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

GomerPyle

Oh - my poor spinning head. :rotfl:

Replying to whitewing's questions

1. If a letter is sent and cert of posting obtained, do you need to allow time for the letter to be received and potentially replied to before submitting the chargeback?

Strictly - yes, but I would not give them more than say 10 days as we know that nothing will happen. You are only using this method as recorded mail is bein returned unsigned for, and I'll add a link in that thread to a couple of articles confirming this.

2. Ref the post above (post 818 on our thread) - is there anything in chargeback procedures/guidelines that supports the comment that there would be no need to contact the supplier given the bad publicity?

I don't know but I don't think so. I think it's better to follow the procedure to avoid your card company or the merchant acquirer making it easy to find fault in your chargeback request.

3. There were some reports earlier on in the thread about people being asked to sign indemnities before the refund is given. Could this potentially happen? Do we need to cover this in the guide?

Personally I would rather have my nails pulled than sign one. However it appears that different banks operate different procedures. I think this will only happen when a bank pays you immediately before awaiting a response from the merchant acquirer. In that position I would like to know when the period that the idemnity could be called on and the money taken back ends. I would ask the bank this at the outset, or chase them regularly to find out when that time has passed. You don't want an unexpected carge to your account in a couple of month's time.

4. Could the guide also confirm some reasonable timeframes. We talk about submitting the chargeback, but then what? When would you expect to hear from the bank? When/how to chase? (Still possibly worth putting in, even if we don't know the timescales yet).

In trolling through various articles and manuals I have found that Visa and Mastercard do lay down time limits, but I haven't seen them specified anywhere. It's tricky because many staff are unaware of the existence of chargeback and banks appear to operate it differently (some wait for the merchant acquirer to reply, some just refund straight away perhaps against an indemnity). I think you have to be diplomatic and understanding as getting a bank to do a chargeback is like trying to squeeze toothpaste back into a tube, so don't be too hard, not if you are having trouble persuading them to do itin the first place. I'd start chasing after two weeks, and maybe weekly after that. Firmly after a month, but this is just my opinion.

The example of 3 months is ridiculous and I think anyone being quoted that sort of time frame should mention the existence of the Financial Ombudsman Service ruling (referred to in my notes)), and asking to have details of the company's complaints procedure with a view to going to the FOS. It's completely unreasonable.

I would advise people to be as polite and tactful as you can, as this is not your card company's fault, but be firm and know your rights. Be charming if they do what you ask and are entitled to. Point out your rights if they are wrong, and what you'll do to remedy the situation. Complete refusal to comply or unreasonable demands deserve a very firm statement of the next step you will take - their Complaints Procedure and then the FOS.

..... and your point to Edna. We see no reason for refusal of any chargeback request.

I feel that codger's stance on Maestro is both forthright and has merit. If a customer has the fight to insist their card company do it, then I will assist if it has to go to the Ombudsman. Fighting it would be to publicise the deficiency of the card they issue, and bad publicity - double bad, as most are issued by the RBS/NatWest combo.

I'll be out tomorrow - thank heavns, and will probably add some extra notes to the guidance in view of what you have mentioned whitewing.

... and as a reminder

All victims of Lapland New Forest Ltd should visit this thread to see the guide to getting your money back

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1412867

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Edna,

You know you have to tell me things about three times before I truly get it....well, if someone does a chargeback now, and it gets turned down, does that get potentially/definitely looked at by the liquidator?

In theory yes, as far as I'm aware. However the liquidator can never be sure they have record of all creditors, hence notices in local papers etc for any unrecorded creditors to come forward. One would hope though, that the records the bank can supply to the liquidators are complete and accurate for all online transactions and all chargebacks to date. I still think vigourously pursuing the chargeback is best but if it does fail then the liquidator should have record of the transaction, however it may be difficult or impossible for the liquidator to know if the transaction was completed satisfactorily and no claim will be made (ha ha) or if there may be a claim, so at some point when the bank say something like we cannot process any further chargebacks because it is in the hands of the liquidator, it would be wise to request the creditor paperwork from the liquidator. I do not think it can be done, nor would it be sensible, to let the liquidator record any party as a creditor by phone alone. However affected parties could merely ask for the paperwork. Until that is returned I do not think they will be classed as a creditor and can therefore continue to pursue other channels but I must stress this is a complex area of law, even for the experts and I am not qualified to give advice, I merely put my considerations down for others.

We could do with an insolvency expert to get involved with the thread, anyone know one?

Or is just successful chargebacks?

I would imagine the bank will provide this information to the liquidator as part of the record of financial transaction regarding the company, and I also imagine the liquidator will cross check creditor claims against this to eliminate possible fraudulent claims.

Or just claims that go via the liquidator?

The same applies I would think.

The liquidator will need, eventually, to present a statement of the financial affairs of the defunct company and that is like a company's annual accounts - all the incomes and outgoings (since the last audited accounts, which clearly there will not be given the date of formation of the company) must be recorded. They will not be reported as individual transactions, they will be presented as totals for a type of transaction, but this data will have come from analysis of all the individual transactions.

This, as mentioned, should be readily available from the bank, who have a vested interest in sorting this out ASAP, however experience suggests that this may be easier said that done.

Another wrinkle is that as far as I'm aware the bank have no way of associating a card transaction from other banks' card issuer with a card holder's address, so it will be very difficult for the liquidator to write to all potential creditors, unless there is a mechanism within the Streamline processing that allows for this. Gomer would probably know better than me. If my assumption is correct then it will be important that people are made aware by whatever means available, the announcements placed in the press by the liquidator are likely to be small and hidden in 'official notices' which few ever read.

What would be good is if this situation arises we could get a national to run it. (and I'm NOT a journo, so it won't be me!) We'll have to keep ears to the ground and see how things develop
Edna.

I know you've probably answered this already but I do get confused.

No I haven't directly, maybe skirted it and there's no need to do yourself a disservice, it is a complicated area that I have *some* knowldge of from bitter experience but I am no way an expert so I can only state my best considered opinion and that is often a bit confused itself!

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

Oh - my poor spinning head. :rotfl:

Use a different smiley!

..... and your point to Edna. We see no reason for refusal of any chargeback request.

No, nor can I and I hope that isn't how my post was interpreted. But what happens when a chargeback is initiated by the card issuer (on behalf of the card holder) and the card issuer/bank who received the original funds refuses to do it due to (possible) instruction from a liquidator? Who would then become liable? And would the claim then revert to one against the liquidator as a creditor? also as the chargeback is not actually enshrined in law, whilst the liquidation process is, could we see some valid but complicated legal reasoning for the chargeback to be refused?

I need an ex-banker to answer these because I just don't know!

GomerPyle

It is my belief (and yes, I know I have changed minds twice on this) but I am feeling more confident now, that the existence (to go further) of the company is irrelevant. I have seen examples where this has happened, and this is why RBS's decision was not just disastrous to customers, but also to themselves.

It is a very rare phenomenon that a company is formed to do one thing and fails to do it in totality, provoking a chargeback by virtually every customer. The situation is extreme but it is almost a vote of confidence in the company to provide a merchant facility, as the merchant acquirer and/or bank are acting as guarantor to all intents and purposes.

One of the articles I quoted points out that the customer is not claiming from the company, it's the merchant acquirer. If the company is dissolved that's even worse for the merchant acquirer. The liquidator may step into the company's shoes and act more bolshily, but at the end of the day, they have a hopeless situation to defend. If LNF Ltd had made an effort, that might be different, but luckily they were the hopeless and useless spivs we thought they were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/09/halifax-visa-chargeback-debit-cards

This means that even if a company goes into liquidation it is possible to reclaim money, as the claim is made against a bank, not the company itself. The claim can be made on any purchase where the goods or services are not provided, and is not dependent on the supplier going bust.

The same article - relevant to issues raised by whitewing

But two Halifax customers have contacted The Observer to say they had their claims turned down by the bank because its call centre staff claimed not to have heard of the scheme. 'I have attempted on three separate occasions to initiate a Visa Chargeback procedure with the Halifax for a £400 flight that I booked with Zoom,' says Roy Shearer, a design engineer from Glasgow. 'The bank, however, has continually failed to acknowledge that the scheme exists, both via telephone banking and at two different branches that I visited. It logged the details of my request, as with a credit card refund, but told me that there was very little chance I could get a refund and if so that it would take six months.'

Halifax has admitted its mistake in the case of Mr Shearer and is writing to him to apologise. It is also writing to Mr McGonagle to inform him the money will not be taken from his account.

Explaining the Chargeback process, a Halifax spokeswoman confirmed that the bank does require customers to fill in a claim form, as Mr McGonagle did, and then that customer will instantly be credited for the amount he or she has lost. Halifax will then contact Zoom's payment-processing bank to see if it can reclaim the money from that bank. Zoom's bank has 45 days to respond. What Halifax didn't make clear to Mr McGonagle is that he would have got his money back in any case: either it would have been refunded by Zoom's bank (in which case Halifax would take its contribution back) or Halifax would have left the money with Mr McGonagle.

45 days seems a long time to me, but the three months whitewing mentioned is not justifiable.

GomerPyle

An evil little thought has crossed my mind.

Customers were supposed to have tickets posted out to them, so I presume that there was some facility to insert the address on the booking form.

However, we know that the website was a little brittle and I believe that even before the collapse they were having to take bookings by phone, and presumably asking for cheques. I also believe that they were operating the same 'collect tickets against documents' system as the West Midlands operation, which means that the liquidator could be reliant on LNF Ltd's records for those customers.

In that case, the liquidator is probably not going to be sure of the situation until the meeting, or such time as the deadline for making claims expires, unless the liquidator retrieves and reconciles all cheques paid in against claims made.

What a mess.

whitewing

Okay, I have read Gomer's and Edna's latest posts but haven't absorbed them yet...

I was thinking about cheque payments for purchasing tickets. We are all assuming (I think) that ticketholders made the cheques payable to Lapland New Forest. It would be a sensible assumption, but not necessarily true.

If anyone knows anyone who paid by cheque, please can you let us know who the cheque was payable to.

Gomer, it may be an idea to update the guide to say 'If you paid by cheque made payable to Lapland etc, blah blah blah.

If your cheque was payable to anybody else, please let us know so that we can advise on appropriate action.

Similarly, would traders (burger vans etc) have had to pay for their spot? If so, how and who did they pay? I have a feeling there was a photographer on the babyandbump forum who paid out. Anyone know how to get hold of him? Just being nosey.

Ref people who paid by cheque. Assuming the cheques were paid into the Lapland New Forest account, then presumably they should be fairly easily identifiable as transactions on the account? I think it was mentioned that the majority were card payers.

Once the transaction was identified, I am sure the bank could look up a list of debits associated with the credit, which would show sort code and account number of who the cheque was drawn on. At the very least, this would allow the liquidators to attempt to contact each potential claimant by sending a letter to the paying bank quoting the cheque account number and requesting that they forward the letter on. This would be much better than a couple of adverts in a paper that may not even be local to the customer.

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

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

whitewing

One more question....

Who actually gets to see the liquidator's report?

I imagine we are expecting it to detail how the payment facility was provided for the account, as Gomer has already indicated that it perhaps shouldn't have been?

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: »

Ref people who paid by cheque. Assuming the cheques were paid into the Lapland New Forest account, then presumably they should be fairly easily identifiable as transactions on the account? I think it was mentioned that the majority were card payers.

Once the transaction was identified, I am sure the bank could look up a list of debits associated with the credit, which would show sort code and account number of who the cheque was drawn on. At the very least, this would allow the liquidators to attempt to contact each potential claimant by sending a letter to the paying bank quoting the cheque account number and requesting that they forward the letter on.

I would imagine you are completely right with regard to it being feasible to analyse the audit trail in this manner, what I do not know is how far down that route the liquidators have to go by law, and how far they are prepared to go within the constraints of staying cost effective. For example, if their costs for following up a single 25 pound transaction are more than 25 pounds, which I feel is likely, then it is clearly counter productive.

The following Companies House web page has a good overview of corporate insolvency proceedings. Look at chaper 2 in particular, for the type of insolvency (CVA) that has been mentioned in this case:

http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbw1.shtml

Section 6 of Chapter 2 also indicates some of the reporting processes.

This would be much better than a couple of adverts in a paper that may not even be local to the customer.

Agreed, but how far down that path the liquidator goes to is questionable.

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

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

Also, there is a company search facility on the Companies House web site where the status of any Ltd company can be obtained, it is free:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/285b9ee38569e55c42f12f089b665b17/wcframe?name=accessCompanyInfo

If one enters the company name and then clicks on the company entry in the list that appears its status is shown.

Alternatively, one can enter the company number (in this case 06671308) and it will take you straight to the company information. As of today LNF Ltd is active, i.e. no liquidation is in progress. When that happens the status in the main company list will show that, and in the company info page there should be a new link showing insolvency details. Following this link will show the type of insolvency and the liquidators dealing with it. Or it should!

Hope this helps.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

One more question....

Who actually gets to see the liquidator's report?

As mentioned on the Companies House web site there are a number of reports that will be generated, but the one that is of most interest to creditors is a summary of debts and assets. As far as I'm aware this is sent automatically to known creditors, the company directors and the registrar at Companies House who makes it publicly available to view. It may also be possible to download it (for a fee) but I have not poked around the web sites enough to be certain. So in short anyone who wishes to see it can, but will have to either travel to a Companies House office, Cardiff being the main one. (I think there are also a few others, it does say somewhere on the web site but I can't find it right now), or pay for a download.

I imagine we are expecting it to detail how the payment facility was provided for the account, as Gomer has already indicated that it perhaps shouldn't have been?

I do not know for certain but I doubt it would go into any more detail than to state how payments were processed and which companies/banks where involved. I don't think how the facility *was provided*, and how the bank *arrived at the decision to do it*, is a matter for a liquidator, unless illegal activities are uncovered in which case the liquidator has a duty to report them, but not publicly.

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

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

Further information regarding company insolvency and the liquidation process is well documented here:
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/guideforcreditors/guideforcreditors.htm

This is a UK government web site so *should* be authoritative.

whitewing

Edna,

Thank you for your posts. I had a quick scan of the official procedures. Interesting to see the things that annoyed me most look to be things that have to be done. (Not to say other things can't be done in addition).

Gomer,

You're suspiciously quiet, which either means you're up to something or you're worn out from your monumental efforts in the last few days.

I can't get the advertising leaflet to display from the Refund Guide?

I was wondering too if it would be possible to create or link in some template letters re the Visa / Maestro chargebacks? I think I saw a Visa one knocking around on the Facebook thread somewhere. It did occur to me that if everyone sent similar letters it would be easier for the banks to communicate to their staff what to do if they receive one, which should help chargebacks to be processed more quickly.

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

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...1#post17633351