Lapland New Forest Scam. How to get money back...

GomerPyle

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2099096.ece

QUOTE
Grotty Lapland chiefs blasted

BOSSES of the grotty Santa theme park that closed after just six days were facing prosecution last night — as trading standards chiefs revealed complaints set a RECORD.

UNQUOTE

For any card provider to suggest that customers received what they paid for is laughable and ridiculous. Why are they facing prosecution then ? Why has it been labelled a scam and disaster from here to Australia ? Why has it provoked condemnation and anger from web blogs to the the Times and all other newspapers and web sites around the world, including Russia and the USA ?

The Mears family have set this up with the mentality of schoolkids (though I think most schoolkids are more intelligent and would have done a better job) and are trying to use 'weasel words' to claim they acted properly. They have tried to run a national event with the same dodgey methods they'd run any enterprise they were involved in.

You have the backing of the Financial Services Authority in being entitled to make a chargeback, and the the weight of evidence confirming that you are entitled to a refund, and that the event was not what was advertised, is overwhelming.

(Now back to the hospital to get the pills they couldn't give me yesterday - but I'll keep smiling).

whitewing

______________________________________________________________

ATTENTION PLEASE! Added mid-Jan 2009: Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

What a charmer!

From The Argus within the last hour:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4026386._I_don_t_care__says_Lapland_boss/

"I don't care" says Lapland boss in Brighton

From the article:
Yesterday, The Argus again approached Victor Mears, the company director, at his home in Selsfield Drive, Brighton.
When The Argus asked for a comment on the investigation, the 65-year-old shouted through his front door: "Go away you scum bag. I don't care."

(It is maybe worth reading some of the comments associated with the article too as some readers have queried the use of the old photograph and possible sensationalisation by the media. It's a fine line, of course).

Gomer, I liked yesterday's post.

EdnaCloud

Codger, thank you, and no, I am not going to initiate a charge back in case the Health Authority offer to repeat the service in lieu of a refund. It was only a minor op and the service was excellent - I got exactly what was advertised - the doctor said this might be rather uncomfortable and it was. The nurse said this might hurt a little and it did. The consultant said this will be a bit painful and it was. And no antlers where involved, surprisingly! Though it feels like it. ;-)

Although these comments have been made previously I hope you excuse me repeating some pertinent bits:

If the Ltd Co is put into receivership then, sadly, us poor punters will be last at the feeding trough as unsecured creditors and can expect to get nil point of diddly squat. Also given that (as far as I know) we do not know where any funds are currently held I think it is a matter of some urgency to make any claims, using Gomer's wise advice, or restart any abandoned ones. Correct me if I am wrong (Gomer, or other wise heads), but even monies held in escrow by Streamline, or any other payment agent, would not be immune from seizure or freezing by the official receiver.

Any criminal proceedings may further confuse the issue, but may, on the other hand delay any freezing of assets whilst various bodies pass the hot potato amongst them in their usual efficient manner.

I am no expert but speak from experience elsewhere, please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect.

rgds
Edna bucket again soon I expect.......

whitewing

Edna, I think Gomer will correct me, but my understanding of Gomer's comments are that Streamline should not have set up the payment facility in the first place. It was therefore a business risk they took. Therefore, should the funds from Lapland NF be frozen, then RBS (aka Streamline) should be paying the refunds out of their own pocket?

______________________________________________________________

ATTENTION PLEASE! Added mid-Jan 2009: Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

GomerPyle

Yes whitewing, I think it has to be said that RBS and their subsidiary Streamline haven't been very clever in even touching an account like this.

I have seen it mentioned on the FSA site that RBS will only allow a convicted fraudster or undischarged bankrupt the most basic of accounts, if any. To allow a company run by Victor Mears a merchant facility with so many obvious 'red flags', defies belief. Bear in mind that a bank is fully entitled to, and will make, further in-depth searches when they are puttng themselves at risk. Indeed it is legally obliged to do this, with regard to money laundering and anti-terrorist legislation.

With over 40 years banking experience I can say that I would not wish to have been involved in any part of this.

I would go further, as whitewing says, and say that RBS/Streamline should reimburse all those who suffered financially due to this debacle. Banks are not liable for the misdeeds of their customers obviouly, but when the company is so clearly a monumental dud and they have facilitated the collection of funds, without any apparent consideration of whether or not their customer was trustworthy or competent, then the situation is outside the 'norm'.

I make this statement even before it is known how specifically this company account was run, and investigation of that aspect could make the situation crystal clear.

It would be wrong for me to openly speculate on what other 'nasties' may be hidden under this stone, but past history suggests that there'll be more to be revealed.

GomerPyle

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4026386._I_don_t_care__says_Lapland_boss/

"Go away you scum bag. I don't care."

"Victor Mears, the 65-year-old shouted through his front door When The Argus asked for a comment on the investigation."

.... and the mere fact that Victor Mears is returning letters unaccepted should be reason enough to ensure that your claim/chargeback succeeds, as LNF Ltd are not adhering to the procedures expected of a reputable company.

An important fact to bear in mind is that it is not up to Streamline/RBS to respond with their reply to the chargeback request. It must come from the client via Streamline/RBS. If the client doesn't respond then the chargeback must go through. RBS/Streamline are not allowed to step into the client's shoes and answer on their behalf.

EdnaCloud

thanks Whitewing and Gomer, but I wasn't referring to those organisations' wider responsibilities being overruled or in any way diluted, I was referring only to the funds relating to the particular company in question being held, frozen, seized or otherwise made inaccessible. Should that happen it does not in any way denigrate or mitigate those companies' obligations under the regulatory system and I am sorry if I confused the issue.

Something that comes to mind though, is that should any freeze or seizure occur it may be that those companies use that as a further excuse (aka weasel words) to try and avoid being drawn into requests for refunds/chargebacks that are perfectly valid under terms and conditions that they wish not to acknowledge and that are entirely seperate from any direct claim on monies held by whomever as a direct result of transactions with that woe begotten band of ne'er-do-wells.

So in a rather wordy way I am agreeing with you both completely!

rgds
Edna

whitewing

Lapland West Midlands - most impressive news here! Well done Carol Dean et al

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7816546.stm


Trading standards officers contacted the internet payment processing site to freeze the money that had been received and asked it to stop accepting further payments.
Carol Dean, the county council's trading standards cabinet member, said: "We became satisfied that this event was never going to deliver what customers were being promised.
"We gathered enough information to present to the internet payment processor and ask them to stop processing payment.
"Once that was done the organisers pulled-the-plug on the event the morning it was due to open."

---

"Our priority then became to ensure people received their money back and I am delighted to be able to confirm today that this has now happened."

(Can't see it on their Staffordshire County Council website at the moment though?)

______________________________________________________________

ATTENTION PLEASE! Added mid-Jan 2009: Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

whitewing

If trading standards can identity and arrange refunds for customers for Lapland West Midlands, why can't they do the same for customers who had already paid but couldn't go to Lapland New Forest because it had closed?

From what I recall Lapland West Midland's organisers (not trading standards) closed the attraction, and Lapland New Forest's organisers (not trading standards) closed that attraction.

I don't recall hearing that Lapland West Midlands punters had to write to the organisers either. Or if they did, it doesn't appear that they had to await a response/lack of response.

I can understand it not being quite so straightforward for cheque payers or people who paid and attended/didn't attend when Lapland New Forest was still open.

______________________________________________________________

ATTENTION PLEASE! Added mid-Jan 2009: Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

EdnaCloud

Nothing personal, and the actions taken by WM Trading Standards are to applauded, but I am not sure that there is any arrangement for refund, and it is only the headline and the later sentence that refers to refunds
QUOTE
People who paid £25 each to get into a cancelled Lapland-style attraction have been given their money back.
UNQUOTE

I have to say I am curious as to how trading standards can say in such definite terms that repayments have been made without any supporting information, nor can I see any information as to *how* anyone who has paid gets a refund, so I'm rather suspicious that this is merely journalistic over-ambition. the article is rather thin on fact and wide in wordage. Unless I have missed something.

I have emailed the BBC for clarification - I will post any reply here, assuming no forum rules, copyright etc etc are contravened.
rgds
Edna