sorry lol i've not been actively keeping up to date with it - i've been in hospital for surgery since Oct and only getting round to existing things like this needing updates. FYI: this was sent by HMRC yesterday:

I've not unfortunately - are you able to link me or paste here?

Hi, please see attached the updated directions - the next "deadline" I believe is 27th Jan which is Friday, however, do I need to send anything across? Everything I've sent, is included within their file isn't it? Unless there's anything else now I can include, which may be useful? Directions updated.pdf

Hi slick, I've emailed Tax Appeals and said: "Following HMRC's Application for an Extension of Time and recent Statement of Case PDF, please can I be provided with updated Directions for myself with updated/accurate deadlines?"

Thanks slick. A load of it seems repetitive insofar what I've already told them multiple times, but then again, this is their "overview" I presume.

Hi, please see attached HMRC's Statement of Case. Do I need to do anything now - does this change anything? It's been a long while since the last hearing. PS: the Tribunal did grant the extension in the end. 20221014 Statement of Case.pdf

Hi, I sent this to the FTT and CCd HMRC on Tuesday; still yet to receive a reply. Surely they should’ve acknowledged HMRC’s application for an extension, whether it was acceptance or rejection? Hi, Please can you confirm if HMRC’s application for an extension of time was accepted? I’ve not heard anything via email or phone relating to a decision, so I’m not sure what’s going on. Thanks in advance,

Ahhh, interesting. It seems HMRC are really second-guessing their approach here.

Hi all, Hope you're all well. Just as an update, HMRC sent this last month to myself and Tribunal but I don't have a response (I presume the Tax Appeals response would also CC me). Does this mean it's NOT been accepted? PS: it's interesting the nature of why they're asking for an extension... PPS: I presume there's nothing I need to do until HMRC has sorted there side? Application for Extension of Time.pdf

Yes that's right. However, I presume that's also more time for me to prepare and others to potentially help find useful information, and perhaps other articles/outlets to feature reports/Government meeting updates, etc. Also, I understand my interest on the amount "owed" to still be paused, pending outcome of this appeal, so I can't see any problems my side - unless I'm wrong?

Hi all, Sorry for delay - I've been working non-stop but just got a bit of time now to update you. Essentially, the hearing lasted 10-15 mins and was in relation to HMRC's strike out application. In summary, the Judge finally refused their application as they don't see any clear or obvious reason to accept the strike out, and so now my appeal progresses on. The notes I prepared, etc, weren't required so I will save them for later. I didn't really need to say anything as it was more for HMRC to provide definitive reasoning behind their application, which they couldn't, hence the Judge's decision. Please see attached for PDFs for next steps, etc. Directions.pdf

Last time, the Judge provided me with, I would say, the most amount of time to speak. She started with HMRC, and they moved on to me. Essentially, since HMRC last responded to me (the original document I scribbled notes on), I feel it's right I should go first and just comment on each of their responses. I'll leave sending that link to them, just in case HMRC then find something against it. I'll just bring it up, and mention the above quotes.

I could also add... In a time where the nation has the least amount of trust in Government and their departments, whereby the taxpayers believe the Government is pretty much taking the p*ss out of residents left, right, and centre... HMRC is doing this..

Hi, please see my notes for this afternoon's hearing. Please let me know if I've missed something major, or if I've included something irrelevant. PS: is it worth me sending that ParliamentLive.TV link to Tribunal and HMRC in preparation for the hearing (with the timestamp auto locked)? I'm aware the "bald guy" sorry - I don't know who that is - response is "we DO need to look at whether our balance of checking is right". "It's an unregulated market, and no doubt there are agents who scam us [HMRC] or taxpayer" "It is an area of concern, and need to drive standards up, and PROTECT taxpayers" In relation to HMRC checking whether EIS schemes companies and checks exist... "We do security checks" - which implies HMRC recognised them as valid... Process now, check later introduced in 1990's - WAY OUTDATED! "We need to focus on bad players in the market..." I'M LITERALLY GIVING THEM ONE, AND THEY'RE PUNISHING THE TAXPAYER. SO MUCH FOR "PROTECTION". Notes.pdf

I told HMRC/Tribunal (and it is the truth) that I was aware FTR were submitting a tax rebate on my behalf, as I was eligible - that's the extent of me "knowing" what FTR we're doing and their "scheme" of keeping a % of the rebate. What I was never aware of, was the fact they were submitting tax returns for EIS relief... EIS was never explained to me, and the first I heard of that and of Cryoblast was from HMRC's letters. To answer HB, yes it was me that went through MCOL and issued a warrant against FTR. They turned up at their address only to find it was a virtual office/they weren't there, etc. It BAFFLES me how the police can't get involved/rejecting investigation, or anyone helping of that matter. IT'S LITERALLY FINANCIAL FRAUD and there's tons of proof/victims. Even HMRC referred to it as a "scam" in my first hearing...

This was just HMRC's reply to my Direction's response following the hearing. It now moves to the hearing on 10 August where the Judge will make a decision on how it proceeds - I presume. Not looking good though, I think, from what I can see. I'm going to exhaust all possible avenues before agreeing to pay something I never received, and am apparently liable for, even as the victim of a scam...

Hi, please see attached HMRC's response. Response HMRC.pdf

Brill, thanks Slick. All sent across! Will keep you updated. HMRC now have 28 days to respond, in preparation for the next hearing date on 10 August 2022 at 2pm

Hi all, is this good to go do you think? Just want to ensure I submit at least a few days before deadline.

Please see attached - I've changed a few bits in other areas too... Directions Response v2.pdf

Great, thanks Slick - i'll make amendments and send back

Hi, please see attached my first draft response. I'm finding it difficult to make it relevant in that HMRC's argument is that FTT don't have jurisdiction... but I've tried to include everything I deem relevant in that; a) I was a victim of fraud in that investments were made in my name without my knowledge. b) It's a nationwide scam (even HMRC confirmed it was a "scam"). c) As a result, I can't be responsible for the repayment of monies awarded, for something claimed for that I was not entitled to, nor did I give permission for the claims to be submitted - if that makes sense? I would really appreciate any input/amendments - no doubt i've probably missed something crucial. I've formatted similar to the template given to Schipoo. Thanks! Directions Response v1.pdf

Hi Homer, there are no outstanding payments due to TT - no arrears, my account's DD have all been paid on time. The £70 i'm claiming is for the 3/4 months DD's i've paid for a service I'm not receiving. It's costed me 3x what they're offering to have booked time from work for the engineer visits, time take on the Live Chat dealing with agents who weren't listening and just following a script. My complaint was in relation to mis-selling of a contract including speeds I could never have received, yet they spent hours "testing" my line, booking engineers, etc... all of which were a waste of time and pointless. There is no actual way for my speed to increase and I had no service/line faults/issues (which I told them at the beginning), yet they still wanted to keep investigating the line. This was my response, either way: Hi XXX, Many thanks for getting in touch and for providing me with yours and TalkTalk’s response to my case. Unfortunately, I am unwilling to accept the settlement offer of £270 (effectively £200, as £70 is reimbursement of monies I have already previously paid to TalkTalk – there is now an additional £28 which I’ve just recently paid via DD too). I do not feel it is sufficient after considering the time taken to get to this stage, the significant loss of income due to missing work several times (I’m self-employed so it wasn’t a case of simply booking a holiday request/day off with an employer and still being paid), and the stress of dealing with TalkTalk agents and the matter in general. I understand you have presented me with TalkTalk’s liabilities and due to them, are unable to provide the requested compensation of £720.00 for loss of my time and other miscellaneous costs. However, I feel an exception should be considered given the nature of this case, and for the way in which I’ve been treated by the agents I’ve been dealing with. The fact TalkTalk cannot simply provide compensation for this based on just referencing T&Cs, without looking deeper into the issue, is reminiscent of the “robot-like” communication I was receiving from agents. I do not feel an empathetic approach has been taken. I would like to thank you for accepting fault and for recognising that I am not being provided with my minimum guaranteed speed of 104.2mbps, with my line achieving 90mbps. I would also like to thank you for providing a goodwill gesture for the customer service shortfalls. However, my complaint is in relation to the original mis- selling, and the customer service issues were additional problems layered on top, which stemmed from the original complaint. In my original case, I requested TalkTalk to issue feedback on the following: • Retraining of agents to act more like people i.e., why did they try ringing my landline when I dont have one, etc. • Provide reasoning behind why I was offered this package in the first place. • Provide reasoning behind why I was promised callbacks which I did not receive - I had to set time aside from work during the allocated timeslots. However, I can’t seem to locate any response to these at all in your reply. I hope this helps clarify my position. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to comment further, or simply speak with me regarding the above. Yours sincerely, XXXX

Hi, I recently opened a complaint against TalkTalk ("TT") to CISAS (CEDR) who accepted my case and requested TT to respond before 14th June. TT responded a moment ago with a settlement figure, and I would just like to know if it's reasonable and whether I should accept or move to adjudication. Pasted below are the details. Of course, it will be my final decision and I'll be liable for whatever decision I make, but I would just like some external eyes to take a look to see if I'm not missing anything obvious and if it's worth moving forward/accepting. To me, it seems okay-ish, but I would like a little more. Especially in relation to booking days off work for unnecessary engineer visits after I'd pointed out they wouldn't help - however, not sure whether this is irrelevant due to their T&Cs. I don't mind staying with TT moving forward. Please note: the ADR rep mentions keeping my landline in their response (again - this means nothing to me). I have until 00:00 9th June (TOMORROW) to respond - they've given me less than 10 hours to decide. My original complaint to CISAS: Service type: Broadband Dispute Type: Mis-sell The Contract: Fibre 150 Package with minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps. Issues in Dispute: I joined Talk Talk ("TT") back in June 2021 on a Fibre 65 package. On 4th March 2022, I upgraded to Fibre 150 after being promised minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps. Since upgrading, I raised multiple issues with them, I believe first on 14th March 2022, explaining how I was only receiving ~90mbps, and not the minimum guaranteed download speeds. After multiple engineer visits and incredibly unhelpful agent conversations via Live Chat (agents that acted like robots following a script and not acknowledging my unique issue), I was eventually told by one engineer that it was "impossible" for me to receive their minimum guaranteed download speeds of 104.2mbps due to my distance from the exchange cabinet. I was advised TT should not have sold me this package upgrade as they would know this. During the complaint process (reference XXXX), I was promised manager callbacks on my mobile, which I never received. I was also told by TT that they tried to call my landline too... but I don't have a landline installed, again, something they should have known. After raising this, I was promised a callback from "higher support" at a certain date and time. Again... I received no such call. I have all chat logs relating to my issue and have documented all correspondence. Was a claim raised with the company?: Yes Date claim was raised with the company: Mon Mar 14 2022 Have you received a deadlock letter?: No Date on the deadlock letter (if received)?: Reference number on the deadlock letter?: Did the deadlock letter mention CISAS? How did you find out about CISAS? My telecoms company Information about the remedies sought: Does the filer seek a product or a service?: No Does the filer seek an action?: Yes Description of the action sought: Retraining of the agents to act more like people. Why did they try ringing my landline when I dont have one, etc. Provide reasoning behind why I was offered this package in the first place. Provide reasoning behind why I was promised callbacks which I did not receive - I had to set time aside from work during the allocated timeslots. Compensation (to be calculated fairly) for my time taken to discuss on live chat, booking time off work for the engineer visits, reimbursement for paying for a service Im not receiving, etc. I've worked off the duration (hours) taken x hourly rate. Usual action relating to this type of complaint. Does the filer seek an apology?: No Does the filer seek compensation?: Yes Total of the compensation sought: £790.00 # Claim Amount 1 Time taken on Live Chat £180.00 2 Time booked from work for engineer visits £390.00 3 Reimbursement of monthly payments made for a service I'm not receiving £70.00 4 Other miscellaneous £150.00 TT response: Dear Mr XXXX, My name is XXXX and my role, in TalkTalk’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Team, is to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues you have in reference to your recent CISAS case. I would like to offer my apologies that you have had to contact CISAS in relation to your complaint with TalkTalk but hope that we can now work together to enable a speedy, and satisfactory outcome. Thank you for taking the time to speak to me, where you advised of being busy and not able to speak for a negotiated offer to be made verbally to you. With regards to your CISAS application, you are seeking £790.00 broken down as £70.00 for payments made for your service and £720.00 for time loss. I would firstly like to refer you to the following TalkTalk terms and conditions which outline our liability to you, including that we are not liable for loss of time, income or business; - 13 OUR LIABILITY TO YOU 13.1 We’re only liable for losses that could reasonably be expected to occur when we entered into this agreement. 13.2 We’re not liable for: (a) loss of data or information; (b) business losses; (c) loss of income; (d) loss of your time; (e) problems caused by other network operators/providers of telecommunications services; (f) losses caused by third party services or goods, content or viruses that you access through the services; or (g) the failure of any alarm system that you try to run over our network or services. In light of the terms and conditions above, we would be unable to provide the requested compensation of £720.00 for loss of your time and other miscellaneous costs. Following a review of the case file information and the account details, I can confirm that you are not being provided with your minimum guaranteed speed of 104.2mbps, with your line achieving 90mbps. From the information reviewed, we will waive the contract breakage fee penalty of £155.27 which allows you to leave TalkTalk. There are two ways to do this. Should you wish to retain your landline number, an order just needs to be placed by you with the new provider you have chosen. They will then arrange for the transfer of the service, usually within 10 working days. We’ll send you a letter with all the details once your new provider has contacted us to ask to take over your service. If you do not plan on keeping your number, then we can place a disconnection for you and terminate the account within 30 days. Once we disconnect your service, you won’t be able to take your telephone number elsewhere. In resolution to your CISAS case, we would like to propose a compensation offer of £270.00 broken down as; - • £70.00 to be applied to the TalkTalk account to be refunded by BACs. This is for the payments made to TalkTalk as you have not received the minimum guaranteed speeds for your contract. • TalkTalk will allow your services to be ceased with no contract breakage fee’s applicable or alternatively should you wish to remain a TalkTalk customer, a colleague will contact you to provide the most suitable package available for your line. • Goodwill gesture for the customer service shortfalls encountered - £200.00. The total amount to be sent via BACS payment is £200.00, the additional amount will be applied as a credit to the TalkTalk account to waive the balance outstanding. Please could you kindly confirm if you accept the proposed settlement offer outlined above in resolution to your CISAS case? We would like to advise if no response is received to the proposed settlement offer by 09/06/2022, the offer will be withdrawn, and we will proceed to defence on the case. We can confirm once the settlement offer is withdrawn, and the case proceeds to adjudication their decision is final, therefore the adjudicator can offer less than the offer TalkTalk have proposed. Kind regards, XXXX ADR Team TalkTalk Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Please see attached for the Directions. No, the Judge was a different Judge. Directions.pdf