Contractors facing demands for repayment of historic loans have a legitimate interest in knowing who is pursuing those debts, who is offering legal assistance and whether the advisers involved have commercial connections to the businesses seeking repayment.
The question has become particularly pressing following fresh demands issued by Trethowans on behalf of West 28th Street Limited (W28).
ContractorUK has been examining the experience of a previously featured contractor who, in July 2026, was directed towards a solicitor at Francis Wilks & Jones (FWJ) for assistance with a W28 dispute. The contractor was furnished with the mobile number of Andrew Carter, a partner at FWJ, and reported being told that Carter personally “knew the W28 guy”.
ContractorUK has not established that Carter initiated the approach or that FWJ is actively seeking clients in response to the latest Trethowans demands. Nevertheless, the account raised an important question. What relationships, if any, exist between solicitors offering assistance to contractors and the businesses pursuing their debts?
An examination of Companies House records led ContractorUK to a company called Coldbath Solutions Limited.
Three directors — and an unusual overlap
Coldbath Solutions Limited, incorporated on 18 December 2023 under company number 15357843, is registered at 6 Coldbath Square, London. Its declared business activity is “activities of collection agencies.” The address is also associated with Francis Wilks & Jones.
But the more significant connection is found in the company’s directors. Timothy Francis is a partner at FWJ. The firm advertises specialist expertise in insolvency, commercial litigation and related financial disputes.
Andrew Wilks, known professionally as Andy Wilks, is FWJ’s managing partner. The practice offers services including debt recovery, freezing orders, commercial disputes and insolvency-related litigation.
Kenneth Charles Arnold is a director of West 28th Street Limited, the company pursuing contractors for repayment of historic loans. Arnold is also associated with Limelight Solutions Limited, a shareholder in W28.
All three are directors of Coldbath.
This is a documented corporate relationship, not merely a shared address or an association inferred from professional acquaintances. FWJ is a regulated law firm, trading through FWJ Legal Limited. Coldbath is a separately incorporated business whose registered activity is debt collection. The question is what, if any, commercial relationship exists between their activities.
Who controls Coldbath?
At incorporation, Francis, Wilks and Arnold were recorded individually as persons with significant control. In December 2024, their individual entries ceased and the register recorded three corporate entities instead: Limelight Solutions Limited, EAD (Director) Limited and EAD (Management) Limited. The original three directors remained in place.
Limelight is especially relevant because it is separately connected to W28 through its shareholding. These records establish overlapping corporate interests. They do not establish that Coldbath owns W28’s loan book, collects repayments for W28 or receives income from those demands. Nor do they establish that FWJ acts for W28. Those distinctions are fundamental to the investigation.
FWJ’s published Loan Charge expertise
The firm’s own published material adds a further dimension. FWJ advertises expertise in disputes involving HMRC, disguised remuneration arrangements and the Loan Charge.
Its dedicated Loan Charge guidance addresses the legislation and the issues facing people affected by historic remuneration schemes. The firm’s wider published material also describes its work in tax disputes, insolvency and debt recovery. This establishes that the Loan Charge and disguised remuneration are not unfamiliar areas of law for FWJ.
But it is important to distinguish two legal questions.
The first is whether HMRC can impose a tax liability arising from a historic remuneration arrangement.
The second is whether a private business seeking repayment of an alleged loan can establish that a legally enforceable debt exists and that it is entitled to recover it.
Those are not necessarily the same question. A tax liability does not, by itself, establish the enforceability or ownership of a private debt.
For contractors facing demands from W28, the distinction is fundamental. And FWJ’s experience in these areas extends beyond the services advertised on its website.
FWJ’s experience on the other side of umbrella-company disputes
On 9 September 2026, the High Court handed down judgment in Fulmar Contracting Ltd & Ors v Williams & Anor [2026] EWHC 2322 (Ch).
The case concerned two doctors, Dr Maria Nina Williams and Dr Tatyana Viner, who faced claims brought by an umbrella company in liquidation and its liquidators. The dispute arose from payments made to the doctors without deductions for PAYE and National Insurance contributions.
The claimants sought to recover money under alleged contractual arrangements and, separately, under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which concerns transactions at an undervalue.
The published judgment identifies John Colclough as counsel for the applicants, instructed by FWJ Legal Limited, trading as Francis Wilks & Jones. The claims against both doctors failed.
The court rejected the contractual repayment claims and the liquidators’ claims under section 238. The significance for the present investigation is not that FWJ was involved in unsuccessful litigation. Solicitors routinely act in contested proceedings, and an unsuccessful claim is not evidence of professional misconduct. Rather, the judgment establishes that FWJ has represented parties seeking financial recovery from workers in a dispute arising from umbrella-company remuneration arrangements.
That is a different position from advising an individual contractor who is resisting a repayment demand.
The Fulmar case was not itself a W28 loan-recovery case, and it does not establish that FWJ represents W28 or Coldbath.
Nevertheless, alongside the firm’s advertised Loan Charge expertise, it demonstrates experience of the legal and financial issues arising from contractor and umbrella-company remuneration arrangements. It also makes the question of legal independence particularly relevant.
If a firm advises parties seeking recovery in one part of this market, while also offering advice to workers challenging repayment demands, how does it identify and manage potential conflicts of interest?
The answer depends on the particular clients, matters and commercial interests involved. The Fulmar judgment does not establish that any conflict occurred.
Read the High Court judgment: Fulmar Contracting Ltd & Ors v Williams & Anor [2026] EWHC 2322 (Ch)
The question of legal independence
The concern is not confined to one contractor. In an earlier discussion on the ContractorUK forum, a contributor described approaching solicitors about a W28 dispute.
According to the contributor, one solicitor said he knew the principal person associated with W28 and could not act because of a conflict of interest. The solicitor was not identified, and ContractorUK has not established any connection between that account and Andrew Carter.
More recently, forum contributors have questioned why particular legal advisers appear to have been suggested to contractors receiving demands. Some expressed concern that advisers might have commercial relationships with those pursuing repayment.
Another contributor offered a different explanation. Writing on 14 October, a forum participant argued that collective negotiations could reduce W28’s costs, produce more predictable settlements and establish a benchmark for future offers. Both possibilities raise questions worth examining.
A claimant might prefer dealing with a single firm representing dozens of contractors rather than negotiating separately with each individual. That would not, by itself, be improper.
But what if a solicitor advising a contractor also had a financial or professional interest connected to the debt claimant? What if confidential information about a contractor’s finances, negotiating position or legal arguments could be accessible to people with interests on the other side?
Those are hypothetical questions.
ContractorUK has no evidence establishing that FWJ or Coldbath has participated in an improper referral arrangement, received undisclosed payments for introductions, or shared confidential contractor information with W28.
They are, however, questions addressed by the professional rules governing solicitors.
Would a ‘Chinese wall’ be enough?
The Solicitors Regulation Authority distinguishes between different kinds of conflicts.
The first is an own-interest conflict.
Under paragraph 6.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct, a solicitor or firm must not act where its own interests conflict, or there is a significant risk they may conflict, with the duty owed to a client.
This could arise, depending on the facts, where a solicitor has a financial interest in a business whose interests are adverse to those of the client seeking advice.
The SRA’s guidance makes clear that an own-interest conflict cannot simply be resolved by obtaining the client’s consent. Nor would creating an internal information barrier automatically remove that conflict.
The second category involves conflicts between clients.
Under paragraph 6.2, a firm generally cannot act for clients with opposing interests in the same or related matter. Limited exceptions exist where clients have substantially common interests or are competing for the same objective, subject to conditions including informed written consent and appropriate safeguards. Those exceptions would not ordinarily permit a firm to represent both sides of a contested debt claim.
The third issue is confidentiality.
Paragraph 6.5 addresses circumstances in which a firm holds material confidential information about a current or former client whose interests are adverse to a proposed client.
In certain circumstances, effective information barriers may allow a firm to act, provided there is no real risk of confidential information being disclosed. Alternatively, informed consent from the client whose information is held may be relevant.
But the safeguards must be effective. Merely assigning different lawyers to different files is not necessarily sufficient. For a contractor considering legal representation, the practical questions are straightforward. Does the solicitor or firm have any financial or commercial interest connected to the business pursuing the debt? Does the firm act, or has it acted, for that business or an associated company in a related matter? Could the firm hold confidential information relevant to the contractor’s dispute? Has any potential conflict been assessed, and would the rules permit the firm to act at all?
A shared directorship does not automatically answer any of those questions. Neither does it automatically amount to a breach of professional rules. But where the commercial interests of individuals associated with a law firm overlap with a debt-collection business, the distinction between ownership, representation and confidentiality becomes particularly important.
We contacted Andrew Carter
On 14 October, ContractorUK telephoned Andrew Carter, a partner at FWJ. Carter confirmed his identity and explained that his professional obligations prevented him from discussing confidential client matters.
Asked whether FWJ had dealings with West 28th Street, he replied: “I can’t answer that question.”
Asked whether he was aware of Coldbath Solutions, he confirmed that he was.
Asked whether Coldbath was a client of FWJ, he again replied: “I can’t answer that question.”
Carter indicated that he might respond further if he was able to assist. His answers should not be interpreted as confirmation of any client relationship. Solicitors have duties of confidentiality, and declining to discuss whether a person or business is a client does not establish wrongdoing. ContractorUK subsequently sent a formal written enquiry to FWJ.
The questions concerned Coldbath’s activities, its ownership and control, the roles of Francis, Wilks and Arnold, any involvement in historic contractor loans, and whether FWJ acts or has acted for W28, Coldbath or associated businesses. We also asked about the firm’s procedures for identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest.
The firm’s published Loan Charge expertise and its involvement in the Fulmar litigation raise further questions about its experience representing different participants in umbrella-company and contractor remuneration disputes.
Questions awaiting an answer
The public records establish that two senior figures at Francis Wilks & Jones and a director of West 28th Street sit together on the board of Coldbath Solutions Limited, a company registered to undertake debt-collection activities.
The account of a previously featured contractor raises a separate question about how legal assistance is being offered or recommended to people facing W28 demands.
The Fulmar judgment establishes that FWJ has acted for parties seeking financial recovery from workers in an umbrella-company dispute.
And the latest Trethowans letters make the independence of legal advice a current concern, rather than a purely historical one.
ContractorUK has not established that Coldbath is involved in W28’s recovery operation, that FWJ represents W28, or that any improper conflict of interest exists.
We have asked Francis Wilks & Jones to clarify these matters, including whether there is any connection between the firm’s activities and the recent repayment demands.
ContractorUK awaits the firm’s response.
Start the discussion
Working contractors, accountants and recruiters chime in on the issues raised in this article.
No comments yet — be the first to chip in.