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

EdnaCloud

Firstly, as I have previously mentioned and Gomer has clarified, whilst a company is in liquidation (and just as yet LNF is not, as far as I'm aware) some transactions may be carried out, but only by the liquidators or with their authorisation, and this may apply to chargebacks. When the co is in liquidation it is not 'bust' (although well on its way....).

What is not clear to me is that, once in liquidation, making refunds would in this case be considered 'preferring a creditor', as there was a comment earlier to the effect that (some) card companies would try and refund customers, but during liquidation that would be the responsibility of the liquidator. Or, would it only apply once the company is wound up and then it would be at the card issuers/banks cost, which they *may* wish to do to avoid bad publicity.

Maybe Gomer could clarify for me?

But the important considerations here are to continue the chargeback route until it is absolutely clear (probably publicised by the liquidators and or banks) that no further *chargeback* refunds will be made.

There will be ample time to register as a creditor at a later date should the chargeback option fail.

On a different subject the law surrounding creditors has changed in recent years, so some of my earlier posts regarding creditors of liquidated companies are actually wrong - I did say I was not sure but sorry.

The good news is that as of September 2003 HM Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, now combined as HM Customs and Revenue, became unsecured creditors:

QUOTE
Preferential Creditors:

From 15th September 2003 the Inland Revenue and VAT’s preferential status was abolished under the Enterprise Act 2002. This will lead to a lower dividend than the Crown creditors use to enjoy BUT a higher dividend in insolvency should be received by trade creditors (for example) than previously.
Employees retain the status of preferential creditors for their Arrears of Pay and for Holiday Pay claims in insolvency situations.
UNQUOTE

From: http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/creditors.aspx

NOTE: I have no affiliation with this company and this is not in any way any recommendation, but added as further assistance for the readers of this thread.
What this does mean is that if there is anything in the pot then other unsecured creditors should get a bigger slice of the cake.


I also understand from various searches that liquidators may 'ring fence' any funds to refund customers rather than them becoming unsecured creditors, but I hasten to add that I cannot substantiate this currently, and even then it will a decision for the liquidators in each separate liquidation case, there does not seem to be any test cases or precedent


Sorry for the long post, but it ain't over yet!

GomerPyle

Phewwwww !!!!

It's a complex game with quite a few contrary views, all of which have merit.

Even though the Guardian article appeared well informed I have also read, like codger, that some Maestro providers will initiate chargebacks, and so his advice is quite sensible, on the basis that if you don't ask you don't get - and banks would become nervous if lots of customers found that the card they had had foisted on them was 'second class'. This is not a time banks want to lose business, so customers are in a good position to make demands. Remember, it was a bank that allowed this fiasco to happen in the first place by providing a merchant facility.

For the benefit of victims of Lapland New Forest I'll make a new thread to put what I hope is the definitive advice for reclaiming money. If anyone has points to make then I'll amend it, as I'm not perfect, but I'll keep the first post of that thread as the main guide, amending as necessary.

I can then go round any news articles I find putting a link to it.

GomerPyle

Codger is also quite right to recommend that people with a Maestro card still attempt to effect chargebacks. I'm sure there is sensitivity that it will become apparent that banks have given their customers a 'second class' card, and I did read somewhere that the chargeback facility does exist for Maestro cards, it's just that some providers choose not to make use of it.

EdnaCloud - I can't criticise anyone for confusion as I have confused myself a few times for which I kick my own backside.

The whole amazing thing is that RBS provided this merchant facility to LNF Ltd. It puts the bank in a horrendous position if the company goes 'belly up'. The cost, trouble, extra work and bad publicity alone make it imperative that the facility is only given to impeccable customers, but LNF Ltd was only ever going to end one way.

My own bugbear is that banks' internal reward systems encourage stupid decisions that are eventually going to result in losses, and this appears to be a glaring example. Can banks be so stupid ? Yes - I recently retired from one.

If RBS can't get the money from LNF Ltd then it comes out of their pockets, but I'm sure that the documents LNF Ltd signed must give them some preferential status, but that doesn't affect customers rights and ability to get their money back as a chargeback (if they qualify).

whitewing

What would be really good is if the new thread could just be a 'How to...' post with 'success' posts following on, and this thread could continue as a discussion thread. Success posts will spur others on, and keeping the thread 'clean' will also made it easy for people to understand.

May be worth asking the forum mods to ensure the two threads don't get merged.

I was wondering what would actually happen if, for example, Visa decided that everyone had chargeback rights. Could they then arrange for refunds and register themselves as a creditor instead of individual customers? Surely it would be cheaper for them to administer (except of course that TS may have managed to put everyone off claiming), and better customer service.

And all the successful chargebacks presumably still tally against the Lapland New Forest company, do they, at all stages? Or is the supporting documentation merely for the banks to ensure that customers don't get refunded more than once?

______________________________________________________________

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

whitewing

Just found this:

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=390730

Latest information from Dorset County Council's trading standards, Tuesday 13 January 2009

Getting a bit more sensible:

"In the meantime, our advice for those seeking to claim money back from their card provider is to contact that card provider. If the payment was made on a credit card and was more than £100 then the credit card company may be jointly liable for any breach of contract. If payment was made by debit card for any amount then customers may be able to make a claim depending on the rules of that card.
Trading standards is continuing to fully investigate the matter. It will take any appropriate legal action against individuals involved with the limited company.
The council is looking into a range of legal options, including how to help consumers get their money back and the action that can be taken against Lapland New Forest Limited for misleading consumers."


______________________________________________________________

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 put a guide here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

and taking the lead from codger about Maestro cards, I see no reason why those cardholders shouldn't push for the same rights as other cardholders. Even if the customer loses the case st the FOS, it will put a dent in the card providers nose, and if it happens to be RBS/NatWest, a well deserved dent.

I'll add some links to evidence about how clearly the event failed to live up to its promise, but that can wait just for now.

Next step to put links on every news article I can find and to contact Mr Hancock. but my brain and eyes hurt. :rotfl:

Please feel free to comment/criticise or make suggestions on what I have set out, as the clearer and more correct it is, the more chance people will have to get their money back and ensure Vic Mears doesn't get a penny.

POST IT NOTE FOR SELF - Oops - I haven't included about making the initial claim on the company, though that is probably by the by now, it would be worthwhile to do, purely to ensure you have dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't'. (now added).

whitewing

GomerPyle wrote: »

I have put a guide here



Next step to put links on every news article I can find and to contact Mr Hancock. but my brain and eyes hurt. :rotfl:

Read the latest TS comments first so you can be a little bit nicer! (see my previous post)

Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

whitewing

Gomer,

Not read the whole thing yet, but are the adverts/notices publishable in Brighton papers or Dorset papers? I've only seen 'local', but what exactly does that mean: I assumed Dorset.


Added later: 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: »

I was wondering what would actually happen if, for example, Visa decided that everyone had chargeback rights. Could they then arrange for refunds and register themselves as a creditor instead of individual customers? Surely it would be cheaper for them to administer (except of course that TS may have managed to put everyone off claiming), and better customer service.

I think at this delicate stage Visa would be foolhardy to get involved directly, surely it is the card issuers, of which there are many, who carry out the physical chargebacks. I may be wrong and I am sure wiser heads will correct that if I am.

Also at this stage I suspect there is a fair amount of sitting on hands, awaiting further developments and I can't really see Visa, or any of the Visa card issuers making all the refunds 'out of the goodness of their hearts' and then putting themselves in the precarious position of a questionable unsecured creditor (which may then put at risk any secured creditor status they enjoy). Further I guess that given it is in the public domain that discussions about liquidation are being held the likely liquidator would take a dim view of the bank acting without its advice, and as there are ties between GT and RBS any action of this sort could be extremely difficult to explain and may comprise a conflict of interests, not to mention be possibly questionable in the law.

As I said earlier, the most likely (and that is far from certain) method of refunds being secured (other than individual chargebacks in progress) is if the liquidator, once appointed, decides that is legal and the correct course of action is to ring fence some or all of those funds held by Streamline. I do not imagine any party will act in a general way until things are clear viz a viz the liquidation.

I don't mean to be negative, and it would be wonderful if Visa and the issuers all took it upon themselves to refund everyone but I just don't see that happening.

[qoute]
And all the successful chargebacks presumably still tally against the Lapland New Forest company, do they, at all stages? Or is the supporting documentation merely for the banks to ensure that customers don't get refunded more than once?[/quote]

To the first comment, yes, all this will be recorded any requested by the liquidator. The supporting evidence will probably serve two purposes, the one you suggest and also evidence to be passed to the liquidator, and in my experience the liquidator will go through those records with a fine toothed comb to ensure people are refunded or treated as a creditor correctly. In any case the liquidator will be working *very* closely with the bank, and if possible the company director(s) to get full and accurate records, though whether these will be forthcoming from the self admitted semi literate in the latter case is highly questionble.
Edna

P.S. The idea of splitting this thread as suggested is good.

GomerPyle

I am in a much more positive frame of mind, but won't post much more until later as I'm weary.

I almost feel sympathy for RBS :eek:

It's one hell of a mess.