BN66 - Time to fight back: Continued

[SantaClaus]

Well, I had to prise my HMRC "news"letter out of the jaws of my rotweiler when I got home. The crumpled bit of paper doesnt really say anything useful. I was a bit disappointed that there wasnt an article on Jordan and Peter Andre or Maddona's divorce, but there you go.

But seriously, it is very useful to disect these letters on this forum first. That way, there is no panic when the letter arrives as we have already "metaphorically torn it to shreds".

[BrilloPad]

Well, I had to prise my HMRC "news"letter out of the jaws of my rotweiler when I got home. The crumpled bit of paper doesnt really say anything useful. I was a bit disappointed that there wasnt an article on Jordan and Peter Andre or Maddona's divorce, but there you go.

But seriously, it is very useful to disect these letters on this forum first. That way, there is no panic when the letter arrives as we have already "metaphorically torn it to shreds".

One does feel for those who have not found this forum yet.

Particularly if there are 50,000 of us (see the de graaf thread).

[Incognito]

My question was quite reasonable.

If we win the JR and the change is deemed incompatible with EHR can HMRC reject the appeal and still demand the money?

Not getting involved in your thread or fingerpointing about who's a troll, but to answer the question, the government can derogate from the Human Rights Act (i.e. state that the HRA does not apply to a specific piece of legislation).

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../172/17206.htm

Wouldn't surprise me if after an election if NuLiebour are in then they just force this through stating that the credit crunch and impending recession are grounds for 'a national emergency'.

[TheFaQQer]

One does feel for those who have not found this forum yet.

How ever can they survive without the daily dose of drivel?

[TheFaQQer]

As it happens I know who Mal is and why he posted what he did - I am not allowed to say publicly though!!

Ooh, ooh - I know who he is too! Am I allowed to say publicly?

Why dont you STFU and go back to lurking.

I think I will now

[Toocan]

My View

Since when did HMRC start sending out "Newsletters" as they call it.

I have three things to say:

1. I don’t think a commissionaires hearing could be heard while the JR is outstanding. That would be what I think is called murmuring (ie a higher court cannot be contradicted by a lower court).

2. Helen: You will be much happier if you make up your mind.

Either decide the cause is lost and pay up. If you choose to do this then you should leave this forum (and any others) and never look back;

Or Believe in the cause, support it and never give up. You are not alone – there is so much more here than meets the eye.

3. The letter from Big Abe: This is an odd letter. The first page says so little. There is nothing new at all. They say they have either not received accounts for some, or that the numbers don’t match. But then he goes on and implies this is for very few. What is more, there is no clue if this few are from MTM. (perhaps other scheme providers have not submitted accounts?)

Someone else on this forum claimed that Montpellier had submitted all accounts. Which would appear to make the entire first page pointless for us.

I think this letter is really about the second page – the JR.

The first thing that comes across is that – well – it seems quite juvenile. I’m sorry to the author for describing it in this way, but it’s almost as if the JR has hurt him and this is the reply. You know, one child hits another, the other hits back in kind… Surely HMRC are not that infantile.

The second thing is, have you noticed the formatting? I think this page has been censored. Perhaps Big Abe had to get it approved by council since it’s going to JR and they took the red pen to his words. So the question then becomes, what has been redacted?

Where an appeal has been made and the only ground is the JR, there would appear to be no way to “progress the case”. So there must be appeals with more than this one ground (or it’s more tosh). Interesting.

Also, they seem really eager to talk to us. Why? “Questions about the content of this news letter”…what is that about?

I think they want us to phone them to find out what he wasn’t allowed to write down.

There is so little in this letter, it really is bizarre.

They cannot believe it will cause anyone to pay up – since the amount isn’t known until the closure notice (or equivalent) is received. That again leaves us on page 2. There can’t be any “contact every x days” rule since some of his previous letters have been years apart.

The last substantial paragraph is logically flawed. Again a sign that parts have been “blacked out”.

At least this is an admission that section 58 IS retrospective not merely a clarification. That is progress that helps us. It shows that parliament was lied to. Might be worth forwarding it to MP’s.

[poppy01]

The last substantial paragraph is logically flawed. Again a sign that parts have been “blacked out”.

At least this is an admission that section 58 IS retrospective not merely a clarification. That is progress that helps us. It shows that parliament was lied to. Might be worth forwarding it to MP’s.

I got my letter today, Its weird , dont know about you lot, but it feels to me they are talking to us, on this forum

[BrilloPad]

How ever can they survive without the daily dose of drivel?

Ooh, ooh - I know who he is too! Am I allowed to say publicly?



I think I will now

Hi faq and welcome to the bn66 thread.

I didn't know you were with montp?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I have three things to say:

1. I don’t think a commissionaires hearing could be heard while the JR is outstanding. That would be what I think is called murmuring (ie a higher court cannot be contradicted by a lower court).

2. Helen: You will be much happier if you make up your mind.

Either decide the cause is lost and pay up. If you choose to do this then you should leave this forum (and any others) and never look back;

Or Believe in the cause, support it and never give up. You are not alone – there is so much more here than meets the eye.

3. The letter from Big Abe: This is an odd letter. The first page says so little. There is nothing new at all. They say they have either not received accounts for some, or that the numbers don’t match. But then he goes on and implies this is for very few. What is more, there is no clue if this few are from MTM. (perhaps other scheme providers have not submitted accounts?)

Someone else on this forum claimed that Montpellier had submitted all accounts. Which would appear to make the entire first page pointless for us.

I think this letter is really about the second page – the JR.

The first thing that comes across is that – well – it seems quite juvenile. I’m sorry to the author for describing it in this way, but it’s almost as if the JR has hurt him and this is the reply. You know, one child hits another, the other hits back in kind… Surely HMRC are not that infantile.

The second thing is, have you noticed the formatting? I think this page has been censored. Perhaps Big Abe had to get it approved by council since it’s going to JR and they took the red pen to his words. So the question then becomes, what has been redacted?

Where an appeal has been made and the only ground is the JR, there would appear to be no way to “progress the case”. So there must be appeals with more than this one ground (or it’s more tosh). Interesting.

Also, they seem really eager to talk to us. Why? “Questions about the content of this news letter”…what is that about?

I think they want us to phone them to find out what he wasn’t allowed to write down.

There is so little in this letter, it really is bizarre.

They cannot believe it will cause anyone to pay up – since the amount isn’t known until the closure notice (or equivalent) is received. That again leaves us on page 2. They’re can’t be any “contact every x days” rule since some of his previous letters have been years apart.

The last substantial paragraph is logically flawed. Again a sign that parts have been “blacked out”.

At least this is an admission that section 58 IS retrospective not merely a clarification. That is progress that helps us. It shows that parliament was lied to. Might be worth forwarding it to MP’s.

Well said.

Can I just follow up a couple of points.

What did you mean by the formatting on Page 2? The letter I received looks ok.

Can you explain what you meant by this:

They’re can’t be any “contact every x days” rule since some of his previous letters have been years apart.

There was no mention of anything like this in my letter.

[SantaClaus]

Also, they seem really eager to talk to us. Why? “Questions about the content of this news letter”…what is that about?

I think they want us to phone them to find out what he wasn’t allowed to write down.

And our beloved Mr banana has given his phone number to call him.
All I can think is he must be desperate for one of us to leak some information, any information, however small.

I'd rather have a chat with the speaking clock!

Just edited as I realise Toocan is right. This is the first time that HMRC have admitted in writing that section 58 is retrospective.

"HMRC have been served with notice of an application for judicial review in respect of the retrospective provisions of section 58".

And they didnt use the work "alleged" as done further on in the text.

I do believe the letter is a legal document. Anyone want to draw this to the attention of MP.