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

GomerPyle

I got quite excited whitewing but I see this, which I have confirmed elsewhere.

This is one of the many excepted categories excluded from coverage of those regulations. Heaven knows why.

http://www.efc.ie/publications/legal_updates/articles/corpbank/distance_selling.html

QUOTE

• Agreements for the supply of “accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services where the supplier undertakes, when the contract is made, to provide those services on a specific date or within a specific period”. This latter exception is quite unfortunate when you consider that online travel and accommodation bookings are perhaps one of the most popular uses of the internet in Ireland.

UNQUOTE

Of course it would be interesting to know what mention is made on the ticket of when it may actually be used. The essential principle I always work on, is that no possibility should be excluded until or unless it is positively confirmed as being of no assistance.

The benefit is that these people have demonstrated little knowledge of the law, so it is quite possible they may have made errors that could be helpful.

Actually whitewing - on a slightly different matter, you have opened a can of worms, but potentially a very useful one. There are complex rules, particularly relating to e-commerce, about when a contract actually exists therefore opening up the possibility that there never was any contract. It is one thing to default on a contract, quite another to just take money off people. Of course, I suspect that there are so many different situations with some people getting tickets through the mail. If they weren't releasing tickets until customers performed further identification at the gate, then again, maybe the ontract is not sealed until that time.

It may, and I emphasise the word 'may', make a substantial difference. The website that was used as a vehicle to peddle these tickets was an abomination in legal terms and apart from 'pseudo legal babble' appears to have had little effort put into it complying with any UK law and regulation of any sort.

This may take some deep thought, but this could put the responsibility back to the trader's bankers who allowed a merchant's facility to a customer who had no competence to handle the website handling their business dealings, making the legal situation totally bizarre and irregular.

This is quite a stunning revelation and the law I have been running my eyes over does point out that setting up an internet trading site is not for the amateur. This poses the queston why didn't the bank oversee or at least check up on this ?

The gentleman who paid for a Travelodge stay etc. - if he took it to the FOS, he would then (if my memory serves me correctly) be able to claim reasonable costs incurred along with the value of the tickets. He mentioned that he was able to visit relatives, his other alternative being to stare at the wall for a day, along with his family. So the fact that he was able to make use of the trip, doesn't make that claim any less valid. Getting these costs paid would be contingent on winning the case, but it would be a useful thing to mention.

I am out tomorrow, but I'll see if I can speak to the Consumer people in Dorset on Tuesday. We're all on the same side so there is no need for us to be at odds, I only wonder if even a barrister will be able to fully work out the mess, but that could work in consumers' favour.

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

I got quite excited whitewing but I see this, which I have confirmed elsewhere.

This is one of the many excepted categories excluded from coverage of those regulations. Heaven knows why.

http://www.efc.ie/publications/legal_updates/articles/corpbank/distance_selling.html

QUOTE

• Agreements for the supply of “accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services where the supplier undertakes, when the contract is made, to provide those services on a specific date or within a specific period”. This latter exception is quite unfortunate when you consider that online travel and accommodation bookings are perhaps one of the most popular uses of the internet in Ireland.

UNQUOTE

Of course it would be interesting to know what mention is made on the ticket of when it may actually be used. The essential principle I always work on, is that no possibility should be excluded until or unless it is positively confirmed as being of no assistance.

The benefit is that these people have demonstrated little knowledge of the law, so it is quite possible they may have made errors that could be helpful.

I disagree, the Office of Fair Trading make this quite clear in the 'exceptions' page at

http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/distance-selling-regulations/regulation-exceptions

The important element being:
QUOTE
The information and cancellation provisions do not apply to contracts for: accommodation, transport, catering, and leisure services, including outdoor sporting events, but only where the supplier agrees to provide these on a specific date or within a specific period.
END QUOTE

Now to me that suggests that if that it is only the information and cancellation provisions which are not covered, which I do not think are the *major* issues here - the information element can be dealt with under trading standards and advertising standards auspices.cancellation may be an issue for for those who paid for future dates but I think may be covered under other legislation - I will check tomorrow.

Edna tired state

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

**snip**
This is quite a stunning revelation and the law I have been running my eyes over does point out that setting up an internet trading site is not for the amateur. This poses the queston why didn't the bank oversee or at least check up on this ?

Interesting consideration. I run a couple of Internet based organisations, one for my own gain and one for charitable purposes - in both cases I have had to jump through more hoop than you can throw a husky at to get 'internet' banking facilities, both operations have been functioning for decades and have good 'traditional' bank history and both have fully operational internet banking associated with them but to set up internet merchant accounts was difficult so how did these scammers achieve it? will we ever know? I doubt it - if undischarged bankrupts can set up businesses we are all doomed, Och weeer all dooomed to quote Private Fraser.

I am out tomorrow, but I'll see if I can speak to the Consumer people in Dorset on Tuesday. We're all on the same side so there is no need for us to be at odds, I only wonder if even a barrister will be able to fully work out the mess, but that could work in consumers' favour.

Out? that's just not allowed! we need you here!;)

I don't know if it exists but would a compilation of addresses contacts re this matter be useful?

Edna very tired way

GomerPyle

Yes - Edna - you are quite right about Distance Selling, and I'm trying to run my brain on several different lines at once, and I'm tired.

I'm glad you're checking up on me, and showing that I'm not right all the time. A kick in the backside is good every now and again. :rotfl:

I can't say this quite the way I'd like, but in simple terms I'd say that if an organisation gives a merchant facility to an idiot, then that organisation should pick up the resulting mess. Why should ordinary people, me as well, and a very expensive barrister hired by the OFT try and make sense of the legal position with website Terms and Conditions written in the style of a Klingon barrack room lawyer. Not that it managed to reman constant for much more than a day at a time.
A simple copy of those terms should be enough to have them thrown into a bin as incomprehensible and unenforceable.

I usually reckon that if I can reduce a judge to hysterical laughter, then my argument is probably quite strong, and he'll probably like me more for not trying to grind his brain to dust with tedious detail.

The best tactic is to provide a strong argument, a simple solution and a lot of 'happy campers',

The more I think about it, the more I think that discusiing the detail is possibly a waste of time. The website was purely set up as a money collecting instrument, and the terms and conditions were never framed with the intention of legal clarity or accuracy, perhaps even the opposite, hence the inclusion of clauses like legal jurisdiction in New Jersey courts.

I can understand if the OFT or TS won't want to discuss this with me, but maybe if I mention what I intend, they may be inclined to advise whether or not that is appropriate.

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

Yes - Edna - you are quite right about Distance Selling, and I'm trying to run my brain on several different lines at once, and I'm tired.

I'm glad you're checking up on me, and showing that I'm not right all the time. A kick in the backside is good every now and again. :rotfl:**snip**

Hey, I'm not checking up, and not questioning your veracity nor aiming at your posterior, I was just offering my view of the issue and (hopefully politely) disagreeing.

I too am running my brain on a number of lines - at the moment I think one is the East Coast Main Line, another is the West Coast Main Line, and disturbingly the third is the to Liskeard to Looe branch line. At least with those routes I should not meet my Waterloo.

Back to serious though, does the panel think a summary of contacts, addresses and other pertinent information would be useful in one posting to save the endless searching through this quite large thread?

EdnaCloud

GomerPyle wrote: »

The best tactic is to provide a strong argument, a simple solution and a lot of 'happy campers',
.

Oh dear, I missed this - will the 'happy campers' be celebrating the winter solstice near Bournemouth and Wolverhampton sitting around a seasonal pagan fire with seasonal and truly historic food and hysteric wolves baying at the waxing moon? Let's face it those poor dogs need to get some income now their contracts have 'disappeared' and I'm sure with some 'Hollywood FX' (whatever that is) they could look just like wolves.

Edna cynical and tired mood.

whitewing

EdnaCloud wrote: »

Back to serious though, does the panel think a summary of contacts, addresses and other pertinent information would be useful in one posting to save the endless searching through this quite large thread?

I do Edna. The West Midlands version seemed to have 4 or 5 co-organisers if you read all the news reports.

______________________________________________________________

ATTENTION PLEASE! Added mid-Jan 2009: Just as a reminder, the latest Lapland New Forest Refund Guide is here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17633351#post17633351

GomerPyle

My mind is clearer now after a night's sleep.

I admit that my normal home is a place where exhuberance and dramatic flair are our natural tools but I never thought that this tale of a fairground scam would explode into anything so major or complex.

Misrepresentation hardly comes into the matter - certainly not if there was never any real attempt to provide the advertised attraction. The numbers involved are staggering, and it was perpetrated with all the skill of 'Arthur Mulllard' like characters who appeared to have only the barest idea of how to 'pull off' this debacle.

I'm sorry to say this, but how a bank could have anything to do with this spectacular failure, let alone provide the one facility that was used to extract money from the unsuspecting public, beggars belief..

To even consider that tens of thousands of families should inundate the banking system with claims for refund is unfair on them, and even unfair on the companies who played no part in this fiasco, Trying to help and assist individual people. all trapped in a web, not of their making, is punishing them, rather than the parties truly to blame for this whole appalling mess.

A greater authority, with greater pwoers to take an overall view of this matter is required, and one with more ability to turn over some stones and ask some very serious questions.

This will get everyone their money back, and find out how this national/international scandal ever managed to get to see the light of day in the first place.

essexlander_2

EdnaCloud wrote: »

I'm feelin that were goin to have a very rich Xmas! How much patching up will the deer need? No need to trubble too much just make it look OK for the kiddies and stick it in the van - best turn it into seasonal venison burgers before long tho - but there the engine to cook it on - red diesel for red meat eh? I'm game for that!

I'll tuck you the lady godiva for yor mates gas when we meet in the lay-by. Also meeting some others there - theyve got a couple of rides (don't tell elf and safety cos they were condemd a while back but they have assured me that theyve fixed the broken bits and have spent fifteen quid on WD40 so i knoe they are expurts.)

Were on a winner!

sorry about the late reply AGAIN i been hacking up the deer to far gone o'm afraid just one big major problem with all this comming from essex the lay by is at needham i don't want to be treading on ant suffolk folks toes by cashing in on any project they may have going on

alison6692

Hello x

Just a quick question. I thought that now that Lapland has been closed shouldn't it be easier for me to claim? I just did a quick letter last night basically stating that I would like to claim for "goods not received" - am I making it too simple?

Alison x