Montpelier DTA scheme bulletin

[BrilloPad]

Am in the same position as you "tootrusting"... mine was all done using trusts with MP, before the loan stuff.

Am thinking of trying to settle using the WTT big group thing. Has anyone used this? Was it successful? Would you recommend?

Brillopad - thanks for the advice on not having to pay the MP invoice.

Once the FTTT decision is in you cannot change your defence. The UTTT was not appealed in time. HMRC are not settling.

MAKE SURE YOU DO NOT INCUR SURCHARGES OR PENALTIES.

If you cannot pay, you might be able to get TTP(Time to Pay).

[mossman]

"We will in due course send a small fee note for work scrutinizing the notices and drafting the representations" ...was at the end of the email that response letters were attached too.

Wouldn't say £2.5k is a very small fee note!!!!

Anyone else's that high?!!! OMG!!!!

Exactly. They mentioned the fee after doing the work. If they'd told me in advance that they'd be charging for it, I'd have said 'forget it' and paid HMRC there and then. Their representations were embarrassingly pathetic anyway.

I guess the fee relates to the number of years. I had four years APNs / FNs and their fee was just over £1K. At that rate I guess you were in the scheme for 10 years?

[mossman]

Montpelier fee

You do not have to pay. Montpelier are trying their luck. They have no recourse. They are targeting low hanging fruit.

Throw the letter away.

That's all very well BP but Montpelier are very aggressive about collecting money that they deem to be owed to them. Here's a brief history of some of my dealings with them:

When I was in their scheme, one month they paid me £10K too much (their admin was always shambolic). I contacted them immediately and pointed out their mistake, but they insisted they hadn't made a mistake and the money was due to me. Despite me pointing out that it was twice the amount that I had earned that month, I couldn't persuade them that they'd made a mistake. Obviously I knew how much I was earning, so I put the money aside in a savings account and waited. Sure enough, when they did their annual audit, they discovered their mistake and wrote to me asking for their money back. I returned the money immediately.

A year or two later a debt collector knocked at my door informing me that they had been engaged by Montpelier to collect some money that I owed them. The amount was a few hundred pounds. I contacted Montpelier and they agreed that I didn't owe them anything and the debt was cancelled.

So, despite the fact that I returned their £10K to them as soon as they asked for it, they saw fit to send a debt collector round to my house for a few hundred quid which they'd never asked me for and which I didn't owe them anyway.

I suspect that just ignoring the letter could see bailiffs at the door. Montp are definitely not nice people to do business with.

[BrilloPad]

That's all very well BP but Montpelier are very aggressive about collecting money that they deem to be owed to them. Here's a brief history of some of my dealings with them:

When I was in their scheme, one month they paid me £10K too much (their admin was always shambolic). I contacted them immediately and pointed out their mistake, but they insisted they hadn't made a mistake and the money was due to me. Despite me pointing out that it was twice the amount that I had earned that month, I couldn't persuade them that they'd made a mistake. Obviously I knew how much I was earning, so I put the money aside in a savings account and waited. Sure enough, when they did their annual audit, they discovered their mistake and wrote to me asking for their money back. I returned the money immediately.

A year or two later a debt collector knocked at my door informing me that they had been engaged by Montpelier to collect some money that I owed them. The amount was a few hundred pounds. I contacted Montpelier and they agreed that I didn't owe them anything and the debt was cancelled.

So, despite the fact that I returned their £10K to them as soon as they asked for it, they saw fit to send a debt collector round to my house for a few hundred quid which they'd never asked me for and which I didn't owe them anyway.

I suspect that just ignoring the letter could see bailiffs at the door. Montp are definitely not nice people to do business with.

Or maybe if you don't pay then will send baliffs anyway?

I offer advice. Personally I listen to all advice offered. And take the advice I want to hear.

Here is some further advice. Respond to the letter.

You may be upset about things MP did. I have heard alot of stories - some of them are true and some not. However what MP are supposed to have done is nothing to do with me and not my fault.

Take whatever advice you want. If you want to have a pop at me do it in general.

HTH BISDI

[mossman]

Montpelier Fee

Or maybe if you don't pay then will send baliffs anyway?

I offer advice. Personally I listen to all advice offered. And take the advice I want to hear.

Here is some further advice. Respond to the letter.

You may be upset about things MP did. I have heard alot of stories - some of them are true and some not. However what MP are supposed to have done is nothing to do with me and not my fault.

Take whatever advice you want. If you want to have a pop at me do it in general.

HTH BISDI

Who said I was having a pop? I value your advice, I'm just trying to deal with (to me) a difficult, confusing and stressful situation, in which I have to make a decision (never been my greatest strength).

I'm trying to explore the pros and cons of any potential course of action. Your advice to ignore the letter might be the best course of action, all I'm saying is that based on my experience of Montp, it might not.

I never said it was your fault that Montp sent a debt collector round to my house. I'm just pointing out that was their first action when they decided (erroneously) that I owed them some money i.e. instead of actually asking me for it. I've never been in debt in my life and the fact that they did that upset me a lot. I don't think it's unreasonable of me to fear that the same thing might happen again.

[stonehenge]

Several years ago, I used to think Montpelier were a decent, honourable firm.

Not any more. All they're interested in now is milking clients for anything they can get.

It's a pity HMRC didn't succeed in putting the head henchperson behind bars.

[webberg]

As a general rule, if you get a demand for money and are unsure as to its provenance, go and get advice.

That can range from people here who may be knowledgeable all the way to professional lawyers etc.

However, NEVER - NEVER, ignore a demand from any source.

[BrilloPad]

There is not a demand here.

Personally I think Montpelier did a good job. Apart from retrospective legislation they would have won. They fought it as far as they could.

However it is over. And people need to move on.

I could tell quite a few stories about how clients messed about Montpelier.

[ns1]

It's a pity HMRC didn't succeed in putting the head henchperson behind bars.

HMRC aren't clever enough to nail him.

[regron]

HMRC aren't clever enough to nail him.

Also very different when the other team also has deep pockets to fight HMRC !!!