Originally posted by Fireship
View Post
Waiting with baited breath 
-
Personally, I'm not fussed about receiving information from Montp. I believe if anyone is going to get us out of this mess it's NTRT not Montp. -
Me neither, we all know the FTT is the next step for them and until there's something definite to communicate as a result of that there's nothing to communicate about. Unless of course its to say they are pulling out their support or they've negotiated a settlement but I doubt either. We'll see.Originally posted by nevergiveup View PostComment
-
Good point but I meant more from the perspective of requesting they do investigate and report their findings on the points raised. Anyway I now know that the adjudicator has already accepted the complaint and that is going to happen regardless so my earlier question is invalid.Originally posted by DonkeyRhubarb View PostComment
-
Great Job!
I've emailed Dominic Raab MP, Esher and Walton as per the latest newsletter.
The latest toolkit was a great read - superb effort for all those involved. I really hope the Adjudicator treats this complaint properly.
I will be making a further donation in due course.Comment
-
Whatever Montp can do to turn the screws can only help the situation. The more angles of concurrent attack the better.Originally posted by nevergiveup View Post
I did hear mention recently that there was a possibility of some action that only Montp are able to do that could be very significant.
At the moment I'm not daring to hope that this could be the reason for the update.Comment
-
Recent Toolkit and Newsletter
I've sent the Toolkit attachment to my MP and reinstated my erroneously lapsed Standing Order. This has been a most encouraging week, especially having read the submission to the Adjudicator. NTRT have done a fantastic job and are due a big vote of thanks. I agree that the more lines of attack we can open up, the better, so await the Montpelier update with interest.
I wish all you comrades a good weekend.Comment
-
The toolkit and complaint to the Adjudicator is a superb piece of work that captures in detail every step of this monumental stitch up.Originally posted by WelshRarebit View Post
I am surprised by the reference to just 411 cases and am not sure what the criteria for selecting these might be. I hope it doesn't indicate the number of contributors to the NTRT fighting fund.
Regarding MontP. I personally believe that as there is obviously a benefit to MrG if it can be shown that Hector
acted in a vindictive and mendacious manner, singling out the MontP scheme for special treatment. 
That being the case then assisting NTRT in some discreet way would not be out of the question.
I'm sure that MrG is also pursuing his own avenues of attack that will not be in the public domain. His arrest on a London Street will not have been forgotten.
Comment
-
Anyone seen the MontP update? I'm not sure if I haven't got it or if it hadn't been sent yet.Comment
-
I believe it has been sent but post from the IoM can take several days.Originally posted by OnYourBikeGB View PostComment
-
A013
Just stopped my DD for the lottery and made a donation to NTRT instead - reckon the odds of winning are better !
Then carried on looking at A013. The evidence in that doc is compelling and massively supports our complaint to the adjudicator. Then right at the end I noticed some additional words that I've not seen called out before.....its the HMRC letter dated march 2008 and right at the end it says:
"As the additional liabilities that are due.."
Additional ! So how come they now say it affected nothing and these liabilities always existed. Another play on words by HMRC as it suits them today yet clearly their original interpretation is the same as ours - BN66 was a change in the law giving rise to additional liabilities !!!Comment
Comment