ParkFirst Early Redemption - Thread for any reports of successful redemptions
Comments
-
I've no idea what the FCA's opinion is of this but for what it's worth I've asked them. I'm also going to consult a solicitor in case there is something that can be done about a refund on a sale that was never complete.
I doubt they will have any opinion at all as the "investment" is unregulated.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
I spoke to one of the directors this morning a Ruth Almond who came clean and said no refunds will be happening until they sell additional spaces - now including Luton in this i.e. they haven't managed to shift enough in Glasgow (where my 'space' is - remember I don't actually own anything as the sale never completed) at the new terms and so are including Luton in it too.
So existing investors can't cash out until new investors put money in?
Game over man, game over. Stick a fork in this one, it's done. Even if Toby Whittaker manages to find new investors to put more money into this dead parrot, existing investors aren't going to get a sniff of it.
The Government has petitioned to have Park First's sister scheme Store First wound up, and the hearing has finally been scheduled to take place on 15 April. You could try an email to [EMAIL="storefirstpetition@dwf.law"]storefirstpetition@dwf.law[/EMAIL] and see if they are looking into Park First at all. They may well say "we're dealing with Store First not Park First, not our problem", but Park First is owned by the same company as Store First, and is the same scheme but with "parking space" substituted for "storage pod", and I struggle to believe that the Government is going to shut down Store First and leave Park First alone. Though perhaps that's hope over expectation.
The FCA washed their hands of Park First and their investors in November 2017.I've no idea what the FCA's opinion is of this but for what it's worth I've asked them.
Park First admitted they were running an illegal collective investment scheme, but instead of taking enforcement action, the FCA allowed Park First to restructure in a way that they were no longer the FCA's problem.
Beware of throwing good money after bad - you might well win in court, but if the money is already gone it would be a moral victory only, and solicitors can charge a lot for moral victories.I'm also going to consult a solicitor in case there is something that can be done about a refund on a sale that was never complete.0 -
dealer_wins wrote: »If anyone gets any of their money back it will be a [STRIKE]result[/STRIKE] miracle.
At best this is a dodgy scheme run by idiots, at worst an outright scam.
Fixed that for you:cool:0 -
Malthusian wrote: »The Government has petitioned to have Park First's sister scheme Store First wound up
Not sure whether you read my original post but it already had that information in it.Malthusian wrote: »The FCA washed their hands of Park First and their investors in November 2017.
The FCA have asked for all paperwork in the buy back agreement before advising next steps.
PF for their part failed to send me the completed signed copy of the buyback agreement. I called last week to request it and followed up this week because it was not delivered, they are saying they have no record of my request from last week, that they switched solicitors since the agreement was signed and now the new solicitors need to request the signed documents off the old solicitors and guess what? There's a 3 month delay in turnaround time. Sound like an excuse to withhold papers I need to sue them with? Because it does to me. I asked the obvious question - why did they send both copies of the completed agreement to the soliticitor when one was meant to be sent to me. "Not sure I'll get a director to call you".
Waiting on that call which will be more fun I'm sure.0 -
The FCA have asked for all paperwork in the buy back agreement before advising next steps.
The FCA has taken the square root of sod all action since December 2017, and has allowed the people behind Park First a year and counting to extract whatever money is left in the company before it collapses, while stringing investors along with nonsense about buyback agreements and solicitors playing musical chairs.
You don't need any papers to sue them with. When you have a claim against someone you don't require their co-operation to sue them.PF for their part failed to send me the completed signed copy of the buyback agreement. I called last week to request it and followed up this week because it was not delivered, they are saying they have no record of my request from last week, that they switched solicitors since the agreement was signed and now the new solicitors need to request the signed documents off the old solicitors and guess what? There's a 3 month delay in turnaround time. Sound like an excuse to withhold papers I need to sue them with? Because it does to me.
Whether there is any point in paying legal fees to take Park First to court is another matter.
I really don't see much point in letting them string you along like this. The chances of it resulting in them paying your money back appear minimal, and the chances of further stress and worry appear high.Waiting on that call which will be more fun I'm sure.
What happens when three months have elapsed and they've come up with their latest excuse?0 -
No offence, but I can tell you're not a lawyer.Malthusian wrote: »You don't need any papers to sue them with.0 -
No offence, but I can tell you're not a lawyer.
Correct, and no offence taken at all (why would I?).
That's why I don't get paid by unregulated investment schemes to pull the wool over investors' eyes by leading them to believe that they can't sue the scheme unless that company voluntarily allows themselves to be sued by handing over some paperwork.
I really hope that sentence wasn't being taken literally in isolation. Obviously I don't believe that you can sue someone without any paperwork at all. It was clear from my post that I meant you don't need any papers from Park First to sue them.
You handed Park First money for a security in an illegal collective investment. That investment was shut down and Park First was required to offer you the money back in exchange for you handing back the security (the parking space). They cannot legally prevent you from getting your money back by effectively refusing to take back the security on spurious grounds. You have the evidence you need to prove these facts already.
Legal action with competent legal advice would eventually bear this out, however the central problem is that you could spend a lot of money on said court action and not get your money back.
I am sorry if I sound like I am being negative or rubbing your nose in it, I just don't like seeing people being strung along by unregulated investment schemes. There are no good options in this position: the only options that achieve anything are 1) risk throwing good money (and mental energy) after bad on legal action, or 2) write the money off. Option 3), which is wait and hope that the investment scheme eventually returns your money voluntarily, very rarely achieves anything except more stress.0 -
Malthusian wrote: »Legal action with competent legal advice would eventually bear this out, however the central problem is that you could spend a lot of money on said court action and not get your money back.
Well yes but holding the signed, dated contract in my possession is a lot clearer than an unsigned copy which is what i've currently got.
Anyway I'm going to continue documenting things here who knows others invested/thinking of investing may find it useful. If you find it hopeless fair enough but I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get clogged up with everyone not invested just giving their tuppence worth on the likelihood of a successful outcome, as that's not what I'm posting for.0 -
Wow, I have only just seen this thread. It's not often people confess the investment they are running is a ponzi scheme.I spoke to one of the directors this morning a Ruth Almond who came clean and said no refunds will be happening until they sell additional spaces
If the "asset" had any real value they could return your money, but clearly it doesn't. If they need more investors to pay off the existing ones then, as Malthusian says, it really is game over.0 -
I get where you're coming from but if everyone had taken your stated desire for this to be a "Thread for any reports of successful redemptions" at face value then of course it would have remained a single-post thread with no replies....I'd appreciate it if the thread didn't get clogged up with everyone not invested just giving their tuppence worth on the likelihood of a successful outcome, as that's not what I'm posting for.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards