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

EdnaCloud

codger wrote: »

**snip** it isn't a lifetime ban. (More's the pity where so many of these cases are concerned.)

I am generally a liberal person but where so many people and their children have been ripped off at a time of year when we are all trying to celebrate in our own ways and provide as best we can for those children, is so reprehensible that I can quite happily put on my full fascist armour and wish only un-Christian gifts upon the scum that carried out the scam.

Sorry for not clarifying the earlier point about incompetence v intent, these ear muffs are over-heating me brain:

You didn't get 'em from the boot sale down Matcham's did you? If you did unplug them from the mains and NEVER use them again unless you wish to broil your brain :-)

it should've read that apparent incompetence can sufficiently mask true intent so as to render the latter unproveable.

Yes, but what I feel is that the incompetence is enough to strip limited liability, because as an officer of a company their incompetence constitutes an inability to carry out the correct functions as required by Company Law.

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

My cats-with-antlers are still out of work but will be happy to insert said antlers where they may not be expected. Ouch!

But I am not an expert.

whitewing

steve999uk wrote: »

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

Steve,

Thanks for this. I haven't had time to look at it properly yet, but gosh, that bit on the creditor's claim form about not sending supporting documentation and then a few lines down telling you to send supporting documentation is very, very confusing.

And I do wonder where Grant Thornton are getting your addresses from, unless the payment processor captured that info.

To gorginoo, I can't advise either way at the moment as to whether people who have had their refunds (albeit temporarily) should ignore this Grant Thornton letter. If you wouldn't mind, it would be interesting to see what Consumer Direct/Trading Standards advise you to do on this.

pancho_villa

Got my letter from Tesco Credit Card this morning.
It says "in the interests of resolving this matter amicably and without making any admission of liability, the bank is prepared to offer you the sum of £125 (all i paid) as a gesture of goodwill on this occasion.
This offer is made in full and final settlement of any claim you may have against the bank or any of it's subsidiary companies arising out of this matter it is also made without any admission of liability. It is also made on a without prejudice basis and is not to be referred too in any legal proceedings that may follow.

I then have to sign the letter and send it back, and they will credit my account!!! :beer::j:money::T

whitewing

pancho,

As a personal comment (without any form of legal expertise or expert procedural knowledge), I think that Tesco's letter is the most sensible comment I have seen yet to do with this matter.

Good.

If pancho villa has inspired you 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

Gorginoo:

The key section in the Grant Thornton letter which Steve received is as follows:

"However, I have been informed by the Director that there are no monies available to repay creditors.

"The main purpose of the creditors' meeting will be to vote for the appointment of a liquidator to deal with the winding up of the company.

"The appointed liquidator has a duty to consider the conduct of the director and would need to fully review the company's trading activities."

The section is especially significant as it places on record Mears' testimony that. . . there's no money left. For any creditor.


The creditors' meeting is, on that basis, procedural only: to appoint a liquidator.

In view of what Grant Thornton says next, that should certainly be an interesting development.

I'd therefore be inclined -- but only if I had already received, in full, the monies I shelled out to LNF Ltd -- to go ahead and register as a creditor, because this would keep me on the inside track.

My basis of claim to being a creditor is consequential loss, viz: any and all expense I occurred over and above the primary payment to LNF Ltd for my tickets, be it phone calls, correspondence costs, travel expenses etc.

Obviously, I'm not going to see a penny of that whether I claim it or not -- "However, I have been informed by the Director that there are no monies available to repay creditors" -- but there's nothing wrong in any claim for restoration to whatever financial position obtained prior to being disadvantaged by dealing with LNF Ltd.

Note: I certainly would NOT advise any ticketholder who has yet to receive a refund to register as a creditor. We were all saying that on here before Steve very kindly published the Grant Thornton letter; now that Grant Thornton has placed on record Mears' statement that "there's no money, guv" it seems the suspected futility of doing so is now confirmed.

Grant Thornton's reference to the liquidator's role is intriguing, because it's pretty much an open invitation to creditors to communicate the facts of their own experience to her / him.

As to the question, where's the money gone? I'm thinking more than ever now that RBS Streamline must still have the LNF merchant account frozen, and it's therefore RBS -- not Mears -- which has brought in Grant Thornton, a firm with which RBS enjoys a close relationship.

Chargebacks can technically occur up to 18 months from the date of a disputed transaction so RBS Streamline might therefore be sitting tight and not allowing the company itself / Mears to get anywhere near those funds for the time being.

Fascinating.


Steve: thanks again for the GT letter.

whitewing

codger wrote: »

.
Chargebacks can technically occur up to 18 months from the date of a disputed transaction so RBS Streamline might therefore be sitting tight and not allowing the company itself / Mears to get anywhere near those funds for the time being.quote]

codger, while you're there, please can you clarify the timeframes for chargebacks (if you know). This 18 months is presumably 18 months for the bank itself, but the ticketholder has how many days (120?) from when?

Gorginoo

Whitewing/Edna/Codger et al ~

Thank you for the posts and pm's, your insight and gritted determination is admirable!

I have emailed (1) Grant Thornton and asked them about the documentaion contradiction and (2) Trading Standards asking if I should register as a claimant even though I have received a refund (albeit with caveat "should the mercahnts bank disagree....")

I'll let you know if and when I get a reply!

codger

whitewing wrote: »

codger wrote: »

.
Chargebacks can technically occur up to 18 months from the date of a disputed transaction so RBS Streamline might therefore be sitting tight and not allowing the company itself / Mears to get anywhere near those funds for the time being.quote]

codger, while you're there, please can you clarify the timeframes for chargebacks (if you know). This 18 months is presumably 18 months for the bank itself, but the ticketholder has how many days (120?) from when?

Gawd, I wish I knew -- the 18-month period is referred to in RBS Streamline's advice to merchant account holders, viz, to hang on to sales vouchers / transaction records for that period of time.

But it all seems to be down to individual card providers because even from this thread there've been cases of people asking for chargebacks and being told to wait a minimum of 30 days before doing so, yet others have been told to act immediately -- and no-one at all has been told what if any deadline applies.

This is yet another example of one issue throwing up questions about others: I certainly hadn't thought long and hard before now about just what credit and debit card providers actually do / actually provide / actually stipulate.

And. . . I'm not much the wiser even now.

Clearly an overhaul of plain English information to be statutorily provided by all such providers is overdue. Will it happen? Nah. . .

neil_fowler

After quite some time, I finally seem to have got somewhere with M&S Money credit card. After calling first, I was told we had to wait until someone from the "relevant department" called us back. This took some time and following a brief chat I was then sent claim forms to complete and return to the Chargeback Department. They have now credited the card account with the £125.00 ticket fee but say this may be taken back if they are unable to settle the matter within the next 60 days.

As many of you here seem far better informed on these matters than I am, can anyone tell me how likely it is that money refunded will stick with those of us who have received it? Assuming that Streamline have frozen funds from card payments, surely it is cut and dried that it holds and therefore must refund the ticket money, albeit via the card operators.

Also, does my temporary refund mean I should or should not log myself as a creditor for this amount with Grant Thornton? I do not want to find further down the road that M&S Money take back the refund but I am left with no method of recourse because I didn't make myself known as a creditor. Has anyone received any clear guidance on this point from Trading Standards?

Gorginoo

neil_fowler wrote: »

.......
Also, does my temporary refund mean I should or should not log myself as a creditor for this amount with Grant Thornton? I do not want to find further down the road that M&S Money take back the refund but I am left with no method of recourse because I didn't make myself known as a creditor. Has anyone received any clear guidance on this point from Trading Standards?

Neil ~

I have asked Trading Standards the very same question and I am awaiting a reply. Will let you know as and when.