Winchester Contracts Letter - I received Today

[creativity]

I totally agree.

By default when it comes to companies like these think of them as shams (or schemes) and apply due diligence, similar as you would cold callers.

More awareness is the underlining problem.

Good luck!

[dammit chloe]

I totally agree.

By default when it comes to companies like these think of them as shams (or schemes) and apply due diligence, similar as you would cold callers.

More awareness is the underlining problem.

Good luck!

Yeah, I know that now :-) except when I was involved (very early noughties) due diligence wouldn't have turned up anything much. They were seen as compliant. I did some investigations but essentially relied on other contractors recommendations ( I was a newbie to it ).

[Nothappy]

What next

All have any of you managed to get anything sorted in respect to getting monies paid to HMRC or via the Trust route

Also ha anyone advised you about coming out of this scheme and going back into a traditional contract

[Nortoner]

Winchester Contracts Former Director - want to meet him

We used Winchester Contracts in good faith. Husband had been out of work and was offered a contract. He was thrilled to be back in work and the recruitment company just told him to 'set up an umbrella company'. Husband had always been employed, never via contract and he found Winchester details. I wish to god we had never heard of them.

Husband needed to set up an umbrella company quickly as we were being pushed by the recruitment co and we instructed Winchester in good faith. Yes, in hindsight, we should have checked further but at the time, Winchester explained the tax element and gave some long, convoluted explanation as to how the tax worked, and we took them at face value (I know!!!).

My question - has anyone googled the former Winchester Director? If I have the right person, he is a local councillor and upstanding pillar of the community. I am disgusted that he is allowed to get away with business dealings in this manner and wonder if his fellow councillors know of his murky background, with two similar businesses dissolved prior to legal action? I am sure that colleagues would not want to be associated with such business dealings. I honestly feel like travelling to see him during a council meeting (I would actually do it) and confront him. If I HAVE got the right person, I am seriously considering this. Not to cause trouble. Not to threaten him in any way. I want to meet him face to face and calmly explain the distress he has caused my husband and I and whether he would like his wife/children to go through the upset that he has caused us. I understand he has tried to wriggle out of responsibility by saying that "he did not provide advice". He is guilty by way of being Company Director and definitely knew the misery he was storing up for hard-working people. I know it would not make any difference to our situation but seeing his smug face on the internet, knowing the misery he has caused us, is hard to swallow.

Good idea/bad idea??? Thoughts????

[snk888]

We used Winchester Contracts in good faith. Husband had been out of work and was offered a contract. He was thrilled to be back in work and the recruitment company just told him to 'set up an umbrella company'. Husband had always been employed, never via contract and he found Winchester details. I wish to god we had never heard of them.

Husband needed to set up an umbrella company quickly as we were being pushed by the recruitment co and we instructed Winchester in good faith. Yes, in hindsight, we should have checked further but at the time, Winchester explained the tax element and gave some long, convoluted explanation as to how the tax worked, and we took them at face value (I know!!!).

My question - has anyone googled the former Winchester Director? If I have the right person, he is a local councillor and upstanding pillar of the community. I am disgusted that he is allowed to get away with business dealings in this manner and wonder if his fellow councillors know of his murky background, with two similar businesses dissolved prior to legal action? I am sure that colleagues would not want to be associated with such business dealings. I honestly feel like travelling to see him during a council meeting (I would actually do it) and confront him. If I HAVE got the right person, I am seriously considering this. Not to cause trouble. Not to threaten him in any way. I want to meet him face to face and calmly explain the distress he has caused my husband and I and whether he would like his wife/children to go through the upset that he has caused us. I understand he has tried to wriggle out of responsibility by saying that "he did not provide advice". He is guilty by way of being Company Director and definitely knew the misery he was storing up for hard-working people. I know it would not make any difference to our situation but seeing his smug face on the internet, knowing the misery he has caused us, is hard to swallow.

Good idea/bad idea??? Thoughts????

I'm not sure, but maybe you could contact the rep that was employed by them, you should have the email(s) from the individual. Probably on social media. Again this could be a legal aspect. The individual 'could' be in touch with the director. I'm not the one to judge!

[Nortoner]

I'm not sure, but maybe you could contact the rep that was employed by them, you should have the email(s) from the individual. Probably on social media. Again this could be a legal aspect. The individual 'could' be in touch with the director. I'm not the one to judge!

The rep has 'disappeared' (funny, that) but others are still advertising on LinkedIn. I know that you need to be careful of slander/defamation of character.....but there must be a way of confronting this snake??

[snk888]

The rep has 'disappeared' (funny, that) but others are still advertising on LinkedIn. I know that you need to be careful of slander/defamation of character.....but there must be a way of confronting this snake??

All I know is from a few tax advisors & even HMRC told me, just to pay the tax & NI. HMRC are fully aware of the dealings with Winchester. I'm not a legal expert about getting the individual(s) involved. I have all the records of my rep stored & filed as a backup (on social media) even if the rep decides to delete or remove it...probably due GDPR reasons. There is no escape!

[Contractor1996]

First of all, why on earth is anyone still using these companies post 2011, let alone 2016 or now! Crazy.

My advice would be to deal with HMRC directly and forget about Winchester - don't contact them, terminate all ideas about paying an admin fee and 5% of loan fee. They are only after more money from you and are not interested in helping.

Cooperate with HMRC and go ahead with a settlement offer. Compare the settlement with potential liabilities in LC next year and make your decision (settlement will be cheaper unless you haven't worked this year). Pay up (lump sum and over time) and get on with your lives.

That's what I've done and I have saved another fortune in fees, stress and I found HMRC quite amicable to deal with.

-------------


This is exactly what I have done, I settled with HMRC and they were very understanding. I am not paying the sharks chasing me for settlement of loans . THL Trust Help Line are the chasers. The HMRC stated with my settlement that all my tax obligations were covered and I have emails and letters to that effect. Surely a judge will see that the initial scheme was a sham and not legal.

[Kallianne24]

Help

Hi all,

Did you just settle with HMRC? Or did you repay the loan too? I just got a message saying the loan needs to be repaid by the end of the month.

Also how did you get in contact with HMRC I have sent emails but not had a single response and I’m now beside myself that I’m going to get penalised. I was only with them for about 4 months until I thought something wasn’t right but now I’m worried that I will have to pay interest on this “loan”.

Advice would be great contact details even better!

Thanks

[webberg]

Let's establish a few facts here.

The original trustee behind a range of scheme names such as Winchester, Darwin, Danzar, IQ, Garraway, Longacre, Eximius, Tudor Pay, etc was - and remains - a company owned by Baker Tilly in the IOM.

To the best of my knowledge this firm of accountants severed connections with the larger UK outfit some time ago and I'm not suggesting that the UK firm (now rebranded) is in any manner connected.

The above schemes were characterised by money going to the trust and the trust - via the trustee - loaning that money to you. To record this, a loan agreement was signed - by you - and this contains a number of rights and obligations and a process for repayment. You have agreed to legally binding conditions around drawing the loan and repaying it.

It is an irony that money you generated by working at the end client but which went through agency, promoter and trust, you had no call on - legally.

I have studied many schemes are almost all of them could have created a situation in which you could have done the work, submitted the time sheet but have no legal recourse to what you generated. Instead, as soon as the funds went to the promoter, the destination of that money was entirely in their hands. If they had failed to pay you (in whatever fashion) your legal recourse was at best limited and at worst non existent.

None of the above was a sham. So if you took this to a Court and claimed that it was all an elaborate fiction, what would a Judge say?

I know that a tax Judge would look at the facts and work out what happened and then make some assumptions as to the intentions of the parties at the time.

What would a Judge versed in contract law do?

I have no idea.

Or rather I have a better idea now than I did 3 years ago.

That judge would not be able to lay aside the loan agreement you signed. The judge may consider that the other agreements you signed created a series of rights and obligations that were connected, more or less strongly, with that loan agreement. The judge may even consider that the intentions of the parties at the time the loan was agreed should be taken into account in determining the ability of the parties to the loan agreement to exercise their rights and obligations.

We are advised however that a judge deciding that the entire set of transactions and documents should be set aside and declared invalid, is such an unlikely event as to be not worth contesting unless or until we are down to the final dregs of desperation.

Instead, there are a number of channels that can be pursued in a defence against claims, real or not, exaggerated or not, that can be used. We have discussed these with a number of IOM and CI law firms.

For the moment, we have not received from a client, any loan repayment demand that we have not been able to resist without recourse to a Court room. To date, we have been able to convince the lender that our clients have good grounds not to repay the loan.

We expect the activity of lenders (and those acting on behalf of lenders) to ramp up as we move towards the end of the tax year. We will certainly be advising our clients that loan repayment will not, as is often claimed, result in HMRC dropping enquiries and/or not applying the loan charge.

Repaying loans will not have any effect on enquiries or loan charge (unless - for the loan charge only - you are prepared to repay the loan and never see that money again).

If you settle, having the loan written off is generally a good idea. You DO NOT NEED any special bit of paper from the lender (or their agent) to convince HMRC of write off. You probably should have a letter, establishing in legally binding form, that the lender has given up all rights, but that is a very simple document.

We are aware that some trustees and their agents are charging what we consider to be extortionate amounts for such a letter. We cannot make a judgement for you as to the worth of what you are receiving, but please consider carefully the ratio between the work required by a trustee/agent and the fee.

So, resisting loan repayments is sensible but it has to be done on the basis of the facts, the historic transactions and the documents. It can be done but will almost certainly require expert knowledge.

Relying on a Judge deciding that the whole arrangement is a sham and can be declared invalid, is a desperate last throw of the dice.

Dealing with trustees/agents should be done carefully as many are seeing the end game here as an opportunity to make fees.