Who are the real "villains" behind BN66
Why did Montpelier make a promise that the scheme would be limited to 500 users to “keep below HMRC radar” (my words) and then ignored it without allowing clients/users to take “an informed decision” (my words). This is NOT heresay/gossip BUT taken from Mr Gittins testimony under oath.
The following are all quotes from the long running BN66 thread:
A*/ If one or both of them had advised me that 500 pepole were already under enquiry when I joined in 2005 and that Suo Motu had already settled and all about the retrospective legislation in the Padmore case I would have been able to make an informed decison about proceeding . As it was this information was not disclosed to me and I believe this was professsional negligence on one or both their parts.
Judge Parker certainly thought we should have been aware of the history, so our advisors certainly should have know and warned us.
If we eventially lose the case it seems like a prima facia case of professioanl negligence to me. #2287 seadog
A/I wasn't "misled", I was lied to. However, this isn't about feeling bitter, it's about warning others who might be considering joining a similar scheme. #2308 morlock
B/I have some sympathy for people who joined from 2004 onwards and weren't told it was under investigation. I would have been a bit miffed if that had happened to me.
C/Even if Montp regarded the enquiries as routine, they should still have informed everyone already in the scheme and anyone new joining. #2301 donkeyrhubarb
D/my main worry is that I was in the mtm scheme 2006 - went to presentation at mtm offices in London - I actually asked if anyone was being investigated and was told no - (!!!) - on starting contract I met a few other people in scheme who told me they knew of quite a few people being investigated - I then (too late I know) spoke to a lawyer whos opinion was the scheme didnt look like it would stand up - I then tried to leave scheme and go Ltd - however Mtm wouldnt allow this - insisted no get out - basically left contract at a very good client and went ltd elsewhere. #2291 slogger
E/Each to their own. Personally I'm not prepared to gamble with my livelihood (and mortgage, and marriage, etc) a second time. MTM lied to me before I joined, when I asked if anyone on the original scheme was under investigation, so I see no reason to believe assurances from them or anybody else that there's a viable alternative. As far as this whole offshore debacle is concerned, I really should have followed my Grandad's prime directive: "don't let any b****r else look after your money". #2292 morlock
F/Whilst I do believe MTM were economical with the truth, I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this risk at all. It's totally unprecedented, the Padmore retro is a different matter to this.#2295 squicker
G/yep -agree , we are grown ups and responsible for our own actions- I realised it was a gamble - however was lied to by the bookie (mtm) in this case - just replying to Valhalla re would we use another scheme like this - want other users viewing this to realise that even though hmrc are sob so are the vendors of these schemes (to a lesser degree obviously!). Once I was aware of mtm deception I left .. wouldnt have entered scheme if they'd answered questions honestly at start. #2299 slogger
H/It does not matter whether it was or was not legal. Its about revealing all the information you know to your clients.
I/Like Helen7 I was never told by either MontP or my own professional accountants who introduced and recommended the scheme to me.
Why did Montpelier make a promise that the scheme would be limited to 500 users to “keep below HMRC radar” (my words) and then ignored it without allowing clients/users to take “an informed decision” (my words). This is NOT heresay/gossip BUT taken from Mr Gittins testimony under oath.
The following are all quotes from the long running BN66 thread:
A*/ If one or both of them had advised me that 500 pepole were already under enquiry when I joined in 2005 and that Suo Motu had already settled and all about the retrospective legislation in the Padmore case I would have been able to make an informed decison about proceeding . As it was this information was not disclosed to me and I believe this was professsional negligence on one or both their parts.
Judge Parker certainly thought we should have been aware of the history, so our advisors certainly should have know and warned us.
If we eventially lose the case it seems like a prima facia case of professioanl negligence to me. #2287 seadog
A/I wasn't "misled", I was lied to. However, this isn't about feeling bitter, it's about warning others who might be considering joining a similar scheme. #2308 morlock
B/I have some sympathy for people who joined from 2004 onwards and weren't told it was under investigation. I would have been a bit miffed if that had happened to me.
C/Even if Montp regarded the enquiries as routine, they should still have informed everyone already in the scheme and anyone new joining. #2301 donkeyrhubarb
D/my main worry is that I was in the mtm scheme 2006 - went to presentation at mtm offices in London - I actually asked if anyone was being investigated and was told no - (!!!) - on starting contract I met a few other people in scheme who told me they knew of quite a few people being investigated - I then (too late I know) spoke to a lawyer whos opinion was the scheme didnt look like it would stand up - I then tried to leave scheme and go Ltd - however Mtm wouldnt allow this - insisted no get out - basically left contract at a very good client and went ltd elsewhere. #2291 slogger
E/Each to their own. Personally I'm not prepared to gamble with my livelihood (and mortgage, and marriage, etc) a second time. MTM lied to me before I joined, when I asked if anyone on the original scheme was under investigation, so I see no reason to believe assurances from them or anybody else that there's a viable alternative. As far as this whole offshore debacle is concerned, I really should have followed my Grandad's prime directive: "don't let any b****r else look after your money". #2292 morlock
F/Whilst I do believe MTM were economical with the truth, I don't believe anyone could have foreseen this risk at all. It's totally unprecedented, the Padmore retro is a different matter to this.#2295 squicker
G/yep -agree , we are grown ups and responsible for our own actions- I realised it was a gamble - however was lied to by the bookie (mtm) in this case - just replying to Valhalla re would we use another scheme like this - want other users viewing this to realise that even though hmrc are sob so are the vendors of these schemes (to a lesser degree obviously!). Once I was aware of mtm deception I left .. wouldnt have entered scheme if they'd answered questions honestly at start. #2299 slogger
H/It does not matter whether it was or was not legal. Its about revealing all the information you know to your clients.
I/Like Helen7 I was never told by either MontP or my own professional accountants who introduced and recommended the scheme to me.
