared to spend in order to collect.

(I have discounted any notion that these people have any shame or care about their reputation. Consequently name calling and attacks on their character will have no impact upon whether a Court may eventually find a liability exists).

Those running the active strategies have already started the processes and details can be found by calling them.

If your choice is a passive strategy, just be aware that if this fails, you will need to perhaps join an active scheme.

I also suggest that the knowledge. experience and expertise of those suggesting passive strategies, if known or disclosed, would be a help to those trying to decide which way to go?

From the exchanges this morning, it's clear what the position of some posters is. My position is also clear. I therefore see no benefit to readers in long exchanges in an already too long thread in repeating these positions. I'll not be posting on the subject of active vs passive strategies further,

[DealorNoDeal]

The numbers here are HUGE. Even a small percentage of the gross loans is a lottery win. Why would loan holders not invest?

By huge, I'm guessing hundreds of £millions?

I wonder how much FS and Felicitas paid to acquire them? What's the going rate for worthless paper these days?

[WoffleCopter]

I would add that some people who are now clients, paid some of the demands prior to joining us, and we and they have been unable to recover those sums.

I would be surprised if you had been able to recover the money from these people.

The loan holders here rely upon a certain number of people paying the demands.

The numbers here are HUGE. Even a small percentage of the gross loans is a lottery win. Why would loan holders not invest?

Thanks, but it seems that you appear to be reinforcing my comments more than rebutting. You make the point that their modus operandi is reliant entirely on people capitulating.

If they have any sense, they use those funds to pursue the more reluctant payers.

As has already been mentioned, if they were so confident of their position I would expect them to have proactively tested this in court, not just sending out threatening letters, then they would have much more clout behind their claims and wouldn't need to offer 12.5% write-offs.

[webberg]

By huge, I'm guessing hundreds of £millions?

I wonder how much FS and Felicitas paid to acquire them? What's the going rate for worthless paper these days?

I've heard a number mentioned that I've discounted as scuttlebutt.

Even if we go for half of that though, £500m.

How much did they pay?

I have no idea. I'm guessing very little upfront with perhaps a kickback if they become valuable?

[webberg]

Thanks, but it seems that you appear to be reinforcing my comments more than rebutting. You make the point that their modus operandi is reliant entirely on people capitulating. No. I'm not reinforcing anybody's comments or views. I'm stating the bleeding obvious. I'm not trying to rebut your comments either. I would contest any notion that their MO is "entirely" reliant upon people capitulating. I suspect that this is just one part of a wider strategy.

As has already been mentioned, if they were so confident of their position I would expect them to have proactively tested this in court, not just sending out threatening letters, then they would have much more clout behind their claims and wouldn't need to offer 12.5% write-offs.

How could they have got a pre-emptive Court decision? Just not possible. There is a process, they have to begin with a request for payment, then press that demand, then if not paid go to the court. There is no shortcut to that process.

[WoffleCopter]

How could they have got a pre-emptive Court decision? Just not possible. There is a process, they have to begin with a request for payment, then press that demand, then if not paid go to the court. There is no shortcut to that process.

Yes, I am aware of that, but this could have been achieved already going back to THL days.

[webberg]

Yes, I am aware of that, but this could have been achieved already going back to THL days.

How could Felicitas have got hold of a ruling obtained by another company?

Clearly there is a conspiracy going on here that I'm unaware of.