BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[Taura]

Also, we have strength in numbers. It's important to keep the group together so HMRC don't pick us off one by one.

I'm with you, these pigs at HMRC can sit and spin. I look forward to giving all my money to lawyers so by the time HMRC get their hands on it there's just enough left for a packet of chewing gum.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

HMRC Debt Management and Enforcement

For anyone who wants all the gory details how Debt Management and Enforcement operate, this is the best source I know of published by the charity TaxAid.

http://taxaid.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...uide-2010r.pdf

[OnYourBikeGB]

There is so much debate about whether HMRC would be prepared to negotiate, perhaps we are overlooking the obvious. Hector reads this forum, and now knows that there are a number of members (even more considering the recent surge in new members ) who would consider a deal. So if they think that is a deal is doable, then they will know that they should open a dialogue with MP, and let them know that they are open to negotiation. I would expect MP to pass this on. I expect to hear nothing.

If you fancy talking to them on your own, that's your free choice, but as far as I am aware, HMRC legally cannot offer a deal to one individual and not to others caught in the same mess. Everyone gets the same or nothing at all. Remember that a negotiation has happened in the past with AJ and Suo Moto. Despite the claims that a deal was done, HMRC refuted this. We may already be bound by that 'deal' as may HMRC, the only possibility being that his was more of a surrender where as we have battled through the courts had closure notices etc.

Personally, I think WG and MP need to move to calm fears, explain processes, and do more than express their 'amazement' in statements. If they failed to get that message across to the LJs, then maybe they should point a finger at their brief. However, I don't think the LJs missed it at all, they just didn't think it was significant. That said, MP have done exactly what they said they would do, they are prepared to fight on. There's a fine line because of the open nature of this forum between keeping us informed of the next moves / chances and showing their hand.

In the meantime, whether we like it or not, we are in this together.

[sjw]

They are not going to offer refunds so you would have to sue.

And who would you sue?

Everyone talks about Montpelier as though it's a single company. It isn't. It is a group of limited liability companies and it's quite fluid in nature. Notice I emphasise the word fluid.

Even if the actual company in your contractual agreement still exists, do you think it will have any assets?

Remember, it's limited liability.

What I'm trying to say, and this applies to others who have talked about suing them for negligence etc, is FORGET IT.

Harsh but that's the reality, and besides look where AJ has ended up. He just lost his latest round in the IoM courts last month and is facing total ruin.

I suspect it would be like nailing jelly to a wall - which is exactly how it feels trying to get any information out of Montpelier.

But if there is enough of us willing to do it I don't see why we shouldn't try. mShouldn't cost that much each. Might at least elicit a response which is way more than I've seen for the past 4 years.

[bombaycat]

Well said... and too all that feel the same pay's your money and leave the forum for those that fight on...

Yes, agreed, no-one is stopping anyone paying or settling whatever they want, some of us want to continue to fight. It's a personal decision and trying to persuade others to settle because you want to settle is irrelevant really. No-one can judge anyone else's personal position. Please do as you like, we all wish you well.

I'm fighting on with the chaps here that want to. I'm going to tribunal, Europe, SC timbucktoo....bring it right on.

[SantaClaus]

Yes, agreed, no-one is stopping anyone paying or settling whatever they want, some of us want to continue to fight. It's a personal decision and trying to persuade others to settle because you want to settle is irrelevant really. No-one can judge anyone else's personal position. Please do as you like, we all wish you well.

I'm fighting on with the chaps here that want to. I'm going to tribunal, Europe, SC timbucktoo....bring it right on.

Timbuktu... now there's somewhere with a less corrupt judicial system.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I suspect it would be like nailing jelly to a wall - which is exactly how it feels trying to get any information out of Montpelier.

But if there is enough of us willing to do it I don't see why we shouldn't try. mShouldn't cost that much each. Might at least elicit a response which is way more than I've seen for the past 4 years.

If I was Montpelier, and I was just about to embark on another round of hugely costly litigation on behalf of clients, I might not take too kindly to being sued by the same clients.

We used to worry that the dispute they had going with AJ was an unnecessary distraction. However, what you are proposing is in a completely different league and would set us in direct conflict with them.

That would really concern me.

[shaunbhoy]

Seems like an awful lot of people have made a huge assumption on just how watertight this strategy was, and rather buried their heads in the sand somewhat. Bearing in mind the earlier collapse of EBT schemes such as the Dignatio one, one might be tempted to think people might steer clear of such things.
It was only ever likely to end in tears really, and I just hope people have cautiously made contingency plans for this latest outcome.

[johnnyguitar]

If I was Montpelier, and I was just about to embark on another round of hugely costly litigation on behalf of clients, I might not take too kindly to being sued by the same clients.

We used to worry that the dispute they had going with AJ was an unnecessary distraction. However, what you are proposing is in a completely different league and would set us in direct conflict with them.

That would really concern me.

It would be quite simple to put a stop to some of the endless to-and-fro'ing of these arguments, if Montpelier would quite simply communicate.
It's understandable that people are upset and looking for alternatives and answers.
Montpelier could put a lot of people at ease by answering a few simple, public domain, questions.
They monitor this forum, so they know people's concerns and they really should try harder.
It wouldn't cost them anything.

[Tax_shouldnt_be_taxing]

If I was Montpelier, and I was just about to embark on another round of hugely costly litigation on behalf of clients, I might not take too kindly to being sued by the same clients.

We used to worry that the dispute they had going with AJ was an unnecessary distraction. However, what you are proposing is in a completely different league and would set us in direct conflict with them.

That would really concern me.

Here here DR. As I said in a much earlier post, if you want to do that, then if I wereMP, I would think to let you all do as you please and figure it out yourselves. You may not invite MP round for dinner but I for one would not attack them. We've got enough on our plate as it is without making more enemies.