Farepak payment ‘misleading’ - Newport campaigner

'MISLEADING': Newport councillor and Farepak campaigner Debbie Harvey

'MISLEADING': Newport councillor and Farepak campaigner Debbie Harvey

First published in News

A CAMPAIGNER said an announcement that victims of Farepak will have got around half their money back after a payment next month is misleading.

Liquidators BDO has said victims of the collapse of the Christmas savings scheme will have received around 50p in the pound after it pays a divident to creditors.

But former Farepak agent and Newport city councillor Debbie Harvey said that is misleading, with 17.5p of the 50p having come from a charity.

The Farepak Response Fund aimed to deliver vouchers to victims at Christmas 2006, following the collapse of the company. The rest – 32p in the pound – will be made in a payment to 114,000 Farepak creditors next month, BDO said.

It comes after Lloyds Banking Group, whose subsidiary HBOS was recently criticised by a High Court judge over the affairs, made an £8 million payment to be distributed to customers and agents by the liquidators.

“They’re going to make my job a lot harder. They are saying they are getting half of their money back. They are not,” said Cllr Harvey.

She said she has already been called by one victim who thought that was the case.

Cllr Harvey, who is secretary of the Farepak Victims Committee, added: “How can they mislead people?”

Cllr Harvey is to raise the issue with Vince Cable, secretary of state for business, when she and Newport East MP Jessica Morden meet him tomorrow.

She will also push for regulations around pre-payment schemes to be tightened up so the Farepak disaster can never happen again.

A spokeswoman for BDO said it had been very clear in its announcement.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:26pm Wed 11 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Suzy Hall of the victim group, Unfairpak, rightly sees this as a good result - unsecured creditors ususlly receive no dividend as a consequence of insolvency!
Suzy Hall of the victim group, Unfairpak, rightly sees this as a good result - unsecured creditors ususlly receive no dividend as a consequence of insolvency! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Thu 12 Jul 12

DEBS1 says...

SUZY HALL HAS MADE A HABIT OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE GETTING 50P WHEN THE REALITY IS 13P FROM BDO AND 19P FROM LLOYDS BANK = 32P THAT MEANS ON £100 YOU WILL GET £32 BACK THIS WAS MADE CLEAR TO HER TODAY AT A MEETING IN LONDON WHICH MYSELF AND LOUISE WHERE THERE AS WE SET IT UP. IF YOU CARE TO TAKE A LOOK ON 'FAREPAK' WEBSITE YOU WILL SEE THAT BDO HAVE REALISED THE MISINTERPRETATION AND THEY HAVE RECTIFIED IT WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE AS I JUST GAVE. IF YOU WERE A CUSTOMER AND YOUR AGENT TOLD YOU YOU WERE GETTING £32 PER HUNDRED BUT THE REPORT FROM SUZY SAID 50P PER £ WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO YOUR AGENT????
SUZY HALL HAS MADE A HABIT OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE GETTING 50P WHEN THE REALITY IS 13P FROM BDO AND 19P FROM LLOYDS BANK = 32P THAT MEANS ON £100 YOU WILL GET £32 BACK THIS WAS MADE CLEAR TO HER TODAY AT A MEETING IN LONDON WHICH MYSELF AND LOUISE WHERE THERE AS WE SET IT UP. IF YOU CARE TO TAKE A LOOK ON 'FAREPAK' WEBSITE YOU WILL SEE THAT BDO HAVE REALISED THE MISINTERPRETATION AND THEY HAVE RECTIFIED IT WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE AS I JUST GAVE. IF YOU WERE A CUSTOMER AND YOUR AGENT TOLD YOU YOU WERE GETTING £32 PER HUNDRED BUT THE REPORT FROM SUZY SAID 50P PER £ WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO YOUR AGENT???? DEBS1
  • Score: 0

12:05am Fri 13 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Any dividend payable to an unsecured creditor ought to be welcomed; however I would ask the company's agent to make good my loss because the agent receives a commission on each transaction. Loved the BLOCK CAPITALS - ears still ringing!
Any dividend payable to an unsecured creditor ought to be welcomed; however I would ask the company's agent to make good my loss because the agent receives a commission on each transaction. Loved the BLOCK CAPITALS - ears still ringing! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Fri 13 Jul 12

unfairpak says...

Suzy normally posts under Unfairpak but I have decided to post after reading the defamatory statement one again made by COUNCILLOR Deborah Harvey regarding Suzy Hall.

What Suzy said was

Suzy Hall, national co-ordinator for campaign group Unfairpak, hailed today's announcement as a victory.

She said: "To think we started in 2006 with zero. To finally be able to pay out an extra 32p is a fantastic result. Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won."

Unfairpak have won and Suzy has won. She is an upstanding pillar of the community and a very genuine, decent, hardworking, caring and loving person who has devoted 6 long hard years of her life (completely voluntary) to being Unfairpak's spokesperson and demanding justice.

If it were not for her hard work and determination aided with us here on Unfairpak 32 pence in the £ would never have happened.

Where on earth would you hear of receiving a total of 32 pence back in a liquidation. Unfairpak challenge you on that Deborah.

Suzy has never faltered. She has worked long hours and even put her own health at risk for the Farepak cause.

Constantly you make defamatory allegations about her. Given her position in society, Unfairpak will be advising her to look at a possible defamation case against you as it is simply awful the things you have said about her.

Cantankerous, thank you. Over 400 people have been in contact with Unfairpak and we have been working extremely hard. Those 400 people are completely clear they are receiving 32 pence and are happy. I can confirm that the night before Suzy went to meet Vince Cable which was a meeting arrange by Yvonne Fovargue for herself, Suzy and Ian McCartney, Suzy worked until 1.30 a.m. answering emails and then got out of her bed at 5 a.m. to head to the airport. It was also her daughter's 13th birthday yesterday and yet Suzy still went to London and then rushed home to spend time with her daughter.

Unfairpak have taken notes of many defamatory statements you have made about Suzy and this is not a threat Deborah, this is a promise. We will urge her to seek a defamation case against you!
Suzy normally posts under Unfairpak but I have decided to post after reading the defamatory statement one again made by COUNCILLOR Deborah Harvey regarding Suzy Hall. What Suzy said was Suzy Hall, national co-ordinator for campaign group Unfairpak, hailed today's announcement as a victory. She said: "To think we started in 2006 with zero. To finally be able to pay out an extra 32p is a fantastic result. Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won." Unfairpak have won and Suzy has won. She is an upstanding pillar of the community and a very genuine, decent, hardworking, caring and loving person who has devoted 6 long hard years of her life (completely voluntary) to being Unfairpak's spokesperson and demanding justice. If it were not for her hard work and determination aided with us here on Unfairpak 32 pence in the £ would never have happened. Where on earth would you hear of receiving a total of 32 pence back in a liquidation. Unfairpak challenge you on that Deborah. Suzy has never faltered. She has worked long hours and even put her own health at risk for the Farepak cause. Constantly you make defamatory allegations about her. Given her position in society, Unfairpak will be advising her to look at a possible defamation case against you as it is simply awful the things you have said about her. Cantankerous, thank you. Over 400 people have been in contact with Unfairpak and we have been working extremely hard. Those 400 people are completely clear they are receiving 32 pence and are happy. I can confirm that the night before Suzy went to meet Vince Cable which was a meeting arrange by Yvonne Fovargue for herself, Suzy and Ian McCartney, Suzy worked until 1.30 a.m. answering emails and then got out of her bed at 5 a.m. to head to the airport. It was also her daughter's 13th birthday yesterday and yet Suzy still went to London and then rushed home to spend time with her daughter. Unfairpak have taken notes of many defamatory statements you have made about Suzy and this is not a threat Deborah, this is a promise. We will urge her to seek a defamation case against you! unfairpak
  • Score: 0

9:23pm Fri 13 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

I do not know Suzy Hall personally but what I do know is that she has been the face of the campaign for victims of Farepak since 2006.

She is an eloquent, pretty young lady and I am wondering if there is a case of jealousy going on here?

I firmly believe she was quite right to state that "32 pence was fantastic......"! As Unfairpak have asked you Deborah, what do you expect from a liquidation? I would suggest a lesson in research of insolvency cases and you may wish to retract your statement.

However, if it is true (and based on the obvious inacurrate statement you have made above) that Unfairpak have copies of defamatory statements, I would also urge Suzy to seek a defamation case against you and as I say, I do not even know her.

Cantankerous, I would suggest ear plugs, my ears are ringing also.

Suzy, I should imagine you will read this given that your site has posted. I would recommend you see a solicitor and have a chat. Keep doing what you do best along with your team and that is, in my opinion, everything. After all, has Councillor Harvey ever written an article for the Times and had it published?
I do not know Suzy Hall personally but what I do know is that she has been the face of the campaign for victims of Farepak since 2006. She is an eloquent, pretty young lady and I am wondering if there is a case of jealousy going on here? I firmly believe she was quite right to state that "32 pence was fantastic......"! As Unfairpak have asked you Deborah, what do you expect from a liquidation? I would suggest a lesson in research of insolvency cases and you may wish to retract your statement. However, if it is true (and based on the obvious inacurrate statement you have made above) that Unfairpak have copies of defamatory statements, I would also urge Suzy to seek a defamation case against you and as I say, I do not even know her. Cantankerous, I would suggest ear plugs, my ears are ringing also. Suzy, I should imagine you will read this given that your site has posted. I would recommend you see a solicitor and have a chat. Keep doing what you do best along with your team and that is, in my opinion, everything. After all, has Councillor Harvey ever written an article for the Times and had it published? Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Fri 13 Jul 12

DEBS1 says...

Hi Everyone its only me how are we tonight...........ri
ght where do I begin. First and formost I have never slandered anyone and I too have kept copies of every slanderous as you call it remark about others and myself from unfairpak site. we are never going to agree on anything because we want different things if you think a whitch hunt will make me head for the hill think again. cantankerous saying that the agents should repay what was taken by a firm is rediculous where on earth would you get that from? As for your ears ringing haha sorry about that caps lock was stuck. Unfairpak I have had many articles I have written posted in not only the Financial Times but the Guardian and Wales on Sunday. But I am at a loss as to why when Suzy was less than 1 foot away from me and presented with the article which she said: Suzy Hall, national campaign co-ordinator of victim group Unfairpak, said the final payout was a good result. "This is a much better outcome than we expected – to get 50p overall when we started with nothing in the pot, and then just 4p for every £1. I'm extremely happy." The Independant "Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won." whoops there it is again!!This Is Money 'Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believes we have won.'

Read more: http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/money/news/
article-2171421/Fant
astic-result-Farepak
-customers-receive-h
alf-money-September.
html#ixzz20XRqjXgB
OH man its there again how come everyone got the wrong end of the stick hmmmmm. As for working voluntarily for the last 6 years hello so has mostly every other agent, I have campaigned for 6 years also however I have never asked for a stamp and most certainly never asked for a minimum of £10 donation to keep unfarepak website open. people have lost enough. I have always campaigned as Mrs Harvey not Councillor as the 2 have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. But thanks for calling me councillor its really rather nice :) This is an assassination of my character I would say comes under defamation of character however by next week I will know as I see my brief on Monday. Thanks a lot ladies and gents I have filed all this with the rest however it is getting boring haven't you got anyone else to bully yawn because computer tough guy is as bad as telephone tough guy hahahahahahahaha nite nite
Hi Everyone its only me how are we tonight...........ri ght where do I begin. First and formost I have never slandered anyone and I too have kept copies of every slanderous as you call it remark about others and myself from unfairpak site. we are never going to agree on anything because we want different things if you think a whitch hunt will make me head for the hill think again. cantankerous saying that the agents should repay what was taken by a firm is rediculous where on earth would you get that from? As for your ears ringing haha sorry about that caps lock was stuck. Unfairpak I have had many articles I have written posted in not only the Financial Times but the Guardian and Wales on Sunday. But I am at a loss as to why when Suzy was less than 1 foot away from me and presented with the article which she said: Suzy Hall, national campaign co-ordinator of victim group Unfairpak, said the final payout was a good result. "This is a much better outcome than we expected – to get 50p overall when we started with nothing in the pot, and then [were offered] just 4p for every £1. I'm extremely happy." The Independant "Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won." whoops there it is again!!This Is Money 'Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believes we have won.' Read more: http://www.thisismon ey.co.uk/money/news/ article-2171421/Fant astic-result-Farepak -customers-receive-h alf-money-September. html#ixzz20XRqjXgB OH man its there again how come everyone got the wrong end of the stick hmmmmm. As for working voluntarily for the last 6 years hello so has mostly every other agent, I have campaigned for 6 years also however I have never asked for a stamp and most certainly never asked for a minimum of £10 donation to keep unfarepak website open. people have lost enough. I have always campaigned as Mrs Harvey not Councillor as the 2 have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. But thanks for calling me councillor its really rather nice :) This is an assassination of my character I would say comes under defamation of character however by next week I will know as I see my brief on Monday. Thanks a lot ladies and gents I have filed all this with the rest however it is getting boring haven't you got anyone else to bully yawn because computer tough guy is as bad as telephone tough guy hahahahahahahaha nite nite DEBS1
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Fri 13 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

The only "assassination" of character that is clear on this thread is your's towards Suzy Hall.

I would be very interested to read your articles that you have written for the Financial Times and the Guardian. Could you point me in the correct direction?

All the articles that I have read have clearly stated "an extra 32 pence in £......". Please post factual statements.
The only "assassination" of character that is clear on this thread is your's towards Suzy Hall. I would be very interested to read your articles that you have written for the Financial Times and the Guardian. Could you point me in the correct direction? All the articles that I have read have clearly stated "an extra 32 pence in £......". Please post factual statements. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Fri 13 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

The Farepak bosses were no match for ‘little people’ like usFarepak savers were prudent.
They planned ahead to avoid debts



Suzy Hall
February 17 2011 12:01AM
On October 13, 2006, some 123,000 people had Christmas ripped from their hands when Farepak went into administration, taking with it £40 million of savers’ money. I was one of them. My family lost £1,000, but others fared even worse.

But at long last, all of us who, month after month, deposited our money with the Christmas hamper company might have something to celebrate. This week, the Insolvency Service began formal disqualification proceedings against nine former Farepak directors. These people are not fit to run a company; they deserve to be struck off.

The campaign group Unfairpak has fought continuously to have the directors brought to account for their incompetent, greedy, selfish and irresponsible actions. I firmly believe that the directors did not expect for one second that there would be an uprising of savers calling for justice. But now we can say that the voices of the “little people” have made a difference.

On August 23, 2006, the shares of European Home Retail, the parent company of Farepak, were suspended. Despite this obvious sign that the company was in serious trouble, the Farepak directors continued to take customers’ money — and ultimately the Christmases of thousands of children. Knowing that some of the directors must have been aware that Farepak was facing liquidation makes us savers feel even more that we were regarded with utter contempt by them.

During the weeks after the collapse, while Farepak savers were worrying about how we were going to pay for our families’ presents, we were subjected to images on TV and in the papers of the directors leaving their million-pound homes, even jetting off on luxury holidays. But the portrayal of savers as simply “poor people” or “financially illiterate” was wrong. Farepak savers were prudent. They planned ahead in order to avoid debts at Christmas. Despite this prudence, at the moment we are to get back no more than 15p for every £1 lost, although we hope that figure will rise.

The outcry over politicians’ expenses and bankers’ bonuses shows that society is no longer willing to sit back and let the “fat cats” get away with it any more. We are becoming a classless, less deferential society and the Farepak fightback is another example of how the voices of the “little people” will be heard. If any good can come from the debacle, this could be it. This week a loud message has been sent: no one is above the law and, though it may take time, justice will prevail.

Suzy Hall is national campaign co-ordinator of Unfairpak
The Farepak bosses were no match for ‘little people’ like usFarepak savers were prudent. They planned ahead to avoid debts Suzy Hall February 17 2011 12:01AM On October 13, 2006, some 123,000 people had Christmas ripped from their hands when Farepak went into administration, taking with it £40 million of savers’ money. I was one of them. My family lost £1,000, but others fared even worse. But at long last, all of us who, month after month, deposited our money with the Christmas hamper company might have something to celebrate. This week, the Insolvency Service began formal disqualification proceedings against nine former Farepak directors. These people are not fit to run a company; they deserve to be struck off. The campaign group Unfairpak has fought continuously to have the directors brought to account for their incompetent, greedy, selfish and irresponsible actions. I firmly believe that the directors did not expect for one second that there would be an uprising of savers calling for justice. But now we can say that the voices of the “little people” have made a difference. On August 23, 2006, the shares of European Home Retail, the parent company of Farepak, were suspended. Despite this obvious sign that the company was in serious trouble, the Farepak directors continued to take customers’ money — and ultimately the Christmases of thousands of children. Knowing that some of the directors must have been aware that Farepak was facing liquidation makes us savers feel even more that we were regarded with utter contempt by them. During the weeks after the collapse, while Farepak savers were worrying about how we were going to pay for our families’ presents, we were subjected to images on TV and in the papers of the directors leaving their million-pound homes, even jetting off on luxury holidays. But the portrayal of savers as simply “poor people” or “financially illiterate” was wrong. Farepak savers were prudent. They planned ahead in order to avoid debts at Christmas. Despite this prudence, at the moment we are to get back no more than 15p for every £1 lost, although we hope that figure will rise. The outcry over politicians’ expenses and bankers’ bonuses shows that society is no longer willing to sit back and let the “fat cats” get away with it any more. We are becoming a classless, less deferential society and the Farepak fightback is another example of how the voices of the “little people” will be heard. If any good can come from the debacle, this could be it. This week a loud message has been sent: no one is above the law and, though it may take time, justice will prevail. Suzy Hall is national campaign co-ordinator of Unfairpak Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Fri 13 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

As I asked previously, could you point me in the direction of the articles you have written Mrs Harvey as I would be interested to read them.
As I asked previously, could you point me in the direction of the articles you have written Mrs Harvey as I would be interested to read them. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

12:07am Mon 16 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

DEBS1 wrote:
Hi Everyone its only me how are we tonight...........ri

ght where do I begin. First and formost I have never slandered anyone and I too have kept copies of every slanderous as you call it remark about others and myself from unfairpak site. we are never going to agree on anything because we want different things if you think a whitch hunt will make me head for the hill think again. cantankerous saying that the agents should repay what was taken by a firm is rediculous where on earth would you get that from? As for your ears ringing haha sorry about that caps lock was stuck. Unfairpak I have had many articles I have written posted in not only the Financial Times but the Guardian and Wales on Sunday. But I am at a loss as to why when Suzy was less than 1 foot away from me and presented with the article which she said: Suzy Hall, national campaign co-ordinator of victim group Unfairpak, said the final payout was a good result. "This is a much better outcome than we expected – to get 50p overall when we started with nothing in the pot, and then just 4p for every £1. I'm extremely happy." The Independant "Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won." whoops there it is again!!This Is Money 'Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believes we have won.'

Read more: http://www.thisismon

ey.co.uk/money/news/

article-2171421/Fant

astic-result-Farepak

-customers-receive-h

alf-money-September.

html#ixzz20XRqjXgB
OH man its there again how come everyone got the wrong end of the stick hmmmmm. As for working voluntarily for the last 6 years hello so has mostly every other agent, I have campaigned for 6 years also however I have never asked for a stamp and most certainly never asked for a minimum of £10 donation to keep unfarepak website open. people have lost enough. I have always campaigned as Mrs Harvey not Councillor as the 2 have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. But thanks for calling me councillor its really rather nice :) This is an assassination of my character I would say comes under defamation of character however by next week I will know as I see my brief on Monday. Thanks a lot ladies and gents I have filed all this with the rest however it is getting boring haven't you got anyone else to bully yawn because computer tough guy is as bad as telephone tough guy hahahahahahahaha nite nite
Simple DEBS1 - the agents were agents of Farepak and not agents of Farepak's customers. In short, the commission paid by Farepak to their agents was taken into account when determining the prices to be paid by the customers. Ideally all agents would return to the Liquidator commissions received as they, the agents, have profited from the customers' misfortune. The last line of your comment (hahahaha........) epitomises wholly your position.
[quote][p][bold]DEBS1[/bold] wrote: Hi Everyone its only me how are we tonight...........ri ght where do I begin. First and formost I have never slandered anyone and I too have kept copies of every slanderous as you call it remark about others and myself from unfairpak site. we are never going to agree on anything because we want different things if you think a whitch hunt will make me head for the hill think again. cantankerous saying that the agents should repay what was taken by a firm is rediculous where on earth would you get that from? As for your ears ringing haha sorry about that caps lock was stuck. Unfairpak I have had many articles I have written posted in not only the Financial Times but the Guardian and Wales on Sunday. But I am at a loss as to why when Suzy was less than 1 foot away from me and presented with the article which she said: Suzy Hall, national campaign co-ordinator of victim group Unfairpak, said the final payout was a good result. "This is a much better outcome than we expected – to get 50p overall when we started with nothing in the pot, and then [were offered] just 4p for every £1. I'm extremely happy." The Independant "Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believe we have won." whoops there it is again!!This Is Money 'Never in my wildest imagination did I think we would get back 50p in the pound. Unfairpak believes we have won.' Read more: http://www.thisismon ey.co.uk/money/news/ article-2171421/Fant astic-result-Farepak -customers-receive-h alf-money-September. html#ixzz20XRqjXgB OH man its there again how come everyone got the wrong end of the stick hmmmmm. As for working voluntarily for the last 6 years hello so has mostly every other agent, I have campaigned for 6 years also however I have never asked for a stamp and most certainly never asked for a minimum of £10 donation to keep unfarepak website open. people have lost enough. I have always campaigned as Mrs Harvey not Councillor as the 2 have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. But thanks for calling me councillor its really rather nice :) This is an assassination of my character I would say comes under defamation of character however by next week I will know as I see my brief on Monday. Thanks a lot ladies and gents I have filed all this with the rest however it is getting boring haven't you got anyone else to bully yawn because computer tough guy is as bad as telephone tough guy hahahahahahahaha nite nite[/p][/quote]Simple DEBS1 - the agents were agents of Farepak and not agents of Farepak's customers. In short, the commission paid by Farepak to their agents was taken into account when determining the prices to be paid by the customers. Ideally all agents would return to the Liquidator commissions received as they, the agents, have profited from the customers' misfortune. The last line of your comment (hahahaha........) epitomises wholly your position. Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian.

If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.
I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian. If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Charlie1969 wrote:
I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian.

If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.
It isn't going to happen Charlie1969!
[quote][p][bold]Charlie1969[/bold] wrote: I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian. If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.[/p][/quote]It isn't going to happen Charlie1969! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Charlie1969 wrote:
I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian.

If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.
It isn't going to happen Charlie1969!
Unfortunately, I think you are correct Cantankerous!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie1969[/bold] wrote: I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian. If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.[/p][/quote]It isn't going to happen Charlie1969![/p][/quote]Unfortunately, I think you are correct Cantankerous! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Charlie1969 wrote:
I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian.

If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.
It isn't going to happen Charlie1969!
http://www.southwale
sargus.co.uk/news/98
19903.Government_min
ister_Vince_Cable_me
ets_Newport_Fairpak_
hamper_campaigners/

Reading the Unfairpak site, I believe it should be pointed out that they appear to have been extremely factual, quoting people in attendance, matters raised and by whom in their report regarding the meeting with Dr Cable!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie1969[/bold] wrote: I am still very interested in reading the articles that you have written for the Financial Times and Guardian. If you could point me in the correct direction, I would be very grateful.[/p][/quote]It isn't going to happen Charlie1969![/p][/quote]http://www.southwale sargus.co.uk/news/98 19903.Government_min ister_Vince_Cable_me ets_Newport_Fairpak_ hamper_campaigners/ Reading the Unfairpak site, I believe it should be pointed out that they appear to have been extremely factual, quoting people in attendance, matters raised and by whom in their report regarding the meeting with Dr Cable! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Mon 16 Jul 12

DEBS1 says...

I have been campaigning for nearly 6 years trying my hardest to get justice and FULL REFUNDS of EVERYONE'S savings. What is your problem?
I have been campaigning for nearly 6 years trying my hardest to get justice and FULL REFUNDS of EVERYONE'S savings. What is your problem? DEBS1
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Mon 16 Jul 12

DEBS1 says...

Sorry pressed wrong button. As I was saying I have campaigned long and hard for nearly 6 years for full refunds and those responsible to be brought to book. I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to attack my character and post nasty derogatory comments on this website. As you say only facts are posted, I can assure you I have a filing cabinet full of research on this farce of a company, you have no idea the amount of work that has gone into this not just for me but for everyone. Now if you don't like what I had to say then don't use an alias do as I have done and give your correct name. Its easy to hide behind an alias and throw remarks. As for Ms Hall I DO NOT have any issues with the woman I do not have anything to do with her or her website I am really not interested in anything any of you from unfarepak have to say as it always ends up in a slanging match and why is it always from Unfarepak that they feel the urge to try and undermine everything we do. And lets not forget one cruicial piece of information. Martha Thompson of BDO makes it clear from her last correspondance to myself and I quote " The Creditors Committee can at any time to stop the work that I am doing and bring the Liquidation to an end, at which time I would make a payment to creditors". in my opinion, the 'committee' are being held responsible for the time it took to come to a close. Now Charlie1969 as you said you haven't lost any money, and Cantankerous as you I presume are not an agent how the heck can you have the cheek to comment on anything to do with this case. You have no idea of the guilt Agents right across this country felt, and as Charlie has lost no money how dare you demand anything from anybody, as I suspect you have not contributed to helping get any of the money back either. Your just a couple of people who like to chit chat and cry down those who try to help and what makes it worse you ryn off at the mouth without the full facts and hide behaind your alias its really rather childish Now I will not be making anymore comments as quite frankly there is real work being done that you are not aware of and I am a bit too old for these childish games
Sorry pressed wrong button. As I was saying I have campaigned long and hard for nearly 6 years for full refunds and those responsible to be brought to book. I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to attack my character and post nasty derogatory comments on this website. As you say only facts are posted, I can assure you I have a filing cabinet full of research on this farce of a company, you have no idea the amount of work that has gone into this not just for me but for everyone. Now if you don't like what I had to say then don't use an alias do as I have done and give your correct name. Its easy to hide behind an alias and throw remarks. As for Ms Hall I DO NOT have any issues with the woman I do not have anything to do with her or her website I am really not interested in anything any of you from unfarepak have to say as it always ends up in a slanging match and why is it always from Unfarepak that they feel the urge to try and undermine everything we do. And lets not forget one cruicial piece of information. Martha Thompson of BDO makes it clear from her last correspondance to myself and I quote " The Creditors Committee can at any time to stop the work that I am doing and bring the Liquidation to an end, at which time I would make a payment to creditors". in my opinion, the 'committee' are being held responsible for the time it took to come to a close. Now Charlie1969 as you said you haven't lost any money, and Cantankerous as you I presume are not an agent how the heck can you have the cheek to comment on anything to do with this case. You have no idea of the guilt Agents right across this country felt, and as Charlie has lost no money how dare you demand anything from anybody, as I suspect you have not contributed to helping get any of the money back either. Your just a couple of people who like to chit chat and cry down those who try to help and what makes it worse you ryn off at the mouth without the full facts and hide behaind your alias its really rather childish Now I will not be making anymore comments as quite frankly there is real work being done that you are not aware of and I am a bit too old for these childish games DEBS1
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

I am neither an agent nor a customer/unsecured creditor, I am a retired insolvency practitioner and have followed this insolvency particularly closely; my comment re agents still stands.
I am neither an agent nor a customer/unsecured creditor, I am a retired insolvency practitioner and have followed this insolvency particularly closely; my comment re agents still stands. Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Like Cantankerous, I am neither an agent nor customer.

I have a great interest in insolvency for personal reasons and have followed this particular liquidation for many years now.

My comment in relation to your published articles still stands.
Like Cantankerous, I am neither an agent nor customer. I have a great interest in insolvency for personal reasons and have followed this particular liquidation for many years now. My comment in relation to your published articles still stands. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

DEBS1 wrote:
Sorry pressed wrong button. As I was saying I have campaigned long and hard for nearly 6 years for full refunds and those responsible to be brought to book. I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to attack my character and post nasty derogatory comments on this website. As you say only facts are posted, I can assure you I have a filing cabinet full of research on this farce of a company, you have no idea the amount of work that has gone into this not just for me but for everyone. Now if you don't like what I had to say then don't use an alias do as I have done and give your correct name. Its easy to hide behind an alias and throw remarks. As for Ms Hall I DO NOT have any issues with the woman I do not have anything to do with her or her website I am really not interested in anything any of you from unfarepak have to say as it always ends up in a slanging match and why is it always from Unfarepak that they feel the urge to try and undermine everything we do. And lets not forget one cruicial piece of information. Martha Thompson of BDO makes it clear from her last correspondance to myself and I quote " The Creditors Committee can at any time to stop the work that I am doing and bring the Liquidation to an end, at which time I would make a payment to creditors". in my opinion, the 'committee' are being held responsible for the time it took to come to a close. Now Charlie1969 as you said you haven't lost any money, and Cantankerous as you I presume are not an agent how the heck can you have the cheek to comment on anything to do with this case. You have no idea of the guilt Agents right across this country felt, and as Charlie has lost no money how dare you demand anything from anybody, as I suspect you have not contributed to helping get any of the money back either. Your just a couple of people who like to chit chat and cry down those who try to help and what makes it worse you ryn off at the mouth without the full facts and hide behaind your alias its really rather childish Now I will not be making anymore comments as quite frankly there is real work being done that you are not aware of and I am a bit too old for these childish games
I did not "demand" Mrs Harvey. You stated that you had written articles for the Financial Times and Guardian and I simply noted my interest in reading your articles.
[quote][p][bold]DEBS1[/bold] wrote: Sorry pressed wrong button. As I was saying I have campaigned long and hard for nearly 6 years for full refunds and those responsible to be brought to book. I am at a loss as to why you feel the need to attack my character and post nasty derogatory comments on this website. As you say only facts are posted, I can assure you I have a filing cabinet full of research on this farce of a company, you have no idea the amount of work that has gone into this not just for me but for everyone. Now if you don't like what I had to say then don't use an alias do as I have done and give your correct name. Its easy to hide behind an alias and throw remarks. As for Ms Hall I DO NOT have any issues with the woman I do not have anything to do with her or her website I am really not interested in anything any of you from unfarepak have to say as it always ends up in a slanging match and why is it always from Unfarepak that they feel the urge to try and undermine everything we do. And lets not forget one cruicial piece of information. Martha Thompson of BDO makes it clear from her last correspondance to myself and I quote " The Creditors Committee can at any time to stop the work that I am doing and bring the Liquidation to an end, at which time I would make a payment to creditors". in my opinion, the 'committee' are being held responsible for the time it took to come to a close. Now Charlie1969 as you said you haven't lost any money, and Cantankerous as you I presume are not an agent how the heck can you have the cheek to comment on anything to do with this case. You have no idea of the guilt Agents right across this country felt, and as Charlie has lost no money how dare you demand anything from anybody, as I suspect you have not contributed to helping get any of the money back either. Your just a couple of people who like to chit chat and cry down those who try to help and what makes it worse you ryn off at the mouth without the full facts and hide behaind your alias its really rather childish Now I will not be making anymore comments as quite frankly there is real work being done that you are not aware of and I am a bit too old for these childish games[/p][/quote]I did not "demand" Mrs Harvey. You stated that you had written articles for the Financial Times and Guardian and I simply noted my interest in reading your articles. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

DEBS1 wrote:
SUZY HALL HAS MADE A HABIT OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE GETTING 50P WHEN THE REALITY IS 13P FROM BDO AND 19P FROM LLOYDS BANK = 32P THAT MEANS ON £100 YOU WILL GET £32 BACK THIS WAS MADE CLEAR TO HER TODAY AT A MEETING IN LONDON WHICH MYSELF AND LOUISE WHERE THERE AS WE SET IT UP. IF YOU CARE TO TAKE A LOOK ON 'FAREPAK' WEBSITE YOU WILL SEE THAT BDO HAVE REALISED THE MISINTERPRETATION AND THEY HAVE RECTIFIED IT WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE AS I JUST GAVE. IF YOU WERE A CUSTOMER AND YOUR AGENT TOLD YOU YOU WERE GETTING £32 PER HUNDRED BUT THE REPORT FROM SUZY SAID 50P PER £ WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO YOUR AGENT????
To point out a contradiction you have made. You say you have no issues with Miss Hall, from this it is apparent that you do.

What Cantankerous and I have stated is that Miss Hall is quite right in stating 32p from a liquidation is a wonderful result.

Also, I did copy and paste from the Unfairpak website as they were gracious enough to acknowledge the factual details of the meeting with Dr Cable.

I believe in accurate reporting!
[quote][p][bold]DEBS1[/bold] wrote: SUZY HALL HAS MADE A HABIT OF TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE GETTING 50P WHEN THE REALITY IS 13P FROM BDO AND 19P FROM LLOYDS BANK = 32P THAT MEANS ON £100 YOU WILL GET £32 BACK THIS WAS MADE CLEAR TO HER TODAY AT A MEETING IN LONDON WHICH MYSELF AND LOUISE WHERE THERE AS WE SET IT UP. IF YOU CARE TO TAKE A LOOK ON 'FAREPAK' WEBSITE YOU WILL SEE THAT BDO HAVE REALISED THE MISINTERPRETATION AND THEY HAVE RECTIFIED IT WITH THE SAME EXAMPLE AS I JUST GAVE. IF YOU WERE A CUSTOMER AND YOUR AGENT TOLD YOU YOU WERE GETTING £32 PER HUNDRED BUT THE REPORT FROM SUZY SAID 50P PER £ WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO YOUR AGENT????[/p][/quote]To point out a contradiction you have made. You say you have no issues with Miss Hall, from this it is apparent that you do. What Cantankerous and I have stated is that Miss Hall is quite right in stating 32p from a liquidation is a wonderful result. Also, I did copy and paste from the Unfairpak website as they were gracious enough to acknowledge the factual details of the meeting with Dr Cable. I believe in accurate reporting! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

I'm not supporting or supporting anyone in particular. Just my veiw.

Charlie, re the 32p liquidation, 19 pence of that comes from Lloyds and it has nothing to do with the liquidators so called "work" even though it will be paid through them. Still possilbe the 13p in the pound can decrease but I suspect it will stay at that.

Cantankerous, if you are an insolvency practitioner and have been following this Insolvency then no doubt you could see the major problem witht he Summary Reports the agents/creditors have been given.

I can sure as hell see it and I don't like liars.

Looking at the most recent report and along with other documentation I can see that there is major problems with those reports given out on the internet.

Sadly no one has been kind enough to pass on all their past reports and therefore they are just affecting the people they are trying to help. Unfortunately I can very much SEE it, and it's really not good.

Lies, Lies and more Lies they have spun to the customers/creditors and of course the creditors committee. It has by passed them.

Also, Cantankerous coincidentially I am just checking over the situation re the agents commission.

IMO agents paid petrol and shelled out costs in collecting in the money. Also their time. This can not be looked over. When the money was recorded in the accounts on a monthly basis I would have thought the percentage the company was owe the agents would clock up over each monthly period and would most likely be recorded in the creditors section of the balance sheet.

1/12th on the first month and the other 1/12 on the 2nd month of the collection of the commission due equaling 2/12th's come the 2nd month. Assuming all monies were paid on time etc.

Therefore they would have been recorded as a creditor.

I don't agree the agents would have profited from their customers misery. They would have just been due what they were owe rightfully owe as a creditor of the company.

I could be wrong in my assessment of it, but like I have said, I am looking into it.

In terms of an insolvency it is a success BUT people have still lost their hard earned cash it is all wrong!
I'm not supporting or supporting anyone in particular. Just my veiw. Charlie, re the 32p liquidation, 19 pence of that comes from Lloyds and it has nothing to do with the liquidators so called "work" even though it will be paid through them. Still possilbe the 13p in the pound can decrease but I suspect it will stay at that. Cantankerous, if you are an insolvency practitioner and have been following this Insolvency then no doubt you could see the major problem witht he Summary Reports the agents/creditors have been given. I can sure as hell see it and I don't like liars. Looking at the most recent report and along with other documentation I can see that there is major problems with those reports given out on the internet. Sadly no one has been kind enough to pass on all their past reports and therefore they are just affecting the people they are trying to help. Unfortunately I can very much SEE it, and it's really not good. Lies, Lies and more Lies they have spun to the customers/creditors and of course the creditors committee. It has by passed them. Also, Cantankerous coincidentially I am just checking over the situation re the agents commission. IMO agents paid petrol and shelled out costs in collecting in the money. Also their time. This can not be looked over. When the money was recorded in the accounts on a monthly basis I would have thought the percentage the company was owe the agents would clock up over each monthly period and would most likely be recorded in the creditors section of the balance sheet. 1/12th on the first month and the other 1/12 on the 2nd month of the collection of the commission due equaling 2/12th's come the 2nd month. Assuming all monies were paid on time etc. Therefore they would have been recorded as a creditor. I don't agree the agents would have profited from their customers misery. They would have just been due what they were owe rightfully owe as a creditor of the company. I could be wrong in my assessment of it, but like I have said, I am looking into it. In terms of an insolvency it is a success BUT people have still lost their hard earned cash it is all wrong! Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Pamela

A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers.

I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket!

Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality!

I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation.
Pamela A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers. I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket! Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality! I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation. Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

Not so sure if I would blame it on the lender but more so the structure of company accounts and how people who pay in advance are classed.

Interesting you beleive that about the agents and customers as you seemed to state otherwise above.

Therefore, are you saying you think the agents should have been entitled to lodge a claim too?
Not so sure if I would blame it on the lender but more so the structure of company accounts and how people who pay in advance are classed. Interesting you beleive that about the agents and customers as you seemed to state otherwise above. Therefore, are you saying you think the agents should have been entitled to lodge a claim too? Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Mon 16 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

To add, when it comes to business morals don't have a look in. You should know that being a business man :-)

Anyway, in your retiral should you not be spending your days pottering away in your garden shed rahter than on the internet? Is that not what people do at your age? :-)
To add, when it comes to business morals don't have a look in. You should know that being a business man :-) Anyway, in your retiral should you not be spending your days pottering away in your garden shed rahter than on the internet? Is that not what people do at your age? :-) Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

7:56am Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Pamela Stoneman wrote:
Not so sure if I would blame it on the lender but more so the structure of company accounts and how people who pay in advance are classed.

Interesting you beleive that about the agents and customers as you seemed to state otherwise above.

Therefore, are you saying you think the agents should have been entitled to lodge a claim too?
Agents are likely to receive commission when they collect customers' cash so will probably, in this case, have received more than 13% of their debt.

Back to the garden now :-)
[quote][p][bold]Pamela Stoneman[/bold] wrote: Not so sure if I would blame it on the lender but more so the structure of company accounts and how people who pay in advance are classed. Interesting you beleive that about the agents and customers as you seemed to state otherwise above. Therefore, are you saying you think the agents should have been entitled to lodge a claim too?[/p][/quote]Agents are likely to receive commission when they collect customers' cash so will probably, in this case, have received more than 13% of their debt. Back to the garden now :-) Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

9:18am Tue 17 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

Cantankerous Good Morning!

First of all I want to correct something I have said. In relation to the fractions I have said above, they should have been 1/10 and 2/10 of agents commission as they collected over a 10 month period and not a year. Of course adjustments for shorter periods of collections etc.

Re payment of agents commission. No agents only received their commission at the end of the 10 month fully paid up period along with the vouchers. I don't think they received the commission on collection of the cash.

I think they received it in vouchers but I'm sure an agent can bring some clarity to that. I was neither customer or agent.
Cantankerous Good Morning! First of all I want to correct something I have said. In relation to the fractions I have said above, they should have been 1/10 and 2/10 of agents commission as they collected over a 10 month period and not a year. Of course adjustments for shorter periods of collections etc. Re payment of agents commission. No agents only received their commission at the end of the 10 month fully paid up period along with the vouchers. I don't think they received the commission on collection of the cash. I think they received it in vouchers but I'm sure an agent can bring some clarity to that. I was neither customer or agent. Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Pamela

A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers.

I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket!

Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality!

I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation.
I tend to agree with Cantakerous here.

Why should agents be treated differently from customers when they are all unsecured creditors as as such, entitled to the dividend which will be distributed to all unsecured creditors, including HMRC?

I am aware of the injection of £8 million by Lloyds, Pamela. It's a pity it took a judge to shame them into acting.

I still believe that great, dark clouds hang over this insolvency and perhaps we will never know the "truth"!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: Pamela A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers. I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket! Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality! I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation.[/p][/quote]I tend to agree with Cantakerous here. Why should agents be treated differently from customers when they are all unsecured creditors as as such, entitled to the dividend which will be distributed to all unsecured creditors, including HMRC? I am aware of the injection of £8 million by Lloyds, Pamela. It's a pity it took a judge to shame them into acting. I still believe that great, dark clouds hang over this insolvency and perhaps we will never know the "truth"! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Tue 17 Jul 12

JSM1965 says...

CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE.
CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE. JSM1965
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

JSM1965 wrote:
CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE.
One would most certainly dislike to see you being impolite if this is polite!
[quote][p][bold]JSM1965[/bold] wrote: CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE.[/p][/quote]One would most certainly dislike to see you being impolite if this is polite! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

There is no issue regarding unsecured creditors then is there nor is there any "difference" to be distributed.

You have misunderstood totally my comments and I see no reason for you to involve your late mother.

Very bizarre.
There is no issue regarding unsecured creditors then is there nor is there any "difference" to be distributed. You have misunderstood totally my comments and I see no reason for you to involve your late mother. Very bizarre. Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Pamela

A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers.

I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket!

Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality!

I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation.
Where did Cantakerous suggest agents should be treated differently from customers?

You are all unsecured creditors!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: Pamela A number of people have behaved disgracefully during this unpleasant affair and I understand the anger of customers. I have witnessed similar situations where customers have paid significant deposits &/or part exchanged vehicles only to find the secured lender/bank has "pulled the plug" resulting in the customer losing a vehicle and being out of pocket! Any transaction where cash is paid in advance is risky especially whilst we have lenders without morality! I do not believe that agents should have been treated differently from customers - they are both unsecured creditirs and as a consequence ought to have recived the same dividend in the liquidation.[/p][/quote]Where did Cantakerous suggest agents should be treated differently from customers? You are all unsecured creditors! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Tue 17 Jul 12

JSM1965 says...

cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite.
cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite. JSM1965
  • Score: 0

8:35pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

JSM1965 wrote:
cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite.
Read the string - I am neither an agent nor a customer - I only have an academic interest in this matter.

I commented that agents ought not to be treated any differently from other unsecured creditors - I did not say they WERE because I do not know.

Finally, I did not say you were impolite!
[quote][p][bold]JSM1965[/bold] wrote: cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite.[/p][/quote]Read the string - I am neither an agent nor a customer - I only have an academic interest in this matter. I commented that agents ought not to be treated any differently from other unsecured creditors - I did not say they WERE because I do not know. Finally, I did not say you were impolite! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

JSM1965 - I suggest you read the Insolvency Act 1986 and The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 - you may then understand my academic interest in the Farepak issue,
JSM1965 - I suggest you read the Insolvency Act 1986 and The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 - you may then understand my academic interest in the Farepak issue, Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

I would also suggest adding to your reading list, The Companies Act 2006, JSM1965.
I would also suggest adding to your reading list, The Companies Act 2006, JSM1965. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Thanks for the prompt Charlie1969 - I should have included it!
Thanks for the prompt Charlie1969 - I should have included it! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Thanks for the prompt Charlie1969 - I should have included it!
Your're welcome! JSM1965, I would recommend a starting point of The Companies Act 2006.
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: Thanks for the prompt Charlie1969 - I should have included it![/p][/quote]Your're welcome! JSM1965, I would recommend a starting point of The Companies Act 2006. Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Off to the pub now!
Off to the pub now! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
Off to the pub now!
Good idea!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: Off to the pub now![/p][/quote]Good idea! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Tue 17 Jul 12

JSM1965 says...

I will not be reading anything,and i think you should re-read your posts.
I will not be reading anything,and i think you should re-read your posts. JSM1965
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

JSM1965 wrote:
CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE.
Hiya,

I think you have mis-understood his comment. What they are saying is, well as I have understood it also the agents were entitled to claim their commission aswell as any voucher money they lost.

That I fully agree with. They are on your side there.

Hope that helps. :-)
[quote][p][bold]JSM1965[/bold] wrote: CONTANKEROUS,FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE AGENTS ARE RECIEVING THE SAME DIVIDEND AS ALL THE REST. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE REFUND THE DIFFERENCE TO OUR FAMILIES ,FRIENDS AND NEIGHBOURS.NO-ONES ARMS WERE TWISTED TO MAKE THEM SAVE FOR CHRISTMAS IN THIS WAY,INFACT THEY APPROACHED ME.IF I HAD THE MONEY TO RE-EMBURSE PEOPLE I WOULD NOT HAVE TO SAVE FOR XMAS LIKE THIS.MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO PUT MY DEAD MOTHERS MONEY INTO THE POT ALSO. UNLIKE DEBBIE I DID INTEND TO USE CAPITALS AS YOU HAVE MADE ME VERY ANGRY.BELIEVE YOU ME IAM BEING POLITE AND RESTRAINING MYSELF FROM USING STRONGER LANGUAGE.[/p][/quote]Hiya, I think you have mis-understood his comment. What they are saying is, well as I have understood it also the agents were entitled to claim their commission aswell as any voucher money they lost. That I fully agree with. They are on your side there. Hope that helps. :-) Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

Cantankerous wrote:
JSM1965 wrote:
cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite.
Read the string - I am neither an agent nor a customer - I only have an academic interest in this matter.

I commented that agents ought not to be treated any differently from other unsecured creditors - I did not say they WERE because I do not know.

Finally, I did not say you were impolite!
Cantankerous, I can see the misunderstanding here.

Agents lost money as themself as a customer. Plus they had customers who lost money.

Where the misunderstanding lies is that you and Charlie also agree with me (I think) that the agents should have also claimed their commission.

I personally would URGE ALL agents to put a claim in for their commission as you are rightfully entitled to it and it will really throw BDO.

JSM, also, you should be getting Debs and Louise to get BDO to confirm the EXACT financial amount spent on fees etc at the time in question. The reason I say that, is that figures I have .... suggest ... the 8 mill was in fact MORE! If you read the statement they released they didn't confirm the EXACT financial amount. I would suggest you ALL go and read EXACTLY what they said.

The reason D can not get the figures to add up is because there are OTHER figures! FACT!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JSM1965[/bold] wrote: cantankerous, your words were that you would ask the companies agent to make good your loss as they recieved commission on each transaction. So if you are not talking about the agents who collected customers money,who are you talking about.And my reply to you was polite.[/p][/quote]Read the string - I am neither an agent nor a customer - I only have an academic interest in this matter. I commented that agents ought not to be treated any differently from other unsecured creditors - I did not say they WERE because I do not know. Finally, I did not say you were impolite![/p][/quote]Cantankerous, I can see the misunderstanding here. Agents lost money as themself as a customer. Plus they had customers who lost money. Where the misunderstanding lies is that you and Charlie also agree with me (I think) that the agents should have also claimed their commission. I personally would URGE ALL agents to put a claim in for their commission as you are rightfully entitled to it and it will really throw BDO. JSM, also, you should be getting Debs and Louise to get BDO to confirm the EXACT financial amount spent on fees etc at the time in question. The reason I say that, is that figures I have .... suggest ... the 8 mill was in fact MORE! If you read the statement they released they didn't confirm the EXACT financial amount. I would suggest you ALL go and read EXACTLY what they said. The reason D can not get the figures to add up is because there are OTHER figures! FACT! Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

I'd like to add I most definitely had it confirmed ALL AGENTS are entitled to claime their commission.

I know some people might be thinking of their customers but you have a LEGAL RIGHT to be lodging a claim for your commission.

BDO did state agents and customers can make a claim, however, it was NEVER made really clear to the agents at the time that they were most certainly entitled to claim their commission.

Somebody, somewhere should be putting a Press Release out and informing ALL agents of their legal entitlment, even if you agree with it or not. They should be informed of their legal entitlement.

This would most most likely p*ss BDO right off but are you really giving a sh*t about them?

Once again, I urge ALL AGENTS to claim YOUR commission.

Also think of the post administration/curre
nt liquidation work you have had to do for FREE on behalf off BDO.

When people making that an agent would be profiting, well, BDO are classed as an AGENT, are they not profiting???????????
I'd like to add I most definitely had it confirmed ALL AGENTS are entitled to claime their commission. I know some people might be thinking of their customers but you have a LEGAL RIGHT to be lodging a claim for your commission. BDO did state agents and customers can make a claim, however, it was NEVER made really clear to the agents at the time that they were most certainly entitled to claim their commission. Somebody, somewhere should be putting a Press Release out and informing ALL agents of their legal entitlment, even if you agree with it or not. They should be informed of their legal entitlement. This would most most likely p*ss BDO right off but are you really giving a sh*t about them? Once again, I urge ALL AGENTS to claim YOUR commission. Also think of the post administration/curre nt liquidation work you have had to do for FREE on behalf off BDO. When people making that an agent would be profiting, well, BDO are classed as an AGENT, are they not profiting??????????? Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Tue 17 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

Pamela - I think you got through - all is quiet now!
Pamela - I think you got through - all is quiet now! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 18 Jul 12

JSM1965 says...

NO DEAR ALL WAS QUIET AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TODO WITH MY TIME .
NO DEAR ALL WAS QUIET AS I HAVE BETTER THINGS TODO WITH MY TIME . JSM1965
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

You've read the 3 Acts -:)
You've read the 3 Acts -:) Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

Cantankerous wrote:
You've read the 3 Acts -:)
Wow, 3 Acts read within less of 24 hours. If only I had those skills!
[quote][p][bold]Cantankerous[/bold] wrote: You've read the 3 Acts -:)[/p][/quote]Wow, 3 Acts read within less of 24 hours. If only I had those skills! Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Pamela Stoneman says...

No I think JSM is away reading 50 shades :-) ......... of pure rubbish if I must say so myself. :-)
No I think JSM is away reading 50 shades :-) ......... of pure rubbish if I must say so myself. :-) Pamela Stoneman
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Cantankerous says...

-:) !
-:) ! Cantankerous
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Wed 18 Jul 12

Charlie1969 says...

:-)
:-) Charlie1969
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree