Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Man of Kent

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Man of Kent

  1. I think that's the funniest thing I've ever read. I hadn't come across this Mr Alexander character until I joined this forum, but he's got to be one of the finest comic creations out of Wodehouse or Wilde. Hi *is* made up, right?
  2. Fergus is living in a fantasy land of his own creation, in which he is incredibly popular and successful, and he'll soon have huge amounts of cash. He believes that the more money he has, the more popular he will be and the more people will agree with all his bizarre pronouncements. In this fantasy he will be borne into the PCC's office on a tidal wave of public adulation and will be able to take command of the Royal Navy, change the immigration laws, and all the other batshit crazy stuff he's been going on about. Reality must under no circumstances be allowed to intrude into this. I do not believe that he has or has ever had as much money or as many properties as he has claimed. He has announced that he is selling with monotonous regularity and always for £250m. I call bovine excrement.
  3. I've read this again and realise it looks like I'm trying to steal Spunko2010's thunder, for which I apologise. I was trying to say that it's difficult to get the media to take the point seriously and I salute him for sticking at it.
  4. Winning on this point won't help them. GO isn't going to take that kind of defeat lying down, he'll just tinker with the tax regime until it's compliant. And they don't have the resources to fight it all the way to European Court. The aggregates industry could afford to enter into that kind of litigation because they had the time and money to do so, and the return for them made it worth it. The idea that you can do that kind of thing by crowdfunding is risible, it requires the kind of self-delusion of which only landlords are capable.
  5. They printed a letter from me saying that he's ineligible, but cut out the explanation of why, which completely changed the sense of what I'd written. They printed it uncut a couple of weeks later after I complained, then ran a story a couple of weeks after that which splashed his ineligibility as though it were news which they'd just worked out for themselves. It's been picked in passing by the BBC, too, but only in passing.
  6. Fergus said that he was going to stand in 2012 as well. Those of us in the Garden of England have had to endure his endless bizarre adverts for months now, and the fact that he is ineligible has not encouraged him to shut up. I am inclined to think that he's not worried about that because he's no intention of actually standing this time either, but equally he's never been one for taking proper advice - the assault conviction that got him into this mess is probably something that a competent lawyer could have seen off. He is suffering from the delusion that he is rich because he is better than everyone else, not because he's lucky, and that leads him to reject everything that is said to him that doesn't fit in with his preconceived ideas. Who was it that said politics is showbusiness for ugly people?
  7. Less ridiculous than some religions I could mention. In fact, less ridiculous than every other religion I could mention. Alternatively, perhaps they could argue that their spectacularly low intelligence constitutes a disability?
  8. The earth will be hit by a massive asteroid, but it will bounce off Fergus Wilson and we'll all be saved.
  9. Funniest thing I've read for ages. I love the way they admit their chances of success are slim, a comment which is bound to find its way into counsel for the Treasury's opening speech. The Finance (No. 2) Act was given royal assent in mid-November, so it is quite possible that permission will be refused on the grounds that (a) it has not been brought as soon as possible and ( even the applicants admit it doesn't have a realistic possibility of success.
  10. I don't know. If I could predict things with any reliability I wouldn't be renting this shithole.
  11. Yet to be published? Is your accountant friend unfamiliar with the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015? Far from being unpublished, they have received Royal Assent! To be fair, I'm unsure whether the changes to SDLT have been published, but they are outside the scope of the proposed JR and I'm afraid I don't see why they are particularly complex.
  12. I don't know about that, but I have always thought that, in passing s.21, the Government unreasonably deprived tenants of their property (a tenancy being an estate in land and therefore the tenant's possession) or at least failed to protect them, but I'm afraid I am pretty much alone in that position.
  13. Yes, my understanding is that it's not possible to apply for JR without leave to do so, and that many if not most cases fail at that stage. I'm told that the Government doesn't always defend the permission stage if the case is a matter of public interest (or if it suits them to try to set a helpful precedent) but I think that's highly unlikely here. Given that they've hardly got any money, the crown's litigation strategy will probably be to outgun them at every stage. Doubtless they'll seek to have permission refused on the grounds that the case has no prospect of success, given that they are trying to achieve something which is essentially unconstitutional. You can pay a barrister to stand up and say all sorts of stupid things, it doesn't mean they agree with you. Even imbeciles are allowed their day in court. For £73m I'd profess undying love for Fergus Wilson. It makes me wish I hadn't dropped out of my law degree.
  14. Osborne has clearly decided that BTLers are to be made to pay more tax, and there are sound economic, social and political reasons for doing so. GO being GO, the political is the most important - renters were one of the few groups who voted reasonably solidly Labour at the 2015 General Election, and his strategy at the moment is to marginalise Labour by separating them from that kind of group. By definition there are more tenants than landlords, and the BTLers have nowhere else to go politically. They are also a genuinely loathed group of people who have helpfully put all their money into things that are awfully difficult to hide. From his point of view this is a no-brainer. The idea that he is going to be diverted from this by the world's most ill-advised court case is laughable. When he heard that landlords and barristers were going to give him yet another excuse to do away with the HRA by moaning to the Courts that they ought not to have to pay their taxes, he must have pissed himself with delight. Now, the courts' ability to judicially review primary legislation is strictly limited. On Human Rights grounds, the best they can do is to issue a Declaration of Incompatibility. The practical effect of this is that the Government will ignore it, except to use it as an example of why the HRA is unfit for purpose. The courts *do* have power to disapply an Act of Parliament if it is contrary to EU law, but I submit this is most unlikely in the current case. It is difficult to see that EU law is engaged. As has been said above, the Government has every ability to appeal and to keep on appealing. These things are hugely expensive for the person applying for JR, and the Government is making it more difficult. You have to budget not only for your own costs, but also for the other side should you lose. I think I am correct that, if the Government can convince the Court that the BTLers might not be able to pay the Treasury's costs should their application be unsuccessful, the Court can make an order for the security of costs: which would mean the case couldn't proceed unless the applicants pay enough money into court to secure those costs. For all these reasons JR applications in this kind of issue tend to me made by charities, who may be able to get an order to protect them from the Government's costs should they lose, on the grounds that they are bringing the case on public interest grounds on behalf of others. I do not believe this is arguable here. As to the ECtHR, applications to that Court are hugely expensive, take literally years to come to court, and (contrary to what you may have read in the Daily Heil) the UK wins most of the cases brought against it: and most cases never come to court at all. I am not a lawyer, but I suggest that the ECtHR is most unlikely to rule against the Government in this case, in the case of taxes it tends to draw a very wide "margin of appreciation" for member states, only interfering if taxes are blatantly unfair to the extent of being confiscation. Finally, I believe they are mistaken as to the deadline for a JR application. Applications must be made as soon as possible, and in any event no later than 3 months before the decision to be reviewed. The Courts put great emphasis on the first part of that rule, which some parties tend to ignore. It is not uncommon for permission to appeal for review to be refused on the grounds that it has not been applied for as soon as possible, although the three month deadline is still a long way off. If they need time to raise the money, it is quite possible that the case will get nowhere. In short, they're legally ******ed, IMHO.
  15. He appears determined to stand, despite the fact that he's not allowed. As the law stands, he can't be prevented from standing, but he could be prosecuted for signing a false declaration that he's eligible. Prison would be a distinct possibility. I've got the Returning Officer on speed dial.
  16. If we are going to list all the reasons why BTLers are resented, we're going to need to get a bigger internet.
  17. I can't help feeling that the media don't look very closely at Fergus's claims because he's a pantomime villain. For journalists he's the gift that keeps on giving, and the prospect of him crashing and burning has them wetting themselves with excitement. Plus if he stands for PCC he'll bring some excitement to an election in which nothing else will happen. In many ways it is a pity that the media haven't subjected him to the kind of scrutiny that he ought to have had. Very few of his claims has ever really stood up, and they've allowed him to be the poster-boy for the kind of greedy ******* who thinks that BTL is the key to untold wealth while making you morally superior to your fellow man. I suspect that the truth about Fergus is that he has never had as much money, or as many houses as he has made out. Much of it is bluster from a man who combines a taste for relentless self-publicity with a complete lack of understanding of what an utter twit he looks. Still, it'll all become clear at the bankruptcy hearings.
  18. Hello. I am the same Man of Kent that wound up that corpulent bounder Fergus Wilson over on PT.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.