Montpelier & Newquay 10% loan repayment demands

[Out Of Cash]

Agree with Douglas. Trust will have to act in your favour and HMRC will have an egg on face when going to court and saying these r not loans

This assumes repaying 10% will be an effective rebuttal to the HMRC attack, could work I suppose but like Douglas said it's a punt.

The Big Group approach will offer certainty I think in as much as it will draw a line underneath the HMRC issues permanently, but at a cost. Importantly you'll know before you have to pay the cost.

With MTM you have to pay upfront before knowing if it will work and how long it might work for if at all ....

[Out Of Cash]

Id would like to answer as to why 10% - why not 5% or 2.5%?

Yes the trustees has to act in your 'benefit', who decides whats in your benefit, paying 1000s to lawyers maybe in your benefit, paying the trustee fees maybe in your benefit....., and lets face it, there are not many people who can challenge the trustees in IOM court? I hear IOM lawyers are pretty expensive.

Someone posted a great set of questions you should get answered (including a copy of the trust deed) before handing over 10%.

Id like to think, that paying back 10% of the loans, would be the magic bullet that stop Hecter in his tracks, if only it was that simple!

Muddy Water.

Good questions!

In addition that 10% could well be most if not all that is required with the Big Group approach that will offer certainty and an end to the HMRC issue.

Most importantly you'll know before you have to pay that this is the case.

Leaving the other issues aside regarding who's best interest MTM is working in, at the end of the day 10% of many years of loans is way too much for me to punt on a scheme that might work and the government can continually come back and attack with retrospection.

At least the Big Group's approach offers certainty and you'll know all the details before you have to pay.

[Out Of Cash]

If Montpelier where acting in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust and at the same time wanting to legitimise the loans they would not have sent out such an overtly hostile letter with such a short notice period for beneficiaries to start paying back the loan. It seems to me to be calculated to cause panic and get you to make a silly last second decision, take legal advice before paying.

What is the difference between "you have 1month to pay back 1% of the loan" to "you have 10days to pay back 10%" !!! it's no more or less legal in HMRC's eyes.

The tone of the letter also smacks of a spiteful kid knowing its doing wrong. Perhaps they don't realise the devastation this could cause for hundreds of families and especially the real serious impact on their children. Most where caught out by often complex circumstances they had little control over and no past experience of to make sensible decisions. If Montpelier where acting in the beneficiaries interests they would start by returning the 10% fees they took for terrible financial advice.

In many cases 10% is a lot of money and impossible to pay in 10 days e.g. some would need to re-mortgage to raise the money, others just don't have it and most won't pay it if they are wize. Join the Big Group !!!

I'm in the same boat that 10% of the loans is way too much money to magic up in such a short time frame and is so significant I probably cannot do it without selling my home. (Even acknowledging the option to pay in 10 equal instalments)

Regardless of the motives of MTM the significant change in circumstances this cost would cause me, it is hard to just take that punt for myself.

For me it's pretty much at the same level of selling up and cutting all ties with the UK to make sure I'm not resident for income tax purposes during 2019. Which having children and family is a big move.

Even after all that the government of day can come back with retrospection to continually attack my situation if the political mood happens to be blowing in that direction.

The Big Group approach seeks to offer a permanent solution for which 10% of the loan could be most of what is required. Most importantly we'll know before we have to pay, that this is the case.

Even if I had the cash to gamble on the 10% repayment idea, it feels like all the other MTM type arguments and appeals of the previous schemes, the majority of which where ultimately lost.

I'm trying to see the upside of the MTM repayment approach but it's very difficult based on the current information and the history of the previous schemes.

[UB40]

People have been asked for 40k. 10 days to pay that amount, isn't very 'acting in ones favor'?

Hold on......you can made equal installments over 10 month, 4k a month........I don't think thats going to make it any easier for the person in question!

I trying to have good faith, but its just does not stack up well.

[MrTest]

Hi, another newbie here who received 'the letter' last week. I would appreciate it if someone could help me get PM rights and also some advice regarding the merits of joining Big Group.

Thanks very much!

[BrilloPad]

Hi, another newbie here who received 'the letter' last week. I would appreciate it if someone could help me get PM rights and also some advice regarding the merits of joining Big Group.

Thanks very much!

I have asked mods/admin for PM rights.

People are falling into several camps :-
1. Pay up
2. Join Big Group
3. Ignore the letter

Quiet a few cannot afford to pay so cannot choose option 1 even if they want to. As you can read from the thread above there are questions over its effectiveness - but some are going that route.

If you want to fight the letter, then Big Group are the only option. Some are adopting a "wait and see" approach.

[administrator]

I have asked mods/admin for PM rights.

Thanks - all sorted.

[RunningMan]

It's the amount that is the dealbreaker. I am in the "close to 60k" demand range - and I just can't do it.

If it was only around the lower 5 figures like some others I would actually pay up. I am still doubting that Montpelier who have fought our case with BN66 for years (even though there was not much success there apart from delaying the inevitable in the end) have changed their mindset to work against their clients now. It all comes down to communication from them as nobody has any clarity about their intentions.

[BrilloPad]

It's the amount that is the dealbreaker. I am in the "close to 60k" demand range - and I just can't do it.

If it was only around the lower 5 figures like some others I would actually pay up. I am still doubting that Montpelier who have fought our case with BN66 for years (even though there was not much success there apart from delaying the inevitable in the end) have changed their mindset to work against their clients now. It all comes down to communication from them as nobody has any clarity about their intentions.

WG will not say what his intentions are publicly. And neither should he!

For me it comes down to trust.

[RunningMan]

WG will not say what his intentions are publicly. And neither should he!

For me it comes down to trust.

As said .. I'd be ok with the trust thing. I just can't pay the sum asked. Will see if we can stretch it out to 50 installments instead of 10

Agree about not saying anything in public with the organised-theft-mafia watching.