BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[Lazylobster]

There you go people, job's a good un

Cheers DR for the update.

LL

[TheGadgetMan]

From the horse's mouth (WG).

Our application was NOT late.

It was submitted within the 3-month window.

Given that this "info" eminated from HMRC yesterday, we should disregard it as FUD.

thanks DR for this...it will put a lot of people's minds at rest...

so, I wonder if there is any mileage in using this AGAINST HMRC in court on the 16th...ie have they been telling lies in court?...did they mislead yesterdays judge?...could this be used to show (yet again) how underhand HMRC have been throughout the whole affair?

[RockTheBoat]

From the horse's mouth (WG).

Our application was NOT late.

Once again, thanks DR

can I suggest when this is over that we all chip in and send DR plus his immediate familia on an all expenses paid (by us) holiday to a sunny destination of his choice .... It will certainly be well deserved. And the contribution from each of us will be to quote Viz's Profanisaurus = FAITFYP (**** All In The Five Year Plan) ..

[DonkeyRhubarb]

In defence of PwC

There was a reason why their application was late.

The people they are representing are not clients of theirs. PwC did not operate a scheme.

I don't know why they decided to go for this "class action" but they couldn't commit to it until enough people had signed up and pledged money.

Maybe at the time they applied none of the people who had joined the action had received CNs, which is why they just picked Shiner.

The bottom line is their relationship with Shiner et al is completely different to our association with Montpelier, and as a result it was always going to be more difficult for them to meet the 3-month deadline.

[SantaClaus]

From the horse's mouth (WG).

Our application was NOT late.

It was submitted within the 3-month window.

Given that this "info" eminated from HMRC yesterday, we should disregard it as FUD.

HMRC playing dirty tactics again, should have known.

Come on MrYouKnowWho (TM), fisticuffs at dawn

[NO TO RETRO]

Why didn't the Montpelier QC know this yesterday?
Don't really understand why the Montpelier case was discussed but given that it was, could this info not have been made clear to the Judge yesterday?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Why didn't the Montpelier QC know this yesterday?
Don't really understand why the Montpelier case was discussed but given that it was, could this info not have been made clear to the Judge yesterday?

It wasn't the Montpelier QC who was present. It was just someone there to observe proceedings and take notes.

No-one other than the appellant's and defendent's representation are allowed to address the Judge. I doubt PwC's counsel would be any the wiser on whether our application was on time or not.

Since this FUD came from HMRC, can we draw a line under it.

[iansbud]

thanks for the info DR, glad to hear there hasn't been such an elementary blunder and that it's just typical HMRC shrite again. apologies MP for the vent then.

[ContractIn]

It wasn't the Montpelier QC who was present. It was just someone there to observe proceedings and take notes.

No-one other than the appellant's and defendent's representation are allowed to address the Judge. I doubt PwC's counsel would be any the wiser on whether our application was on time or not.

Since this FUD came from HMRC, can we draw a line under it.

Cheers DR.

I'm confused even more on why PwC were approached to represent people on this. Anyway not going to think about this anymore until June 16th!

[xantamisch]

Once again, thanks DR

can I suggest when this is over that we all chip in and send DR plus his immediate familia on an all expenses paid (by us) holiday to a sunny destination of his choice .... It will certainly be well deserved. And the contribution from each of us will be to quote Viz's Profanisaurus = FAITFYP (flip All In The Five Year Plan) ..

I'd happily chip in for that..............