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

codger

Newly_scammed wrote: »

Looks like the steam is going out of this, and the scammers are going to get away with a barrow load of loot then?

Barclaycard have yet to send out a form, despite 3 call in 2 weeks - apparently it takes 10 days via their system - not sure, but think they may be just ducking and weaving to avoid payouts - no form, LNF gone bankrupt...
It's frustratingly easy to lose money via a few mouse clicks, but sheer purgatory if there is a glitch, and the safety nets turns out to have been a cob web!

Again, good work by many, but hope it's not going to be fruitless

Love the line about safety nets turning into cob webs. . .;)

Anyway. This post is to reassure that this thread continues to be hit nationwide via Google every day.

So because of its search status, it's maybe as well to be as upbeat as possible here, lest a casual lurker mistakenly assume from keywords in an MSE Google cache a situation at odds with reality. Hopefully, the following will be of constructive help:

1) Lapland New Forest Ltd is not in administration / liquidation.

2) Lapland New Forest Ltd is under investigation by the Trading Standards Division of Dorset County Council. TS is the lead agency. Other agencies are likely to be adopting their usual practice of seeing what the lead agency does first before considering / finalising / embarking on any action of their own.

3) Ticket holders looking for details on how to claim their money back should contact Consumer Direct and make a note of the time and date of that call and the name of the person(s) spoken to. Then they should check this thread for the link to a Section 75 template and relevant info. The post is at 175 and was very kindly made by Martin himself.

4) Alternatively, go here:

http://images2.moneysavingexpert.com/attachment/section75.rtf

5) Of course, many ticket holders have already taken Consumer Direct's advice to send a refund request to Lapland New Forest Ltd's registered office, and to do so by Signed For. However:

6) At least one ticket holder has already reported on this thread that her refund claim was rejected by the recipient and returned unopened.

7) If anyone is in this situation, then they need to by-pass Consumer Direct (which is a Trading Standards centralised call handling facility anyway) and report the rejected mail in writing to:


Ivan Hancock
Manager
Trading Standards Division
Dorset County Council
County Hall
Colliton Park
Dorchester
DT1 1XJ

7a) The above contact name / address should be used SOLELY for providing TS with written information about the refusal of Lapland New Forest Ltd to accept mail delivery. In the present context, that's actually a serious matter. So TS needs to know.

7b) Ticket holders who have not had their Signed For refund requests returned to them should not contact TS. TS must be allowed to have as clear a field of play as possible, not be bogged down with extraneous information it doesn't need / cannot act upon.

7c) Ticket holders experiencing delays or apparent inertia where their credit card providers, or banks, are concerned, should not approach TS either.

It's not unusual in cases such as this for credit card companies as well as banks to opt for the easy way out on the basis that they're waiting for "Someone Else" to clarify matters. As an excuse, it's so pathetic, and irrelevant, that it's not even worth stating publicly, which is why they don't. Yet nevertheless this kind of thinking does exist.

8) Dorset TS was, well nigh literally (if appropriately) "snowed under" with complaints about Lapland New Forest Ltd. Each takes time to sift through, categorise and record, but on top of that, Dorset TS has also sought legal opinion from a specialist barrister.

9) Barristers, Gawd bless 'em, rarely come cheap and rarely move fast. And no barrister can be expected to receive a Dorset TS briefing on one day and issue an opinion the next. That's always assuming such a client brief can stay constant anyway: briefs have been known to be updated and revised then re-revised and updated yet again where a situation is subject to fast-changing circumstances.

10) What is further adding to the waiting time is that legal advice given here isn't going to be for TS alone. It's going to be shared with the police. This is because even at the most cursory glance it's clear Lapland New Forest Ltd is at risk of both civil and criminal prosecution. Sorting out which-from-what in developing a prosecution that will stick isn't something that can be done on the back of an envelope. (For example, Companies House has its own specialist investigative arm; it's likely that it, too, is caught up in this where a review of the company's directors is concerned -- thus adding to the complexities involved, especially if CH concludes that something is so seriously wrong that it, too, must take action.)

None of the foregoing is intended as an apologia for any agency, authority, credit card company or bank involved in this. As is pretty much well known here, I hold no brief for any, and certainly not the national front-line outfits at whom Gomer has so bravely directed his fire.

Rather, it's meant to say that though cynicism is every consumer's essential armour, donning it just yet is premature.

Activity is certainly occurring behind-the-scenes, and though no news is good news, it's equally true that no news is bad news, either.

whitewing

Brilliant post, codger. Just a reminder to the poster with returned mail to take action as per point 7.

______________________________________________________________

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

whitewing

Oh BTW, saw this piece of journalistic praise for the scammers

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/15/lapland-i-think-not/

"but I’ve got to tell you, the whole thing has provided me with some much needed light relief lately" and "But I still can’t find it in myself to berate the people behind these shambolic scams too much". Now, I suppose I will be told I have quoted out of context, but I think these are totally irresponsible remarks.

______________________________________________________________

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

Apparently EU regulations have been absorbed into UK law making the powers available to TS far more effective if used to their full extent.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/cpregs/oft1008.pdf

I particularly like 11.3

QUOTE
Eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance.
UNQUOTE

There is also mention of criminal prosecution in respect of contraventions of the requirements of the general prohibitions, and for certain misleading actions and omissions.

In a strange version of digging a hole and making it bigger, the original website said that the photos were 'for illustrative purposes only' errrr most photographs are, aren't they ? To make that in any way a 'get out' clause it must state that they do not represent the reality of what may be provided (or words to that effect - not that I'm sure that it would provide any actual defence as the purpose of their use is clear) but it didn't anyway. Then to compound the error, it says the actuality 'will exceed these representations'. DOHHHH !!!

A very nice piece codger.

codger

whitewing wrote: »

Oh BTW, saw this piece of journalistic praise for the scammers

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/12/15/lapland-i-think-not/

"but I’ve got to tell you, the whole thing has provided me with some much needed light relief lately" and "But I still can’t find it in myself to berate the people behind these shambolic scams too much". Now, I suppose I will be told I have quoted out of context, but I think these are totally irresponsible remarks.

Thanks whitewing for that. Currently appearing on The Shropshire Star website is the following:

1. Dennis Codger said: Dec 17th, 2008 at 7:50 pm Your comment is awaiting moderation.
2. 
   Local papers are a training ground for junior reporters. A shame, then, that the Shropshire Star appears to be a training ground for the juvenile mind. Quote:
3. 
   ‘But I still can’t find it in myself to berate the people behind these shambolic scams’.
4. 
   Well, no. To do so would require the writer to “find within” herself a level of intelligence that’s entirely absent and a moral compass that’s far beyond her grasp.
5. 
   The fact is, both Lapland websites were scams designed to target loving parents — be they in Shropshire or anywhere else — at their most vulnerable.
   Both were systematically created in awareness of the fact that at this of all times of the year, parents are prone to put their children’s enjoyment, and the fulfilment of their children’s dreams, above all other considerations.
6. 
   It’s clear that the smug, elitist endorsement text of such sleazy, shabby profiteers could only have been penned by someone with no children of her own.
7. 
   But quite why the Shropshire Star should wish to publish it on-line so as to provide aid and comfort to individuals currently under investigation by both civil and judicial authorities is less clear.
8. 
   The writer’s view of the Lapland scams is that they’re a jolly good cause for amusement.
9. 
   Unfortunately for the Shropshire Star, the public’s view of the newspaper as a mature observer of, and commentator on, current affairs can only be one of downright hilarity.
10. 
    Perhaps the policy of encouraging junior journalists to air juvenile views might, in all good Christmas charity, be now reviewed?

Couple of points to note:

* ignore the numbers above, MSE automatically added coded indentations to the pasted-in Shropshire Star text; the numbers aren't there in the original;

* Dennis Codger never said his own comment was awaiting moderation.

But it is. Which means the Shropshire Star may not keep it there very long. . .;)

medina_2

Have had a quick look at posts.. so many to read!! ..So... Can anyone advise on the best action to get money back, at this point in time? .Has anyone got the most recent contact details to try and retreive some money?? or what to do to date?..

GomerPyle

The questions are

1. Are you referring to Lapland New Forest Ltd (as there was Midlands version too)

2. How much did you pay ?

3. How did you pay ? (debit card - credit card)

4. When was your visit booked for ?

5. Did you go there ?

Don't get anxious if you aren't giving what you consider are the correct answers to these questions, as the pending actions may enable all claimants to recoup their money. There can't be any certainty of this, but you will stand a better chance if you have submitted a claim.

The strongest claim is one to a credit card company, but I would make a claim whatever the circumstances, as simply viewing the website photos against the widely published actual photos is hard to interpret as anying other than misrepresentation.

The one thing to be avoided is that all parties consider the furore has blown over and that the balance of funds on the account can be safely released to the company to defuse a sticky situation. That would be very convenient for the company and their bank, but it would not be equitable.

shazjag

Hi Forum, i have been one of the unlucky ones who also booked the Lapland New forest with a Llyods Tsb Debit Card. The good news is that after aprox 12 days i have now had the £100 credited back to my account, the BAD news is that i have just got off the telephone to the fraud department at lloyds as someone tried to spend £485 in sweeden last night on my card whilst i was happy late night shopping in bristol!
Lloyds have now stopped my card so i have to wait for a new one to come through (hopefully soon?). This is the first time i have ever had any fraud attempted on any of my cards, so i think it is safe to say that New Forest has something to do with it?
Please keep an eye on your bank accounts so that he doesnt get away with any more of our money!!
Merry Christmas to everyone!

shazjag

Hi Forum, i have been one of the unlucky ones who also booked the Lapland New forest with a Llyods Tsb Debit Card. The good news is that after aprox 12 days i have now had the £100 credited back to my account, the BAD news is that i have just got off the telephone to the fraud department at lloyds as someone tried to spend £485 in sweeden last night on my card whilst i was happy late night shopping in bristol!
Lloyds have now stopped my card so i have to wait for a new one to come through (hopefully soon?). This is the first time i have ever had any fraud attempted on any of my cards, so i think it is safe to say that New Forest has something to do with it?
Please keep an eye on your bank accounts so that he doesnt get away with any more of our money!!
Merry Christmas to everyone! :beer:

alec1962

I have received a reply to my requst for a refund under section 75, their answer is as follows
''The price of each ticket is not between £100.01 and £30,000, which means it's not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, so we can't help you''.
''Please contact Dorset Trading Standards Office if you want further help''
''Whilst I sympathise with the situation, I'm sorry we can't help you this time''

I called and comlained and was told to provide official proof that the company had ceased trading, I could get an official letter from trading standards confirming this. WRONG Trading Standards DO NOT issue letters or statements to this effect.

I have written to Lapland requesting a refund, no reply, not a surprise.
The bank acting for the credit card company will not admit that I had to buy a family ticket costing over their stupid limit of £100.01 so I am out of pocket by £160.00
I feel I have a justified claim in respect of ''Service not recieved'' as Laplandnewforest.com had closed down prior to my intended visit. Does anyone have any advice what to do next or who can help as I am being totally fobbed off by LLOYDS TSB which I now believe stands for LLOYDS THE SH*T BANK