Luton Outlaws - The Avenue of Evil

Newell to…..

Posted by Cuba <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Cuba' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 17:42:54

Estate Agent in Dulwich……

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 17:58:52, in reply to "Newell to….."

The daily Mail will be livid.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Outsider <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Outsider' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 18:05:58, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."
VIP

In some ways, the email makes it worse for R from A as it proves that, despite what she wrote to Starmer yesterday, saying that she and her husband weren't aware that she needed a licence, the email shows that she (or, at least, her husband) was informed that she did need a licence.

If you appoint an agent to file your tax return to HMRC or your company accounts to Companies House, it is still your responsibility to ensure that they have done so on your behalf.

I was much happier

Posted by E5 Hat <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=E5+Hat' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 22:29:53, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

With Liz and K boy - it only cost me thousands a year on my mortgage…

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Wilt <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Wilt' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 20:14:44, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Well will be livid.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Questioner <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Questioner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 21:16:31, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

😂😂think you have nailed it….⬇️⬇️⬇️

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 20:17:15, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Bravo on posting the words for a sentence.

I thought your device only had two keys.

+1 and

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Rioch for England <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Rioch+for+England' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 20:13:04, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

She is the Chancellor of the Exchequer ffs. The next time you fuck up your tax return try telling HMRC it was your accountant's fault and I guarantee you will get ZERO sympathy.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Kbot <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Kbot' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 18:18:09, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

He was aware that he needed one but could also have reasonably expected it was being applied for because they said they would. Need to take the whole email in context. The estate agent has also apologised to her.

It appears to me to be a cock-up. Mud is being slung but thats politics. I would want the ethics adviser to confirm the Ministerial Code has not been broken and that would end it. It’s a bit like the Chinese spy thing. It’s all the tories have got.

Re: Newell to…..

I agree that the agents should have done it but it is still her responsibility. I think that what goes against her more than that is that she said yesterday that they hadn't been aware that they needed a licence. Surely, even if they had forgotten until then, the furore over it must have made them remember the email thread.

Re: Newell to…..

I can understand you’re not a fan. The whole responsibility accountability argument lets people like accountants and estate agents to behave unprofessionally and get away with it. My argument is she had a reasonable belief to think her affairs were in order. She was not, as has been claimed, attempting to break the rules. In your position thought you of all people would have understood that. She has taken responsibility for it happening, apologised, offered up conclusive evidence and applied for the license in accordance with the rules.

Re: Newell to…..

Don’t be so rationale, the Tory dogs are hungry, I mean it was much better with Liz and K-boy. Not like it cost us anywhere near as much at a licence mistake…

Re: Newell to…..

If you apply for something and after a year you haven’t had confirmation wouldn’t you think to follow up?
Maybe if you are a person of limited intelligence then fair enough but they are meant to be intelligent people….ohh and being busy isn’t an excuse.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by PaddyHatter <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=PaddyHatter' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 10:23:24, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Yep. Only two areas of criminal law where the onus of proof is reversed , one is health and safety and the other is tax law. It's up to the person filing their tax return to prove they did everything reasonable to follow the law. These slippery politicians know this INSIDE-OUT! So do their accountants . She has broken the law. Needs to go.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Kbot <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Kbot' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 21:30:19, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Not if I’ve paid a professional and been notified they will do it. I’d assume with reason, they’d done their professional duty. I’d certainly be suing the life out of them. Given the context there is no evidence that it was deliberate. She has admitted responsibility but the agent has taken accountability for making the mistake. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Mind you, if there is any proof that a minister has broken the Ministerial Code then for me that is crossing a line and they should go. This is just political mud slinging. Unfortunately, part of the political landscape.

Re: Newell to…..

You could sue the life out of them . No problem. That's civil law. YOU however will be getting prosecuted by HMRC on behalf of HM Gov't NOT your accountant OR Estate Agent. It doesn't have to be deliberate , it's criminal negligence on her part. A bit like running someone over when on your phone. You didn't deliberately run them over but you're still going to prison . You're not wrong about the mud slinging . It never ends these days . However the law is really clear on these things and I can tell you that you and I would be in big trouble if we did this. Intentionally or unintentionally.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Kbot <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Kbot' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 11:32:41, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Actually it’s the local council. They have a reasonable test. Showing that you had reasonable belief you thought your affairs were in order would not make it a criminal offence. Mitigating action was that she took responsibility, and applied for the licence. If there is any state did that to everyone then people like you would be screaming from the rooftops how wrong it was when it wasn’t the persons fault, it wasn’t deliberate and the applied for the licence.

Re: Newell to…..

That's a fair point. You're right. I was thinking of tax liabilities for the rental. Not having a licence wouldn't affect that. In that case and against that test she hasn't done anything wrong and should be allowed to rectify it.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Questioner <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Questioner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 9:48:33, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

You would know you don’t have it because you haven’t paid the £900 it costs.
As it’s been pointed out multiple times the onerous was on them to purchase the licence not the estate agent.
The estate agent said they would and didn’t so shit service and rightly should share the blame but they were told they needed a licence , what it would cost and failed to follow up.
Not the biggest crime in the world and clearly a genuine mistake but they seem to follow her when you look at her cv , gifts received and now this. She should be sacked for being incompetent.

Re: Newell to…..

My point is it was clearly a mistake, she proved that. It proves she did not break the Ministerial Code and calls to sack her are ridiculous.

I wouldn’t have a clue how I was being build and whether I’d paid it. She had reasonable belief to think her agent had dealt with it. Why would you look? She might have thought the costs were included in the estate agents bill.

She has accepted responsibility, apologised and applied for the licence. You want her treated hrder than anyone else because you don’t like her. Anyone else it the same position it would be treated as a mistake and the error corrected.

Had she or any other ministers broken the code then I do drawn a line and she should go. That is clearly not the case here. It is political mud slinging. All sides do it and it just to cause embarrassment. I get that but calling for the sack for a mistake is daft.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Questioner <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Questioner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 13:42:32, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Agree it was a mistake . However as Starmer stated she should have then checked “they didn’t know they needed one” as she claimed in her first letter to him before then realising they did know and didn’t follow through.

Wow you are a wealthy person if you don’t know if you have paid £945 or not.

It’s a collection of stupid things she has done which piss me off…however none of those ( the cv is debatable ) deserve a sacking …that should be based on her incompetence and inability to do the job.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Kbot <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Kbot' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 14:29:40, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

I’m not but to be honest would I look? Actually, my wife tells me off because I wouldn’t know if someone had scammed money off me. I agree that she wrongly assumed she had paid. Thats the point for me. The change to a rushed statement is not proof of guilt.

I get she is not popular with everyone but things need to be put into context.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Questioner <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Questioner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 23:19:23, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

What’s your bank account details ….I promise not to take any money out just interested….😂😂

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 21:25:01, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

the latest news has hurt you.

Condolences bud in these tough times. (Smiley)

Re: Newell to…..

Using your analogy about my circumstances, I could accept a client saying that they thought that I had filed their tax return for them but I couldn't accept them saying that they didn't know that they needed to do a tax return when I had emailed them telling them that they needed to do so and there was a correspondence thread showing that they had read my messages.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by HH <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=HH' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 19:15:23, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Surely the analogy works only if you told your client’s husband you’d handle their tax return… and then didn’t.

Even then, it’s not really comparable. Everyone knows they need to pay tax. Does everyone know all the ins and outs of rental law? That’s why you hire a letting agent, to handle the stuff you don’t know.

Re: Newell to…..

Agreed but if you are told you need a licence ( which needs paying for) surely you follow up if it’s not sorted?

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by HH <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=HH' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 22:07:11, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Maybe.

But seems a stretch still. I mean, my wife has told me her car passed it's MOT recently but I've not actually bothered to check that it has.

Maybe she's as naive as Reeves' husband clearly seems to have been in trusting an estate agent to do anything

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by The Questioner <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=The+Questioner' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 31/10/2025, 23:17:05, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Well she hopefully has a mot certificate and if you or her haven’t bothered to check that you deserve anything that happens to you because of that neglect.
Hope you don’t have an accident as your Insurance will be invalidated.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 22:14:58, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Hunt forgot he owned 7 flats.

Boris forgets parties.

Liz forgot she was a lettuce.

Don’t worry about it.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Kbot <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Kbot' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 19:13:04, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

If you were paid to file it, I had a contractual expectation you would, you broke that contract when everything was seen to be in order, then you are to blame for the problem. She has taken responsibility after finding out the estate agent had not done what they were paid for. Where is the evidence that what they did not give the estate agent the necessary information to make the application? So not really anything like you are arguing. Just disgraceful professional behaviour which the agent has owned up to.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 18:46:15, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

I mean in normal circumstances I’d say not a chance I’d remember.

Knowing the tax dodging Heil are looking at every detail of your life desperate for anything.

Yep.

Re: Newell to…..

I mean in normal circumstances I’d say not a chance I’d remember.

I can understand them not realising that the licence hadn't been obtained but I'm damn sure that, if someone told me that I should've had a licence, it would have reminded me of the correspondence about it. I can't believe that her response wasn't along the lines of Oh, shit - the estate agents said that they were going to do that rather than We didn't know that we needed a licence.

Re: Newell to…..

Would you read an estate agents contract?

You probably would but I guarantee 90% of us would not read properly any contract.

The fact she went after pensioners and disabled folk don’t make me warm to her either way but this non story is dull at best.

Re: Newell to…..

I agree about reading Ts & Cs. We're all guilty of that.

As a pensioner with a wife who is a disabled pensioner, I am not a fan.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Well <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Well' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 19:07:32, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Sorry to hear that.

Genuinely.

Re: Newell to…..

Thanks

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Andy Cappuccino <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Andy+Cappuccino' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 18:37:02, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

Funny how someone who oversees the 6th biggest economy in the world cannot manage to choose a competent letting agent

65% for Nige

Re: Newell to…..

I get the Schadenfreuden aspect but this could have happened to anyone. Point is it was not her fault but a cock-up by someone else. Mud is being slung in the hope some might hopefully stick. My own view is if she is found to have deliberately broken the Ministerial Code then she should go. That is not the case here.

Re: Newell to…..

As I said above, it's not the estate agent failing to do it that is her big problem - it's pretending not to know that they needed a licence when clearly they did know.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by RM <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=RM' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 20:13:00, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

So we're they trying to avoid paying approximately £960, did it slip their mind or was it they just couldn't be arsed to get the license?
Can't believe that two people on their salaries were trying to avoid paying £960 with the intent of being fraudulent.
It must be peanuts in the grand scheme of money coming into their household.

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by RM <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=RM' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 20:16:11, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

"were".

Re: Newell to…..

you are now coming across as a daily Mail journalist.

“Big problem” this story is going nowhere.

Re: Newell to…..

You're right this is going nowhere as it is a drop in the ocean compared to this govt's mismanagement of the economy, failure to tackle the immigration crisis, embedding of two tier justice, attempted cover up of the rape gang scandal etc etc

65% for Nige

Re: Newell to…..

Posted by Caught Jester <iframe src='https://members.boardhost.com/lutonoutlaws/info/user=Caught+Jester' width='330' height='300' border=0 style='border:none;'> on 30/10/2025, 19:18:10, in reply to "Re: Newell to….."

That was the Tories mate.

Re: Newell to…..

that’ll be the amnesia his kind suffers from.

Re: Newell to…..

You're probably right that nothing will come of it but it's another example (all parties are guilty of it) of a party leader accepting something from a member of their own party where they would have been demanding a resignation if a member of an opposition party did the same.

Re: Newell to…..

They all make me vomit in truth.

Some are worse than others but that’s no comfort.

The decline in morals is tragic.

Re: Newell to…..

As I always say, Guy Fawkes was the last person to go into Parliament with the right intentions

Voting slips really need a None of the above option. It would increase turnout as well.

Re: Newell to…..

It would send an incredible statement out.

Sadly we have an avalanche of boot lickers who would vote for a goldfish if it wore the correct colour on it.

« Back to index

[ Luton Outlaws - The Avenue of Evil ]

Luton Outlaws - Independent Message Board for Luton Town FC