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

EdnaCloud

k2tog wrote: »

Summary of letter contents from GT - ***snip***

Thanks for this k2tog.

***snip*** 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.

This is concerning, but one wonders if it could be positive, inasmuch as it may suggest that the Director got little and the merchant trader (Streamline, part of RBS) are still holding a significant amount. There's another question for dear Kevin of GT

Personal suggestion: do not trust large corporates further than you can throw them.

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.

That is a wise decision as far as I can see, whilst it may be good consumer reactionary effort to cause a gridlock in S'hampton there is no point wasting lots of money on it.

I will continue to try to advise and uncover information, but there is probably little we can do other than to encourage everyone affected by this to claim chargeback, harass GT for information, harass Consumer Direct for information and to make as much of a nuisance of themselves as they possibly can within the law.

Edna, trying to help as best she can.

codger

EdnaCloud wrote: »

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!

Hi Edna: the advice is 100% correct but as it makes clear, it relates to the criminal courts, and so raises the question: was Lapland New Forest Ltd created specifically as a vehicle for the perpetration of a criminal fraud. . . or was Lapland New Forest Ltd merely a badly-run limited company guilty of incompetence rather than illegality?

Perhaps Dorset TS has been so long at the (legal) fair that the foregoing explains why it still hasn't said just what, precisely, it is intending to do about Mr Mears and his "enterprise".

Hi Gomer!

Hi Whitewing!

whitewing

Yeah! codger! we've missed you - great to see you back.

codger

And salutory to see how much effort you've put into helping so many here, whitewing; you really are a star!

EdnaCloud

codger wrote: »

Hi Edna: the advice is 100% correct but as it makes clear, it relates to the criminal courts, and so raises the question: was Lapland New Forest Ltd created specifically as a vehicle for the perpetration of a criminal fraud. . . or was Lapland New Forest Ltd merely a badly-run limited company guilty of incompetence rather than illegality?

Good point, I think there is no doubt that it was incompetently run, but there could well be argument that there were breaches of the law even if it was not intended specifically to be fraudulent. The type of thing I am thinking of here is lack of company details on the web site, false advertising, terms and conditions that as far as I know were illegal under UK company law from day one, failure to provide adequate mechanism for consumer contact, and probably a whole load more.

As far as I'm aware, and following further personal advice, it is not necessarily a requirement to show that an entire enterprise was set up to commit fraud to strip directors of their limited liability. Any breach of law could be adequate reason - and it should be remembered that in the eyes of the law a company officer takes on legal responsibilities; claiming ignorance or incompetence is no defence, so in short, one could say that even if it were only total incompetance that caused a law to be breached, the officer(s) of the company may still at peril of limited liability being stripped, and because of their duties incompetence could itself be a reason for questioning the validity of any limited liability.

Perhaps Dorset TS has been so long at the (legal) fair that the foregoing explains why it still hasn't said just what, precisely, it is intending to do about Mr Mears and his "enterprise".

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and hope this is exactly what they and their legal advisors are doing. If not, any DTS peeps watching this thread may like to note our comments.

whitewing

Edna,

What about the company secretary? We're only talking about the director above, aren't we?

codger, thank you for the compliment.

Edna, I will pm you and codger a comment I have just noticed on one of the newspaper sites that is quite interesting but would get me into trouble if I posted it here, as I obviously won't know if there is any truth in it!

whitewing

On Friday in post 1230, I posted a comment that 'Robert Wright' posted as a response to this article:

http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/4084728.Mum_vows_to_fight_for_Lapland_refund/

It appears that Robert Wright has now modified his comment (which you can read via the link above. I have absolutely no idea who Robert Wright is, but 'he' obviously feels confident enough to advise cardholders against signing anything from Grant Thornton, and also clarifies that chargebacks are nothing to do with section 75, ie a chargeback can be claimed by debit and credit cardholders regardless of the amount of the transactions.

Trading Standards, when you have finished reading Edna's post, can you please confirm this!

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Edna,
What about the company secretary? We're only talking about the director above, aren't we?

Recent changes in company law allow a Ltd company to exist with just one director and no secretary. For full info look at:
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gba1.shtml

however to assist I quote from that website:
QUOTE
1. Do I need a company secretary?
From 6 April 2008 a private company does not have to have a company secretary (unless its articles of association explicitly requires the company to have a secretary). An existing private company that decides to terminate the appointment of their secretary must notify that termination to Companies House on a form 288b. A public company still needs to have a company secretary.
UNQUOTE

So that clears that one up, there is only one director and no secretary. Why on earth this was changed I do not know - in the past one of the hingepins of a Ltd company was the requirement to have at least 2 directors, one of which had to be Secretary. Whilst this does not stop company fraud, should that occur there are 2 culpable parties, thus reducing the risk to some extent, because 2 people working in a coordinated fashion to defraud are easier to follow and prosecute than 1. Also, there is no reason why an individual should be granted limited liability in my opinion, any genuine person could carry on trade perfectly well as a sole trader.

That is merely my viewpoint though, one assumes our law makers are better and wiser people than I and know what they are doing. :rolleyes: C'mon someone, tell me they are.

codger, thank you for the compliment.

I am remiss in not making similar compliment to you, thank you Whitewing, for all your work here.

Edna, I will pm you and codger **snip**

Received and understood.

whitewing

Thank you very much, Edna.

A reminder to those who have not yet done their chargeback, or heard back from their bank to see Gomer's post for the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide:

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

Also, remember to seek IMPARTIAL advice (maybe from Trading Standards, but ensure that they understand the advice MUST BE IMPARTIAL) regarding the implications of sending anything back to Grant Thornton in case it affects your ability to chargeback.

CazandCo_2

Hi,

My mum has just had a letter back from Halifax regarding her Section 75 claim. It basically said that her £200 is credited and in much the same words used in Gorginoo’s letter… :j

I have contacted the merchant's processing bank and have temporarily credited £200.00 to your account. The credit will appear on your next statement. The merchant's bank may disagree with our action and contact us with more information. However, if this happens I will contact you again."


I guess the merchant bank is unlikely to be arguing the fact that we couldn’t go so I’m hoping this is the end of it for us.
I’ll still be keeping up to date on this forum for the latest news. Eagerly waiting to hear if justice will be done.

Thank you again everyone for the incredible amount of time and effort you have given to help. It is very much appreciated. :beer: