I passed Part A on my first attempt in 2018 and attended the seminars. I personally think for Part A, having a good set of notes is not sufficient because a large part of what they test resolves around (a) identification of issues and (b) application of legal principles. Of course, if you are able to achieve (a) and (b), then having a good set of notes may help you get that Distinction.

For Part A, you really need to be precise in your identification of issues and, in my experience, the people who failed are usually the ones who do not conclude properly or beat around the bush without firmly landing on what a charge against an accused person may be. (Overseas grads are probably used to winging their way out of exam questions but this is frown upon here)

Unlike Part B, which I think most of us here can confirm was the time of our lives and which we can really rely on a regurgitation of muggers / notes from seniors, Part A is more like an extension of an exam in university. The purpose of Part A is really to filter out who's ready for practise and who is not.

If you are NOT tight on finances, I think no harm paying for the seminars. My tutors (current NUS / SMU lecturers) were very helpful, especially my evidence law tutor who gave us real tips on how to spot issues during the exam.