 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Quote: |
Insurances have most likely been invalidated by CR's actions and ommissions as discussed a few pages ago.
|
That is not the view of AITO who have now stated so twice on the BBC (and on earlier pages) - and I can assure you that they will have looked at this more closely than yourself. |
The view of AiTO was what was expected whilst being interviewed on a radio programme based upon the basic facts. No one asked the lady any specific or difficult questions (and she answered in the widest possible general terms) such as whether cancellations by schools may have technically excused SE/CR of its liability (as intimated by AiTO elsewhere), or such as the situation as pointed out by Wayne that it is highly likely that the Bond in place may well have cop out clause if the bankrutcy is triggered buy the defaults relate to fraudualnt trading or such criminal acts. It seems that CR/SE are now being investigated with respect to fraudualnt trading or such criminal acts so ... well I will leave you make your own judgement ... but we have already been through this scenario.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 26-07-11 7:35; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Quote: |
and settled when the CCJs got issued
|
If a CCJ is showing it means it is an unsatisfied County Court judgement. If you get a County Court judgement against you and you settle it, you don't get a CCJ against your address/company. In reality it should be called a UCCJ, but it isn't. I'm pretty sure that's the way it works. That's why winning in court is only half the battle - you can win and then you have the problem of actually getting the money. |
but if it forces bankruptcy then the Bonds are triggered and someone else pays out, maybe
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
but if it forces bankruptcy then the Bonds are triggered and someone else pays out, maybe
|
and the tax man gets his money first....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I think we are hitting "Groundhog Day" now.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 23-05-11 19:54; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
leedsunited, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Boredsurfing, not sure the taxman does get his money first any more
| Quote: |
| References to Crown preference have been removed. HMRC does not have preferential status in the distribution of the assets of an insolvent estate. The former Departments of Customs & Excise and Inland Revenue both lost preferential status on 15 September 2003 under the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002. At the time of publishing, the Crown still has preferential status in the distribution of the assets of insolvent businesses in Northern Ireland. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leedsunited, really ? is the Bond to pay off all creditors or just those that have lost a holiday ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, Is nothing the same anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I think so, CR has no dosh, there is no money in any of his businesses, the insurance companies will pour over every caveat that will allow them to decline payment and anything that is left will be distributed with i am afraid customers refunds at the end of a very long que. Tell me something that has not already been discussed, everything that can be done has been suggested but it is all heading to the same conclusion - Zilch sponduleys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
rayscoops, I think so, CR has no dosh, there is no money in any of his businesses, the insurance companies will pour over every caveat that will allow them to decline payment and anything that is left will be distributed with i am afraid customers refunds at the end of a very long que. Tell me something that has not already been discussed, everything that can be done has been suggested but it is all heading to the same conclusion - Zilch sponduleys.
|
So that is your considered view - fortunately it is not held by the AiTO spokesperson, who made it clear that they had looked into the insurance arrangements (not bonding in this case) nor is it held by some of the lawyers who have been looking into the matter. I'll leave others to decide whether to believe those who have looked at the details or others who have had no such access. As has been said groundhog day. If you repaet speculation it is still speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
fortunately it is not held by the AiTO spokesperson, who made it clear that they had looked into the insurance arrangements
|
Yes but was the mention of insurance just a cursory statement, did they mention or discuss his policy in detail?
If the conditions of the insurance policy has in anyway been compromised then will it not become null and void?
I am sure somebody mentioned that if it was found that he was operating frauduently then his insurance policy would not be worth the paper it was written on.
Insurance policy aside and with regards to list of creditors these can only be paid from assests that are recovered from the business, if we are to believe what has been mentioned here on many occasions he has none and even if he did what makes you think that parents refunds will be top of the list? achilles, mentions that HMRC do not have first divvy by right anymore and that may be the case but in reality and with past experience it is not always reality.
So if SE or CR has no assets i think the only real way for any parents to get money back is via the insurance policy and knowing how they operate when it comes to settling claims it is not something IMO that i would care to pin my hat on if I was in your shoes.
I really want you and other parents to get your hard earned cah back but just not sure in this whole mess with the exception of the LEA's / schools refunding exactly how it is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I really don't see that many parents who actually lost money commenting on here (one or two)? Considering someone estimated 600+ kids, that's up to 1000 parents who I would have thought would be looking at blogs forums like this. Its not hard to register and comment. I'd expect comments like "my school tells me they are pursuing the money through the courts" or "my school tells me there isn't a snowball in hell's chance, sorry".
And on the bonding - when I book with a TO that has bonding... surely my deposit is funding the bond premium and it is me that is covered in the event the TO goes bust. That's the point. It is the end customer that gets the payout, not the TO. So I don't see how if the Insurance Company providing the Bond got paid and took on the cover, they can claim they were conned if the TO turns out to be fraudulent - maybe they should have their own insurance for that! Not my problem. It'd be stupid if a customer has to consider the Ts&Cs of so called Bond arrangements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes but was the mention of insurance just a cursory statement, did they mention or discuss his policy in detail?
|
No - there was a discussion about the circumstances in which the insurance paid up i.e in the even of the sole trader being declared bankrupt. The AiTO spokesman repeated her assertion that all those who lost money would be repaid. The insurance is a legal requirment in the event of the TO becoming insolvent/bankrupt - whatever the cause. AiTO say that they have checked that the legal cover was in place.
Some schools either do not have the funds to repay - or the funds that they have cannot legally be used for such a purpose, and travel agents are generally not liable for events which are beyond their control, so even your desired route of parents attacking the schools/LEAs for recovery may not be as well advised as you clearly think it is.
I will take my advice as to the best manner to proceed from those with legal expertise and those who have had access to Reynard and the insurer. I would advise others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
I will take my advice as to the best manner to proceed from those with legal expertise and those who have had access to Reynard and the insurer. I would advise others to do the same.
|
Does that mean that we can now assume this thread to be closed. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
leedsunited,
You can assume whatever you want as you always do anyway - just remember "comment is free facts are sacred" as your least favourite newspaper says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Stephen101, And opinions are like "ar*eholes" everybody has got one!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
in regards to insurance, i may have a copy of the insurance documentation if that would be helpful to anyone. im sure they probably used the same as last years. I wouldnt hold out too much hope on them being helpful though. they may not have been paid either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Togger, I would be very interested in looking at the T&C's if it is the same policy as that used in this instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Togger,
One of the things that AITO say they do is check that members have insurance/bonding in place that complies with the legal requirements. AITO confirmed in the BBC programmes that they had checked that such insurance was in place (supplier failure insurance in this case) for those who booked with Reynard while he was an AiTO Member. AmTrust (formerly IGI) have also confimred to me and others directly that such insurance was in place).
It is probably fair to assume that the standard terms os AmTrust's supplier failure insurance meets the legal requirements (since they are one of the major insurers in this market) and that the AiTO did check that the cover was in properly in place, before making their announcement on Radio 4 - although others will I daresay have different views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowjoe wrote: |
I really don't see that many parents who actually lost money commenting on here (one or two)?
And on the bonding - . |
Bonding - AiTo's self regulation of the TOs clearly has not worked. Nothing has changed to improve their standards so it can happen again. I demonstrated 3 areas where SE did not meet the AITO membership criteria; their response was arrogant and dismissive. The TO pays for AITO to exist and AITO regulate them that pay - in my book its just too cosy.
News! I'm one of those parents that got scammed and have an appointment with the Police - she called me. I will post more about this after Friday assuming it is useful to others. Although I won't bother if I've been nicked for speeding on the piste!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
noskitrip, brill news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noskitrip,
I agree with you on AiTO regarding their initial reaction - I received the same irritating fob offs, but I do thing things have improved somewhat of late as they realised how this affair might reflect on the whole industry,
AiTO and ABTA need to be careful as they were given powers to approve certain bonding and insurance arrangements under the Package Holiday regs - if they fail to self regulate they know very well what the next step would be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noskitrip, With regards to AiTO you have nothing to worry about.
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
The AiTO spokesman repeated her assertion that all those who lost money would be repaid
|
All the very best with the Police interview and keep us informed
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Real news indeed. Cogs turning, albeit slowly.
btw - no interest received from Watchdog AFAICS. Website still on hold. Forum egos still alive and well 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Website back today. Can't see that much changed if anything. I don't see anything about Bonding or Insurance anywhere - is that legal?
What happened to this thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
| Togger, I would be very interested in looking at the T&C's if it is the same policy as that used in this instance. |
ill try and dig it out for you 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowjoe wrote: |
Website back today. Can't see that much changed if anything. I don't see anything about Bonding or Insurance anywhere - is that legal?
What happened to this thread? |
When i saw it there was mention of bonding and insurance, it has changed a bit - but not as much as it needed to!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Doubt it, but those ski outfits are as old as foxy himself
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Looks like the .net domain s owned by a domain name hosting company - they just stick a few half useful pages on it so that it shows up in some searches and hope that someone wants to buy it... ideally the owner of the .com address! Somehow I don't think CR or anyone else wants it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
It is of no surprise that Reynard is still not in court.
Unless parents recover money from the schools/LEAs, I doubt he ever will be. There is too much leeway in his defence to a case by a parent that the default was caused by the school cancelling.
As for Reynard going skint and this triggering a bond payout, unless he is taken to court by all of the people who paid him money, he is far from skint.
I think he has got away with it.
Until he is in court, he definitely has got away with it and is living a nice life with the money he has already trousered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
There is too much leeway in his defence to a case by a parent that the default was caused by the school cancelling.
Until he is in court, he definitely has got away with it and is living a nice life with the money he has already trousered. |
He doesn't really need a defence until he's in court, unless he's seriously still trying to defend new business, but it seems hard to make the logic work that he defaulted on bookings because schools who'd already paid upfront cancelled hence why the BBC refers to his claims that schools were in arrears.
Sad thing is I bet that there are some parents out there & schools that have already committed deposits for next year despite all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
I bet that there are some parents out there & schools that have already committed deposits for next year despite all this.
|
fatbob,And some who have probably and unfortunately put the whole thing down as a bad experience and moved on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
bar shaker, Since Radio 4 there is more activity than in all the previous weeks. What this amounts to is yet to be seen as the cost of court is far outstripping the money to be recouped. So it would need public action to do this as the insurers are running to the hills, the individual schools cant afford it and a class action is almost out of the question.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Mon 6-06-11 9:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Bode Swiller on 21April wrote: |
| Haven't read all of this thoroughly but I think Reynard has got away with it. If it is fraud, it isn't a big enough fraud and, in any case, there's a question over whether all this is a civil matter - mad I know but the CPS let a lot of seemingly "nailed-on" cases go untried. SFO aren't interested below seven zeros. Basically he didn't take any one person for a lot of money and he didn't bash any old ladies over the head. So I reckon he'll avoid the attentions of the criminal court. His business is finished (presumably) so Trading Standards are a blunt instrument. He sounds like a determined, unashamed, wiley old fox and he'll be very difficult to pin down and even harder to extract money from should anyone sue him and win. The media have already forgotton all about it, this thread will begin to disappear and that'll leave a lot of parents and schools (depending on who takes the fall) out of pocket and a ton of disappointed kids (who'll get over it). There will be a lot of blame shifting between schools and LAs but, in the end, people will write off their loss and move on because that's probably the only way ahead. Just a personal view, I hope it's a different outcome but I think he's got away with it. |
| noskitrip on 27 May wrote: |
| bar shaker, He must think he has got away with £1/2m. Since Radio 4 there is more activity than in all the previous weeks. What this amounts to is yet to be seen as the cost of court is far outstripping the money to be recouped. So it would need public action to do this as the insurers are running to the hills, the individual schools cant afford it and a class action is almost out of the question. |
So, over a month on, you are drifting into agreement with Bode Swiller. Those of us who have been here a while have realised that BS knows the skiing trade, and is streetwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think you would find that if all the schools/LEAs had given up chasing Reynard through the courts you would have heard rather more from disgruntled parents who haven't been repaid and from others wth an interest (e.g. governors, ex employees). Those LEAs which have paid/underwitten school repayments are also public bodies and cannot give up the chase without some justification. Unfortunately getting things into court takes longer than you think - and I suspect that Reynard is something of a past master in playing the delaying game and responding to solicitors letters and demands for repayment. Look at how long it took to wind up Howglen Ltd his previous operation - much as we all might like to see justice done quickly it just doesn't work that way.
Don't be fooled Mr Reynard those that matter are still thinking about you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get a speeding ticket and ignore it, you will be in jail inside a year! With a big bill to pay. Because there is a process and its low hanging fruit to pursue you. Walk away with hundreds of thousands of pounds and the law doesn't get you? I don't get it.
You may be right that public action may work - but the folks that appear on Rogue Trader do not very often pay back anything either. They are just named and shamed. Would CR care about that if it happened? At 69 I doubt it. (I doubt it at 49 either)
Our school paid twice for the ski trip, but I have no idea if they are chasing the original SE money or have written it off, or had some other magic insurance backing they claimed on. And I don't see many comments on here with any knowledge about what their schools are up to either? Everyone is keeping what they have close to their chests and just watching. Eventually it will all die off, unless more people find this thread and start sharing their actual situation and if they are aware what is going on.
Perhaps there will be an update from the police interview today soon. Maybe CR will get a speeding ticket. Karma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is 70 now, you missed his birthday in April.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, I completely agree.
The mass inaction in this (Stephen101 assured us it was just the schools getting their legal case sorted and this wasn't to be hurried) is not surprising. Why would the schools bother to sue when they are not actually the ones out of pocket?
Parents are sitting around thinking the schools are doing something, schools are only a few weeks away from the summer holidays and are hoping the parents forget about this as it will definitely be too late by September and Reynard is busy spending all the money.
Were I one of the parents concerned, I would have my small claims court summons winging its way to the school, probably timed to arrive around the first week of July. I would not care if the school could afford it or not, as the incompetence shown in the initial TO selection and in the lack of action since is quite breathtaking. It is probably the lack of action since, when they had the chance to put things right, that is the most staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
