Hi Dixon, I assume you're ready for the video hearing on 10th August. Bear in mind HMRC are looking to convince the judge that the FTT has no jurisdiction because your appeal has no technical merit. They'll suggest the tax relief was claimed by you resulting in a tax refund when none was due - hence it must be repaid. I suggest you argue that HMRC's stance :- 1. Seeks to deny you the only chance you have to challenge their attempt to claim back from you all the tax refunded even though they repaid it to FTR who kept most of it. 2. Fails to answer important questions about their responsibility to use due diligence before making substantial tax refunds. 3. Suggests that you were aware of what FTR were doing when FTR were doing their best to keep you from finding out what was happening. Keep us posted .......

@dixon2094 I've been thinking what I would say if I were in your position at the hearing (although I have no personal experience or expertise or special knowledge of how these hearings work). I would be insistent in putting it to the hearing that I am a victim of a fraud. But because the actual fraudsters can't be found I am expected to pay HMRC's bills and that's just wrong. (I wouldn't be arguing that as a point of technical tax law, just as a 'person in the street' point about fairness and justice). I would want to point out that what HMRC are painting as me being negligent or complicit in the fraud are actually examples of me being a victim of skilled fraudsters. I would ask HMRC whether they have had other reports of FTR Ltd committing similar frauds? Do they consider FTR Ltd to be fraudsters? They'll duck and dive to avoid answering that one but remind them of the facts - FTR Ltd registerd to a brass plate service address. Not responding to court cases (you have a CCJ), Not responding to ICO (you have ICO support that FTR Ltd acted ilegaly) etc etc. Do HMRC consider that charcteristic of fruadulent tax reclaim companies? Ask HMRC what steps (if any) they have taken to find FTR Ltd? Remind the Tribunal of all the steps you have taken. That's just a personal view - experts please say if you think I'm leading dixon on a wild goose chase. Good luck

I know Bayswater pretty well and you are not quite right with your location. 26 Queensway is Qpark which is a totally different company. Regent parking are in Princess Court which is a little further down than from where you said you parked. And when you said you parked opposite 37 did you mean that you parked in the layby next to 37 since there isn't a layby across the road from 37 . If you parked next to Taza kebab you are still several car lengths from Princess Court which would make it difficult to be caught by ANPR cameras in Princess court. Is it possible that you parked in the lay by in front of Princess Court instead? i don't live far from there [less than 10 minutes] so I can have a look once I know where you actually parked. I can also get an update on Regent's signage that doesn't look as if it complies. It is also a pity that you appealed [though perfectly understandable if you were by Taza ] since their PCN does not comply with POFA so the keeper cannot be held liable for the debt.

In referendum campaigns they should have to submit information to a checking panel. before they can issue such campaigning material. e.g. like advertising standards In 2016, those claims appeared fantasy then and anything negative said about the claims was immediately branded as 'project fear'. The referendum was very unfair, as I don't think people had really good balanced information to base their decisions on.

Someone has tweeted this video from Leave.eu in 2016.

I've been through the submission and there's really nothing new. I'm not particularly worried about what HMRC have now said. There's no counter-reply needed now - it's down to the hearing on the day and for the judge to decide :- 1. If the FTT even has a part to play in the appeal process and..... 2. If it does, how this will be moved forward. Dixon, I suggest you go through each point made by HMRC and make brief relevant notes as necessary. HMRC's submission is clearly written for their own success, and for your failure. It's now down to you to have your counter arguments ready to use if you're given the chance at the hearing. For example, point 16 - HMRC seek to use what was written in texts to show you were involved in the reclaim process. I suggest this simply shows how FTR were trying to bamboozle you with rubbish and keep you away from your HMRC portal. Also, they continue to refuse to address the issues you raised about HMRC repaying tax with no checks about the alleged EIS company or the relevant investment certificate. There are many points you should have ready to argue so get working on this.