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

whitewing

CazandCo wrote: »

I’ll still be keeping up to date on this forum for the latest news. Eagerly waiting to hear if justice will be done.

I was thinking about that this morning. In all my Lapland 'searches', I have not yet been able to find anything that suggests that Lapland West Midlands organisers have learnt from their errors, but at least everyone (card-paying ticketholders) got their money back.

Cazandco, did your mum get a letter from Grant Thornton? I wondered if they had ruled her out because she's already been refunded, but then I guess if the refund is not yet finalised she ought to be receiving a letter. AFAIK, the letters should be on their way now, if not already received. Certainly, people were being advised to notify Grant Thornton if they had not been received by 4th Feb.

To do a chargeback, please see:

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.

codger

EdnaCloud wrote: »

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. .

Hi Edna: it's fascinating stuff, isn't it? And yup, there certainly are grounds for thinking that breaches of just about every kind of trading regulation under the sun have occurred where Mr Mears and Lapland New Forest Ltd are concerned.

Banning folks from being directors etc is however still a civil sanction, rather than criminal, whereas being hauled up before M'Lud is of a different order.

Put it another way. In general terms, what is to stop anyone from setting up a UK limited company not to trade but to defraud? Answer: nothing at all.

What is to stop anyone formally associated with that company being subsequently banned for life as a company director? Nothing at all.

What is to stop anyone formally associated with that company being whisked off to jail for criminal fraud? A hell of a lot.

That's because though ignorance is no defence, the Law holds that intent most certainly is. Thus, an accidental breach of something is always handled with a lighter touch than a wilful breach.

So an individual or corporate endeavour which by virtue of its own incompetence accidentally breaches one or other criminal law will always escape the kind of punishment meted out to a ditto endeavour which by virtue of its design and construction, deliberately breached those same laws.

Question: what is the best possible way of hiding an intention to defraud?

Answer: by burying it under a blanket of apparent incompetence.

The consequences to the victim(s) are the same, but the consequences to the perpetrator(s) are not -- in fact, the more hapless and incompetent the perpetrator(s) can appear, the more certain it is that they will receive the benefit of the doubt (and even, a soupcon of sympathy.)

I've lost track of the number of times this kind of thing has happened in the past -- cor blimey, m'lud, I didn't know it was illegal to turn the clock back on that motor, what happened was a punter came in, told me he wanted it for his missus but said could I lower the mileage so it would look better for her (an actual case) -- as well as judgments handed down ("you have behaved very foolishly, let this be a lesson to you") that have afterwards proved downright laughable when past convictions have revealed that the "foolish" perp has been anything but a fool.

People used to love watching Peter Falk's Columbo because he was a shrewd detective who gave every appearance of being an idiot.

But looking stupid whilst being very clever isn't the province of law enforcement officers alone.

CazandCo_2

whitewing wrote: »

Cazandco, did your mum get a letter from Grant Thornton? I

No letter yet, but then won't they only be writing to people who have complained and written to Lapland? Mum didnt write to LNF, she just went straight to the bank and wrote her letter to claim under Section 75.

steve999uk

I wrote to LNF first but letter was returned undeliverable so went to credit card issuer (NatWest) using a section 75 letter and eventually got refunded last week. Today I received a letter from Grant Thornton which I have scanned and uploaded to Flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/sabre999uk/sets/72157613239260509/

Steve

EdnaCloud

codger wrote: »

Hi Edna:**snip**
Banning folks from being directors etc is however still a civil sanction, rather than criminal, whereas being hauled up before M'Lud is of a different order.

Indeed, any ban of future directorship is indeed civil, but may be the result of a previous criminal action. However, it was not a ban that I was alluding to, it was the stripping of an individual director's limited liability in the case of one particular company, which, as far as I am aware, can be done should any criminal act be shown. This criminal act may be the result of incompetence rather than intent to defraud, but nonetheless could be adequate to strip the limited liability protection.

Put it another way. In general terms, what is to stop anyone from setting up a UK limited company not to trade but to defraud? Answer: nothing at all.

No of course not, but this is a truism, one cannot know in advance that any company is set up for any particular purpose, legal or otherwise. There is some (weak) regulation of who may be director(s) of a company but even that has been diluted (see my previous post re Company Secretaries), so it must be that there is nothing (or precious little) to stop the company being formed. How they then carry on business is another matter.

What is to stop anyone formally associated with that company being subsequently banned for life as a company director? Nothing at all.

Well I disagree, the maximum ban that can be imposed is 15 years, the minimum 2 years, so whilst nothing stops a court imposing a ban it cannot be for life.

What is to stop anyone formally associated with that company being whisked off to jail for criminal fraud? A hell of a lot.

This may, sadly, be the case, but it is an issue of the willingness of official bodies and the CPS to bring charges which, in cases like this seems to be sadly lacking. They just don't seem to have the wherewithal or preparedness to actually prosecute in many cases they could. To some extent this may be the ridiculous cost of hiring expensive briefs for what can be very complex cases, whilst the perpetrator may have access to legal aid, thus making it a financially 'lost cause'. There is also the matter of 'in the best interests of the public', a phrase that is usually used prefixed by 'it will not be'.

I have an opinion that these reasons for not prosecuting more case to term is often an excuse for namby-pamby weak willed pen pushers who just want a quiet life and care not a wit for the public. But, as I said that is only my opinion, but maybe the officials out there will read this and think of all the people hurt by this and many other scams and be more rotweiller and less poodle.

That's because though ignorance is no defence, the Law holds that intent most certainly is. Thus, an accidental breach of something is always handled with a lighter touch than a wilful breach.

Sorry don't quite understand this, surely proven intent is surely NO defence?

So an individual or corporate endeavour which by virtue **snip**

Agreed

The consequences to the victim(s) **snip** (and even, a soupcon of sympathy.)

Again agreed but I know where they should have that soup can put and it ain't anywhere sympathetic.;) It was a tin-pot enterprise throughout.

But looking stupid whilst being very clever isn't the province of law enforcement officers alone.

But I would say that vice versa often IS.

EdnaCloud

For further information about disqualification of directors see:
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/guidanceleaflets/cddafc/cddafc.htm

Under these guidelines it would seem the director of the company in question is ripe for disqualification - but why should he worry if he's legged it with your hard earned money?

More than just getting refunds we should be putting consumer pressure on the 'system' to actually take action against scurrilous traders. Not mentioning any names, however.

Gorginoo

I got the letter from Grant Thornton even though my letter to LNF was returned unopened and I've got my money back.

I am ignoring the GT letter.........assume that's for the best??

I consider myself very lucky to have had my money refunded from Sainsbury's considering it was "only" £90 (ie less than the £100.01 usually quoted). I really hope everyone else gets theirs too and the so-and-so's behind this scam get their comeuppance!

Thanks for all the hard work everyone has put in too!

codger

EdnaCloud wrote: »

. . . However, it was not a ban that I was alluding to, it was the stripping of an individual director's limited liability in the case of one particular company, which, as far as I am aware, can be done should any criminal act be shown. . . Well I disagree, the maximum ban that can be imposed is 15 years, the minimum 2 years, so whilst nothing stops a court imposing a ban it cannot be for life. . .They just don't seem to have the wherewithal or preparedness to actually prosecute in many cases they could. To some extent this may be the ridiculous cost of hiring expensive briefs for what can be very complex cases, whilst the perpetrator may have access to legal aid, thus making it a financially 'lost cause'. There is also the matter of 'in the best interests of the public', a phrase that is usually used prefixed by 'it will not be'.

I have an opinion that these reasons for not prosecuting more case to term is often an excuse for namby-pamby weak willed pen pushers who just want a quiet life and care not a wit for the public. But, as I said that is only my opinion, but maybe the officials out there will read this and think of all the people hurt by this and many other scams and be more rotweiller and less poodle. . .

Brillig post, Edna! :T And yes, you're correct, it isn't a lifetime ban. (More's the pity where so many of these cases are concerned.) Sorry for not clarifying the earlier point about incompetence v intent, these ear muffs are over-heating me brain: it should've read that apparent incompetence can sufficiently mask true intent so as to render the latter unproveable.

As to the notion of rottweilers moving on on practitioners of cats-with-antlers. . . whoa hey!

codger

Gorginoo wrote: »

I got the letter from Grant Thornton even though my letter to LNF was returned unopened and I've got my money back.

I am ignoring the GT letter.........assume that's for the best??

I consider myself very lucky to have had my money refunded from Sainsbury's considering it was "only" £90 (ie less than the £100.01 usually quoted). I really hope everyone else gets theirs too and the so-and-so's behind this scam get their comeuppance!

Thanks for all the hard work everyone has put in too!

Well done Gorginoo!:T

codger

I've only just noticed that every ticket holder for Lapland West Midlands apparently now has their money back.

All 42 of 'em.

Seeing as how LWM's website repeatedly referred to various booking days as "almost sold out" and "book now due to high demand" it almost looks as though the organisers were telling porkies-with-antlers.

Shurely not.