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

whitewing

Apologies for not picking this up before, I had been losing faith in Trading Standards. However, there is an updated report here:

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=390730

This is a much better piece of communication. Of particular note at the moment:

Quote: Any customers who have not yet done so are advised to try to obtain money back through their credit or debit card provider. Emd Quote.

And, even better,

Quote: Trading standards is providing more detailed guidance in a letter to any consumers who have notified them that they have paid more than £100 on a credit card and failed to obtain a refund from their credit card company.End Quote.

I will see if I can find a copy of that letter online anywhere. If not, I am sure one of you lurkers will get a copy for us, if I ask nicely....

EdnaCloud

yorksrabbit wrote: »

I have been following this thread with interest and the great advice from posters whitewing and ednacloud.

Kind words, and thank you, but I have not offered much advice, most of my posts have been to add information and to describe situations as best I can to give background and context for those who may not have found themselves in this unfortunate situation before. Oh, and the odd rant!

Thanks for great advice should really go to whitewing, codger gome pyle and others who have given so much time and put in so much effort here.

Could I just say that one of the people assigned by Grant Thornton is a forensic accountant of repute, and it is no coincidence that this appointment has been made,

Well said yorksrabbit. I am not familiar with the individuals concerned, but although we have been, shall we say, 'intense' in probing GT's involvement it was said on the thread sometime ago that they are large and professional outfit. It would not behove them well to besmirch their reputation by too close a connection with Mears - and yes, whilst they are connected to RBS, (I suspect RBS have gone for the path of least resistance) it is welcome news thay one of those appointed has a good forensic reputation.As you say, this would not be a coincidence and as this dirty affair unfolds I am sure numerous malpractices and dubious dealings will come to light. And that is being generous to the director of the compnay in question.

more that Grant Thornton are well aware of what is likely to have happened and were so briefed before becoming involved (not by Mears but by, I guess, The Royal Bank of Scotland).

Given GT's size and rep I am sure you are right, even if the funds do not cover their fees. Inevitably a liquidator would be appointed anyway, due to the insolvency of the company which would have surfaced, Mears does not seem the sort of fraudster who is really clever and could trade through (illegaly) as it was a one product, one off company so no chance of hiding this and quietly paying of creditors over a period of time, which many companies in difficulty do to continue trading in other areas.

As I understand it, when a company is appointed to act as liquidator by the government, via the courts and a winding up order, (which as said would have happened anyway), limited fees are paid by the government. So if that inevitable end were to have happened it is likely that an organisation like GT would be appointed anyway.

Mears may think himself clever and also anyone who advised him (finessing receipts and fabricating expenses seems likely to require more skills than Mears possesses) but this is now in its end game. Trying to pretend that everything was done with cash and is therefore untraceable won't wash with either a forensic accountant or the police and courts, which is the direction Mears and any close associates are heading now.

Quite, and I have to say the reported statement:- QUOTE I had this idea in my head UNQUOTE quite amusing. For most people there just isn't anywhwere else to have a thought, but given his self confessed intellectual challenges I suppose it could have been in any part of his anatomy, so he felt constrained to explain where the thought came from.
Edna, your local cynic.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Edna, yes, I was interested in any amounts really. Looks like at least £4.99 was spent on a new jumper for the the creditors' meeting, but what about the rest of it?

LOL - really, still chuckling, but I'm sorry to say that's Lidl consolation to those affected ;-)

Hey, how do you know it was GBP4.99?

I did hear a couple of years ago that The Devil Wears Prada.
and they do make a reversible black and blue 'hoodie' for a Mear GBP360.00.

All puns intended, but with apologies to Frankel, McKenna, Weisberger, Steep, Hathaway et al.

As you said, I am sure that Darcey Crownshaw, Managing Director of

Snow Business International Ltd
**snip**

Thanks, whitewing, for finding the original post, and sorry I was too lazy!

As far as I know they where the only company to actually respond publicly to any enquiries at the time, with the exception of the company providing the huskies and reindeer. mind you, from reports they where likely to be the only repuable companies to be involved.

As far as I'm aware the majority of traders paid Mears for stands, pitches whatever this gray area of society call them) (a la car boot sale) so I still struggle with knowing how the snow and log cabins, some temporary staff (poor b%^&*&^%s, it wasn't wheir fault) add up to approx GBP900,000, hopefully the 'forensic' liquidator as yorksrabbit describes will uncover the truth.

Yorksrabbit, if you have knowledge we don't, please share any that you are able to, it is appreciated.

[/quote]

I'll give 20 to 1 the despicable scumbag gets off scot free. Such is the toothless wonder of corporate law and consumer protection in this country.

yorksrabbit

Thank you Edna.

One point to note is that Snow Business is a well known company and I think because of it's background it was even used by Mears on the Lapland web site (Hollywood special effects?) If Mears or anyone else tries to pull a fast one with Snow Business's involvement (for example, over-stating the sum paid for services, or pretending the payments were in cash) then they will be in serious trouble because Snow Business really does have the background which mears claims and it will value its name.

As for Grant Thornton, as I said I believe the appointment of an inhouse forensic accountant, who is not a person Grant Thornton would normally wheel out, is significant and very bad news indeed for Mears and his associates and, if it is correct that cheques were being sent to his son, for the wider mears family, too.

I am not involved in any of this but do feel that as laughably bad as the Lapland event was, Mears idea that he could ever get away with vanishing over £700k into thin air (which is the "missing balance") is hilarious, although still of no consolation at all to everyone who was snared by this loathsome trap. I

yorksrabbit

Thank you Edna.

One point to note is that Snow Business is a well known company and I think because of it's background it was even used by Mears on the Lapland web site (Hollywood special effects?) If Mears or anyone else tries to pull a fast one with Snow Business's involvement (for example, over-stating the sum paid for services, or pretending the payments were in cash) then they will be in serious trouble because Snow Business really does have the background which Mears claimed for it and it does value its name and reputation.

As for Grant Thornton, as I said I believe the appointment of an inhouse forensic accountant, who is not a person Grant Thornton would normally wheel out, is significant and very bad news indeed for Mears and his associates and, if it is correct that cheques were being sent to his son, for the wider Mears family, too.

I am not involved in any of this but do feel that as laughably bad as the Lapland event was, Mears idea that he could ever get away with vanishing over £700k into thin air (which is the "missing balance") is even more hilarious, although still of no consolation at all to everyone who was snared by this loathsome trap.

I hope sincerely everyone will get their money back and that Mears next event will be in a prison yard before a captive audience.

yorksrabbit

Oh dear a double post. Sorry!

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

Now I also seem to remember a media report that the agency who supplied (some of) the workers had the sense to get (a couple of weeks of?) payment in advance. So again, they'll be able to supply copy paperwork to Grant Thornton too.

Yes, I believe from memory (so not reliable, sorry - age takes its toll) that at least one agency required payment up front.

I any case, any bona fide company involved in this dirty affair will have full records, and having done a credit check will have found that it was a new company and will be highly unlikely to have given trade credit facilities. This means that, yes, a lot of the services will have been paid for up front ot upon delivery, but 900K worth? I should cocoa. This need police investigation before the trail goes cold. And HMRC - get on the case!

A question that I posed that needs answering, and opinion from the forum is welcome, how can an illiterate become a company director? There are duties to which a director must agree in writing in becoming a director, so the fact that the law allows illiterates to start and run companies (as sole directors), and then find they have breached their duties to report would appear to be a self fulfilling prophecy. This an oxymoron of the highest degree.

Now given the self admission of an inability to read and write the director of this company MUST have had assistance from and accomplice to complete forms, apply for bank accounts etc. Where and who is this accomplice? Why is no-one (apparently) chasing them? Why haven't DTS got anywhere with there legal action and added this to the actions they should be taking?

DORSET TRADING STANDARDS - you are wasting money, prevaricating and getting nowhere, why don't you crap or get off the pan? If you had an ounce of motivation to carry out your legally required functions things may have been better for those those who have lost money. We haven't even seen a statement from you for weeks. GET ON THE CASE - you are public servants. Do some public service.

This stinks more and more, as if we didn't think it would!

Anyone out there still owed refunds - PLEASE DO NOT GIVE UP - if you give up you are letting scumbags get away with criminal acts and we, the honest, have lost.

If this post is deemed libelous to certain scumbags tough crap. The relationship between scumbags and intellectual ability is inversely proportional, which makes Mears a top class scumbag.

Anyone offended by this post - PM me for personal details and my lawyer's details, or PM the moderator of this board and get this account closed.

whitewing

edna,

I am sure the company secretary did the necessary.

I also think TS are doing slightly more than we realise (although I have no evidence to support this). As mentioned before, there seems to be some commitment now to supporting folks through sec 75 claims at least.

Chargebacks - I agree with Edna. Do you chargebacks and persist. Banks will turn you down initially as they appear to know nothing about the chargeback system. Yesterday I was in Lloyds. They are trying to flog credit cards at the moment based on sec 75 protection. I said I probably had chargeback protection on my debit card and they denied all knowledge. (But were quite interested). Persist, persist and persist. AND register as a creditor with Grant Thornton.

Gomer's Guide'll help:

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

whitewing

This is what I didn't read earlier properly when I skimmed Trading Standards' communication:

Quote: At the creditors' meeting, it was confirmed that £343,011 of ticket income had been withheld by the company's 'merchant services provider' (bank providing card payment facility) prior to the company being placed into liquidation. This is held as security to cover claims of any 'charge-backs' by customers. Customers' ability to make such a claim depends on their type of card and the specific rules applying to it. End Quote.

(See my link in a previous post tonight). So, the quicker you do your chargeback claim, the more likely you are to get your money back.

EdnaCloud

whitewing wrote: »

It was the 'nativity scene' that has always stumped me. Truely no offence to anyone, but I didn't understand why they felt it necessary to ensure they included a nativity scene.

I agree, there is a disparity between nativity and commercial christmas (lower case intentional). As far as I'm aware smoking elves, and 'father christmas' were not present at the birth of Jesus. My understanding of the scripture, which I accept may not be taken as fact by all (and I make no religious statement), is that the matters surrounding the birth of Jesus had little or nothing to do with Bournemouth, wooden hoardings, reindeer (didn't see a single one in the holy land) huskies or pickey fun fairs.

I have to say, and this harks back to a comment many weeks ago, is that whilst a visit to Santa in his grotto can be a delight for a kiddy (I remember them, and getting a sherbert lolly was a treat for rationing had only recently ended at the time) it is a different event to the warmth of a Christmas church service, and I am not of the Christian faith. But the joy of celebration of the birth of a prophet is wonderful whatever faith one follows.

t reading some of the comments from early news reports, it seems that they may have been under the impression that they didn't need VAT registration for a cultural event, such as 'Christmas'. I feel fairly sure that some of the early comments were put on by people associated with the organisation of Lapland New Forest.

Back to heavy mode, as far as im aware there are no exceptions for VAT registration, and there is no such definition as 'cultural' in the revenue vernacular. If there was I de-register now because I sell fine art prints via the web - surely that is cultural? What a load of eyewash. For all the legistlation the requirments are quite clear - all organisations turning over an amount in excess of the VAT limt at the taxable point (currently about 63K per annum I believe, but don't quote me) must be VAT registered. CHARITABLE orgainisations (usualy have to be registered charity, but some exceptions are made e.g. some organisations selling product in aid of the BBC Children In Need appeal) can apply for exemption. This does not exlude an organisation from having to be VAT registered, regardless of whether that organisation need to actually charge and pay VAT.

In the case of LNF it would seem that HMRC have been completely disregarded, as is so often the case with traders who believe they have their own laws and that they do not have to contribute to the treasury. None of us like paying taxes, but we have to. Full stop.