 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Colin B wrote: |
Perhaps the law doesn't allow them to act more quickly, if that's the case the law is an ass  |
As distasteful as this may seem but just maybe and i really do not hope it is true but in the eyes of the law he may not of done anything illegal. Riding a very dodgy bike yes, opinions on this forum yes but illegal that is for others to decide and the devil is in the detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
If the details are accurate on the trip described earlier then he has clearly broken the law, by sending a bunch of under 16's off with no actual information on their destination until they arrived in resort.
Weather he has broken any laws with regard to his financial arrangements however are a different matter entirely.
The trouble is that teh way civil and criminal law works in the UK make life complicated 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
i cant believe this is still going on! More worrying is the fact that deposits are being taken is not good
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
| ... i really do not hope it is true but in the eyes of the law he may not of done anything illegal. |
Schools signed up to his terms and conditions and paid staged deposits and some paid final amounts. They will argue that SE/CR is in breach of contract and I'm certain he'll be arguing that the school is in breach for whatever reason he can argue. So, it's a contractual dispute. Onus is on the school to get this tested in the civil court and, with no cast iron guarantee of winning or getting recompense if they do win, the time and expense of doing so will be prohibitive. He probably wasn't in breach of Package Travel Regulations when he was bonded by AITO so not acting criminally in those cases. He may be in breach now if he hasn't got alternative bonding however. I'm guessing but I'm certain the cops are not interested and I reckon it's a tricky borderline one for trading standards too because he may be acting within the terms that schools signed up to. So, you may indeed be right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Oooo, just got an email from Devon Trading Standards - "the investigation is currently in the hands of the police". Hope the police read this thread and get as angry as I did - hopefully all these kids that have lost their holidays will see some justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Shimmy Alcott, roughly translated "We have washed our hands of it" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope you are wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Shimmy Alcott, roughly translated "We have washed our hands of it" |
I don't quite understand that. If Trading Standards have put it in the hands of the police does that not mean they have identified a case for investigating criminal offences. Is that not a good move?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
ccl, Unfortunately only time will tell, afaik Trading standards have more ability to shutdown Reynard immediately, criminal fraud investigations can take many years meanwhile Reyanrd is still in business it would appear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can well understand everyone's frustration that nothing appears to be happening legally against Reynard/SE, but I suspect everyone is waiting for the courts to give a judgement against one of Reynard/SE's debts. Once there are such judgements it will become a lot easier for criminal prosecutions to be started/injunctions obtained with a view to prosecuting Reynard/SE - and I very much doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service would want to initiate something until the courts have clearly decided that Reynard is in default on his debts, much as we all might like them to do something quicker. Normally, if someone is pursuing a debt they will write a letter demanding repayment within 28 days and it is only after that they will take the matetr to the courts (believe me the courts would be full if everyone applied earlier) - and then you have to get the matetr before the courts. And my guess is that Reynard may well be trying to string the process along - as you might when you are 69 years old and the maximum penalty for fraudulent trading is 10 years in prison. If you look at when judgement is given against debts - it is often 3 to 6 months after the original default even in straightforward cases. HAs anyone heard of anything going to court yet - it sureley cannot be long now.
As for the scout troup - my advice would be to get proper legal advice and be meticulous in noting down everything that SE/Reynard says. If he tries to change the arrangements I would be very careful as to how you respond. You could also ask him how he intends to pay for your holidays when he so patently has failed to pay for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Thank you Stephen. Informative as always. And thanks, boredsurfing too. My question was not a challenge but genuinely out of not understanding: I now see it more clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
maybe the scout group could shed some light on whether or not SE are still offering 'free' preview trips ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, I think you're getting civil and criminal all mashed up together. One is not dependent on the other.
You don't have to wait 28 days you can just issue a writ straight away.
I think what the police and CPS will be interested in is whether he has fraudulently taken money off people and then the big issue will be if the CPS decide that it stands a chance of success if prosecuted (they let a huge amount of financial crime go untried). He'll be arguing its all a civil matter because there were signed contracts in place and that it would be up to a civil court to decide on what those contracts say.
Will anything go to court? Possibly not. If you are a school owed £50k the advice will probably be to firstly seek a compromise (some chance) because the cost of suing for that amount, without any guarantee of winning or being awarded costs if you do win, will outweigh the claim. In other words, a school could easily find itself in a far worse financial position than they are at the moment. Nobody will risk that IMV.
If he's found to be in breach of the Package Travel Regs he probably just faces a fine.
Someone somewhere though really must stop him from trading right now and I can't believe that hasn't happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Someone somewhere though really must stop him from trading right now and I can't believe that hasn't happened. |
exactly !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
they let a huge amount of financial crime go untried
|
Their record for unsuccessful prosecutions is dreadful, it's understandable that they're cautious nowadays, since they've received so much flak for wasting public money on non-winnable cases.
I think I heard about this outfit on some consumer prog on the radio the other week. I wish I'd listened more carefully now, it sounds awful. My sympathies to all who've fallen foul of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
Someone somewhere though really must stop him from trading right now and I can't believe that hasn't happened.
|
But who and/or how? If plod/cps are understandably loathe to get involved in civil contract matters and tradings standards find it difficult and pass it on, (far easier for them to bother with what local means on a pub menu)  who else is there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I'd suspect that it falls beyond the means of Devon plod to nail him for possible fraudulent trading as there's probably a whole forensic accounting exercise to be done to determine the "true" state of affairs so its probably left to child endangerment etc etc. Meanwhile he can muddle on perhaps using next years' mugs to provide the funds to pay off those creditors resilient enough to take legal action and defer the inevitable. What really shocks me about this is how an operator can apparently unilaterally withdraw from bonding without apparent penalty. For those still stupid enough to be booking with him they really ought to learn about basic due dilligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
fatbob, I suspect that as he is still operating that he is still bonded in some manner, if not it is quite a serious breach for him to be operating without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops, I thought AITO had confirmed on the BBC clip that he/SE was no longer bonded although admittedly that article wasn't clear on whether it was a company or a sole trader they were talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
fatbob, the inurance bond need not be with AITO and could be with any other insurance company
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
| who else is there? |
IMV it's down to the trip organiser to be asking the hard questions - buyer beware and all that, the only real protection we all have - ie before the event. When you're booking a group trip for 50 people and you're dealing with the thick end of £50k you need to be asking hard questions. I've just been on to the SE website and there is no mention of bonding or any financial protection and the Ts&Cs seem a bit one sided - deposits are collected very early and seem excessive to me. OK if deposit money is going into a properly set up client account but it doesn't describe how the funds will be held so best assume it all goes to cash-flowing the company. Nor is there any mention of the company's legal status yet there's plenty of room to big up the inspection visits for organiser and family. This brings me to the elephant in the room - we've heard some organisers have been offered inducements (by way of other trips) to make bookings and, this being the real world, one might easily imagine some inspection trips being more lavish or more free than others - let's face it, some buyer/seller relationships can get too cosy and the questions that need to be asked don't get asked because we all know how someone you've skied with can suddenly become your best pal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
Stephen101, I think you're getting civil and criminal all mashed up together. One is not dependent on the other.
You don't have to wait 28 days you can just issue a writ straight away.
|
I agree that the civil and criminal are formally independent of each other - but all I'm saying is that I supect the CPS will want to see some civil judgements for repayment of debts before they take the risk of proceeding in a criminal trial where the burden of proof will (quite rightly) be much higher.
Yes anyone can issue a writ straightaway - but the courts will be more likely to issue a judgement for payment if the normal processes have been gone through first (i.e. demand for payment, solicitors letters etc). As I said debts don't usually reach court that quickly I'm afraid - many deliberately play the game in order to defer payment until the last moment I'm afraid, ask anyone involved in a finance department, and I suspect Reynard has already had more than a little practice in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonding and insurance are two different things - bonding involves placing a deposit based on turnover with a bank/similar. Insurance involves paying a premium to provide cover to creditors/flying home those on holiday in the event of insolvency/bankruptcy. Reynard has the latter and he has cover from the insurance company until his policy runs out. Under the law tour operators such as Reynard are required to have bonding/insurance arrangements in place. AITO/ATOL approve various schemes and they check that there members have sufficient cover to meet the legal requirements - they don't actually rpovide the cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Reynard has the latter and he has cover from the insurance company until his policy runs out.
|
Stephen101, so, you're saying he still can offer protection and be compliant with the law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Reynard has the latter and he has cover from the insurance company until his policy runs out. |
If this is true then surely no insurer will renew his policy (unless at 100% premium) so is it then game over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hmmm. For all we know, the original Feb schools affected did a deal, took a reduced reimbursement in exchange for a gagging clause. As someone said earlier - things get devious and dirty in these matters.
Next, just put yourself in SE shoes for a minute (don't shoot me yet, just playing devils advocate):
You hit cashflow problems after running a business for many years. Something went wrong and you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. It comes to the crunch and you suddenly don't have quite enough cash flow to make the bookings/reservations you need for the half term. Its a mess. You beg for handouts from the client. Some pay their own way in the hope of recompense. Others cancel in a storm of protest. The solicitors get involved. Its all about what is black and white and who breached contract and what exactly was contracted (for example, doesn't the booking form say that SE have the right to change certain details etc etc). Everytime you get a legal letter, you pass it to the solicitors and you start paying legal costs on top of the cashflow issues you have. You get desperate. You look for ways to minimise the damage, exit the business without crashing. You try to switch it to a Limited status - perhaps you back off from that because its too 'obvious' a way to avoid personal liability. So you knuckle down and keep the engines running in the business and try to keep it going.
On the side you have a bunch of armchair lawyers trashing your name and (rightly in their eyes) your business. You cannot defend it publicly because it is in the hands of the solicitor. Trading Standards and the Police come knocking and you show them that you are responding to the 'complaints'. Until any one of those complaints reaches a court and a judgement against you is made, nothing can stop you trading? The worst that can happen is you get caught speeding on the way to work (low hanging fruit theory of policing). As long as he plays the legal game and responds to each 28 day or whatever deadline, nothing happens. Potentially, he has enough cash to occasionally fend off the lions at the 11th hour and make settlements as he goes. In the end, he may be able to fork out a fraction of his liabilities in this way and keep going. Each creditor will cave in the face of running up legal costs (that's the cost of justice problem - only the rich or those on legal aid can fight).
More likely, he will survive in this way, pocket what he has left and retire with a clean sheet, with the exception of Facebook and snowheads. He may take the bookings he has managed to get for 2012 and sell them on to another TO to eek some more.
For all I know, snowheads can be sent a writ for libel, citing damages (is that possible?) just like Private Eye. This thread can be pulled and we will all have to start somewhere else, which we will.
But the lack of fresh information and inside commentary is glaring. Is that because solicitors involved in these cases cannot comment and the school leaders have a day job and have moved on? Or they are gagged. In which case I would invite them to anonymously tell us just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
Quote:
Reynard has the latter and he has cover from the insurance company until his policy runs out.
Stephen101, so, you're saying he still can offer protection and be compliant with the law?
|
Yes - I think so - but as fatbob, notes I suspect any insurer will be looking pretty carefully for reasons (breach of other legal requirements re under 16s/Business Names Act/brochure descriptions ???) as to why Reynards policy may not be renewed/cancelled. Without bonding/insurance Reynard would be unable to operate legally as a tour operator.
I've been looking around and it looks that Devon trading standards passing the case to the Police is likely to be a sign that the investigation is being taken seriously, since Police fraud squads tend to concentrate on the bigger and smellier fish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, "currently in the hands of the police" probably means case sent to the police. It may not mean that the police have accepted it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowjoe,
I think a number of points distinguish Reynard from the usual cases where a company is having genuine commercial difficulties
- Reynard's past record of trading while insolvent and his subsequent disqualification as a director for 5.5 years
- The nature of the business wherby the customer has paid the full amount for the holiday many months in advance
- The lack of openness by Reynard - he changes arrangements at the last moment without telling those involved and with scant regard to the package holiday regulations. He says that arrangements have been made when they haven't. He fails to provde confirmation when asked for by the schools.
- the many inaccuracies and false endorsements in his brochure
- his departure from membership of AITO
- the large numbers who are being given abasolutely nothing despite having paid 100% in full
- difficulties reported in previous years - and the removal of SE from some LEA lists
- reports from instructors re not having been paid, and the lack of involvement by Reynard in dealing with problems as they arise (see the coach driver's last week for example)
- the varying stories from Reynard - commercial/industrial sabotage, schools cancelling contracts, schools not having paid etc. etc.
- there is nothing whatsoever stopping Reynard from defending his business with legal and honest arguments
I am not aware of any schools dropping their claims - and given that most are accountable to the public I very much doubt that they would be able to keep everything quiet - if asked they would certainly have to say that they couldn't comment because of a legal agreement - and I have heard no such feedback so far. I do understand that some are saying nothing because they don't wisj to prejudice any court proceedings - which is absolutely the right thing for them to do. Some will also be somewhat embarassed by having got into this mess in the first place.
I suspect the chances of recovering debts from Reynard are limited - the best route for that would appear to be the insurance company and then the LEAs who but SE on their lists. The reasons for looking into whether Reynard has committed a criminal offence are the usual public interest ones - of seeing justice done and discouraging the crime of fraudulent trading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
achilles,
You may be right - but would Trading Standards want to go public in such cases? Looking at examples of the type of cases Devon Trading standards prosecute for themselves as per their website - SE ceertainly looks like a bigger fish than they usually go for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
But the lack of fresh information and inside commentary is glaring. Is that because solicitors involved in these cases cannot comment and the school leaders have a day job and have moved on? Or they are gagged. In which case I would invite them to anonymously tell us just that.
|
my thoughts too
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
please God the Police make a good case out of this, they cant let someone do this to so many people, so blatantly, and get away with this. What hurts the most is how he is still living his life of luxury
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| Quote: |
But the lack of fresh information and inside commentary is glaring. Is that because solicitors involved in these cases cannot comment and the school leaders have a day job and have moved on? Or they are gagged. In which case I would invite them to anonymously tell us just that.
|
my thoughts too |
Perhaps he has a super-injunction? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
But the lack of fresh information and inside commentary is glaring. Is that because solicitors involved in these cases cannot comment and the school leaders have a day job and have moved on? Or they are gagged. In which case I would invite them to anonymously tell us just that.
my thoughts too
_________________
|
I suspect those who are directly involved are best advised by their solicitors to stay silent so as to not prejudice their cases - especially since there is really no such thing as anonymity on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
time for the schools to stump up soon and give the parents their money back - this is simply dragging on far too long
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rayscoops,
Stop grinding the same old axe - that is a matter between the parents and the schools concerned and I don't hear any parents complaining about the schools on this matter, despite your best efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
I don't hear any parents complaining about the schools on this matter
|
Im not sure that is a fair comment, how many parents do we actually know, not many is my guess, how many are on here again not many, how many are affected, lots and i bet they are not all sat waiting for somebody somewhere to decide to do something about it, my bet is that a large percentage have and are still demanding their money back from the schools.
And as i said earlier and as distatsteful as it is it is still to be PROVEN in a court of law that SE / CR has done anything ILLEGAL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, well what old axe are you grinding ? is it ok for you to say wait untill the schools get the money from SE/CR and no one else have a view or be allowed to comment - news flash here but this is not the Stephen101 thread, this is about parents getting their money back and that message seems to get lost in the 'nail SE/CR' sentiment
The legal process may be flawed and the pot may already be empty, and there are many parents complaining on the links to local newspaper comments etc.
but hang on, wait a minute, we are not supposed to say anything that put a school in a bad light
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Stephen101, - news flash here but this is not the Stephen101 thread, |
Feels like it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
