BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BrilloPad]

Well done for the progress updates and many thanks to those who attended.

[BolshieBastard]

So PWC, who allegegly have £4million to spend on this didn't send off a piece of paper in time and, didn't choose a client who even had a closure notice.

For f*k's sack.

Do we know if Montp got have their ship in order?

Oh ffs! And how I agree with you. If our case depends on incompentents such as this..............

When I worked in the civil service on benefits administration, the easiest win for the Department was from people appealing too late and not providing the required supporting documentation. You can understand it from benefit claimants but PWC?

[TheGadgetMan]

Thanks Emigre & DR for giving us feedback! I too can't believe that PWC made such an elementary mistake. Hope Montpelier are more organised.

Still, it's good news that this was just a technicality and as was said previously HMRC want to keep this away from a real court and try us in their kangaroo court (special commissioners), which hopefully they wont be able to do.

The judgement went against us today (as I understand it) because PWC's application was submitted outside the 3 month period that they had from the date of Royal Assent of the Finance Act 2008 (which I believe was in July 2008)....and because the guy they were representing had not yet received any CRs yet...

first of all I would just like to say what a bunch of muppets PWC are...what do they think this is?...a game?!!!

secondly, AFAIK MP submitted their application for a JR within the 3 month window...and also the guy they are representing has received his CRs...

now, I don't want to sound complacent but if thats the best defence that HMRC can come up then we should be very hopeful for 16th June...

[BrilloPad]

Oh ffs! And how I agree with you. If our case depends on incompentents such as this..............

When I worked in the civil service on benefits administration, the easiest win for the Department was from people appealing too late and not providing the required supporting documentation. You can understand it from benefit claimants but PWC?

I bet PWC will get lots of government contracts now.

However montp cannot be influenced so easily......

[OnYourBikeGB]

I bet PWC will get lots of government contracts now.

However montp cannot be influenced so easily......

It does seem like incredible incompetence. How did it even get to this stage? Surely it should have been thrown out at written submission on this basis. When I contacted MontP when all this latest JR stuff started, I was told clearly that they could not request a JR until a closure notice was issued, as they had to have a client who was actually affected. So how the f#ck did PWC get to this point?

[ASB]

It does seem like incredible incompetence. How did it even get to this stage? Surely it should have been thrown out at written submission on this basis. When I contacted MontP when all this latest JR stuff started, I was told clearly that they could not request a JR until a closure notice was issued, as they had to have a client who was actually affected. So how the f#ck did PWC get to this point?

There are methods to allow "out of time" reviews. Being out of time is not of itself fatal - but it certainly makes things much more difficult.

It may be that this was the reason it went from written submission to oral hearing.

[BolshieBastard]

There are methods to allow "out of time" reviews. Being out of time is not of itself fatal - but it certainly makes things much more difficult.

It may be that this was the reason it went from written submission to oral hearing.

I would imagine the appeals procedure for benefits etc is based loosely on legal requirements since from my experience they match those commissions and boards used by the armed forces etc.

For the Department I worked in, late appeals could be heard all the way up to Social Security Commissioners (the Benefits equivalent of HMRC's Special Commissioners) but, this then becomes a two part process. The first part is to prove there has been a material change in circumstances or, evidence not available at the time of the original appeal was now available. In the case of appeals to Commissioners, appeals could only be on a point of law.

If these material changes or previously unavailable evidence was allowed then and only then would the 'late' appeal be heard.

BTW, these appeal boards always had at least one legally qualified member ie either a solicitor or barrister.

[silver_lining]

I really don't want to hold back the punches and reality of what happened today, and as such need to spell out the fact; we are now on 'on the back foot', not my words. Theses words I have to admit I concur with.

PWC QC was at times was very good, but on the whole very very inconsistent in his presentation and confidence. This is putting aside the disastrous administrative error, i.e. timing. Unforgiveable. To defend PWC somewhat, it hinged on wording in the letter send to PWC by HMRC, basically saying if you don't do this you better be prepared to bend over. Sadly in the legal context, this did not amount to HRMC enforcing S58. Had a closure been received, I believe the LC would have granted the JR. At a personal level, this technicality is infuriating as PWC QC was not in a position to highlight the other JRs in the queue had received CNs and hence almost implying HMRCs position in lying in court with their intention i.e. they clearly had intention to enforce S58 ASAP. So clearly PWC and MP are operating as ships in the night ! very sad.

On the timing issue, facts are simple. MP was a day late; will this be the straw that upsets the camels ass, who knows? The reality is, HMRC will now harp on about this now as this particular sail has gathered momentum.

Positives...

The judge did say he believe 'not compatible' with Articles XYZ of EW legalisation, so he definitely feels there is more to this than meets the eye.

My personal view is come the 16th, the QC presentation and basis of the argument now more than ever needs to be unbelievable good and concrete. A lot of the detail we had touched on here did not to come to light in the court..

In short by no means is all lost just another beeches brook..... but it is that little bit harder. Nothing like a set back to focus ones mind....

[SantaClaus]

I really don't want to hold back the punches and reality of what happened today, and as such need to spell out the fact; we are now on 'on the back foot', not my words. Theses words I have to admit I concur with.

PWC QC was at times was very good, but on the whole very very inconsistent in his presentation and confidence. This is putting aside the disastrous administrative error, i.e. timing. Unforgiveable. To defend PWC somewhat, it hinged on wording in the letter send to PWC by HMRC, basically saying if you don't do this you better be prepared to bend over. Sadly in the legal context, this did not amount to HRMC enforcing S58. Had a closure been received, I believe the LC would have granted the JR. At a personal level, this technicality is infuriating as PWC QC was not in a position to highlight the other JRs in the queue had received CNs and hence almost implying HMRCs position in lying in court with their intention i.e. they clearly had intention to enforce S58 ASAP. So clearly PWC and MP are operating as ships in the night ! very sad.

On the timing issue, facts are simple. MP was a day late; will this be the straw that upsets the camels ass, who knows? The reality is, HMRC will now harp on about this now as this particular sail has gathered momentum.

Positives...

The judge did say he believe 'not compatible' with Articles XYZ of EW legalisation, so he definitely feels there is more to this than meets the eye.

My personal view is come the 16th, the QC presentation and basis of the argument now more than ever needs to be unbelievable good and concrete. A lot of the detail we had touched on here did not to come to light in the court..

In short by no means is all lost just another beeches brook..... but it is that little bit harder. Nothing like a set back to focus ones mind....

Didn't realise that MP's submission was a day late.
Is this definite? And has the judge indicated anything about it?

[OnYourBikeGB]

Didn't realise that MP's submission was a day late.
Is this definite? And has the judge indicated anything about it?

This does seem like a bit of a blow. But, having said that, if he mentioned an appeal to PWC, and the general feeling was that he would have granted the JR if there had been a closure notice, is something. Even if that didn't work, at the very, very least we would have an appeal and there are three more JR requests in the wings, so HMRC are really only postponing the inevitable.

Is it definite that MontP were late? I hadn't heard this before. I admit to reading that two or three times to make sure I had got it. If it turns out to be correct, we're owed an explanation.