Reply to: Loans being demanded - a summary

[creativity]

Go and follow the advice in Things about to get very serious and much more real? (contractoruk.com)

Basically you just need to dispute the fact money is owed - you don't actually need to do much more than that to kill a statutory demand.

Good advice as always from EEK. Thank you for your contribution on these forums.

[DealorNoDeal]

I would send the dispute letter by special guaranteed delivery, which costs about £7.

Unfortunately, due to corona, letters posted from Wednesday 23rd aren't guaranteed next day but at least you can track it all the way.

Special Delivery Guaranteed by 9am and 1pm | Royal Mail

[eek]

Go and follow the advice in Things about to get very serious and much more real? (contractoruk.com)

Basically you just need to dispute the fact money is owed - you don't actually need to do much more than that to kill a statutory demand.

[contractorneveragain]

Received a copy of my signed contract with IQ today courtesy of Felicitas, with a few redacted sheets, of the actual details of each loan paid.
Felicitas acting of behalf of Nigel Powell of "Statutory Law Ltd".

Anyone else receive them?

Yep received this yesterday, they've must have thought with it being Xmas and people being away or not around they won't respond.
Its a good tatic to see who will respond within the time frame to challenge the claims.

[eek]

Received a copy of my signed contract with IQ today courtesy of Felicitas, with a few redacted sheets, of the actual details of each loan paid.
Felicitas acting of behalf of Nigel Powell of "Statutory Law Ltd".

Anyone else receive them?

Don't you mean Nigel Powell of "Statutory Law Ltd" acting on behalf of Felicitas?

So firstly have you previously had a Statutory demand via Nigel - if you haven't dispute it.

If you have and they have sent you this double check that version of the contract against your version especially clause 8 (taken from your previous post).

8. Governing Law
8.1. This Agreement shall be governed and constructed in all respects in accordance with the laws of the Isle of Man. The parties hereto submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Isle of Man Courts.

and ask Nigel why he is using UK law to argue that the money is due.

(note that's copied from your previous post - if Nigel is demanding payments for a contract subject to IoM law I suspect the courts would be very interested).

[Dinnerticketboy]

Proof of signed contract

Received a copy of my signed contract with IQ today courtesy of Felicitas, with a few redacted sheets, of the actual details of each loan paid.
Felicitas acting of behalf of Nigel Powell of "Statutory Law Ltd".

Anyone else receive them?

[eek]

This looks like it is useful info for those dealing with Opus Bestpay demands, as their structure was that of an Employer lending to Employees without the complication of offshore trusts, and it was all UK based.

As I stated above it may be useful but don't assume it actually helps you - and if you are dealing with Opus you are dealing with liquidators who know what they are doing and have already spent a very large sum of money.

[Superfly]

Not strictly “heresay” as I understood that term.

However, you are right to ask.

A few examples but this isn’t something I’d use as a sole basis of an argument for sure.
https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/18...c-march-12.pdf

https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/18...c-march-12.pdf note use of term “usually”

When Might Employees Be Considered Consumers?

Im sure there are more nuances around this. Just like in any area of law.

Pouvin and Dijoux (Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Opinion) [2018] EUECJ C-590/17_O (15 November 2018) this seems also of interest.

I’m not a legal professional by the way. Just think there are some absolutes being suggested which might not be.

This looks like it is useful info for those dealing with Opus Bestpay demands, as their structure was that of an Employer lending to Employees without the complication of offshore trusts, and it was all UK based.

[eek]

(Trying to edit on an iPad is tricky.)

You are right to keep pointing out that IoM law must be followed if that is the jurisdiction as stated in the contract (which 99% is true).

I’m contemplating what differences arise when there appears to be a contract of employment and separate loan agreement. Most employers only have one contract of employment even when they offer employee loans for travel cards etc.

In such circumstance in one contract an entity is an employer and in another another the same entity could be a lender, so conducting lending business. It would seem in trying to set up a tax “efficiency” business business they de facto become lending businesses.

I also wonder if you can be employed by a trust itself rather than the LTD company that is running the trust?

1) You are clutching at straws.
2) if this forms any type of defence - do not discuss it in public as it gives Felicitas time to prepare answers were it necessary.

[JusticeSeeker939]

Looking at you first link (which is also your second link)



And even ignoring that rather standard get out clause, what has this got to do with loans from an Isle of Man trust / company subject to IoM law?

(Trying to edit on an iPad is tricky.)

You are right to keep pointing out that IoM law must be followed if that is the jurisdiction as stated in the contract (which 99% is true).

I’m contemplating what differences arise when there appears to be a contract of employment and separate loan agreement. Most employers only have one contract of employment even when they offer employee loans for travel cards etc.

In such circumstance in one contract an entity is an employer and in another another the same entity could be a lender, so conducting lending business. It would seem in trying to set up a tax “efficiency” business business they de facto become lending businesses.

I also wonder if you can be employed by a trust itself rather than the LTD company that is running the trust?

[eek]

Looking at you first link (which is also your second link)

Business agreements over £25,000

An exemption is available for credit agreements over £25,000 entered into by the debtor “wholly or predominantly for the purposes of a business carried on or intended to be carried on by him”. In order to create a presumption that the agreement qualifies for this exemption, the loan agreement must include a declaration by the debtor in the form prescribed by the legislation. However, the presumption in favour of the exemption can be rebutted if the creditor, or anyone acting on his behalf, knows that the debtor is not acting in the course of a business. The requirement for the loan to be provided for the purposes of a business carried on by the debtor means this exemption will not generally apply in the case of loans to employees.

And even ignoring that rather standard get out clause, what has this got to do with loans from an Isle of Man trust / company subject to IoM law?

[JusticeSeeker939]

Link please - I prefer evidence rather than hearsay.

Not strictly “heresay” as I understood that term.

However, you are right to ask.

A few examples but this isn’t something I’d use as a sole basis of an argument for sure.
https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/18...c-march-12.pdf

https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/18...c-march-12.pdf note use of term “usually”

When Might Employees Be Considered Consumers?

Im sure there are more nuances around this. Just like in any area of law.

Pouvin and Dijoux (Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Opinion) [2018] EUECJ C-590/17_O (15 November 2018) this seems also of interest.

I’m not a legal professional by the way. Just think there are some absolutes being suggested which might not be.

[eek]

This is not strictly true in all cases.

Employers usually are given discretion to offer infrequent loans that by implication are “affordable”. The employer has unique information about the income stream. The employer has a limited hold on the employee’s future prospects at the company. The employer has a duty of care to an employees welfare. Employers can’t be reckless.

An employer can be at risk of falling foul of consumer credit protections for large salary advances, frequent advances, advances that could never be repaid on the income provided by the employer etc.

Link please - I prefer evidence rather than hearsay.

[JusticeSeeker939]

Loans within the course of employment aren't regulated

This is not strictly true in all cases.

Employers usually are given discretion to offer infrequent loans that by implication are “affordable”. The employer has unique information about the income stream. The employer has a limited hold on the employee’s future prospects at the company. The employer has a duty of care to an employees welfare. Employers can’t be reckless.

An employer can be at risk of falling foul of consumer credit protections for large salary advances, frequent advances, advances that could never be repaid on the income provided by the employer etc.

[NickLeeson2]

Hi which scheme did you use? I have all paperwork but cannot find any loan agreements..

Looks like IQ Consultants T & C.