Loans being demanded - a summary

[DealorNoDeal]

none of your business?

Fair enough but I think we can all hazard a pretty good guess.

Take away the X * £15+vat/month and...

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

You may not like me challenging you but the fact is you found most of your clients though this forum and I imagine it's still a profitable recruiting ground.

And besides this is a public forum so irritating naysayers, like me, come with the territory.

[webberg]

Fair enough but I think we can all hazard a pretty good guess.

Take away the X * £15+vat/month and...

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

You may not like me challenging you but the fact is you found most of your clients though this forum and I imagine it's still a profitable recruiting ground.

And besides this is a public forum so irritating naysayers, like me, come with the territory.

Lot of assumptions there advanced with no proof.

I have no issues with posters having views and opinions on a public forum.

I would say that my involvement here though has not been a one way street, i.e. clients coming to me.

I like to think that I have offered something in return.

[DealorNoDeal]

Lot of assumptions there advanced with no proof.

Roughly what % of WTT's total income comes from the £15+vat monthly subs?

Totally understandable if you'd rather not reveal that. But why would it matter even if, for the sake of argument, it was over 90%?

[DavidD]

I'd have to disagree.

There are many advisers looking at the situation and dealing with the FACTS.

These advisers will have their own view as to the veracity of the claims being made and will be advising clients in line with their view of those facts and the law.

Are you suggesting that such advisers are aiding and abetting a "fraud"?

Or perhaps because an adviser is applying their knowledge and expertise for a fee, they have a vested interest in keeping the plates spinning even if there is "huge fraud"?

You do have a conflict of interest, however I don't think you are acting fraudulently, you are simply helping protect the vulnerable from being defrauded.

[DealorNoDeal]

You do have a conflict of interest, however I don't think you are acting fraudulently, you are simply helping protect the vulnerable from being defrauded.

webberg set up Big Group, and created the company WTT, specifically to deal with loan schemes. Most of their business is loan scheme related, be it dealing with the underlying tax dispute, APNs, the loan charge, or companies like Felicitas demanding loan repayments.

Their payment structure (monthly subs) does not incentivise them to bring matters to a conclusion. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The longer the various disputes carry on, the longer the money keeps on rolling in.

Other groups have already had cases heard at tribunal. But, after 5 years, WTT's action is still "in the pipeline". Ironically, this gives them a bit of an advantage because they can draw from other groups' experiences but playing a waiting game was never the stated plan.

[eek]

webberg set up Big Group, and created the company WTT, specifically to deal with loan schemes. Most of their business is loan scheme related, be it dealing with the underlying tax dispute, APNs, the loan charge, or companies like Felicitas demanding loan repayments.

Their payment structure (monthly subs) does not incentivise them to bring matters to a conclusion. In fact, it does the exact opposite. The longer the various disputes carry on, the longer the money keeps on rolling in.

Other groups have already had cases heard at tribunal. But, after 5 years, WTT's action is still "in the pipeline". Ironically, this gives them a bit of an advantage because they can draw from other groups' experiences but playing a waiting game was never the stated plan.

Big Group have 1 attack opportunity. Letting others go first to see what works, what doesn't work and what bits worked but were destroyed by other bits makes an awful lot of sense. Especially when it's costing £200-300 a year and the money being talked about is £10k+...

[DealorNoDeal]

Big Group have 1 attack opportunity. Letting others go first to see what works, what doesn't work and what bits worked but were destroyed by other bits makes an awful lot of sense. Especially when it's costing £200-300 a year and the money being talked about is £10k+...

That is not without its risks.

There are only so many possible grounds of appeal. If you leave other groups to exhaust them all, and set legal precedent once it gets to the upper tribunal or the higher courts, then you may never get a day in court.

Of course, on the plus side, that would mean you don't need to fork out money on legal proceedings.

[DealorNoDeal]

I remember back when Montpelier launched the JR and subsequent tax appeal (which they ultimately cocked up).

Other companies, who sold the same double tax scheme, just sat back and did nothing. One company even gave their clients the (false) impression that they were involved in the legal action.

Letting others do the front running can backfire.

[eek]

I remember back when Montpelier launched the JR and subsequent tax appeal (which they ultimately cocked up).

Other companies, who sold the same double tax scheme, just sat back and did nothing. One company even gave their clients the (false) impression that they were involved in the legal action.

Letting others do the front running can backfire.

The Montpelier cockup is probably the biggest of all - I almost wonder if someone paid montpelier to screw up the appeal that way (I know it wasn't the case but even I knew they had missed every single deadline).

[SouthKD]

Three 2nd Class Stamps!

Another letter recieved today, but this is the first one direct from Felicitas. (Not even sent first class!) Using the Anti money laundering and anti terrorism act to ask for a certified photo ID and proof of address. Also the same dribble about Trustees changing and which lenders (who i'd never even heard of) are involved.

Still not a shred of evidence to say they (Felicitas) own the debt. Still no response from my dispute to Gladstones sent Months ago. I spoke to a solicitor who said I should ignore this until they actually provide the evidence and respond accordingly. (NOT adivsing anyone else to do the same)