Best Employment Services Limited liquidation 'loan' repayments Best Employment Services Limited liquidation 'loan' repayments - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,761
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

  2. #12

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    1

    Default What a load of crap

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    The Liquidator of this company does (very occasionally) post here and a search of his posts may explain what is happening



    In your case I suspect this recent post from Ian is probably based on this current liquidation




    and the sad fact is based on comments within the liquidators Statement that you can find at BEST EMPLOYMENT SERVICES LIMITED - Filing history (free information from Companies House) it would appear that your loans are now starting to fall due.

    Given that the only expert we have on this forum I can refer to you is Webberg I would suggest calling WTT and seeing what and who they can suggest can help you.
    These were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.

    They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.

    Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?

  3. #13

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noonoo View Post
    These were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.

    They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.

    Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?
    Let me correct this bit by bit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noonoo View Post
    These were not loans. They were salaries paid by an agency or employer to Best Employment Services who then paid them on. For the liquidators to now be demanding the monies back is preposterous.
    The money Best Employment Services received from your agency was not your salary it was a payment (at gross invoice level) for the work you did for Best Employment Services.

    Had Best Employment Services been a proper / legitimate / compliant umbrella company they would have then deducted their fee and the employment taxes an employer pays and then paid you the rest after deduction the appropriate levels of income and Employee NI tax an employee pays.

    Best Employment Services did not do this and instead paid a limited amount of money out the correct way while loaning you the rest of the money Best Employment Services had received for the work you did.

    So your first point is wrong - the agency / employer was not your employer Best Employment Services was and the money Best Employment Services received was a gross payment before any tax had been paid and was definitely not a salary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noonoo View Post
    They received the funds and now they want us to pay our salaries back? The analogy about a Barclays loan is so incorrect i don't even have the energy to pick the multiple holes in it.
    So yes Best Employment services received money for the work you did but it wasn't yet your salary / wage and Best Employment Services didn't treat it as income (on which tax should have been paid). Instead Best Employment services paid the money it received to you as a loan (the Barclay's analogy) and those loans are now falling due..
    Now I'm sure the original plan was for Best Employment Services to have been closed down by now (with the loans offloaded to a offshore 3rd party) but sadly Adrian Sacco failed to do that so the Liquidator has a very large bill from HMRC (to pay) and a set of loans that are now becoming due as the company still exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noonoo View Post
    Not to even get started on the single biggest issue of HMRC retrospectively making something illegal. How can that even be a thing?
    Did this occur prior to December 2010 - if not it is not retrospective as it was at that point that the law regarding schemes become incredibly clear. Post 2010 the law was very clear that money received for work (i.e. income) is taxed as income - so there is no retrospection and nothing wrong in HMRC asking for the appropriate income taxes on the money paid - so that covers HMRC's side of the loan issue.

    The Liquidators issue is equally simple - the liquidator believes you have borrowed money from the company it is liquidating and would like to recover the money to pay off the company's (Best Employment Services) other debts.

    And sadly because of the way HMRC works and the way the money was lent out HMRC is perfectly within it's rights to treat the money as income on which tax is due and the liquidator is perfectly entitled to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid (and that is an issue I've been aware of for over 20 years which is why I never joined a scheme).

    So your 3rd point is as in accurate as the first 2.

    Now I know you will disagree with all the above but it doesn't matter - as the above is a far more accurate representation of how you were actually paid and is the one HMRC and the liquidator will be using.

    And I have a lot of sympathy for people who joined a scheme and are now in an impossible position. What I don't have is any sympathy for people who still don't understand how things went wrong, believe they have been hard done by and still believe and trust the words of a smooth talking con artist who in reality made his living by permanently screwing up your life to save you a few quid.

    What you need to be doing now isn't arguing that this is unfair but working out how you may be able to show that the loans are invalid and that you don't need to repay them (and for that you need to speak to WTT).
    Last edited by eek; 26th October 2020 at 09:04. Reason: added bit about where the loans are supposed to be.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  4. #14

    Some things in Moderation

    cojak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Look to your right...
    Posts
    20,761

    Default

    Eek has quite correctly put the facts before you.

    I am sure though that doesn't make your position any easier to bear, and so you need some support regarding this.

    WTT is helping many people and so I would advise that you contact them for advice on your next steps.

    Good Luck to all.
    "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
    - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

  5. #15

    Nervous Newbie


    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    1

    Default Hi Dom, I have received similar letter with deadline upto 21 days.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie1965 View Post
    Hello Dom, can you PM me? ������

    Mod note: Take care who you accept PM's from - don't be too open exchanging information until you've checked them out and they've given you real life references.

    Hi Dom, Steve. I am new to this. Had similar letters.just wondering if collaborative aproach is better please.many thanks.

  6. #16

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eboys View Post
    Hi Dom, Steve. I am new to this. Had similar letters.just wondering if collaborative approach is better please.many thanks.
    Speak to WTT - as while a collaborative approach may be best you cannot be sure people on this forum are who they claim to be (although in this case where you are talking about a liquidator I really don't think you would have the impersonation issues we've seen where a trust is trying to collect the money).

    Also do it now as the deadline is very rapidly approaching.
    Last edited by eek; 27th October 2020 at 08:09.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  7. #17

    Default Best Employment Services - action to take?

    Quote Originally Posted by eek View Post
    Let me correct this bit by bit.



    The money Best Employment Services received from your agency was not your salary it was a payment (at gross invoice level) for the work you did for Best Employment Services.

    Had Best Employment Services been a proper / legitimate / compliant umbrella company they would have then deducted their fee and the employment taxes an employer pays and then paid you the rest after deduction the appropriate levels of income and Employee NI tax an employee pays.

    Best Employment Services did not do this and instead paid a limited amount of money out the correct way while loaning you the rest of the money Best Employment Services had received for the work you did.

    So your first point is wrong - the agency / employer was not your employer Best Employment Services was and the money Best Employment Services received was a gross payment before any tax had been paid and was definitely not a salary.



    So yes Best Employment services received money for the work you did but it wasn't yet your salary / wage and Best Employment Services didn't treat it as income (on which tax should have been paid). Instead Best Employment services paid the money it received to you as a loan (the Barclay's analogy) and those loans are now falling due..
    Now I'm sure the original plan was for Best Employment Services to have been closed down by now (with the loans offloaded to a offshore 3rd party) but sadly Adrian Sacco failed to do that so the Liquidator has a very large bill from HMRC (to pay) and a set of loans that are now becoming due as the company still exists.



    Did this occur prior to December 2010 - if not it is not retrospective as it was at that point that the law regarding schemes become incredibly clear. Post 2010 the law was very clear that money received for work (i.e. income) is taxed as income - so there is no retrospection and nothing wrong in HMRC asking for the appropriate income taxes on the money paid - so that covers HMRC's side of the loan issue.

    The Liquidators issue is equally simple - the liquidator believes you have borrowed money from the company it is liquidating and would like to recover the money to pay off the company's (Best Employment Services) other debts.

    And sadly because of the way HMRC works and the way the money was lent out HMRC is perfectly within it's rights to treat the money as income on which tax is due and the liquidator is perfectly entitled to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid (and that is an issue I've been aware of for over 20 years which is why I never joined a scheme).

    So your 3rd point is as in accurate as the first 2.

    Now I know you will disagree with all the above but it doesn't matter - as the above is a far more accurate representation of how you were actually paid and is the one HMRC and the liquidator will be using.

    And I have a lot of sympathy for people who joined a scheme and are now in an impossible position. What I don't have is any sympathy for people who still don't understand how things went wrong, believe they have been hard done by and still believe and trust the words of a smooth talking con artist who in reality made his living by permanently screwing up your life to save you a few quid.

    What you need to be doing now isn't arguing that this is unfair but working out how you may be able to show that the loans are invalid and that you don't need to repay them (and for that you need to speak to WTT).

    Much of what is said is good,

    BUT
    the 'loans' were not loans;
    work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
    the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
    were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
    oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
    the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
    Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
    Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
    and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.


    What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.

    Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.

    PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Best Employee View Post
    Much of what is said is good,

    BUT
    the 'loans' were not loans;
    work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
    the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
    were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
    oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
    the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
    Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
    Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
    and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.


    What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.

    Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.

    PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did
    Oh dear, here we go again.
    Public Service Posting by the BBC - Bloggs Bulls**t Corp.
    Officially CUK certified - Thick as f**k.

  9. #19

    bored now

    eek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    😂
    Posts
    26,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Best Employee View Post
    Much of what is said is good,

    BUT
    the 'loans' were not loans;
    work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;

    the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
    were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
    oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
    the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
    Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
    Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
    and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.


    What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.

    Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.

    PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did
    You may not think they were loans but I suspect the courts viewpoint will reflect mine rather than yours and believe me the liquidator is going to take this to court (all costs are covered and there is an additional incentive for them to do so).

    And I could pull everything apart again but I really can't be bothered - but I will point out that Best (insert this week's variation here) was your employer, so the loans were loans from your employer which aren't subject to consumer law and the people who were paying Best (for the work you did) weren't your employer - "Best" was. And heck you even admit you were an employee with your poster name.

    Also I've continually stated in the past don't publish your argument online as it gives the people chasing you money time to sort of answers to you argument before it hits court.

    Not that that is an argument - it's an inaccurate viewpoint based on misconceptions of how the scheme really worked (which is little like how Mr Sacco described it - as he screwed up the implementation of the scheme).

    Finally I know this is a pure UK case remember Mr Sacco screwed up.
    Last edited by eek; 30th October 2020 at 08:59.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

  10. #20

    More time posting than coding

    piebaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Best Employee View Post
    Much of what is said is good,

    BUT
    the 'loans' were not loans;
    work was not 'done' for Best Employment (if it was what was it?) employees were using their 'employment' with Best as de facto (and I would argue, de jure), collection agents, only;
    the money that was loaned was not Bests' but employees own money;
    were the loans transferred to a third party i.e. do Best have a title to claim/sue, anyway?
    oral representations were made that the loans would not be called in or paid (and there is enough evidence of this);
    the loans were tainted by illegality and unenforceable;
    Employees were defrauded by Best (well at least told misrepresentations regarding the arrangement)
    Best were not licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to make loans and therefore any loans made are unlawful - they are an unlicensed loan-shark;
    and the loans were not in the correct CCA format.


    What can be done? A presumptive strike against the administrators in a court action FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE CLAIM/LOANS ARE INVALID AND A SHAM.

    Or else they are going to let it run and run and run. And divide and conquer all the little worried Best employees.

    PS: Best were based in Northwich, Cheshire, with a Cheshire phone number. No mention of the IoM in anything they did
    Hi Bestemployee. Can I suggest you get yourself a brew, put your feet up and have a read of this Revenue & Customs v Opus Bestpay Ltd (DOTAS - Application for order that certain arrangements are notifiable) [2020] UKFTT 408 (TC) (18 August 2020)

    You may then like to have a rethink. You're currently flirting between the denial and anger stages of the change curve. You need to get it out of your system and get into the acceptance stage. You will then be able to handle the position a little better.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •