Poster: A snowHead
|
^^I agree but how can he be prevented from simply starting again, when the flagrancy of his past dealings seem to be ignored? How can he be permitted to simply start again, with ‘new’ money? Do his new backers even know, or care, about his history? It stinks
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
There is a hell of a lot of jumping to conclusions on this thread...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
On the face of it, thoroughly disreputable.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Tiddles wrote: |
you could see this coming a mile off really
Taking in as much money as possible
crashing the company
let someone else take the hit
press restart
given the statement there is no way this happened overnight and he already had the plan to restart again |
I'm on the same page as this view. Who takes the hit? Well, basically, HMRC always get hit (that's us tax payers paying for it), and I guess ATOL is Govt backed ultimately so we take the hit again. They probably had a bounce back loan too.
The good news is that HMRC are getting very cute these days and they will be all over the Directors if they have preferred themselves to creditors. I know someone who crashed and phoenixed recently and he now has a world of pain from HMRC, something he thought he had neatly sidestepped.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Legend. wrote: |
There is a hell of a lot of jumping to conclusions on this thread... |
Based on the the past MO of the individual involved probably not that much to give benefit of the doubt for. Pre-packs are shabby at best, where they are being trumpeted in the same statement in which the guy tells everyione he has been stalling on it's tough crap for them but he'll be setting up again it seems the rules are not really fit for purpose. If you/he can prove say he's not takne any money out of the business in the last 24 months I might be persuaded to a different view.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend. wrote: |
There is a hell of a lot of jumping to conclusions on this thread... |
Feel free to put forward any rationale you have for alternative conclusions.
Otherwise it looks fairly straight forwardly illegal.
This from Planetski seems accurate:
There is no obvious mention [on their website] of the company going into administration.
The website also still displays both the ABTA and ATOL logos, but PlanetSKI has been told it is no longer a member of either scheme.
ABTA told us that Alpine Elements resigned as a member on 9th November 2020.
If the reported explanations are correct then it's hard to see how trading beyond April last year
would not have been done in full knowledge that the company was insolvent.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
It will be interesting to see how the market evolves over the next few years. The chalets and hotels are not going anywhere so assuming there is a market, new or "new\old" operators will pop up to fill the vacuum.
The crux will be what sort of market exists once covid has worked it's self out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
planetski.eu : built on editorial freebies and clickbait.
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Legend. wrote: |
I'm not at all saying that there is not truth in what people are expressing but there should always be a level of caution when castigating someone without all the facts. Terms like 'it looks like' or 'in my opinion' are a little better than coming out and saying it's illegal or calling the guy a Grade A lady's front bottom without having 100% of the facts. |
philwig wrote: |
This from Planetski seems accurate:
There is no obvious mention [on their website] of the company going into administration.
The website also still displays both the ABTA and ATOL logos, but PlanetSKI has been told it is no longer a member of either scheme.
ABTA told us that Alpine Elements resigned as a member on 9th November 2020. |
FACKS. Resigned as member, still advertising that they're part of the scheme. Seems on fairly dodgy group legally given that a) they'd have been well aware that they were a company at risk, b) people would potentially still be booking on the website and be reassured by the ABTA and ATOL memberships
No conclusions, just the fact that they were advertising being part of ABTA/ATOL but, in the case of the former, had resigned and, in the case of the latter, hadn't confirmed their membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend. wrote: |
but there should always be a level of caution when castigating someone without all the facts. |
You're new here, right?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@philwig wrote: |
If the reported explanations are correct then it's hard to see how trading beyond April last year
would not have been done in full knowledge that the company was insolvent.
|
If you check their accounts to April 2019, you will find a stable unremarkable company, the accounts were completed in Sept 2019 and obviously showed no sign of the problems to come. They were filed in January 2020, again before there were any real signs of the problems to come. It is grossly unfair to suggest that they have been insolvently trading since April last year.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Timc wrote: |
@philwig wrote: |
If the reported explanations are correct then it's hard to see how trading beyond April last year
would not have been done in full knowledge that the company was insolvent.
|
If you check their accounts to April 2019, you will find a stable unremarkable company, the accounts were completed in Sept 2019 and obviously showed no sign of the problems to come. They were filed in January 2020, again before there were any real signs of the problems to come. It is grossly unfair to suggest that they have been insolvently trading since April last year. |
I think the context was last year as in season rather than calendar year.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
...I think the context was last year as in season rather than calendar year. |
Correct - my mistake, sorry.
I thought it obvious that the pandemic hit in April 2020, but a mistake none the less. I'm just ahead of my time.
I had actually already read the previous accounts (38 pages), that wasn't my point as they were not hugely interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, Very generous of you to put that interpretation on it. I formed my opinion of the company on my last ever chalet holiday. Converted to self organising and self catering after that. However April last year is April 2019 and April this year is April 2020 and that's the way I read it. I don't like the company but without the facts it is impossible to tell and he may have been rushing around trying to save his life's work or not. Both versions are pure conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Unfortunately pre-pack administration is perfectly legal plus wrongful &/or fraudulent trading is exceptionally difficult to prove in most cases. The big naughty here is the continued use of ABTA (& ATOL ?) on marketing / website etc .. that is an easy fact to prove here. Multiple complaints to the local Trading Standards team, administrators & ABTA / ATOL may help those not covered by bonds .. others should seek credit card chargeback if possible.
Otherwise .. best approach is to avoid giving them custom in future ...
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
philwig wrote: |
Legend. wrote: |
There is a hell of a lot of jumping to conclusions on this thread... |
Feel free to put forward any rationale you have for alternative conclusions.
Otherwise it looks fairly straight forwardly illegal.
This from Planetski seems accurate: |
probably cribbed off this thread tbh
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Has he done this sort of thing before? The Travelmole link said he started the business in 1997, but Alpine Elements Ltd was only formed in 2003. At which time he was a director of a company called Snowboard Lodge Ltd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
Legend. wrote: |
There is a hell of a lot of jumping to conclusions on this thread... |
Based on the the past MO of the individual involved probably not that much to give benefit of the doubt for.… |
Past MO? Oh, I didn't realise this person a history of putting his companies into administration. Has he, Dave of the Marmottes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
His past MO has been to overpromise underdeliver with things like a "luxury" offering, undertrained staff, aggressive approach to social media presenting negative reviews etc and this year a total stonewalling on refunds customers were legally entitled to. It's been one of the most complained about ski TOs I've ever known. So yes I can draw my own conclusions based on this as to the intention behind the current phoenixing - more sheep to be shorn
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
His past MO has been to overpromise underdeliver with things like a "luxury" offering, undertrained staff, aggressive approach to social media presenting negative reviews etc and this year a total stonewalling on refunds customers were legally entitled to. It's been one of the most complained about ski TOs I've ever known. So yes I can draw my own conclusions based on this as to the intention behind the current phoenixing - more sheep to be shorn |
Ah, ok. So, absolutely nothing to do with the situation that has forced numerous travel operators, large and small over the edge. Enjoy the sheep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@JoeMellor, care to declare an interest?
Yes the situation has been horrible but hey that's what businesses do - they enjoy good returns in the good times and are expected to manage sufficiently carefully for the bad times. If he was saying that's it we can't do it I'm sorry that would be one thing. The thing that sticks in the craw is the solicitation of further monies for this season under false ATOL and ABTA credentials - care to offer the defence for that? And of course the "two fingers suckers" nature of the I've bought back the brand already and will be relaunching.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@JoeMellor, true that the stability of many travel companies has been undermined by Covid, and travel companies in the UK have Brexit to contend with too. So it's no great surprise that many will, sadly, be unable to survive.
But, the way they deal with the situation marks their individual character as clearly as any other aspect of their business activity.
It's not the 'what' that people are taking issue with here, it's the 'how'.
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
If this alleged ‘phoenixing’ is true then it stinks.
What seems even worse to me is that our legal framework appears to allow this kind of deceit and betrayal of customers with impunity. Over and over again. Why??
As for the loss of yet another U.K. run alpine holiday specialist, it reduces competition, saisonniere jobs (albeit on poor terms) and isn’t something I’ll be celebrating.
I never travelled with them but my impression is they offered basic but good value holidays for many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
@JoeMellor, care to declare an interest?
The thing that sticks in the craw is the solicitation of further monies for this season under false ATOL and ABTA credentials - care to offer the defence for that? . |
I assume that you have proof that people have booked after the ABTA/ATOL membership ended? According to Planet Ski, it's not possible to book holidays.
No interest.
Care to use your real name?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I did a 'practice' book on the Alpine Elements website yesterday - it would have allowed me to go ahead (hotel) : Site still claiming to be ATOL/ABTA certified....
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
they are dodgy as hell.... have dealt with them on a business basis and had to black list them...
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@JoeMellor, not sure Dave said that bookings were made, merely that they were solicited. Which, given that the website is still live and apparently offering bookings, is true.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
JoeMellor wrote: |
Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
His past MO has been to overpromise underdeliver with things like a "luxury" offering, undertrained staff, aggressive approach to social media presenting negative reviews etc and this year a total stonewalling on refunds customers were legally entitled to. It's been one of the most complained about ski TOs I've ever known. So yes I can draw my own conclusions based on this as to the intention behind the current phoenixing - more sheep to be shorn |
Ah, ok. So, absolutely nothing to do with the situation that has forced numerous travel operators, large and small over the edge. Enjoy the sheep. |
The point is this - unlike nearly all other tour operators he has not refunded customers their money. The amount concerned is £2.5million. What happened to that money?
On top of that there will be deposits collected on new bookings, collected at a time when the Directors will have known for sure what the plan was! Where is that money?
I haven't read it but he has been pleading on Planet Ski:
Quote: |
ALPINE ELEMENTS LATEST
“I had two options – liquidate and have the business broken up with all my staff losing their jobs, or try to buy the brand, the business and assets back from the administrators so staff can keep their jobs."
The MD of the ski tour operator James Hardiman answers criticism that going into administration and buying back the brand is a ploy to avoid refunding £2.5m to customers whose holidays were cancelled. |
£2.5million is quite a lot of money. It's money that legally has to be protected until the holiday is completed. You can be sure that most suppliers in the alps would not have been paid for services not delivered so WHERE'S THE MONEY?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Another trousering a load of money by not refunding & will walk away from their liabilities to be able to set up again under a new name.
It happens everyday in all walks of business.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
PeakyB wrote: |
What seems even worse to me is that our legal framework appears to allow this kind of deceit and betrayal of customers with impunity. Over and over again. Why??
|
Ok so this is not about AE but more generally. I can see a case generally in society for pre-pack administrations as a means of keeping jobs alive and maintaining the number of competitors in the marketplace. As in the previous owners fail, but someone new is able to pick up the pieces and with some new capital which is at risk for them try to make a go of it again.
The problem is where the pre-pack is sold to the previous owners/managers where there seems to be a clear conflict of interest. If the law allows you to screw over creditors and yet continue essentially the same business with the same owners/managers where is the moral hazard for those original owners? Sure they've lost whatever they had on the balance sheet of the old business but for many SMEs that might be minimal with anything seriously valuable like a property leased in from elsewhere (say personal or connected party ownership). And it is certainly not an implausible possibility that rather than as is often claimed that they have put every effort and last drop of investment into keeping the company going, they've been making sure that they aren't a big creditor when the end end comes and maximising their own personal financial situation. Obviously suppliers they've screwed over in the process might not be so keen to do business with them but a sales a sale to salesmen. And where the other victims are consumers it's not as though a bad rep necessarily gets around too much. It's a stable of Watchdog's Rogue Traders for double glazing/builders/elderly scams etc for a reason.
IMV there should be rules limiting the amount of "ownership" owners, directors (& senior management) of failed businesses can have over phoenix companies to prevent the incentive of using it as a wipe the books clean and carry on tool. This would hopefully ensure there was genuinely new investment coming in (rather than recycling of cash extracted from the old company) and greater diversity of leadership.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
DotM (and others) - this isn't a novel situation. Our insolvency laws have been refined over many years - centuries! - to balance the competing interests of differing stakeholders in failing businesses. It is extremely unlikely that that the framework is wide open to abuse in the way you suggest. Remember also that the protections offered by limited companies are frequently academic to business owners once banks are involved, as personal guarantees / collateral are a fact of life. More info required before conclusions can be drawn...
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
Quote: |
IMV there should be rules limiting the amount of "ownership" owners, directors (& senior management) of failed businesses can have over phoenix companies to prevent the incentive of using it as a wipe the books clean and carry on tool.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
It certainly doesn't smell very good.
The TravelMole link wrote: |
James said he had no choice but to call in the administrators for Alpine Elements Ltd because the company still owes refunds to 2,500 customers whose holidays were cancelled at the end of the last ski season when resorts were forced to close. Under ABTA rules, the refunds had to be paid by the end of January 2021, but Alpine Elements didn't have the money. James said it has yet to receive refunds itself from suppliers including airlines, landlords and catering companies for holidays that didn't go ahead.
"We really thought we could get through this but we needed the money from this year's ski season and when [French] President Macron announced the ski lists wouldn't open we had to finalise the administration," he said. |
So he was planning to use money from this season's holidaymakers to refund last season's, which looks a bit like trading while insolvent.
And he set up the new company (Venture Holidays, using the same properties) last May - so it also looks as though this was all planned at least 6 months ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IanTr wrote: |
DotM (and others) - this isn't a novel situation. Our insolvency laws have been refined over many years - centuries! - to balance the competing interests of differing stakeholders in failing businesses. It is extremely unlikely that that the framework is wide open to abuse in the way you suggest. Remember also that the protections offered by limited companies are frequently academic to business owners once banks are involved, as personal guarantees / collateral are a fact of life. More info required before conclusions can be drawn... |
I would suggest the laws have been refined to suit the needs of the government (HMRC always a preferred creditor) and government again (preserving jobs is always good plus that lovely PAYE lolly) and business interests including investors, practioners and other totally disinterested experts. Not much interest of the consumer being represented - too small, too nebulous. Saying something has been done per the law is all very well but with the corporate veil so easy to use (and yes Mr Hardiman's words are very sloppy with his use of the "company" when he really means "my trade") I'm not convinced that "right" always triumphs.
Maybe a compromise would be for an additional law that said a Phoenix company had to disclose to all potential counterparties "Formal notice : This trade was previously carried on by XXX limited under substantially the same management. XXX Ltd entered into adminisatration on XXXXXX and the cost to unsecured creditors was YYYYYY"
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
So "I struggled to find a buyer pre-administration" but "I sold it to a company I'm director of"
|
|
|
|
|
|