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

GomerPyle

First batch of mails have gone out

If it'll have an effect - who knows - maybe not, but I think this sorry mess is worth trying to get resolved to the benefit of the victims rather than the perpetrators.

I've nothing personal against idiots or crooks, I just don't think they deserve to be in charge of companies and receive the special protection of the law.

There are a lot of new stories in the press due to the latest updates so I'm going round inserting this comment on the sites under them. I might as well go for it while it's still live. I've come this far.

QUOTE
The question I have posed to MP's and others is why anyone with such an appalling history and abysmal business plan ever managed to get the support of a bank to provide a facility to accept card payments. The company website was the major fantasy, consisting of 'borrowed' pictures and a disclaimer that disclaimed everything - even it's own failure to provide anything.
UNQUOTE

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/4037519.No_ho_ho_in_battle_for_Lapland_cash/
QUOTE
Among those fearing the effect of the company going into administration are staff and adults with learning difficulties at Douglas Jackman House, in Weymouth Avenue, Dorchester.
The centre’s activities co-ordinator, Tina Hansen, booked tickets for 12 residents and six staff at a cost of £360 last year and has been trying to reclaim the money since.
She said: “That money represents a big chunk of what’s been raised by fundraisers and volunteers throughout the year for our amenity fund.
UNQUOTE

That's made me angry - more mails will go out later.

codger

You've done some great work here, Gomer, so here's hoping your continuing efforts are successful.

Just to clarify any confusion I may inadvertently have caused (doh!)

Whitewing was good enough to come up with the original BBC news story about Mears talking to Grant Thornton representatives and the likelihood of voluntary liquidation in two or three weeks' time.

I took it from that story that though we're into the eleventh hour, we're not yet in the 59th minute.

So that's why I echoed your call and whitewing's about chargeback, on the basis that if any customer who has yet to be refunded merely waits passively "for developments", they'll be doing themselves no favours at all.

A customer still has a chance of a refund of all monies paid whilst the company is still, in effect, trading.

But if that customer voluntarily decides to become a creditor they've no chance of a refund of all monies paid once the company is wound up.

So hanging around for some paperwork from Grant Thornton is a mug's game: chargeback claims should be in now, not pathetic pleas later at a stage when every other !!!!!! will be scooping up the money before those who actually provided that money can get anywhere near it.

Edna has already referred to the likely progress and outcome of this particular corporate development, of which it seems both she and I, quite independently, have experience (though not with anything involving cats with antlers, I hasten to add.) So all I'll point out at this stage is this:

Regardless of what Dorset Trading Standards or anyone else says, there is no company "behind" Lapland New Forest -- certainly not in the sense that ordinary folks may perceive "a company" to be.

Lapland New Forest Ltd didn't provide multiple products or services. Nor did Lapland New Forest Ltd have multiple revenue streams. In the scale of things, it looks set to be one of the shortest-lived outfits ever registered with Companies House.

Lapland New Forest Ltd is instead a limited liabililty vehicle which drew 95% of its income from unsuspecting families and charities, and perhaps 5% from concession holders at the Lapland site.

In other words, it's not a company in the conventional sense that is being spoken of here, but a flag of convenience draped around the prow of a shoddy little ship launched with the shabbiest of motives.

I know that news media and Dorset TS etc cannot get into the subtext of these things but there's no reason for restraint here. The facts are all too obvious, so no amount of talk about "the company behind Lapland New Forest" is going to divert attention from the people behind Lapland New Forest. . .

. . . and the extent to which they will now be punished, or allowed to profit, from their activities.

whitewing

Antispam

The only comment I would make is that this thread is very timeconsuming for people who believe passionately as I do that all ticketholders who did not go/had cause for complaint should be refunded. I am grateful for any contributions that help our understanding. Of course, it would be good if everyone has genuine motives, but all I can say is that I know I have a sincere desire to help.

I think Trading Standards should not be telling people that they are unlikely to get refunds, or hinting that people should wait until they get a claim form from Grant Thornton when people should be following Gomer's and codger's advice and getting their chargeback in.

______________________________________________________________

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 can only agree with you 100% codger.

The fact that a bumbling fool like Mears can make the system a laughing stock should bring shame to the authorities and those who have facilitated this debacle.

whitewing

EdnaCloud wrote: »

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

Yes. Edna, I understand what you are saying applies after Grant Thorton agree to act for Victor Mears.

I understand why the bank and Victor Mears would like Grant Thornton to act for Victor Mears.

It is still not clear to me why Grant Thornton would want to act for Victor Mears, and therefore agree to do so, unless it is purely down to greedy financial motives. I think the shabbiness of this affair is now rubbing off on Grant Thornton, and out of idle curiosity, I am wondering why they are not bothered about their reputation, that's all. You said they are accountants of some repute?

It also seems to me that there are outstanding concerns over RBS/Streamline's involvement in this, ie in providing the ability for Victor Mears to take online payments. So I am wondering why Grant Thornton are happy to move forward before this is sorted out? It appears to me, from my extremely limited understanding taken only from this thread and various linked articles, that Grant Thornton are assisting 'lack of refunds' to ticketholders. I wonder why?

______________________________________________________________

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

whitewing wrote: »

Yes. Edna, I understand what you are saying applies after Grant Thorton agree to act for Victor Mears.

I understand why the bank and Victor Mears would like Grant Thornton to act for Victor Mears.

It is still not clear to me why Grant Thornton would want to act for Victor Mears, and therefore agree to do so, unless it is purely down to greedy financial motives.

Well, they are not acting for Mears really they are acting for the creditors, which is important. (If I misled earlier, I'm sorry). Given the history of this shameless and disgraceful affair, it was inevitable that that liquidation would happen once it became evident that LNF Ltd could not/would not satisfy all its creditors and was therefore insolvent. Once that is an inevitability it was going to be in Streamline/RBS best interest to 'convince' the director(s) of the company to request liquidation and that had to be done by someone. Yes, there is a finacial motive, but I also suspect that GT are the company of choce of RBS, although I cannot substantiate this.

I think the shabbiness of this affair is now rubbing off on Grant Thornton, and out of idle curiosity, I am wondering why they are not bothered about their reputation, that's all. You said they are accountants of some repute?

They are huge. It will not effect them, and anyway as mentioned they are(should be) working in the best interest of creditors which makes them 'good guys'. Also some company is going to get the work anyway and virtually all liquidations are dirty (the exceptions being Director's Liquidation where the Co can meet all its outstanding debts but further business is untenable). They have probably dealt with much bigger and dirtier situations.

Now, whether one would like to make their money this way and has no moral issues with it is a different discussion. Even if working to secure the best of a bad deal for creditors, this business would not be my idea of a career, but I do think that GT will be professional and do their best to secure as much as possible for creditors, at a cost of course, that being their fee.

It also seems to me that there are outstanding concerns over RBS/Streamline's involvement in this, i.e. in providing the ability for Victor Mears to take online payments. So I am wondering why Grant Thornton are happy to move forward before this is sorted out? It appears to me, from my extremely limited understanding taken only from this thread and various linked articles, that Grant Thornton are assisting 'lack of refunds' to ticketholders. I wonder why?

I would appreciate other peoples input here but my take on it is that the mechanic of providing the payment service is probably outside the scope of a liquidator, however if in their investigations it is clear that anything was done that broke the law or other regulatory framework there is a duty upon them to report this to the relevant bodies. The liquidator is only there to establish the assets of the company and to distribute those according to the law.

I don't think one can say GT are 'assisting lack of refunds', that is an unfortunate side effect of liquidation. Once a liquidator is appointed and has reported such appointment to, I think, the Secretary of State and Companies House, it is an illegal act to pay any creditor (known as preferring a creditor) which is a serious crime. That is why it is convenient for Streamline, it is not GTs fault, it is the law that prohibits further payments to creditors.

On hindsight it is surprising this did not happen sooner, but I suppose we are only a few weeks into this mess - it seems so much longer!

Anyway I hope that clarifies things a bit, as I have said better mind that mine may wish to comment, send me brickbats etc if I'm off track.

rgds
Edna

GomerPyle

whitewing has reminded me of something that could be significant - maybe.

If anyone has a copy of the Lapland New Forest Ltd leaflet could they allow us to look at it - front and back.

I won't say what we are interested in - as it would be best if it's a surprise.

It may be nothing - or it could be highly significant, and something I can use to batter down some doors.

I've seen a photo of a customer waving some in a photo today - so I'll put a call out on that site if no one has anything to show us.

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/4037519.No_ho_ho_in_battle_for_Lapland_cash/

I'll ask for copies of the tickets too, front and back while I'm at it. I just love small print.

E-mail going out shortly.

whitewing

Gomer,

Email the journalist too as the paper itself may have the leaflets.

______________________________________________________________

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 did that

It will be in his inbox now.

Fingers crossed.

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

I've seen a photo of a customer waving some in a photo today - so I'll put a call out on that site if no one has anything to show us.

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/4037519.No_ho_ho_in_battle_for_Lapland_cash/

Sigh.
QUOTE from above article:

'FAMILIES seeking compensation over the Lapland New Forest fiasco face a fight to regain their cash after the company looked set to go into administration. Lapland New Forest has asked accountants Grant Thornton to place the firm into voluntary liquidation.

UNQUOTE
Yet again a poor piece of journalism, the facts are wrong and the article contradicts itself in two brief paragraphs.
To clarify, a company placed into administration by a registered insolvency agency is one that the agency believes can be made solvent by whatever means and gives that organisation some limited protection from creditors for a period until solvency is regained. This is simply not the case here.Liquidation is completely different as described elsewhere.
I also find Dorset TS execs comments confusing, factually incorrect and amateurish.
As long as this tosh is trotted out many people will be left confused and upset.
rgds
Edna