What kind of complete risk can be avoided due to BPI ?

However, the Ombudsman criticised the then Contributions Agency for serious delay in considering company M’s request for a refund. The Revenue had then answered a query from professionals acting for participants in the avoidance scheme saying that the decision in Case A was of general application. However, in March 1981 the House of Lords, while not overturning Case A, decided another case (Case B) establishing new legal principles which had a bearing on Mr S’s appeal.

The property do consist of many kind of risk due to which the damages can be held to the property. When the damages do occur in the property then the property holder do have to bear the huge amount of loss and also expenditure cost can be increases for the repairing of damages in property. Mr S’s appeal itself eventually came before the House of Lords in February 1993 they found for the Revenue, but said that the facts in Mr S’s case could not be distinguished from Case A.

Risk such as structural defects, pest, termites and other such factor can cause a problem of damages in the property. The main target of Building And Pest Condition Report is to rectify the affecting factor and action is to be taken to remove such factor. The Ombudsman found that the House of Lords had decided Mr S’s tax liability arising from his participation in the avoidance scheme – that was not a matter for him. The Ombudsman found that, although there had been maladministration, Mr Q, because of his own actions had suffered no loss or injustice.

He found no evidence that the Revenue has treated Mr Q differently from the other employees. The Revenue decided, in the light of the Ombudsman’s findings, to take no further action to enforce the regulation 42(2) direction against Mr Q. Following a third inspection in 1985, the Unit directed the employer to change the method used to assess Mr X’s liability for national insurance contributions from April 1986 (so as to increase his future payments).