• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

IQ Contracts - Statutory demand

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by H20 View Post
    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.
    Don't assume that helps you at all here as that acts covers consumer loans and there is a reasonable argument that the loans you have are not consumer loans.

    This has already been discussed to death.
    merely at clientco for the entertainment

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by eek View Post
      Don't assume that helps you at all here as that acts covers consumer loans and there is a reasonable argument that the loans you have are not consumer loans.

      This has already been discussed to death.
      Thank you for your reply eek, I have to admit I do not frequent this site as frequently as yourself, but I am minded to ask, what makes you state that I have assumed what was posted.

      indeed my reference comes from a statement published by the IOM Financial services authority in May 2020, it is specifically related to contractor loans and it states. (in relevant part and full link provided.)

      Loans to contractors – demands for repayment
      Published on: 20 May 2020
      The Authority is aware that some people, who in the past worked as contractors and received loans from employee benefit trusts or similar structures, have received requests from the trustee or from another person, for repayment of those loans in whole or part.

      The Authority would comment as follows:

      The Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading is required under the Moneylenders Act 1991 to maintain a register of persons carrying on a business of lending money on the island. The business of lending money includes the collection of debts. If you have a complaint against a registered moneylender contact the OFT by telephone on 01624 686500 or email [email protected].
      The Authority cannot advise as to whether a particular loan is or is not repayable;



      Loans to contractors – demands for repayment

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by H20 View Post
        Thank you for your reply eek, I have to admit I do not frequent this site as frequently as yourself, but I am minded to ask, what makes you state that I have assumed what was posted.

        indeed my reference comes from a statement published by the IOM Financial services authority in May 2020, it is specifically related to contractor loans and it states. (in relevant part and full link provided.)

        Loans to contractors – demands for repayment
        Published on: 20 May 2020
        The Authority is aware that some people, who in the past worked as contractors and received loans from employee benefit trusts or similar structures, have received requests from the trustee or from another person, for repayment of those loans in whole or part.

        The Authority would comment as follows:

        The Isle of Man Office of Fair Trading is required under the Moneylenders Act 1991 to maintain a register of persons carrying on a business of lending money on the island. The business of lending money includes the collection of debts. If you have a complaint against a registered moneylender contact the OFT by telephone on 01624 686500 or email [email protected].
        The Authority cannot advise as to whether a particular loan is or is not repayable;



        Loans to contractors – demands for repayment
        It's a shame you didn't quote all that page as it also includes

        • Under trust law, trustees are responsible for making decisions related to the assets of trusts and who benefits from trusts, in accordance with the instrument which governs the trust. The Authority does not have powers to instruct trustees, or to intervene in the affairs of a trust – only the courts can arbitrate on trustees’ decisions. If you are dissatisfied with a decision made by a trustee you should, in the first instance, write to the trustee, expressing your dissatisfaction. However, if the matter is not resolved to your satisfaction, you should seek your own legal advice and be prepared to take the matter to the Isle of Man Courts for judgement.


        Ignore what Hughie says (remember we have seen a number of other posters who have turned out to be Felicitas) and speak to WTT (given they seem to be the only game left in town).
        merely at clientco for the entertainment

        Comment


          #24
          Dealt with...
          "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...

          Comment


            #25
            Statutory Demand Concerns

            Ive been getting a heap of emails from Felicitas but have not signed into the portal.
            Since using them I have probably moved over ten times to 4 different countries.

            This last year since receiving the first Felicitas email I have moved 3 times, so my question is what would happen if a Statutory demand gets sent to an old address to which i am no longer registered? can it be enforced?

            Ive been out of work for a year and am on my a$$ so there is no way i can pay these guys

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by JammyDodgers View Post
              Ive been getting a heap of emails from Felicitas but have not signed into the portal.
              Since using them I have probably moved over ten times to 4 different countries.

              This last year since receiving the first Felicitas email I have moved 3 times, so my question is what would happen if a Statutory demand gets sent to an old address to which i am no longer registered? can it be enforced?
              Take legal advice immediately.

              My non-expert understanding is that if you had a duty to inform them of the correct address, then they win (there was an HMRC case, and the judge ruled that in favour of HMRC saying that the tax payer had a duty to keep HMRC informed of the correct address). If the fact of the wrong address was their fault, you can have the SD set aside on those grounds.

              Otherwise it's a grey area.

              Take legal advice immediately.
              Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

              Comment


                #27
                If there is only WTT in town to help us, can't they deal with all of us at once? Instead of billing each of us individually for a case that seems to be the same for everyone?

                It feels like contractor get to pay hmrc, felicitas, the court fees and legal fees. Like feeding everyone to abuse...

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
                  Take legal advice immediately.

                  My non-expert understanding is that if you had a duty to inform them of the correct address, then they win (there was an HMRC case, and the judge ruled that in favour of HMRC saying that the tax payer had a duty to keep HMRC informed of the correct address). If the fact of the wrong address was their fault, you can have the SD set aside on those grounds.

                  Otherwise it's a grey area.

                  Take legal advice immediately.
                  I think HMRC has special power. But definitely not the creditors.

                  As far as I know, if as a landlord a tenant owe you money, you need to serve notice to his new address in order to be valid.

                  And the ex-tenant does not have obligation to keep the landlord informed of his new address

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by cwah View Post
                    If there is only WTT in town to help us, can't they deal with all of us at once? Instead of billing each of us individually for a case that seems to be the same for everyone?

                    It feels like contractor get to pay hmrc, felicitas, the court fees and legal fees. Like feeding everyone to abuse...
                    WTT aren't the only game in Town. Any competent solicitor should be able to advise on a statutory demand. WTT however have very specific expertise in the workings of mass marketed tax avoidance schemes. Grab a brew and read through the various threads. There is some "anti-WTT" feeling too. I haven't used them and can't say they're good or bad. One of their main men Graham Webber was a regular poster on here until comparatively recently, and IMHO he was extremely helpful and was never pushy about WTT's services.

                    Read into that what you will.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by cwah View Post
                      If there is only WTT in town to help us, can't they deal with all of us at once? Instead of billing each of us individually for a case that seems to be the same for everyone?

                      It feels like contractor get to pay hmrc, felicitas, the court fees and legal fees. Like feeding everyone to abuse...
                      Perhaps you should have read my entire post

                      If you wish to contest the loan in an IoM court or tribunal chances are WTT are the only game in town.

                      And I say that as ETC walked away after convincing people not to take the 5% offer that was on the table. And yes I would prefer people didn't have to spend money but 5% and no hassle compared to continual, additional, hassles, court costs and the risk of 100% seemed a good deal given what I discovered.

                      If all you want to do is dispute the demand you can use a solicitor or even do it yourself. But were this to go any further you will need to contest things in an IoM court..
                      merely at clientco for the entertainment

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X