Hoey - next steps

[DealorNoDeal]

That sounds like a pretty serious accusation to me.

It is quite serious if hundreds of people are continuing to pay £15/month in the belief that there is a 65% chance of success, and that's no longer the reality. I wonder if WTT's counsel still stands by the 65%?

It seems to me that the whole PAYE "someone else is liable" argument has seriously hit the rocks. NTRT were the first to come up with this a number of years ago (TAA) and their case has been broadsided too. It probably hasn't helped that so many have jumped on the bandwagon. I bet HMRC have had lawyers poring all over this.

[Iliketax]

I’m thinking of “Iliketax”

Thanks but no thanks. I don't work in the contractor area and Saleos seem congnisant of the issues (but I've never met him or had any engagement with him other than seeing his posts on Twitter and on here).

[bobbydazzler75]

It is quite serious if hundreds of people are continuing to pay £15/month in the belief that there is a 65% chance of success, and that's no longer the reality. I wonder if WTT's counsel still stands by the 65%?

It seems to me that the whole PAYE "someone else is liable" argument has seriously hit the rocks. NTRT were the first to come up with this a number of years ago (TAA) and their case has been broadsided too. It probably hasn't helped that so many have jumped on the bandwagon. I bet HMRC have had lawyers poring all over this.

No counsel has ever said there is a 65% chance. Its purely a figure wtt dreamt up themselves. Funnily enough a figure which covers them from an insurance perspective if (when) it all fails. Coincidence I'm sure.

[DealorNoDeal]

No counsel has ever said there is a 65% chance. Its purely a figure wtt dreamt up themselves. Funnily enough a figure which covers them from an insurance perspective if (when) it all fails. Coincidence I'm sure.

NTRT's counsel did (>75% as I recall). But that was years ago, and long before HMRC came up with the "disapply PAYE" wheeze.

[bobbydazzler75]

NTRT's counsel did (>75% as I recall). But that was years ago, and long before HMRC came up with the "disapply PAYE" wheeze.

Hi, yes I agree, I was just meaning WTTT have never had counsel opinion offering their make believe 65%...

[Clairol]

Hi, yes I agree, I was just meaning WTTT have never had counsel opinion offering their make believe 65%...

So as a wtt customer who’s apparently been scammed what should I do now? Pay HMRC as there are no litigation options?

What next please?

[DealorNoDeal]

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone has been scammed. Not that long ago the 65% may have been credible but it's not now. If I was being generous I'd say it's turned into a long shot, a punt. If I was being harsh, I'd say it's become a

pipe dream - Wiktionary

Since there isn't much of an alternative, and £15/month ain't a lot, there isn't much to lose by carrying on.

But, if WTT ever start asking for larger sums of money, that's a different matter.

[Invisiblehand]

But, if WTT ever start asking for larger sums of money, that's a different matter.

What about £1,500 plus VAT?

[Saleos]

I can only speak for those clients who were asked to contribute a similar sum to the Loan Charge JR in Hoey more than a year ago and in doing so point out some key differences.

1. In Hoey each client was given secure access to the opinion of Counsel outlining the legal arguments and the prospects thereof BEFORE deciding whether or not they wished to contribute. Do you know exactly what you’re being asked to pay for?

2. In Hoey funds were held by a formally constituted litigation Association and held in a solicitors client account under protection of the SRA. The constitution of the LA sets out that any remaining funds would be returned, pro rata, to contributors.


3. The Executive Office which runs the Association & approves invoices is independent of all parties instructed to deal with the matter. This means that the party that controls finances and ultimately make decisions in the advice their given have no vested interest in whether or not funds are spent.

4. Contributions were not invoiced as fees; there was no VAT.

I stress that my involvement has, since 31.120, been entirely pro bono and will remain so until it us resolved. I am NOT looking for new clients.

What about £1,500 plus VAT?

[bobbydazzler75]

So as a wtt customer who’s apparently been scammed what should I do now? Pay HMRC as there are no litigation options?

What next, please?

I wouldn't worry too much. There will shortly be news with regards to a removal of retrospection from law. All by a person who has been constantly abused as it happens. The truth is coming shortly.