Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HMRC seek repayment Maxwell and FTR Ltd


Rob Carr

Recommended Posts

There are some similarities but mine is longer. 
 

They refer to other cases that I have no knowledge of.

 

Revenue and Customs v Khawaja [229] BTC123)

 

61. In consideration of the Tribunals jurisdiction, HMRC note the principles summarised by the Upper Tribunal in R & J Birkett (trading as The Orchards Residential Home,Dunmore Residential Home, Kingland House Residential Home, The Firs Residential Home, Merry Hall Residential Home) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 89 (TCC)(Nugee J and Judge Ashley Greenbank) at [30]:

 

Dixon dealt with FTR, I never had any dealings with FTR only MTR. However, HMRC paid to FTR. 

99. The Respondents note the Appellant’s comments that he did not authorise Fast Tax Rebate Ltd to act on his behalf. Fast Tax Rebate Ltd were shown as the repayment nominee on the Self-Assessment returns. The Respondents submit that the Appellant was in agreement for Max Tax to submit forms on his behalf and evidence, in the form of messages, demonstrates that Max Tax submitted the returns .


100. The Appellant has provided evidence to show that he received two bank payments which clearly state that they are from ‘Fast Tax Rebates’ and that they relate to a ‘tax refund’.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Rob,

 

The list you just rec'd is HMRC's list of doc'ts they intend to rely on for the hearing.

 

The doc't you posted on 7th Jan sets out their arguments, contentions and the legislation they'll rely on, much of which you've seen before in exchanges.

 

IMHO, Para's 91 to 105 are the crutial points. HMRC seek to counter your contention that s.8, ICTA (Electronic Communications) Regs 2003 applies. You've said the refunds were claimed by MaxTax without your knowledge or connivance and HMRC say you DID know about the submissions or connivie with Max Tax.

 

You have to argue :-

 

1. You knew MaxTax were acting for you but had no idea what they were doing as you relied on them as tax "experts".

 

2. You weren't aware that they were acting improperly in using your pesonal Log In access details to file returns on your behalf.

 

3. You had no knowledge about EIS or MaxTax claiming this on your behalf.

 

4. You've never suggested you were due any EIS relief, despite HMRC making a big fuss about this aspect. 

 

5. You're a victim of MaxTax's fraudulent activity, along with maybe hundreds or thousands of similar victims.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

@slick132 hi slick, yes I’ve read through the judges ruling in the Robson appeal. It is a different agent but the similarities are there and the agents could be linked due to the EIS claim being made into Cryoblast.

 

I’m not getting my hopes up just yet but it is good that someone else has at least had some success. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,

 

Yes, it's certainly different in that the agent made the reclaim through the normal agent's channel, as opposed to the majority of cases here on CAG where the agent used the individuals' access portals to file Returns and claim the EIS relief.

 

But there are relevant similarities that our CAG cases should use to their best advantage.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi, thanks for reopening the thread, I just wanted to update for anyone that was following this thread or similar threads as it seems to have gone quiet recently.

I now have legal representation from independent tax (the same company that represented Huntly).

They have applied for a ‘stay’ in my case due to the similarities in other cases and also that I have my case joined to the ‘tweddle group’ which I believe are a group of people that were also victims of EIS scam albeit through a different agent to Alan maxwell, fast tax rebates etc.

HMRC have submit their pack to the tribunal today and have included the following legislations and cases.

Legislation Reg. 8 Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 SI2003282 146 Section 157 Income Tax Act 2007 - Eligibility for EIS relief 147 - 148 
 
Section 203 Income Taxes Act 2007 - Entitlement to claim 149 - 150
 
Legislation (cont...) Section 28A Taxes Management Act 1970 - Completion of enquiry into personal or trustee return 151 - 155 
 
Section 31 Taxes Management act 1970 - Right of appeal 156 - 159 
 
Section 49(D) Taxes Management Act 1970 - Notifying appeal to the Tribunal 160 - 161 
 
Section 50 Taxes Management Act 1970 - Procedure 162 - 166 
 
Section 9A Taxes Management Act 1970 - Notice of Enquiry 167 - 170 
 
Case Law HMRC v Woodstream Europe Ltd [2018] UKUT 398 (TCC) 171 - 186
 
Huntly v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 00135 (TC) 187 - 205 
 
McCumisky v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 128 (TC) 206 - 217 
 
R & J Birkett (trading as The Orchards Residential Home, Dunmore Residential Home, Kingland House Residential Home, The Firs Residential Home, Merry Hall Residential Home) v HMRC [2017] UKUT 89 (TCC) 218 - 234 
 
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Khawaja [299] BTC 123croner-i-tax-and-accounting-export 235 - 251

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you very useful to our members.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob and thanks for the update.

I'm pleased to hear you now have expert representation. When HMRC remain so pig-headed focusing stubbornly on their argument - "You received tax relief for EIS to which you were not entitled." - yet remain oblivious to the circumstances where you were all victims of FTR or Maxwell's fraud, you need all the help you can get.

Please keep us updated with events.

I wish you well !

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just to update - I have my tribunal date set for 19th December. 

I did not include the Robson case in my direction to the tribunal as this was submit beforehand.

However, I am now aware that someone else who was scammed by Alan Maxwell/Fast tax rebates appealed the full amount including the proportion they received and included the Robson ruling in their directions to the tribunal and hmrc chose not to defend the appeal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HB,

They said after they amended their tribunal directions to include relevant points from the Robson ruling they received an email from hmrc saying “after careful consideration hmrc do not wish to defend this appeal” 

I haven’t seen the email but I have known this person a while and we have been keeping each other updated with our cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,

Please find out whatever you can and let us know some relevant details.

Given the number of folk who have been victims and the amounts of money they could have to repay to HMRC, any specific information could be crucial crucial  in helping others.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent last night going through my emails etc and independent tax have added the Robson case to my application. 

I will message and see if they would be willing to send me a redacted version of the email. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Received as part of an email from independent tax yesterday.

The main reason for this is that following an application by HMRC, the judge has agreed with their submissions and believes that they need to focus on each individual’s specific circumstances.

As such they want to hear each case individually rather than using a sample approach.

This is because they believe the determinant is not in what happened but whether the actions that you each took individually were reasonable.

Whilst we disagree with this position, unfortunately now that the judge has taken this view and, as they will be the person making the decision, it is unlikely that any submissions would be able to convince them to overturn the decision.

This seems absolutely absurd to me.

Given that everyone at the tribunal has been scammed in similar ways either by Fast tax or Max tax rebates. How can the judgement now be based on the reasonable steps we took to prevent it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,

Schipoo has had the same communication from Independant Tax so each individual will have to defend their own case with no Group Action going forward.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi slick, I’m in regular contact with Schipoo and BradX. BradX was successful in their appeal tribunal and hmrc chose not to defend. I have been discussing with schipoo what we should do next. Independent tax will no longer be representing me/us as individuals. 

what is your opinion on “This is because they believe the determinant is not in what happened but whether the actions that you each took individually were reasonable.”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,

I didn't know you were in touch with Schipoo or BradX.

I heard from Schipoo by PM this morning that Independent Tax had to stop the Group Action as HMRC had successfully challenged it so each case must now be heard individually.

As Honeybee says, BradX may be helping by sharing what has happened in their case.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, slick132 said:

Independent Tax had to stop the Group Action as HMRC had successfully challenged it

that was going to always happen at some point, i really hope no-one paid them any money, it's the way these always pan out...oneway or another. prob find the directors are already in spain....

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have paid them.

I was feeling quite confident knowing that I had representation going into the tribunal and that BradX had been successful in their appeal (even though they are the only person that I know of that has been).

Now it seems I’m back to square one and out of pocket. The email from independent tax states that they have requested a further extension for the group of 45 days, however, I believe my hearing will remain on the date originally planned of 19th December. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have uploaded the original comments to the tribunal that was sent on my behalf by independant tax.

I am going to send an email with the following addition, also attached. Please can someone confirm this would be the correct way to add the extra grounds of appeal. Thanks.

comments redacted.pdf.docxcomments redacted2.pdf.docx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...