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

EdnaCloud

codger wrote: »

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

The comment from Mears published by GT is annoyingly short on factual material and I suspect is made, in part, to disabuse anyone of the hope of getting any monies from the liquidation, but the story is just beginning (see below)

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.

I agree, but the question to be asked, and for which I sadly have no answer, is what about all those who have had 'temporary refunds, with various strings attached? (And it seems that every card of every colour from every merchant of every bank have used different weasel words to protect themselves - another argument for a single contract, in plain English, in my opinion), however some advice has been posted and it would seem we are awaiting some response from Trading Standards. Don't hold your breath.

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.

Now, I do not wish to denigrate the good advice and support from codger, but I think there may be some contention on this issue. As far as I can tell any claim for expense, restoration, or other consequential losses do not validate one as a creditor, and in the normal course of things one would seek damages through the civil courts for such claims. I think if one asked GT they would say 'no way' even if there is a technicality that allows this. One such technicality may be to issue an invoice to Lapland New Forest at their registered office (GT London) for these costs, and as we stand right now the company is still active and presumably will remain so until the liquidator is appointed at the forthcoming meeting (if they are not a whole new can of worms opens). This means that an invoice can still be served on the company but how it would be considered by GT, I just don't know.

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.

My gut feel is that this is good advice but it cannot be stressed enough that we are not experts, and care and further advice should be sought.

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.

Here we get to the nub of the matter, and we enter an area which could be extremely murky. Let's look at the possible scenarios:
1) Mr Mears got all the money and holds it and is lying about there not being any.
My opinion:- very risky, the liquidator will look for evidence of where the monies were spent and if not spent on the business searching questions could be asked about its use.
Likelihood - not much
Outcome - hope the law intervenes
2) Mr Mears got some monies and his comment refers to monies he held now being depleted, but a balance still being held by RBS Streamline.
My opinion - Quite possibly true.
Likelihood - Most likely scenario in my opinion
Outcome - detailed below.
3) Mr Mears got nothing, all monies being held by RBS Streamline.
My opinion - Almost impossible, Mr Mears would probably have had access to cheque payments as I doubt they would be processed by Streamline, and paid directly into the LNF bank account. However, if the sums obtained by Mr Mears did not exceed his costs he could, potentially, register as a creditor. Now I do not know where in the creditor hierarchy this would put him as his position could be as an individual, the director and a shareholder at the same time.
Liklelihood - negligible
Outcome - detailed below

*Possible* outcome from assumption that funds are held by RBS as in 2) and 3) above.
If we assume that there are considerable funds still held by Streamline it will be interesting to see how that asset is dealt with. If the process works as it should, this should be secured by the liquidator (who *may* ringfence it for refund after their charges) however I have a very cynical view and given the closeness of GT and RBS I fail to see how there can possibly be complete transparency and clarity of any declaration of interest, so I really wonder if we will ever know the truth. If this were a company with, say, one or two large creditors they would almost certainly vote against the liquidator being appointed where the liquidator has close ties to a company that provided banking and trading facilities to the failed company, but here we have some tens of thousands of small creditors, many of whom will not have the time or motivation to question this appointment, they will be busy trying to make up the money they have so sadly lost in this foul mess.

I would hope GT are above all this and hope they are completely transparent and public in their actions as far as the law allows. They are a professional outfit and so are RBS, but look at Enron, Lehman Bros, Northern Rock, shall I go on?

---

What is going to be interesting is to see the publication of the list of creditors which I understand will be made publicly available(as required by law) at the offices of GT in Southampton. Now, this will not be available for copy or further publication but if someone could go and see it and give us here an idea of the number of persons on the list it would be extremely interesting. It would also be interesting to know if a certain Mr Mears or various Mr Mears are on that list, however I very much doubt if it would be legal to announce such here or in any other public forum. I wish I was nearer Southampton.....

Sorry for another long post but I hope it gives some background and some information as to what may happen from here forwards.

EdnaCloud

neil_fowler wrote: »

After quite some time, **snip** 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.

Glad to hear you have had a refund, albeit with 'strings attached'. It is these that are a worry and as Goringoo said we can only try getting advice from TS on that.

**snip** 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.

This is a difficult question to answer at the moment, but what is probably fair to say is that any frozen funds held by RBS may be being used to refund other merchants making a claim on them for chargeback, (we have no proof so far as to who is carrying the burden of chargebacks, but I suspect at the moment it is the claimant's card issuer or bank, hence their reluctance to confirm the refund, they will be waiting for RBS to refund *them*), but as soon as formal liquidation is announced the whole ball game could change. What would be really good here is if RBS were to be open and honest and announce how the funds are being used, but I suspect there are a million reasons why they will not, although I can find nothing in statute that would prohibit such a statement. But I am not an expert, and a bank being open and honest happens less often that my pigs doing aerobatics around the farmyard, and that ain't very often. In fact the only time it happened was after a very wet session at the Swede and Turnip public house, and then nobody was up to corroborate my story. :-)

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?

I think this guidance is what everyone in your situation is waiting for - let's just hope that as soon as someone gets further info they post it here!

whitewing

Great posts, Edna.

neil fowler and others, it would be an extremely stupid bank that gives you a refund and then takes it back. But stupid banks do exist so we will of course name and shame any that do, in the same way that we say thank you and well done Tesco for dealing with theirs sensibly along the old 'gesture of goodwill' route.

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. Hopefully Gorginoo will receive a response to their email.

whitewing

More inspiration for you guys from a comment in the Bournemouth Echo:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/search/4095478.Bank_refunded_my_Lapland_New_Forest_cash/

To all those who are attempting to recover money from Lapland New Forest, I managed with no fuss to get a refund from my bank.
It only took two weeks from first contact with the bank. The bank at first said I had no protection as I used my debit card until I told them the name of the firm. Amazingly, they told me that an exception was being made for that company.

Paul Phillips, Pinewood Road, Ferndown

Pity we don't know which bank this is, but it could be your bank so see my post above for the link to Gomer's post on how to do a chageback.

whitewing

Hey, this looks interesting, although I have never heard of them before (I'm not the savviest person around). Apparently, an insolvency practitioner would need to report a 'delinquent director' to this dept, which is why it caught my eye. But the bit I pulled out below caught my eye even more.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/bre/reviewing-regulation/protecting-consumers/page44093.html

World-class protection

The Government is committed to making our consumer protection regime the world’s best.
Its aim is to ensure people get:

• a fair deal
• value for money
• safe and high-quality products
• greater choice.

This is good for consumers and good for British business.
Reviewing consumer protection

To help achieve this, the Government has launched a review of the UK’s consumer protection regime. This will:

• look at where existing legislation can be simplified and made more flexible, while retaining the necessary level of protection
• consider how to simplify and rationalize the enforcement of legislation, allowing regulators to focus on higher-risk sectors or business
• investigate how consumers can be kept better informed by communicating and explaining legislation more effectively.

Have your say

The review team would welcome your views about the consumer protection regime, and how it can be improved, as well as any examples of where it is or isn’t working.
If you would like to share your ideas or experiences, please contact the team on 020 7215 0325 or [EMAIL="consumerlawreview@berr.gsi.gov.uk"]consumerlawreview@berr.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL].

I definitely think there are lessons to be learned thro the handling of this mess.

(Edna, I haven't always been able to read and retain the details of your posts, so apologies if you have already raised this anywhere).

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Hey, this looks interesting, although I have never heard of them before (I'm not the savviest person around).

ahem, ahem, you should retract that comment immediately.You savviness I mean, there's no question there so don't do yourself down, please.

Apparently, an insolvency practitioner would need to report a 'delinquent director' to this dept, which is why it caught my eye. But the bit I pulled out below caught my eye even more.

That is well spotted, but sadly it seems to be very rarely enforced, there is an inherent problem with legislation here that means a potential conflict of interests, the liquidator wishes to get the most co-operation from director(s) of insolvent companies to secure the most for creditors. If matters that are questionable, but not downright illegal, are uncovered and reported (as is their duty) co-operation will naturally cease and upon criminal investigation the liquidator can no longer carry out its duty. It appears to be Joseph Heller Catch-22 situation.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/bre/reviewing-regulation/protecting-consumers/page44093.html

World-class protection

The Government is committed to making our consumer protection regime the world’s best.
Its aim is to ensure people get:

• a fair deal
• value for money
• safe and high-quality products
• greater choice.

This is good for consumers and good for British business.
Reviewing consumer protection

To help achieve this, the Government has launched a review of the UK’s consumer protection regime. This will:

• look at where existing legislation can be simplified and made more flexible, while retaining the necessary level of protection
• consider how to simplify and rationalize the enforcement of legislation, allowing regulators to focus on higher-risk sectors or business
• investigate how consumers can be kept better informed by communicating and explaining legislation more effectively.

Have your say

The review team would welcome your views about the consumer protection regime, and how it can be improved, as well as any examples of where it is or isn’t working.
If you would like to share your ideas or experiences, please contact the team on 020 7215 0325 or [EMAIL="consumerlawreview@berr.gsi.gov.uk"]consumerlawreview@berr.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL].

I definitely think there are lessons to be learned thro the handling of this mess.

Hear, hear. but how often have we heard this jingoistic rhetoric before? Nothing ever seems to change to simplify things, in fact under our present government it seems that we have unending new legislation that totally bamboozles us. Sorry to be so negative, but I will review my opinion when I actually see something positive happening for the people who are made penniless by the tax demands to keep these quangos and their mandarins in comfortable circumstances and fund their protected pensions.

(Edna, I haven't always been able to read and retain the details of your posts, so apologies if you have already raised this anywhere).

I haven't raised this, and thanks for posting this. I'm sorry my posts are a bit wordy but they are here for all to reference, and this is a complex issue so I would rather lay down as much detail as possible.

Gorginoo

Reply received from GT regarding contradiction on needing (or not!) supporting documentation:

Please accept my apologies for the confusion on the form.

We will not require supporting documentation at this stage.

Regards

Mike Brewer

whitewing

Gorginoo wrote: »

Reply received from GT regarding contradiction on needing (or not!) supporting documentation:

Please accept my apologies for the confusion on the form.

We will not require supporting documentation at this stage.

Regards

Mike Brewer

That was a nice quick response from Grant Thornton, and from you Gorginoo. Many thanks. Let's hope Trading Standards also come back to you quickly today.

I keep checking GT's website, as I was under the impression that in theory quite a lot of liquidators actually set up web pages regarding their liquidations. It would be good if they put some FAQ online as I am sure it would provide much-needed clarity.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

That was a nice quick response from Grant Thornton, and from you Gorginoo. Many thanks. Let's hope Trading Standards also come back to you quickly today.

I agree, thanks Gorginoo.

I keep checking GT's website, as I was under the impression that in theory quite a lot of liquidators actually set up web pages regarding their liquidations.

Yes they do.....

It would be good if they put some FAQ online as I am sure it would provide much-needed clarity.

...but as no liquidator is yet appointed they could not do it at the moment even if they wanted to (They would effectively be impersonating an officer of the company and maybe it would also be construed as 'passing off'). In legal terms the company is still active, so it would be the director(s) responsibility to put any advice on the web and I don't expect Mr Mears is gonna drop his pants online. He may also have been advised not to make any public statement in case it prejudices any (the impending) liquidation.

But it is a fine suggestion, whitewing, and maybe GT will when and if they are appointed liquidator. It may be worthwhile anyone seeing this thread that is in the process of asking GT for clarification by email (or letter) to make that suggestion to them. As probably some 95% of sales where made online it would seem the most appropriate mechanism for distributing general information, and from GT's point of view it could save them a heck of a lot of replies to individual emails. (Any GT peeps lurking - this advice is given freely to you in the interest of injured parties and no fee will be sought. Yet.)

Things should become much clearer after the liquidator is appointed and they start the due process. I suspect they are beavering behind the scenes in the assumption they will be appointed but cannot make anything public except the appropriate legal documents.

Glad to see you are keeping on the case, whitewing!

whitewing

Edna,

Thank you for keeping me from getting ahead of myself. I totally understand your point about Grant Thornton not being the liquidators yet, and therefore not being able to have an online presence as liquidators.

If, however, they are sending out letters within their current 'official capacity of assisting with the liquidation process', then there must be some scope for them to do something on their own website.