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

[piebaps]

It is worth remembering that the IOM and the United Kingdom are separate countries for tax purposes.

An IOM Civil Court would have to determine whether there was a valid contract. How the proceeds are treated by the tax authorities in what is effectively a foreign country may form part of the Court's reasoning. How big a part is a matter for the Court.

That said, I'm with WTT and ETC on this one. This will never go near a Court. Don't give them a penny.

[Wtaf]

This is a forum where posts have been used in a court of law by HMRC to argue their viewpoint and where people are argued even on this thread that some posters are the current schema owners. Sorry but I'm going to be very clear that I'm not involved I just find it interesting - as if I had graduated a year earlier I probably would have gone into tax...

I'm going to say this, with no emotion attached, I don't care. As you quoted a plot twist from a movie, how about this one from Ransom. Instead of paying the kidnappers, he put a bounty on their heads. I wonder how the Nigerian Prince is doing these days...

[WoffleCopter]

Which part of the two articles I linked to did you not quite grasp - just because you don't think it's fair doesn't make it wrong in a court of law.

I've already read up on EBT etc before.

Just because what you're saying is theoretically possible, doesn't mean it's probable.

In my experience courts tend to put more importance on reasonableness than contractual compliance. My father was even let out of a contract he had actually SIGNED for a business advertising run because he argued (in person at court) that he was put under duress to sign during the sales pitch.

+ Maybe I'm naive, but IMO the argument that you were lured into joining the scheme, you now realise it was wrong and have put your tax affairs in order will carry a lot more weight with a judge than scammers trying to extort money they never did anything for.

[WoffleCopter]

My concern with that is we don't know how the clowns are working.
Now again I'm not saying that things are heading to court but were I said clown starting the next stage the test cases I picked wouldn't be a poster on this site nor one using a stock letter from an advisor firm.

As a matter of interest, how would they be able to tally posters on this site with their records of alleged loans?

[uplock]

How many months have these clowns been threatening to take people to court?

Have they done anything, at all?

Thought not.

Much would be considered in any court action. Simple existence of a contract, whether signed or not signed will not be the only determining factor for a decision. If taken to Court the IOM Court's would likely look at:

1. 1. Whether a contract exists?
2. 2. Whether it was signed?
3. 3. What representations where made (ie marketing literature) that persuaded the borrower to enter into the contract?
4. 4. What actions where taken or not taken by the parties to reflect their understanding of the agreement (eg not collecting the debt for long intervals, registering the loans as part of a tax avoidance scheme with HMRC, borrower settling and paying unpaid tax to HMRC as personal income, not sending loan statements etc...)?
5. 5. What was publicly known of the arrangements (eg advertising of tax planning schemes)?
6. 6. What was the intended consequences of the contract and expectations of the parties (trustee lender v borrower)?
7. 7. Did fiduciary duty of care by the trustees to the loan beneficiary was breached?
8. 8. If yes to above, is any loan transfer by the trustees void?
9. 9. "Reasonable person"/ "Smell test" test - would the borrower ordinarily agree to indirectly transfer funds to a trustee and have the funds loaned back to them, expect the funds be repaid? If so, would the subsequent loss to the borrower be a logical basis to enter into the contract by any reasonable person, unless the intenetion was that any loan/advance was not to be repaid?
10. 10. Opinion of external authorities? > eg: IOM FSA - per 25th May news bulletin that such loan recalls may constitute fraud/scam.
11. 11. What financial loss would occur to the lender, if funds loaned, that originated from the borrower, was not subsequently repaid by the borrower?
12. 12. Etc........... on and on

Ultimately, I don't believe there is any material chance of success by Feliciatas if they decided to take these so called loans to court. Which is why they threaten but have taken no action. If they do, it will be an expensive mistake for them.

[Superfly]

How can you lend any credence to evidence/agreement documents provided by Felicitas when you know and can prove that Felicitas has been doctoring them?

[DealorNoDeal]

Much would be considered in any court action. Simple existence of a contract, whether signed or not signed will not be the only determining factor for a decision. If taken to Court the IOM Court's would likely look at:

1. 1. Whether a contract exists?
2. 2. Whether it was signed?
3. 3. What representations where made (ie marketing literature) that persuaded the borrower to enter into the contract?
4. 4. What actions where taken or not taken by the parties to reflect their understanding of the agreement (eg not collecting the debt for long intervals, registering the loans as part of a tax avoidance scheme with HMRC, borrower settling and paying unpaid tax to HMRC as personal income, not sending loan statements etc...)?
5. 5. What was publicly known of the arrangements (eg advertising of tax planning schemes)?
6. 6. What was the intended consequences of the contract and expectations of the parties (trustee lender v borrower)?
7. 7. Did fiduciary duty of care by the trustees to the loan beneficiary was breached?
8. 8. If yes to above, is any loan transfer by the trustees void?
9. 9. "Reasonable person"/ "Smell test" test - would the borrower ordinarily agree to indirectly transfer funds to a trustee and have the funds loaned back to them, expect the funds be repaid? If so, would the subsequent loss to the borrower be a logical basis to enter into the contract by any reasonable person, unless the intenetion was that any loan/advance was not to be repaid?
10. 10. Opinion of external authorities? > eg: IOM FSA - per 25th May news bulletin that such loan recalls may constitute fraud/scam.
11. 11. What financial loss would occur to the lender, if funds loaned, that originated from the borrower, was not subsequently repaid by the borrower?
12. 12. Etc........... on and on

Ultimately, I don't believe there is any material chance of success by Feliciatas if they decided to take these so called loans to court. Which is why they threaten but have taken no action. If they do, it will be an expensive mistake for them.

A court would also look at how the owner of the loan book has gone about trying to secure repayment eg. have they followed the correct legal procedures (CPR).

I would imagine that sending multiple letters offering different arbitrary % amounts to forgive the "debt" is a bit unorthodox to say the least.

[lowpaidworker]

one thing that amazes me in all this is I am sure Felicitas have 100% got the message that the general feeling is your joking, bluffing, taking the p1ss etc. This post is still going now some 6 or 7 months after this all started... and guess what.....


They are still continuing persuing with this loan recall.

The legal process is a long winding bumpy road but they seem to be pushing ahead. Takes a long while to get someone into court/legal proceedings. Whilst not engaging them as some seem to be doing is maybe one process I would make sure your fully prepared in the event they do manage to get one or more of you in court.


Thankfully my loans havent been recalled but there is no reason why the provider could not recall them. However if they did and i ended up in a County Court I'd have some tricky questions to answer irrespective of any tax settlement I have had with HMRC, and whilst we are on that subject dont expect HMRC to come to your aid.

[piebaps]

Lowpaid - Remember that many of the loans are Isle of Man loans. This is not a County Court. The law in play while similar to UK, is actually the law in what is effectively a foreign country. There is no "no win no fee basis" and only Isle of Man lawyers (called Advocates) can appear.

On the positive side, while the Island does have its own legal system, it is rooted in English law and many of the principles and guiding caselaw is similar, if not the same.

[WoffleCopter]

one thing that amazes me in all this is I am sure Felicitas have 100% got the message that the general feeling is your joking, bluffing, taking the p1ss etc. This post is still going now some 6 or 7 months after this all started... and guess what.....


They are still continuing persuing with this loan recall.

The legal process is a long winding bumpy road but they seem to be pushing ahead. Takes a long while to get someone into court/legal proceedings. Whilst not engaging them as some seem to be doing is maybe one process I would make sure your fully prepared in the event they do manage to get one or more of you in court.


Thankfully my loans havent been recalled but there is no reason why the provider could not recall them. However if they did and i ended up in a County Court I'd have some tricky questions to answer irrespective of any tax settlement I have had with HMRC, and whilst we are on that subject dont expect HMRC to come to your aid.

Can you define "pushing ahead" exactly - what concrete legal steps have they taken other than issuing threats?

I doubt anyone is expecting anything from HMRC.