Things about to get very serious and much more real?

[GregRickshaw]

I don't like this sales tactics, sign up now or else, you gonna miss the boat, any good lawyers would represent you, being in a group not necessarily an advantage.

I agree and from what EL said each SD has to be treated individually so they cannot act as a group for the SDs, for what is to come (or not).

Also not everyone with ETC or EL have received them.

[webberg]

I agree and from what EL said each SD has to be treated individually so they cannot act as a group for the SDs, for what is to come (or not).

Also not everyone with ETC or EL have received them.

Not quite correct.

Have a look at Group Litigation Orders.

Advantage of a group is basically cost sharing.

[eek]

Not quite correct.

Have a look at Group Litigation Orders.

Advantage of a group is basically cost sharing.

I suspect you can't do it with a Statutory Demand as they have all been issued individually so would need to be disputed individually.

Now if you were starting the case yourself it's a completely different matter.

[GregRickshaw]

I suspect you can't do it with a Statutory Demand as they have all been issued individually so would need to be disputed individually.

Now if you were starting the case yourself it's a completely different matter.

This is what the EL led us to believe, the main case can be treated as a group so costs will be shared more, however the SD has to be treated individually as the SD is heard in the Court in the individuals SD.

My previous response missed a word so it made less sense.

"I agree and from what EL said each SD has to be treated individually so they cannot act as a group for the SDs, for what is to come (or not)."

"each SD has to be treated individually so they cannot act as a group for the SDs, for what is to come (or not) they will hopefully be able to help us a group"

[webberg]

I suspect you can't do it with a Statutory Demand as they have all been issued individually so would need to be disputed individually.

Now if you were starting the case yourself it's a completely different matter.

With respect and without knowing your skill/experience set in this space, we have professional advice that beyond the initial individual by individual response to SDs, then a GLO offers a route forward.

[mrprofit]

For those who want to settle, I just want to say this, there is no proof that you are settling with legal owners of the debt, no matter what Felicitas is claiming to have or give you as proof of settlement.

Next time legal owners might show up and ask you to do that same. You can't say in court, but I already settled with Felicitas. They might as well be some scammers that have only proof of transactions being made.

They need to prove the debt exist and has been passed on to other intermediaries legally.

[eek]

With respect and without knowing your skill/experience set in this space, we have professional advice that beyond the initial individual by individual response to SDs, then a GLO offers a route forward.

Which wasn't what you said in your previous post - which implied that you could use a group approach for the initial responses (and you can't).

Afterwards the courts would prefer a group approach it saves work all around.

[webberg]

Clearly you have seen more "implication", than I wrote or intended.

If others have also spotted such implication then let me be clear.

Yes, an individual SD has to be dealt with individually.

The Courts then have mechanisms that allow for groups in similar situations to argue common issues.

[MrO666]

For those who want to settle, I just want to say this, there is no proof that you are settling with legal owners of the debt, no matter what Felicitas is claiming to have or give you as proof of settlement.

Next time legal owners might show up and ask you to do that same. You can't say in court, but I already settled with Felicitas. They might as well be some scammers that have only proof of transactions being made.

They need to prove the debt exist and has been passed on to other intermediaries legally.

I agree with what you're saying 100%.

It's my own personal belief that this is a last roll of the dice to see how much they can get, what remains to be seen is how far they are willing to take things in order to achieve that. Only they know that.

However, the only thing I will say, is that someone, somewhere does own these alleged loan books. Whether anyone agrees that these are loans or not is beside the point (as we all have our views on that), but ultimately somebody is the legal owner of all of this. I guess what i'm saying is don't bury your heads about this, deal with it properly, however you think that is.

To be clear, I'm not advising anyone on what or what not to do, I'm just playing devils advocate here, that's all.

[monkey99]

i) Statutory demand issued (to your old address)
ii) Felicitas go to court and say they have served it and start bankruptcy proceedings

iii) the next time you know there is a problem is when your bank asks about your bankruptcy order.

Now I (and others) suspect they aren't going to do 2 as it would cost them actual money to do so (£1700 or so) but were they to do so you really would have real life problems for months / years even if your got it removed.

I am sorry but how can the court take the case?
Were is the defendant? He/she is innocent until proven guilty.
What are these loans? oh they are a tax avoidance scheme which the owners setup and since have been proved by HMRC are illegal and are income. You cannot loan yourself your own money
Prove that you own the loan book?


If this is the case I could just make up a debt send it someone old address and make them bankrupt