Did you dispute it?Originally Posted by captainbeagle
bored now
Did you dispute it?
merely at clientco for the entertainment
Nervous Newbie
My SD withdrawn too
But I did draft a detailed response before it was withdrawn. Big thanks to other posts on this forum and especially the number of links posted by EEK, really helpful to know I was not alone. It enabled me to draft something quite detailed but without needing to engage any 3rd party legal support. Although it probably helped that my contingency plan would have been to rope in my Brother in law who used to be a qualified Barrister who specialised in employment and contract law!!
Nervous Newbie
I know of groups of people that are seeking action against Felicitas now. Unfortunately for them they had not stayed that well hidden!
Nervous Newbie
Hi Eek. Elisium Law wrote a letter to them a couple of days ago and they have withdrawn it.
bored now
So it's not across the board - but it does seem that people who have disputed their demands have all had ithem withdrawn - which is probably the point, they will still be able to get money from those who haven't disputed the claim.
Last edited by eek; 27th November 2020 at 14:16.
merely at clientco for the entertainment
Nervous Newbie
I was in the category of 'ignore until they go away'
I admit I ignored all previous dubious emails and physical correspondence. I also ignored Felicitas thinking they would go the same way as Trust Help Line, DOR Resolutions Limited, Dynamic Partners Consultants Limited to name but a few.
My belief is that these immoral promoters and their agents began to see their windfalls from those who were worn down by repeated threats begin to dwindle and realised they needed a different tactic to get to people in my 'ignore' category. That's where the Statutory Demand tactic comes into play whereupon they may require rights precisely because the person being targeted may ignore and not respond.
I'm pleased to see some of these demands are now being withdrawn once challenged. I did not engage support from anyone other than by reading contributions on the Contractor UK forums plus the fact I'd kept all letters, emails, original offers plus contracts and associated documents.
My advice to anyone still with an outstanding Statutory Demand is to challenge it NOW. It cost me just over £6 to send a letter to Statutory Law Ltd by recorded delivery.
Nervous Newbie
Iq Contracts
I can recommend David Riordan at Whitehead Monckton, he is deling with my case
bored now
Says an anonymous poster (with a single post) who could be David Riordan at Whitehead Monckton.
As I've continually stated here you don't need to do much to invalidate a statutory demand provided you do it in the appropriate timescale.
State that the contract is subject to IoM law and that the fact there is any loan is disputed.
Job done.
merely at clientco for the entertainment
Some things in Moderation
Have a look at this thread.
https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...u-get-one.html
"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...
Nervous Newbie
Statutory Demands
If and as stated in their publicity, Felicitas are registered as moneylenders in the IOM as part of their business and if they truly believe and can prove a debt is owed, why withdraw the SD ? If they withdraw, they obviously do not believe it due, thereby contravening the section of the act as below ? ( This may apply to the Gladstones letters sent also ?).
Under Section 10 of the IOM 1991 Moneylenders ACT.
10 Harassment of debtors
[P1970/31/40]
(1) Any person who, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract —
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of —
(i) their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or
(ii) any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied,
are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
2. (b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
3. (c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
4. (d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows he has not;
is guilty of an offence.
Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose of —
1. (a) securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
2. (b) the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
3. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding £5,000 or to both.
Reply With Quote
