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

EdnaCloud

Welcome wuzzelbird, good that you have joined and thanks for posting your experiences with that CC company - sadly they direct all call to indian call centres as far a I can tell, but to be fair , aside from their lack of 'local' news they do seem to be responsive and would appear to have been in your case - good on you!

rgds
Edna (note to self - learn Hindi and Punjabi and really confuse the Indian call centres )

whitewing

Thanks for the refund updates, folks, it keeps us going.

Report in Western Daily Press at least mentions the Facebook group and refers to other internet campaigns:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/Wonderland-fiasco-firm-wound/article-601302-detail/article.html

______________________________________________________________

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

No need to thank me wuzzelbird it's what this place is for and I'm having fun and doing some good along with all the other good folk here.

I'll certainly e-mail the person you mention whitewing - and maybe mention some of the things I can't say here to her. It helps to get things off your chest sometimes.

I had a pm from a person who used a Nat West Maestro card and I have found that with Maestro cards it depends who the issuer is. The facility to make chargebacks is there, but each provider has their own policy and Nat West is one who won't do them, which is very galling as they are part of the same group as RBS. :mad:.

I better not mail Consumer Direct as I'm trying to limit myself to ten brawls in a day now.

I'll prepare a mailing list for tomorrow morning, but it seems fair and most useful to offer it to a local journalist with a special interest in the story first. If he's willing to take it on then I'll leave it in his hands.

whitewing

Gomer, I still need some help understanding this....

GomerPyle wrote: »

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.

Okay, this explains to me why Victor Mears put the company into voluntary liquidation. It does explain not me why Grant Thornton is taking it on? I assume they have a choice, do they?

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./quote]

Could anyone who didn't get a refund (punter who paid for tickets who had legal protection as part of his household insurance) potentially take action against RBS/ Streamline for allowing the payment facility, or against the liquidators for any reason?
______________________________________________________________

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

I imagine that in Vic Mears' world the appointment of a liquidator has an entirely different connotation, so poor old Vic would have been totally bemused by any such talk, and I doubt that he looked through the Yellow Pages himself

http://www.companyregistrations.co.uk/liquidation-and-insolvency.asp#five

This is an interesting guide which includes some interesting points. I presume that his bank probably gave him some help, but that is pure conjecture. I like this point

QUOTE
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The liquidator, administrative receiver, administrator or Official Receiver has a duty to send the Secretary of State a report on the conduct of all directors who were in office in the last 3 years of the company's trading. The Secretary of State has to decide whether it is in the public interest to seek a disqualification order against a director.
[/FONT]UNQUOTE

What concerns me is that this arrangement may suit the bank more than it benefits anyone else, more especially customers.All sorts of people are manoeuvering out of their financial obligations by this turn of events.

All I'll add is that this whole affair stinks to high heavens - see Chapter V

EdnaCloud

Whitewing, Gomer will, no doubt, have a clear and definitive answer but here's my 2d's worth. I doubt Mr Mear's knowledge of Grant Thornton goes further than free money (Grant) and chocolates (Thornton), however given history he may have an account with them. I would think that they are the bank's preferred liquidator and the terms Mr Mear's has selected, and voluntary, are merely part of the dance that must be done - if the bank are not a creditor, and though they may be owed fees they may well be holding monies they cannot or would not wish to enforce a creditors liquidation, so this would appear to be wriggle room for the bank to save some face but sadly giving some of that credence to Victor Mears. However, Mr Mears may have appointed them himself but they would only take it on if there was a realistic chance of getting a fee, if not all similar companies would avoid it until appointed by the official bodies, who would guarantee their fees. In my experience most voluntary liquidations fall into two catagories, those where the director(s) have already salted away funds and there are no assets left or those where an organisation, such as a bank, suggest in no uncertain terms that that is the correct course of action.

As for legal action, of course may may try legal action against the payment processor, but I suspect they will have an armoury against our catapult. I do not think there is any possibility of taking action against a company acting in the liquidation of a company, and for the similar reasons there may not be the option of legal action against a bank etc getting anywhere whilst the liquidation process is going on.

I am not an expert however and would welcome wiser advice from the likes of Gomer on this matter.

pancho_villa

GomerPyle wrote: »

In the mean time I found this, which clears up the notion of how to make your claim if you used a credit card or debit card - which was confusing me too.

It appears (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are best to make your claim as a 'CHARGEBACK' (if it qualifies) whether it's a credit card or debit card, to avoid implementation of the rule about the cost of each item having to be over £100 under section 75 claims - and anyone who got rebuffed on this first time round - do it again as a 'chargeback' why don't you ?

So Gomer, would you recommnd that this is my next port of call? Should I wait for an official reply? Does it matter that I paid over £100?

GomerPyle

Call me a cynic but this arrangement is exceedingly convenient for Vic Mears' bank. They can avoid having to pay chargebacks under this arrangement once people have declared themselves a creditor.

They provided a facility to a customer who was thoroughly disreputable and have now ducked when the folly of their decision has looked like causing them to lose money.

Who pays ? - the general public. I suppose that was par for the course. Vic Mears choice of bank was unusually appropriate.

I'm afraid that the bank now know that they can delay responding to any chargeback until you have to declare yourself a creditor.

Mears
RBS
Trading Standards

Those are three names to avoid at all costs.

EdnaCloud

Pancho - please do wait for Gomers expert advice but I would think there is no reason not to initiate a chargeback, regardless of what has gone before.

Now whether the card comapany connect your previous claim and a request for chargeback will not be known until you contact them, what to do then is questionable. If a connection is made then then I would imagine saying something along the lines of 'I am still awaitimg the documentation, in the meantime I wish to persue a charge back etc etc'. If no connection is made it is probably wisest to inform them of previous actions, if one doesn't it could be construed as an attempt to fraudulently claim twice.

Hoever I must stress this is only an opinion, I am sure Gomer can expand and clarify.

GomerPyle

I feel quite physically sick with disgust at the antics of all parties involved in this outrageous scam.

To say that I am bemused by the means by which Vic Mears was able to dance through the banking system, and then aid them to thwart his creditors just leaves me utterly sickened.

We appear to have inherited the Russian banking system - and I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe I should applaud such 'clever' tactics, but I don't think I will.

Even if you lose your money you still have the ultimate choice - whether it is at the ballot box or in the consumer market. Bad business will get its deserved reward finally.