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

GomerPyle

Everyone should get every single penny back from this misbegotten venture, and it should serve as a reminer to the institutions, who should know better, that riding on the coat tails of an ex-con is bad for business, your reputation and your bottom line profit.

I also hope that the VAT man and taxman get their money, or we'll all end up paying that bill too. If that means Mr Mears loses the roof over his head, I believe he knows a fairytale wonderland with planning permission for the odd deluxe log cabin.

I'll be looking out with keen interest for future events in 2009 - Easter fairs, Summer fairs and a re-run of Brighton Christmas '08.

A VERY INTERESTING POST FROM 18 OCTOBER'08

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/christmas_08/629951-lapland-in-the-new-forest-does-anyone-know-anything-about

QUOTE
It sounds fab from the website, but...

Having looked on google I have encountered posts on another forum that seem to state that they don't actually have planning permission yet and that this isn't due to go through until November.

But they are already taking bookings.
UNQUOTE

As approval is reported being given on 30th October they were taking bookings BEFORE they even had planning permission !!!!!

Well there's something it had in common with the other site.

Offering something for sale before you have a legal right ? Don't need a barrister to give an opinion on that.

and another interesting item

http://www.thisisdorset.co.uk/westerngazette/news/Winter-break-Matchams-noise/article-405979-detail/article.html

QUOTE
Matchams South Coast Ltd has applied to East Dorset District Council for permission for a temporary Christmas Fair from 28th November to 24th December. This will feature an ice skating rink, an ice slide, Christmas decorations and involves erecting nine log cabins. The fair will be a joint venture between the company and Lapland New Forest, a Brighton based company with 25 years experience of running Christmas fairs.
UNQUOTE

We know much better now, and it goes on

QUOTE
An application has been made for Lottery funding for a velodrome and BMX and cross country cycling tracks also be developed.
UNQUOTE

I know a man who'd be interested.

codger

Hi gang.

I'm just wondering if it might not be a bad thing to head back to Square One on this, for the heart of the refunds issue isn't Lapland New Forest Ltd alone but Royal Bank of Scotland Streamline.

Streamline is the largest payment card processor in Europe. It handles 3.5 billion card transactions every year and it was the payments processor for Lapland New Forest Ltd -- the avenue via which ticket purchasers' MasterCard and VISA card payments were directed to LNF.

Everyone knows what LNF's attitude appears to be to claims for a refund.

But what's the position where RBS Streamline is concerned?

Yes, it's only a payments processor, it deals with 'merchants', not 'the public'. But it must have some views. . . and it must have communicated those views to users of its services: 'merchants', like LNF.

So. . . here's this from RBS Streamline Merchant Support:

http://www.streamline.com/support/index.php?page=account&sub=chargebacks

"Sometimes, a card transaction can be disputed. Typically this will be because the cardholder or card issuer queries the payment. The cardholder may decide to get in touch with you directly to resolve the matter, however, occasionally they may approach their card issuer for assistance. When this happens the card issuer may decide to raise a ‘Request For Information’. A chargeback is a credit or debit card transaction, which has been disputed and returned unpaid by the cardholder's Bank or card issuer."

Obviously, this text isn't aimed at people buying from a merchant; it's aimed at the merchant.

And in this case, it's there to tell merchants like Lapland New Forest Ltd that if things go wrong, a customer is entitled to get in touch with LNF and 'dispute' the payment -- and equally entitled to get in touch with his / her card issuer direct and dispute it with them. . .

. . . without any reference to Section 75 provisions.

That's significant where a lot of people are concerned. As to the hows and the whys, here's this link:

http://www.streamline.com/support/kb/moi/moi4505.html

-- and this excerpted text ('cos there's a lot to read in that support page info!)


Receiving a chargeback


Chargebacks can occur for a variety of different reasons. . .
Here are some of the more common reasons why payments are disputed. . .

The cardholder disputes some other aspect of the transaction for example late delivery, unsatisfactory goods/services, or wrong size/colour/price.

My emphasis added, above. Excerpted text continues:

When you are most likely to receive a chargeback


In addition to the disputes mentioned previously there is a high risk that you will suffer a chargeback and lose the money if there was a mistake at the time the transaction was made. The common problems are. . etc etc. . .

Problems with service delivery or changes to specification

• You have not obtained confirmation from the cardholder that a service has been completed to their satisfaction.
• There have been changes in the price or specification and you have not obtained the cardholder’s signature in agreement.

:j :j :j :j :j

All of which means, well. . .:

LNF has already stated publicly that it no longer has access to its 'bank account' (it actually meant, its RBS Streamline Merchant Account, and the monies in it.)

So LNF can't refund the card payments.

And RSB Streamline can't refund the card payments (it's only a processor.)

So that leaves. . .

Just the card issuers.

And in the face of RBS Streamline's very own warning to its merchant clients -- like Lapland New Forest Ltd -- of the circumstances which qualify a card holder to have the return of his / her monies, those issuers can have no argument at all.


Time, then, for ticket holders to insist on a charge-back of the payments they made to Lapland New Forest, for the following reasons:

* I didn't get what I thought I was getting because the product / service specification changed, and I never gave my signed consent for those changes;

* What I did get was totally unsatisfactory;

* My dissatisfaction cannot be disputed, because I certainly never told Lapland New Forest Ltd that I was in any way happy with what I got for my money;

*I didn't get what I paid for because the product / service was no longer available on the day LNF transacted to provide me with it.



Go for it. Whatever the amount.

It's got nothing to do with Section 75 minimums and limitations, but everything to do with your rights. . .

. . . as expressed, ironically, by the very people Lapland New Forest Ltd took on to handle the proceeds of that shabby, shoddy enterprise.



You really couldn't make this up, could you?

:rotfl:

whitewing

Superb work Gomer and codger....bumping this up for any later night lurkers. Get those refunds!

______________________________________________________________

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

The questions is - what were RBS Streamline thinking of to give a facility like this to an ex-con with his background ?

You only have to look at their own security rules and demands

http://www.streamline.com/downloads/Info%20Security%20LR.pdf

and those of Visa

http://www.visaeurope.com/documents/ais/merchants_guide.pdf?d=121207

The merest cursory glance at Lapland New Forest Ltd's website would have clearly demonstrated their total incompetence and inability or unwillingness to adhere to the simplest and most basc legal requirement.

No bank or financial institution has the defence of 'we didn't know' with the introduction of 'know your customer' legislation'. In fact, the admission of ignorance is the greater omission.

For a brand new enterprise begun in August, collecting money in advance of planning permission for an event that collapsed within a week of commencement, it is beyond belief that no one within the bank bothered to check up on a proprietor whose only business experience was in VAT and income tax offences.

GomerPyle

Not surprisingly there has been no reply from ether the FSA or the SFO, so I'll send them a note pointing out their failure to respond within their own publicised time limits and require an immediate response.

I'll also point out where I'm taking it next, with regard to their failures and the matter in question.

alec1962

Further my post reference Lloyds TSB Mastercard not paying, LLoyds appear to have had new instructions to pepole in my position. They are now being told to send out declarations to be signed for 'services not received' With this declaration you need put as much supporting evidence as possible, confirmation emails, copies of tickets, reports of closure http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7765080.stm
They are still not admitting that claims can be made on a charge back basis but if signing this declaration gets back my £160.00 then I will let you all know.
As a footnote, they have credited me £10.00 for the phone calls and postage, another 15 calls to compaints and I will have my money back!!!!

alec1962

Further my post reference Lloyds TSB Mastercard not paying, LLoyds appear to have had new instructions to pepole in my position. They are now being told to send out declarations to be signed for 'services not received' With this declaration you need put as much supporting evidence as possible, confirmation emails, copies of tickets, reports of closure http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7765080.stm
They are still not admitting that claims can be made on a charge back basis but if signing this declaration gets back my £160.00 then I will let you all know.
As a footnote, they have credited me £10.00 for the phone calls and postage, another 15 calls to compaints and I will have my money back!!!!

GomerPyle

Refer them here

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/

http://www.cardpaymentinfo.co.uk/chargebacks.html

I also noticed this

QUOTE
The Merchant Chargeback Monitoring Program (MCMP) monitors chargeback rates for all merchant banks and merchants on a monthly basis. If a merchant meets or exceeds specified chargeback thresholds, its merchant bank is notified in writing. First notification of excessive chargebacks for a specific merchant is considered a warning. If actions are not taken within an appropriate period of time to return chargeback rates to acceptable levels. Visa may impose financial penalties on merchant banks that fail to reduce excessive merchant-chargeback rates.
UNQUOTE

here

http://www.cardpaymentinfo.co.uk/chargebacks.html

and this

QUOTE
we will defend (reverse) the chargeback if possible but reversal is contingent upon acceptance by the Card Issuing Bank under Visa and MasterCard guidelines
UNQUOTE

here

http://www.lloydstsbcardnet.com/merchant_account/chargebacks.asp

I think this basically means that though the system has been agreed, they are reluctant to follow it, as it could mean that banks are negatively affected.

The simple answer is that if banks don't support ridiculous business enterporises by ex-cons with a history of fraud, then what do they expect ?

I appreciate that Lloyds TSB aren't the reason for this debacle, but they are supposed to be operating a system equitable to all. If RBS streamline allow a merchant to use the system when the experience, history and strategy of the merchant is a glaring 'red flag', then Lloyds TSB should assist their customer and save their 'attitude' for those who caused this mess.

This site describes the process involved

http://www.sitepoint.com/article/chargeback-challenge/

and Wikipedia lists reasons for requesting a chargeback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargeback

QUOTE

• Card holder requests a copy of the transaction receipt.
• Card holder did not authorize the transaction.
• Non-matching account number.
• Transaction was processed more than once.
• Transaction receipt was not imprinted.
• Refund not processed.
• No authorization.
• Customer never received merchandise/services.
• Card not used within valid expiration date.
• Services not rendered.
• Error in transaction amount.
• Transaction receipt is incorrect, incomplete, or illegible.
• Transaction processed for incorrect amount.
• Product different from what was described or promised.
• Counterfeit transaction.
• Transaction not processed within Visa or MasterCard time frames.
• Failure to obtain card-holder signature.
• Signature on the card was blank.
• Signature on receipt different from card.
• and on and on

UNQUOTE

Your reasons will be all or some of the ones I highlighted.

I think that Lloyds TSB are probably just making you 'jump through hoops', and can probably be justified in that they want to be sure your claim is justified, and that shouldn't be too difficult to prove using the multitude of media articles and photographs on the net.

I can provide photos from the original website, if you want to use them for comparison. I have a lot of links and there are some showing what happened to people who visited when the trouble started, which can prove it wasn't safe to go there.

You are entitled to claim. This is not YOUR fault. You deserve every penny back.

GomerPyle

Apart from pointing out that you could provide over 100 similar links (some of which may emphasise even more vividly just how shabby and shoddy the site was compared with the Wonderland Experience promised on the website) these links appear to sum things up quite well.

The site closed first thing on Thursday 4th December 2008 as evidenced by these links to Dorset County Council's Trading Standards and the BBC

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7765080.stm

They also evidence the wholly misrepresented situation faced by customers, as does the following article from the Independent which gives a full history of this debacle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scammed-by-santa-attraction-closes-six-days-after-it-opened-1055550.html

If you didn't receive your tickets, and/or they were for dates on or after 4th December 2008, then the fact that it was not possible for you to enter the site is reason enough, on its own, for the chargeback.

GomerPyle

I'm happy to see that this matter has not been forgotten

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/lapland/3995486.LAPLAND___are_you_getting_refunds_/

QUOTE
Monday 22nd December 2008
We want to check if people have been getting their money back over Lapland New Forest - email stephen.bailey@bournemouthecho.co.uk
UNQUOTE