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

whitewing

Edna,

verlander's post 219:

hi fellow fed up laplanders ,thought i would try a different approach and email chief executive of dorset county council ,pointing out that is his patch and asking why his toothless trading standards ar not acting ,his name is david jenkins email [EMAIL="chiefexecutive@dorsetcc.gov.uk"]chiefexecutive@dorsetcc.gov.uk[/EMAIL] [sorry dont know how to do it as a link] adviced him to look at this site to see how many unhappy people out there

(His post was around 2nd Dec before the park was shut; I guess it's the same fella 'in charge' still).

______________________________________________________________

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

Only if it mentions Onslow Road tinalou2 but I don't think it does.

I now suspect that it was only when people rang the telephone number mentioned on the advertising media, that they were then directed to the house of Victor Mears Junior. If it does mention that address I'll get excited.

I would imagine that Mr Mears is quite excited at the prospect of paying VAT. I wonder if HM Revenue and Customs will make an order to recover the previous amount outstanding from any funds he is expecting. Their computer should fly into a panic when his details are entered.

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

I now suspect that it was only when people rang the telephone number mentioned on the advertising media, that they were then directed to the house of Victor Mears Junior.

Sadly this is what I have suspected since this cheque and address matter came to light

I would imagine that Mr Mears is quite excited at the prospect of paying VAT. I wonder if HM Revenue and Customs will make an order to recover the previous amount outstanding from any funds he is expecting.

Assuming an order can be made for past amounts owed after conviction, which I understand can be, though cannot state that as fact, then the sad thing is that that amount will be taken before any other creditors are paid, thus any amount that may remain for unsecured creditors will be significantly reduced, so for the claimants it would be better if this did not happen. Having said that, as we have no idea of what funds are likely to be available for disbursement by a liquidator this may all be academic.

whitewing

Antispam wrote: »

Yes you can if its visa debit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7593369.stm

Visa debit card
A Visa debit card offers significantly better protection for shoppers. Their scheme is called Visa Debit Chargeback and any bank that issues a Visa debit card has to comply with the scheme.
You can claim money back if the goods you buy are damaged, or the product or services are not delivered.
There is no limit on what you can claim. But you have to claim within 120 days of the date you expected the goods to be delivered or the firm going bust.

The above was post 426.

Now I am completely and utterly confused, but someone may be able to make some sense out of it.

I was reading back thro some old posts when Antispam's post caught my eye. The trouble is that I know that some debit card refunds have been turned down, which appears to contradict Antispam's posts?

Showing real ignorance now: is going bust the same as being liquidated, ie do Antispam's comments above relate to the situation as we understand it now for Lapland WM.

I also saw a post on here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/125992-via-debit-card-chargeback.html

The post 25th April 2008 by Babulal states:

"i had the similar issue , i.e. spleepdepot went into bankruptacy and i had paid by Citibank issued visa debit card.

this is what they told me their procedure is :

To make a claim via the Visa Charge Back Scheme How does the process work?

The customer simply needs to fax us a dispute letter explaning the circumstances of this claim and also provide some supporting materials. These would include:

Proof of purchase (either a copy of his receipt or bank statement
containing the transaction)
Date of purchase/date due for delivery
Proof the company has gone into liquidation (letter from the company
or receivers)

In most cases, if a company goes into bankruptcy, a liquidating company will try to honour any outstanding service/merchandise to be given or issue a refund. The customer should obviously try this route in the first instance, as this is required by Visa before a customer can raise a dispute with his Bank."

Ummmm, does this help at all?

______________________________________________________________

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

Hell I'm stupid.

I see no reason why the company liquidation should make any real difference at all. In fact the FOS example is related to a company that has gone bust.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/plastic-cards.htm

I'm spending too much time on this and losing mental focus.

Look here - and this relates to a crditors voluntary liquidation too

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=12938921

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7347146.stm

I'll quote an earlier post of mine

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 ?

http://www.wrapitcustomers.com/content/chargeback

QUOTE
Which? focus on Chargeback
Few people know that certain debit card payments – and credit card payments of less than £100 – may be protected if things go wrong. Here’s how ‘chargeback’ works
–
What is chargeback?
Chargeback allows you to claim compensation on some card payments from your card provider. It can be used for breaches of contract, for example if goods don’t arrive, including when the seller has ceased trading, or where goods are damaged or aren’t as described. This includes goods that are bought online. Chargeback might also be used in some fraud cases, for example if a statement shows a purchase that you didn’t make. The quickest way to sort out problems with an item is to contact the retailer, but chargeback can be useful if that doesn’t work. Which cards does chargeback cover?
The scheme applies to Visa credit and debit cards, prepaid and store Visa cards and MasterCard credit cards.
Maestro debit cards aren’t usually covered, except where goods ordered over the internet aren’t delivered.
Chargeback provides similar protection to section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, but it can also be used for credit card purchases where section 75 doesn’t apply – that is, on purchases below £100.
How do I claim?
You must address your claim to the bank that provides your card, which will put in a request to the seller’s bank. this is best done by phone. You should get your money back from the seller’s bank, even if the seller has ceased trading. You have at least 120 days from the day you’re aware of a problem – but the start date can differ. For example, if you’ve booked flights with an airline that goes out of business, the time limit starts from the day the flight was due to depart.
What if I have trouble making a claim?
Ask to speak to a supervisor at your bank if your claim is being blocked – some staff may not be aware of this protection. Chargeback isn’t enshrined in law, unlike section 75 – but the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has deemed that allowing chargeback is ‘good practice’ as it is widely accepted by the banking industry. If you encounter difficulties making a claim, you can refer your case to the FOS within six months of your final contact with the seller’s bank.
UNQUOTE

I would chase your bank up CazandCo, but if you allow the time period they quoted to elapse, I think they'll have a hard time justifying a rebuttal of your claim after that length of time, and if they did, then you could make a claim on them that the delay was unreasonable. Anyone one disputing an unfair claim should be capable of responding quicker than that.

So yes - go ahead with your chargeback requests.

... and I put it open to discussion

1) whether a customer should register as a creditor and
2) if that makes any difference to their chargeback rights

I'll see what supporting examples I can find - or any rulings that give guidance.

GomerPyle

My second big boo boo - though I was right the first time.

I just didn't have confidence in myself.

See here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/02/airlines-sterling-money-back-visa

I'm an idiot but Mr Hancock is a bigger one. If he'd concentrate on trying to help consumers than confusing the issue some people might manage to get their money back.

If you have the ability to make a chargeback you don't need to register as a creditor because you'll be getting you money back as a chargeback. It's that simple. If you are denied this right you take your card company to the Financial Ombudsman Service and I can help you with that. It won't cost you anything, but any card company with half a brain will give in when you mention the FOB.

People who paid by cheque or Maestro card users who have providers who don't allow chargebacks (like Nat West - a part of RBS - I thought you'd like to know) will need t register as creditors, but others - get on with your chargebacks.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

The above was post 426.

Now I am completely and utterly confused, but someone may be able to make some sense out of it.
I was reading back thro some old posts when Antispam's post caught my eye. The trouble is that I know that some debit card refunds have been turned down, which appears to contradict Antispam's posts?

I believe Gomer has said, with supporting quotes, (as possibly others have) that the chargeback scheme is not law, but *good practice*. Now what has been said here might just mean Visa insist on their mutifarious card issuers support that system, but it is probably not enforcable in law - Gomer, codger, anyone correct me if I'm wrong. (sorry too tired to look for the relevant post)

Showing real ignorance now: is going bust the same as being liquidated, ie do Antispam's comments above relate to the situation as we understand it now for Lapland WM.

I guess so, but 'going bust' is not an accounting term that I have ever come across. Liquidation occurs for one of several reasons and under different circumstances as I have described before, but until a liquidator formally 'winds the company up' they are still a company, albeit the liquidator is in control and no further transactions other than those approved by the liquidator may occur. Administration is a different thing altogether, also described elswhere.

I will look more closely at the rest of it tomorrow (today) but it does suggest something I alluded to previousy about there being circumstances where the liquidator may refunds, but I am not clear as to the mechanics so cannot say for sure and I do not want people to get hopes but, but equally, don't lose faith altogether!

Ummmm, does this help at all?

Likewise

GomerPyle

This is what the FOS said

QUOTE
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We agreed that there was no contractual right. But chargeback was a matter of public knowledge and it was maladministration for the firm not to attempt one. We awarded Mr J compensation to cover the cost of the goods, plus his inconvenience in having to pursue the complaint to us. [/FONT]
UNQUOTE

It is effectively a precedent and in publishing it as an example it was their intention to do that. It means, therefore, that any card company who refuse to make a chrgeback is going to end up paying themselves. A complaint to the FOS may be a bore to go through, but if you make it clear that you know you'll win, they would normally back down, as it'll be more expensive for them with costs on top of the amount claimed.

The time limit for making a chargeback claim I believe is 4 months from the date you would have expected to have been provided with the goods or service paid for, and in none of the articles mentioned does it mention that those customers applied to be recorded as creditors. You could therefore make the chargeback after the company has actually gone into liquidation and still succeed.

As long as you have the right of making a chargeback, and most people who paid by debit/credit card do, then that is the route to take. I would fell inclined to take no action when you receive any notice from the liquidators if you are making a chargeback. That is logical - as you will be getting paid in full anyway and have no need to do that.

The Guardian article is quite good and details which cards are valid for chargeback and which aren't. It appears that RBS/NatWest customers are particularly disadvantaged

QUOTE
All other major banking groups in the UK use Visa debit cards except HSBC, including First Direct, and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group, including NatWest: these use Maestro for their debit cards. Under UK Maestro rules, a UK cardholder does not have chargeback rights except when goods are bought online through an overseas website. This puts the 10 million HSBC and First Direct and 10.5 million RBS and NatWest banking customers at a disadvantage......................

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group will also issue Visa debit cards to its customers, but not until the second half of next year.
UNQUOTE

I'm sorry I had a loss of faith in myself. The losers in this, and ones who should register as creditors, are the ones who paid by cheque and who used a Maestro card.

This is totally disastrous to RBS as it has also highlighted a drawback of one of their major banking products.

Antispam

As I said its only Visa.

I mealy presented the information and the link I provided the source of that information

From my understand of the Visa charge back scheme, regardless of whether the company has gone bust or not if they have not provided a service then you should be covered if you used Visa

"You can claim money back if the goods you buy are damaged, or the product or services are not delivered. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7593369.stm

whitewing wrote: »

The above was post 426.

Now I am completely and utterly confused, but someone may be able to make some sense out of it.

I was reading back thro some old posts when Antispam's post caught my eye. The trouble is that I know that some debit card refunds have been turned down, which appears to contradict Antispam's posts?

Showing real ignorance now: is going bust the same as being liquidated, ie do Antispam's comments above relate to the situation as we understand it now for Lapland WM.

I also saw a post on here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/125992-via-debit-card-chargeback.html

The post 25th April 2008 by Babulal states:

"i had the similar issue , i.e. spleepdepot went into bankruptacy and i had paid by Citibank issued visa debit card.

this is what they told me their procedure is :

To make a claim via the Visa Charge Back Scheme How does the process work?

The customer simply needs to fax us a dispute letter explaning the circumstances of this claim and also provide some supporting materials. These would include:

Proof of purchase (either a copy of his receipt or bank statement
containing the transaction)
Date of purchase/date due for delivery
Proof the company has gone into liquidation (letter from the company
or receivers)

In most cases, if a company goes into bankruptcy, a liquidating company will try to honour any outstanding service/merchandise to be given or issue a refund. The customer should obviously try this route in the first instance, as this is required by Visa before a customer can raise a dispute with his Bank."

Ummmm, does this help at all?

codger

Antispam wrote: »

As I said its only Visa.

I mealy presented the information and the link I provided the source of that information

From my understand of the Visa charge back scheme, regardless of whether the company has gone bust or not if they have not provided a service then you should be covered if you used Visa

"You can claim money back if the goods you buy are damaged, or the product or services are not delivered. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/7593369.stm

Antispam: you're entirely correct.

It's actually puzzled me why Martin has never posted a sticky on MSE about the two kinds of debit card facilitators, Visa and MasterCard.

People seem to think 'Maestro' is some kind of, well, I dunno, financial institution, when it's only a name (as 'Cirrus' was) dreamt up by the marketing department of MasterCard Inc.

In launching its own rival to Maestro, Visa Inc provided the kind of charge-back facility which MasterCard's Maestro doesn't. So for quite a while now, it's been the case that if you do have a MasterCard Maestro debit card. . . cut it in two. And if your bank won't provide a Visa debit card, then go to another bank.

This thread actually has several reports from Visa Debit card holders who have had their refund claims properly and responsibly processed. My advice to any unfortunate MasterCard-licensed Maestro debit card is to:

1) Initiate a chargeback NOW

2) If the chargeback is refused, inform your bank that there is no reason why your bank account cannot have funds returned to it when customers with other banks who happen to have Visa debit cards have had their funds returned to them

3) If the chargeback is still refused, tell your bank you wish to make a formal complaint about its conduct which, if not resolved, you will take to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You can tell your bank that:

4) The basis of your complaint will be that you had the MasterCard Maestro card imposed on you. You were given no choice. Your bank imposed it on you knowing the Maestro debit card to be absent of the proection of the Visa debit card, and so could only have done so in its own commercial interests.

5) If your bank happens to be Royal Bank of Scotland, now emerging as a serial offender in all this -- what with its Streamline, its Maestro, and now its likely involvement with Grant Thornton, to whom it is a primary banker -- then tell it you'll be moving your account to a bank which shows more respect and less contempt towards its customers.


Gomer: I think you do yourself a disservice. Your advice has always been to go for chargeback.

As the window of opportunity continues to shrink, that's the ONLY course open. Anyone who voluntarily signs up to be a creditor in the liquidation of LNF needs their head examined.

Right. Am away for a while now so good luck to all here with their efforts!