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

whitewing

EdnaCloud wrote: »

Well, they are not acting for Mears really they are acting for the creditors, which is important. (If I misled earlier, I'm sorry). ........
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.

.......
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.

The following is a quote from

Mammabling (who has also posted previously on our thread)

babyandbump forum dec 3rd 14:24

This looks like it could turn into one hell of a mess. Of course, his creditors from his previous bankruptcy will be claiming this money too (if he is the same person) but I would hold that his bankers are primarily at fault in allowing him to run the account without making proper checks. Who could ever think that banks would behave incompetently and lose people money through stupidity ? - all of us by now.

Edna, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree over whether it is appropriate for liquidators to choose to take this on at this stage.

I cannot see how it is acting in the best interests of the ticketholders if they don't get their money, and, if the highlighted bits in mammabling's post are true, then they're even further down the queue than I'd realised.

If it was obvious to mammabling on 3rd Dec that the bankers are primarily at fault, then why are the liquidators taking it on? It's not good enough to say that their investigations will make them to 'report' it - that is not going to get ticketholders their money back. Out of interest - codger? - what would happen if the liquidators didn't take it on at the moment. I keep asking because I'm still not fully understanding the timing of the liquidator, except that you all seem to agree that it is hugely beneficial to the bank.

I know businesses have been ripped off too, and I am really sorry about that, but that is a business risk. Ripping off families and charities because a payment facility is provided on a website is a different matter in my opinion.

______________________________________________________________

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 think the main points are that customers looking for a refund should follow codger's advice, but the window of opportunity is closing, and there is no guarantee it will be successful. This won't help people who paid by cheque, and for them and those who have been unable to get their refunds by chargeback, I'll keep up my mailings to MP's, newspapers and other interested parties. If one picks up the story then it could open the floodgates.

The pm whitewing sent me about the leaflets/tickets could present an even more powerful lever to unlock this situation, but we'll have to view the evidence first.

If it is what we think it could be then I can go back to those parties I have already e-mailed with something that makes a substantial difference, and I can take it to the authorities as well, but I won't pre-judge what I haven't seen.

I won't comment further on RBS's involvement as I have 40 odd years banking experience and if I kept within forum guidelines, I wouldn't be expressing my own personal opinion in any way that reflects what I really think.

whitewing

I'm really grumpy now, reading some of the early Dec articles.

Here's a cheque story

http://www.farnham-herald-today.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=26962

Wonder if they got their refund? Bet they haven't, and as they are cheque payers, they won't even get a personalised letter from the liquidators, so here's hoping they see the adverts in the local paper, if they haven't already been put off filling in the claim form.

As there were elderly residents involved on this trip too, I will refer back to mynci's(?) post no 271 on this thread re wheelchair access:

info for other wheelchair user ticket holders

---

Hi I made my 1st post yesterday; I am wheelchair bound with a very small child and was assured personally by staff at Lapland new forest prior to the purchase of tickets that there was full wheelchair access etc.... and of course it is now evident this was a lie. I telephoned consumer direct 08454040506 this morning and explained that as someone who cannot walk with a 7 month old strapped onto me in a wheelchair it would be very dangerous for my husband to attempt to push me through what can only be described as a quagmire from images that have surfaced and we cannot attempt this prior to requesting a refund. They agreed and the lady I spoke with had already spoken to 5 others who are either in a wheelchair or with children in a wheelchair this mornign worried for the very same reasons -- this place really could be dangerous to us!

Anyhow, she assured me that both HSE and Trading Standards had found there to be a problem with regard to disabled access and informed the owners Monday that this must be rectified asap if they did not recompensate disabled visitors and that they would be visiting the park again next week to check provisions had been made. I was advised in the meantime to write a letter to:

Lapland New Forest LTD
Unit 1 Wild Park House
Home Farm Rd
Brighton
E Sussex
BN1 9HT

and send it recorded delivery stating about how they advertise their suitability for wheelchair users and the phonecalls we made to make sure of this and how it is now apparent this is not the case and give them 7 days to respond with a refund or written assurance that it was now accessible to wheelchair users. i implore other disabled visitors and those with wheelchair bound children to do the same, it is not neccessary to risk injury to prove it, the photos in the media justify you not wanting to risk it esp as we have all been assured that it was perfectly accessible and paid the same amount as everyine else.

I have been told to contact them next week as they would have further information then.

Good Luck

______________________________________________________________

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, I understand your comment and will respond PM as it may be a distraction here. But briefly: there will inevitably , and must, be an insolvency company involved in the liquidation of any Ltd Company. We can only speculate as to GTs involvement, it may be that they do lot of business with RBS, it may be because they feel they should pick a fee because at the end of all this *some company will have to deal with the liquidation* and should the liquidation be enforced by the courts there is a reasonable chance GT would get the work anyway so why not? There are very clear acts of parliament resulting in statutes regarding these issues - it is not quite an open market for all to pick and choose. If, for example, GT are RBS' accountants they will be the first port of call for RBS to encourage to contact the trader and 'suggest' the voluntary liquidation route, if they (GT) wish not to take that on they may find themselves required to anyway at any subsequent *official* receivership action.

GomerPyle

I've gone onto the facebook site and asked there if anyone can let me have copies of front and back of the leaflet and ticket, so I'm confident that I'll get to view them sometime soon.

I'm impatient as it would be nice to have something fresh to use after my initial mails.

codger

Re the Grant Thornton situation -- my fault, and apologies, because I should've said much earlier that Royal Bank of Scotland is a major funder of GT so yes, there is a close association.

I actually believe RBS decided to call upon GT's expertise (because it is an expert) in view of the scale of the mess: RBS Streamline cannot, legally, sit on a client's funds -- a Limited Company's money -- indefinitely and so it will want to be rid of the LNF merchant account and anything remotely connected with LNF as soon as possible. . . after all its own costs have been covered first.

That said, an operation such as Lapland New Forest bears all the hallmarks of a fast-run project anyway, where there is an intention from the outset to create a financial vehicle whose tank can be quickly filled and which can then be dismantled after that tank has been equally quickly emptied. That's why the prospect of LNF liquidation has always been one of my worries.

Put it another way: those behind the Lapland 'theme park' aren't that stupid ever to have thought that painting a bit of board and calling it a "Nativity scene" was ever going to escape censure. That censure, and a wholly predictable customer dissatisfaction with so much else, would seriously impair the ability of the "company" to offer a similarly themed event ever again.

Ergo: there was no intention of doing so, and thus no intention of keeping the "company" in business after it had served its purpose in December 2008.

The exercise was therefore cynical throughout; it only began to fall apart when that cynicism, and that arrogance, was taken to excess on the LNF website -- at which point, the stupidity which I certainly don't believe informed the genesis then crippled the execution.

Of course, whatever anyone believes or alleges about the purpose and setting up / operation of Lapland New Forest Ltd is best addressed by the accountancy firm which worked with Mr Mears at the outset.

It is naturally to be assumed that its principals were of the finest provenance and its business principles only of the most ethical nature, which I'm sure a Google search would serve to demonstrate had I but the time to undertake one, though I'm sure Lapland New Forest ticket purchasers are well capable of doing so.

GomerPyle

Well codger - I imagine that the accountancy firm involved - if there is one - is only likely to be known by RBS, but considering how little they appear to have scrutinised this company in general, then even that may be open to queston. I doubt very much that any accountancy firm will be putting their hand up to admit their part publically.

If it is of the same quality as their legal adviser, then heaven help us. According to the website the liquidators will have to be appointed in accordance with the laws of New Jersey, USA, so strictly speaking they will be acting ultra vires the company's own rules. It could be fun, but pointless, to register an objection. That is why is important for a bank to ensure that they aren't dealing with witless imbeciles.

I hope that I can come up with something that will put a spanner in the works, but the benefit of having a liquidator appointed of some repute, is that they are unlikely to risk their reputation at the expense of supporting this bunch of chancers.

Mr Mears has always used his lack of ability in reading, writing and counting to his benefit in the court cases he has been involved in, so employing an accountant would be counter-productive in his eyes. That's a second reason why the word 'liquidator' must terrify him. This is probably the first time anyone will have actually asked him questions about his business.

codger

Someone called Gavin Tanner, allegedly.

The accountant, I mean.

For some reason, he seems to have aroused the ire of at least one poster to one of the local papers you've been in touch with.

But there could be shome mishtake, shurely.

EdnaCloud

Codger, your cynical sarcasm is a literary wonder. I don't for a moment think there were any accountants involved in the setting up of this mis-begotten devil child of a company. Apart from, perhaps, the bar stool financial advisor down the Rotten Apple and Thievery public house, who probably gave a carefully researched report and fully analysed cash flow and balance sheet projection. Such as 'Gawd blimey mate you'll make an effing mint out of this one'

Re new Jersey laws - I think the only new jersey the perpetrators of this mess are likely to ever have known is that one from poundland a few years back - y'know the one that's now not so new and has pomegranate stains down the front of it.

Seriously though, I expect all that tat on the web site will be ignored by the major organisations involved, as it is clear it does not, and cannot, apply in this case. A Limited Liability company is, as far as I'm aware, de facto constrained by UK company law by being registered at Companies House in the UK. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Gomer, you are correct about GT not risking reputation, but I stress, if they accept the appointment (and I think it is a 95+% chance they will) they will not be supporting the 'chancers' (as you put it), unless those 'chancers' have a valid and legal claim as a creditor, which is highly unlikely.

I think we should step back from conjecture about the individuals at this stage, I know we all have very strong opinions but as far as I'm aware being semi literate does not prohibit one from being a director or other officer of a company. Now, should that fact be revealed as part of the reason the company failed there are numerous courses of action that the pertinent regulatory bodies may take. I cannot speak without further investigation as to how the law stands now but in the past a person who has been shown to be mentally incompetent or has ever been sectioned under the mental health act is unlikely to be able to become a director of a company. But this applied some time ago and it is possible that now any old !!!!!! can become one. In fact, thinking about it, I'm sure there are many nonces out there running companies - just look at the state of the economy!

GomerPyle

The problem I have is that everyone, especially Trading Standards, are behaving as if this misbegotten company were regular in any form..

I have nothing against the semi-literate either, but I would expect any competent bank to be able to detect this at a preliminary meeting and take greater care to ensure that they were connected with suitably knowledgable and competent parties who would guide them through their endeavour. If you have a customer who is a genius at his trade, then no one would question any other defect in their ability. However, this company lacked competence in any field, and appears to have been allowed to blunder along pocketing peoples money for no good reason.

Whitewing has pm'd me again and it does appear that this company was formed 'on the hoof' and made it up as it went along. I can only hope that this muddle has caused them to make some serious errors along the way.

I have received an offer of a leaflet, but have asked if the person can see what I'm looking for before he sends it to me.

Unfortunately it is in the interests of the major players to sweep this under the carpet and ignore the blatant signs that this was a 'crackpot' company. Giving it a New Jersey legal jurisdiction is just one of the many obvious signs that their comprehension only went as far as thinking that if they barked like a dog, then they must be a dog. They thought that if they copied all the legal phrases they could find from other websites and then joined them up it would sound credible. It is characteristic of the whole endeavour.