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

whitewing

Let us not forget that probably half of the 42 000 creditors are likely to be at school and thus unlikely to attend the meeting.

See here for the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide:

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

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Let us not forget that probably half of the 42 000 creditors are likely to be at school and thus unlikely to attend the meeting.

Well, firstly we have to take that number with a pinch of salt, it was a tabloid special after all, and if it is genuine it would have to be people who paid, i.e. not the minors that may be accompanying adults. Furthermore it is only the purchasers who can become creditors, regardless of whom the ticket was intended for. That is why I find this number most confusing, because 42K at 25 quid (min ticket price I think) would be just over £1M - now as whitewing has mentioned before, it is virtually impossible to believe that every one of those 42 K booked single tickets, I would guess the average number of tickets per booking would be between 2 and 3, and probably nearer 3. But even at 2 that's £2M, so those numbers just do not stack up. The liquidators report will hopefully be rather more specific and less tabloid.

See here for the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide:

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

whitewing

Here's how the Mirror is reporting it today:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/01/31/blunderland-boss-set-for-public-showdown-with-customers-115875-21085151/

No mention of the chargeback procedure, but you can read how to claim your full refund here:


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

I reiterate the need to seek independent advice before you register as a creditor with Grant Thornton in case that stops you claiming via the chargeback route.

k2tog

Summary of letter contents from GT -

Meeting of company members and creditors, main purpose is to appoint a liquidator.
Creditors do not have to attend to be entitled to claim.
Company has ceased to trade. Director of company has told GT "there are no monies available to repay creditors". They must have spent it all on the seasonal burger vans.
A form is enclosed apparently to vote for your favourite liquidator???
A claim form is enclosed with the following in bold "please do not send supporting documntation at this stage" and further down "Please provide appropriate documentation in support of your claim".
The meeting is in Southampton. I won't be going as I don't want to compound my losses to this bunch of thieves by spending out on petrol, childcare etc.

whitewing

Okay, I have just found the voice of Ivan Hancock talking about the Lapland New Forest liquidation. It takes nearly to the end of the interview but he IS eventually telling credit and debit cardholders to contact their banks. AND he sounds quite optimistic about debit cardholders getting refunds based on Trading Standard's findings:

http://www.thecoast106.com/dorset-lapland-in-liquidation-339827

It is a shame that he hasn't clarified the issue of whether people who wish to chargeback should be registering as creditors with Grant Thornton, and I really think that Trading Standards should be looking into this immediately.

Over to you, Edna.

whitewing

k2tog wrote: »

A form is enclosed apparently to vote for your favourite liquidator???
quote]

Who is the choice of liquidators then? Lol, are any pledging to get your money back?

http://www.grant-thornton.co.uk/locations/london/london,_finsbury_square/kevin_hellard.aspx

I love this quote from the Grant Thornton website:

"Kevin often takes a flexible approach to fees with the costs of an assignment being dependant on the outcome".

As Mr Mears says he's spent all the money, I assume Kevin will be working for nothing.

k2tog

I love this quote from the Grant Thornton website:

"Kevin often takes a flexible approach to fees with the costs of an assignment being dependant on the outcome".

As Mr Mears says he's spent all the money, I assume Kevin will be working for nothing.[/quote]

Unlike his blimmin clients then....

EdnaCloud

A person in the legal profession that I know has just replied to me personally; with the tantalisingly brief (!) comment:

"the concept of limited liability may be removed if the courts
have reason to do so i.e. if the company is a sham, fraud or where a
personal relationship exists."

Now, firstly I do not know under what circumstance that may happen, and more importantly, if that can happen once a company is in liquidation. I somehow doubt it applies during or after liquidation. At this juncture we could really do with some good reliable legal source!

whitewing

Edna,

I do believe Trading Standards were working with the authorities regarding the legal action? Therefore, I think Trading Standards should be advising us (having sought proper legal advice themselves) very clearly on the liquidation vs removal of limited liability issue outlined in your post above, especially with the creditors' meeting looming.

whitewing

http://www.bizhelp24.com/business-start-up/sole-trader-or-limited-company--10.html

Edna,

This confirms your recent post:

'Limited liability' is afforded to company directors to help maintain the entrepreneurial spirit of the small British business owner who is known as the backbone of British commerce and industry (I cannot think of another reason). Limited liability has been abused for many years, and will continue to be so for some time. The government is addressing the need for new legislation to ensure the entrepreneurial spirit is maintained: we hope, without protecting the company director who shows, and intends to have very little, if any, care for their fellow business owner. Personal assets are at risk if malpractice is proved against company director/s by an insolvency professional.