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

GomerPyle

Friends in high places ?

whitewing

My questions for today....

1. Why can Carol Dean of Trading Standards arrange for a full refund of the children's 'Christmas treat' money for every person who paid online for Lapland West Midlands, but Ivan Hancock of Trading Standards cannot arrange the same for Lapland New Forest?

2. On 4th January, the Daily Echo stated 'It’s about making sure that every person who warrants a refund gets one, whether they turned up to be let down or never had the chance to visit after it closed.' What will be their next step in their campaign to get the money back to all disappointed children and their families?

3. Press reports suggest that £2 million's worth of Lapland New Forest tickets were purchased by families, social clubs and charities. How much of their money will Grant Thorton be paid?

4. RBS/Streamline provided the payment facility for this company. What have they got to say for themselves?

______________________________________________________________

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

It has to be said that Dorset Trading Standards deserve an award for twiddling their fingers and stating the blinking obvious, while the problem does 'a runner' with the passage of time.

In comparison Staffordshire Council appear to have behaved like testosterone fuelled psychos, but they only did thir job with ruthless efficiency, and that job is to protect the consumer. Effectively Dorset have done the opposite and are allowing the perpetrators to exit 'stage left' unscathed. You could be forgiven at times for thinking that they were acting as spokesmen for Lapland New Forest Ltd.

Not only are they not protecting consumers, but what they don't appear to realise is, they are tarnishing the reputation of honest traders locally. Who would bother to visit an event in Brighton now ? In being so pathetically ineffective they lead the public to believe that any event run in Brighton or locality, runs a very good possibility of being run by 'spivs' and 'chancers'.

In failing to do their job, and I find it hard to think of any positive action they have taken that has achieved anything apart from spending a bucketload of money on a barrister, they have achieved the double whammy of leaving consumers unprotected and sullied the reputation of Brighton worldwide.

For clarification I notice that Henry Mears is NOT the son of Victor Mears, as I originally believed, but his brother as is currently being reported, and Victor Mears is the uncle (not great uncle) of Mary Mears, the leader of Brighton Council. Not quite the distant relative she would have us believe.

Maybe the performance of their Trading Standards will be an issue come the next elections in Brighton.

EdnaCloud

1) Could it be differences between Paypal (LWM payment processor) and Streamline (LNF payment processor)? I suspect Paypal are more responsive and do not imagine themselves above the law that possibly other parties do. I use Paypal to receive payments (I have since they became established here) and they are very responsive to 'chargebacks' (fortunately I have only ever had one and that was resolved satisfactorily) and come down quickly and hard on traders who step out of line. Also, if you recall some many posts ago I gave Paypal the heads up as I'm sure lots of people did, I received an email the following day saying they where aware of the situation but could not provide details etc etc, so I wonder if they had a heads up before TS got involved with them.

2) will it be quietly forgotten?

3) It depends on how much time they have to spend unpicking the mess, but I would guestimate somewhere between 50 and 150K - but that is only 'gut feel'.

4) I doubt they will say anything, especially now. It will be the old legal and personal comment if anything, i.e. cannot reveal details about individual cases, cannot comment on cases that are being investigated etc etc.

When this whole debacle is sorted out GT have to send all creditors a breakdown of company assets, their own costs, HM customs and revenue payments, payments to employees, payments to secured creditors (which Streamline may be) and unsecured creditors. That is also the order payouts are generally made, however I am not a liquidation expert. It would great if a creditor could share that with us if that is allowed, but I believe this information is in the public domain if not well publicised.

rgds
Edna

whitewing

2. On 4th January, the Daily Echo stated 'It’s about making sure that every person who warrants a refund gets one, whether they turned up to be let down or never had the chance to visit after it closed.' What will be their next step in their campaign to get the money back to all disappointed children and their families?

Nothing on this so far, although it does concede that some debit card payers have had refunds:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4034104.Lapland_New_Forest_in_liquidation/

Salisbury Journal

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/newforest/newforestnews/4034995.Lapland_New_Forest_company_goes_into_liquidation/

______________________________________________________________

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

It has to be conceded that Staffs County Council had the benefit of being aware of what was coming their way in good time, and the fact that it appears that the only payment processor involved was Paypal, but they still acted in a far more purposeful and direct manner than Dorset TS. They didn't allow the matter to get out of hand, and thus had less of a problem to deal with - result everyone happy, except the event organisers.

Will it be brushed under the carpet ? I doubt it to judge from the comments about the Mears family from locals. This has only served to drag their reputation lower than it was already, and it was pretty low before.

Even without any repercussions I would expect no bank to touch any future business proposition of the Mears family with a bargepole. No sensible bank would hold their account as the bad publicity, expense and effort involved in handling it is not worth it. Banks are businesses and are under no obligation to hold any person's account. It is clear that RBS consider Streamline to be their little gem, and to risk its reputation over an ex-con and chancer from Brighton is ridiculous.

I doubt they have enhanced their reputations either among fellow ex-cons. They'll be back, but probably selling dodgey gear from a market stall which is more their natural place in life.

whitewing

Mail on Sunday:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1110124/50-000-customers-lose-cash-shambolic-Winter-Blunderland-goes-bust.html

And from the Sun:

Lapland shambles boss: We are broke


"Up to 50,000 people could be out of pocket because of the collapse of Lapland New Forest.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2112228.ece

Victor Mears, the director of Lapland New Forest Ltd, has asked for the business to be put into liquidation.
Customers, who paid up to £30 each for tickets, have been told they will receive forms to make a claim against the firm – but they are unlikely to get a refund."


So again, out of the customers' £30 ticket price, how much will go to Grant Thornton? And are Grant Thorton actually choosing to take this on?
______________________________________________________________

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

Referring to Whitewing and my earlier post, doing some calculation would *suggest* somewhere between 1 and 3 GBP of each ticket would go to GT, but we have to be careful about speculation. From previous experience of being a creditor of a company in liquidation their costs will not be announced until they have prepared the financial statement, i.e. they know how long they have spent and how long they are likely to spend on the case.

As to how the remainder is divided up we do not know how much is actually left in escrow with Streamline, ergo, we do not know how much has already been 'salted away' and be inaccessible to the liquidators. (Sadly, devious persons are quite able to cover up personal income with valid invoices, so for example if a Mr J Bloggs had been employed as a 'sales consultant' Mr Bloggs could have legitimately been paid any reasonable amount without the liquidator necessarily questioning it. The fact that Mr Bloggs gives a brown envelope to someone else in the local pub is of course a separate issue. That is just one example). Further, we have no idea how much of the liquidated asset (probably only cash at Streamline - I don't imagine there will be a lot of income from the sale of second hand sheds, sorry log cabins, particularly at this time of year and with their besmirched history, and I can't imagine there are any other physical assets) will be due to revenue and customs. I expect the VAT element (regarless of lack of VAT registration- the turnover exceeds VAT registration limits by a a number of factors of 10), will have to be paid, thus taking 17.5 or 15% straight out. There may be other penalties due. Secured creditors other than HM revenue and customs we do not know about nor employees, but it is possible, although unlikely, that agencies who provided staff could be considered employees so their costs will come off the amount of liquidated asset. It is possible the DTS legal costs will be agains the assets also. This is, in my experience, typically why, where there is any asset remaining, unsecured creditors end up with a few pennies or fractions of a penny in the pound.

GomerPyle

It was voluntary in the same way that a knocked out boxer voluntarily concedes defeat when he's lying flat out on his back in a boxing ring.

This company was always going to end up in voluntary liquidation, in my opinion, but it would have been planned that all the lovely money would have been pillaged by then. The question is how much money was removed before the funds were frozen by Streamline ? If Streamline had any sense, then it wouldn't have been very much, but you'd have to ask how the paltry amount spent on setting up the event was raised. I imagine that it was self-financing in that some of the funds received in advance were used to pay for what was seen by visitors, and there were also the fees obtained from contractors providing hotdog stalls and the like. Take the punters' money up front - spend a fraction on tinsel and glitter - then run off with the rest - Luvvly Jubbly.

I doubt that the Mears family have managed to clear much money and that the pressure to go into liquidation would have come from their bank. Who else was involved ? The bank would not like to be stuck in this situation indefinitely and would make it clear to Mr Mears that, as it stood, he would not receive a bean - not that he is likely to get anything now anyway. The longer the company exists, the more incoming 'flak' it will attract. HM Revenue and Customs and other investigatory bodies will only become more interested if the company exists as a 'zombie'. Mr Mears might actually have to start behaving like a Company Managing Director and provide accounts and conform to his regulatory obligations, and if he failed to do that, then it would also reflect on his bankers who hold the account frozen.

If he doesn't do what RBS/Sreamline say I'm sure they'd tighten the screws on him. I doubt he could do anything 'legit' if he tried, so they'd have plenty on him. The bank wants out - and quick.

The result is that Vic Mears probably won't meet the fate he deserves, but he won't be getting any company bonus after the liquidators, banks and tax man have had their whack. It also probably means that anyone applying for money through the liquidators will be unlucky, which is why I keep urging customers to get their CHARGEBACK claims in NOW!!!

At least the Mears family name is now internationally reviled and the chance of any future business proposition of theirs succeeding is most unlikely, not that they put much effort into achieving success.

Fool me once - shame on you - fool me twice - shame on me. I'll spend my seaside money elsewhere.

EdnaCloud

Gomer, we are in violent agreement! I think given the urgency of the situation now one thing we could all perhaps do is to contact as many media outlets as we can with Gomer's good advice to claim chargeback ASAP, because, sadly there are probably many people out there who have not seen this thread, or those on other sites.

Can we spread the word?

rgds
Edna