BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[swede]

Are you sure about that?

I worry that any action against Montpelier now could jeopardise any chance we might have.

...and subsequently a lot of very upset people.

[Fireship]

Firstly DR how do we know Montpelier will even take this further? I seem to recall that earlier this year a discussion ensued in which I believe you yourself hinted that Montpelier had indicated that the CoA was probably the end game?

Secondly - do you really feel like a client of Montpelier because I certainly dont. More like a mark.

And finally lets not forget the longer Monteplier keep the ball in the air the more they collect in interest on the money taken in fees - in my case directly in contradiction to the conditions stated in the contract regarding the 4% only taken if HMRC did not challenge the return.

And the longer they put off some of us taking action for being blantantly lied to in the initial consulations - if I'd known the true number taking up the scheme I would have run a country mile. And in response to anyone suggesting I should have performed due dilligence just how was I supposed to find that out? Or that it was already on the HMRC radar?

So forgive me if I dont exactly share your view of whose side Montpelier is on - I already know the answer - their own.

And if I'm wrong then they won't have a problem treating us as true clients and following our wishes to at least ask the question.

Blimey where do I start????

Due diligence, as both company and court records are public domain all you would need to do is take your blindfold off and then maybe you would then realise your @rse is in fact not your elbow!!

As for the 4% (if you’re one of the early ones on that agreement), that’s only due if HMRC SUCCESSFULLY challenge the return. Have HMRC kicked your door in and seized your assets??? I’m guessing not!! And do you know why?? That would be because MP have stuck to their word and defended the arrangement and as such HMRC have not yet successfully challenged your return…

Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the facts before you start spouting such ill informed nonsense!!

[sjw]

Blimey where do I start????

Due diligence, as both company and court records are public domain all you would need to do is take your blindfold off and then maybe you would then realise your @rse is in fact not your elbow!!

As for the 4% (if you’re one of the early ones on that agreement), that’s only due if HMRC SUCCESSFULLY challenge the return. Have HMRC kicked your door in and seized your assets??? I’m guessing not!! And do you know why?? That would be because MP have stuck to their word and defended the arrangement and as such HMRC have not yet successfully challenged your return


Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the facts before you start spouting such ill informed nonsense!!

Wrong. Go read the agreement again. Get YOUR facts straight.

[sjw]

Are you sure about that?

The fees were used to finance growth and acquisitions.

I don't think the company is in such good shape these days.

They layed off a load of people towards the end of last year and they've just gone through another round of redundancies a few weeks ago.

I think you're on a hiding to nothing but worse than that I worry that any action against Montpelier now could jeopardise any chance we might have.

Not my problem - they shouldn't have built it into the agreement

[Slobbo]

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

I reckon I have mental health problems as a result of the abuse handed down by HMRC. Do you reckon I could get the amount waived due to mental health problems.........

[Fireship]

Wrong. Go read the agreement again. Get YOUR facts straight.

I've read my agreement and my 4% is only due should we lose..... That's why I've not repayed any of the 4% loan to MP to date, nor have they requested that I do so....

I'm guessing you also haven't bothered to check what agreements others have in place!!

Oh and another thing, you're wrong about MP sitting on a big pile of cash, but I'm guessing you still haven't bothered to do and DD hence the ill informed nonsense continues to flow.....

[Dieselpower]

Supreme Court

Can the UKSC overrule the UK Parliament?
No it cannot. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate public policy, but to interpret law and develop it where necessary, through well-established processes and methods of reasoning.

However, the Supreme Court must give effect to directly applicable European Union law, and interpret domestic law so far as possible consistently with European Union law. It must also give effect to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The above taken from SC's website!

[RingStinger]

Not my problem - they shouldn't have built it into the agreement

I'm assuming your cocky response refers to the fact that MP aren't as loaded as you think they are, as opposed to you not giving a fukk about your attitude having a detrimental effect on those that don't share your view?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As an aside from all the bickering which, by the way, HMRC must be loving.

I've received a lot of emails in the last few days. I will get round to replying eventually but it may take some time.

[Doug1965]

Infighting

Might relieve stress but does nothing for the situation.

We all signed to MP at different times so may well have had different T&Cs and fees so what applies to me may not apply to you. I'm not 100% happy with MP's silence at times, but I can live with it.

I always regarded it as a gamble, set the money aside, and waited.

I'm still waiting.......