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

codger

Re the questions over Grant Thornton's involvement here.

GT's fees are substantial. It won't take on a role such as this unless there's sufficient in the pot to do so. And it assesses the size of the pot first, albeit at a speed of assessment that would be the envy of Dorset Trading Standards.

Dorset TS is simply a division of the County Council. It has national Performance Standards to adhere to. Questions over its performance can be asked of the County Council leader.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is generally inept. It has grown even more so since it started contracting out work to non-salaried employees. The FOS will never take any action unless the party complained about has already been notified of that complaint, has investigated it, and has cleared itself. (How's that for objectivity / complete waste of time?)

No harm in mentioning to a credit card company that you are dissatisfied with their response and will take the matter to the FOS, but no-one can go down the FOS route without first registering a formal complaint with the cc company.

As many have said on here, the chargeback option is the best option to pursue now. All chargeback documentation should be copied and posted by Special Delivery -- a fiver a time. And no credit card company should be given more than 21 days within which to respond / take action: in the absence of response or action, the cc company must be contacted again in writing (sadly, another fiver, but Signed For can no longer be counted upon nowadays.)

I don't think the outlook is looking too bright, but I don't think it's pitch-dark, either. The Daily Echo, Bournemouth, is a significant daily newspaper and one worth watching / following: Editor Neal Butterworth is a first class journalist.

codger

GomerPyle wrote: »

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

Well I don't feel as strongly as that.

But I've stopped believing in Father Christmas.




Cheer up, Gomer. This isn't over.

whitewing

codger wrote: »

Re the questions over Grant Thornton's involvement here.

GT's fees are substantial. It won't take on a role such as this unless there's sufficient in the pot to do so. And it assesses the size of the pot first, albeit at a speed of assessment that would be the envy of Dorset Trading Standards.

So, it won't bother Grant Thornton that the money for their fees is coming from families and charities?

I could understand if the bank were paying Grant Thornton's fees, everyone got their money back, and we all lived happily ever after (and copycat internet scammers realised they wouldn't get away with it).

______________________________________________________________

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 have to own up, shame faced, to my statement that the company liquidation will not make any difference to people making claims on Lapland New Forest Ltd.

It caught me unawares and I missed the ulterior motive. I was wrong and bend over for a kick in the pants.

Once people declare themselves as crediors of Lapland New Forest Ltd then RBS are off the hook as far as chargebacks go. That's nice ennit ?

In my day we had a Rule Book and I don't recall the one that says - "I screw up - you pay", but it would have been handy if I'd known about it.

Victor Mears and RBS - a match made in heaven. :eek:

GomerPyle

Please follow codger's advice while my brain is in meltdown.

I am changing tack now.

If this is the way it's going to be played then I'll start writing to the broadsheets. I know how banks operate.

This makes a nice story and a mess like this is quite topical under current financial conditions.

I was always taught to choose my bedmates cautiously.

whitewing

This link says there were 10,000 tickets bought online

http://www.2crfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=1095996

Surely RBS must be able to identify also how many cheque payments were made? They must be able to run reports over the account open period to find out the sort code and account number of debits against the Lapland NF credits? Then the cheque payers could be written to, rather than relying on an advert in a couple of local papers.

______________________________________________________________

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 have the main body of the article written. I'll just need to polish it up a bit, and add some links so that it will be easy to publish for any who want something ready to go.

I'll let the stalwarts here see it, but won't post it in the forum as it's contents may be considered controversial, not that I think so. It's the truth and a clear explanation of what's gone on and why this is not the time for us, or the authorities, to accept this behaviour.

Let me have addies for MP's, politicians, councillors - newspapers (worldwide is fine) and any parties who may be interested. If you want to PM them to me to avoid spambots then that's okay. I'll clear my messages so I have room.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

codger wrote: »

Re the questions over Grant Thornton's involvement here.

GT's fees are substantial. It won't take on a role such as this unless there's sufficient in the pot to do so. And it assesses the size of the pot first, albeit at a speed of assessment that would be the envy of Dorset Trading Standards.

See my earlier posts re the sums of money GT will likely be taking and the way in which this is done - Codger, you are echoing me very closely.

So, it won't bother Grant Thornton that the money for their fees is coming from families and charities?

No. In this instance their involvement is likely to be as liquidator, (they are also accountants of some repute) but they have a job to do and will ensure their fees can be paid first and foremost. How the company came to this demise and the social standing of the creditors is not their concern. Harsh and unpleasant, but this is the cold steel of liquidation. GT are not a social service and by law must treat all creditors in line with legislation which does not take into account the nature of the creditor beyond their legal status in the 'food chain'. All these people, organisations and companies are very likely to be unsecured creditors and are classed as one and are the last to be paid out.

It's nasty, painful and morally upsetting, but that is the law.

I could understand if the bank were paying Grant Thornton's fees, everyone got their money back, and we all lived happily ever after (and copycat internet scammers realised they wouldn't get away with it).

The bank are not the organisation going into liquidation, the fees have to be taken from the liquidated company's assets.

I have been at the wrong end of this process (i.e. creditor, not liquidated company!) so I know only too well what happens.

The little guys lose out.

GomerPyle

I regret that I can't offer hope, but I can promise that it isn't over.

If this happens to be my last shot - it's going to be a big one. I just fund a list of 50 MP's e-mail addresses.

I am particularly interested in members of the Treasury Committee - [EMAIL="treascom@parliament.uk"]treascom@parliament.uk[/EMAIL] that was easier than I thought. :cool:

Feel free to send me e-mail addies. It only takes one MP or one newspaper to take this up so I want the best odds. One in a hundred is pretty good (I have that already) but one in 500 is better.

EdnaCloud

From:- http://www.2crfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=1095996

QUOTE
Lapland New Forest 'Wound Up'

Dorset Trading Standards have confirmed the company behind Lapland New Forest has gone into 'voluntary liquidation' and will be wound up.
It means upto 10,000 customers who bought tickets for up to £30 each may not get refunds.
The Christmas theme park at Matchams closed down in December, a week after opening, following thousands of complaints to Trading Standards.
The company's administrators, Grant Thornton UK LLP are expected to write to all customers who booked tickets online within the next two weeks.
UNQUOTE


The company is not as yet in liquidation and I have not seen any statement to that effect from Dorset Trading Standards, and whilst it is likely that the company will be wound up it is irresponsible to state that it will be.
Evidence that reports are being continually misinterpreted may be seen by contrasting the content here:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/4033947.LAPLAND__BOSS_CHOOSES_VOLUNTARY_LIQUIDATION/
with that of the above web site.
The number of 10,000 seems at odds with many other reports.

Furthermore, unless the whole framework of liquidation has changed without my knowledge, Grant Thornton are not administrators of the company nor could they be as the process being undertaken is liquidation, therefore there is (will be) no company to administrate.
As it stands the director(s) of the Limited Liability Company known as 'Lapland New Forest Ltd' have sought advice from Grant Thornton LLP with a view of appointing them to act as liquidators under a request for voluntary liquidation of the company.
It is foolhardy to report anything further than this and I see from looking at the local press surrounding this issue that huge assumptions have been made, and some clearly incorrect facts reported. Given the nature of this horrible debacle the last thing that is needed is small time journos trying to stir things up - they do not need to, they are already stirred up.
rgds Edna