Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
    • Hi I'm after some help with trying to get my wedding car hire deposit returned. I'll provide a bit of a chronological background to try and keep things clear. January 2020 - Began booking church, venue and other services for our Wedding for 29th May 2021 - 100+ guest during the day, and 200+ on the night. 25 Jan 2020 - Attended Exclusive Wedding Cars (EWC herein). Booked and Paid deposit for 1 Beetle and 3 Camper Vans = £400. Corona came along and we were in and out of lockdowns. Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) brought out some guidance for Wedding Services 7 Sept 2020. In mid January, we got back in contact with EWC via text, expressing our concerns over the wedding and Government imposed Public Health measures(we were currently in lockdown and no idea when things would return to normal), and that we were looking to move the wedding forward 1 year. 3 Feb 2020 - Emailed to cancel our Wedding date of 29th May 2021, after text had been sent and Steve replied asking for it to be sent via email. We asked if 28th May 2022 was available. 5 Feb 2020 - EWC replied to say they could not fulfill our new date due to other commitments. 7 Feb 2020 - We replied that we would have to cancel our booking with EWC, but would be in touch if dates changed again. 22 Feb 2021 - Government published Guidance (Roadmap out of Lockdown) - Stated, “Not before 17th May…Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings…”. *Note again our wedding was for 100/200+ guests at the Stadium of Light, so not reasonable to have the same venue for 30 people. 5 Jan 2022 -  Called and spoke with Steve to see if they had any availability (any cars at all) for our date. He was driving and so couldn’t confirm.                         Exchanged some texts on the same day to which he replied in the evening, that they had nothing, but to keep in touch due to cancellations. 15 Jan 2022 - Started an email thread asking about deposits and their return. EWC went straight on the defensive saying we wouldn't be getting it back and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy as we were not given a copy when we booked. 17 Jan 2022 - Emailed to ask for the return of our deposit. EWC replied that since we cancelled within 4 months of the wedding date, they now wanted the remaining balance of £850, and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy of the contract again, and that we would seek legal advice. EWC replied with ever increasing sarcasm, saying we would receive notice demanding the remaining balance of £850 in the post. I replied that if they didn't supply a copy of the contract I would send them a SAR.   20 Jan 2022 - Sent a letter via Post and email, asking EWC to reconsider their position. We stated we believe the contract to have terms that would be deemed unfair; terms that were not clear; there is a ‘Significant imbalance’ concerned with the parties’ rights and obligations, which can be seen as disproportionate financial sanctions; their ‘Terms and Conditions’ appear to seek to remove the consumers rights, while removing their obligations, but allowing them to make an unjustified windfall gain. We also stated that we believe the guidance and statements by the CMA, suggested that since the wedding we had planned couldn't go ahead (we'd be breaking the law with the numbers we wanted) on our planned date, and that a reasonable person wouldn't expect the wedding to go ahead when we cancelled the date, that we should receive a full refund as they were not out of pocket. We gave EWC 14 days to respond...it took them 6 hours, basically refusing our request while coated in lashings of sarcasm and arrogance.   I'm guessing my next step would be Letter before Action? Any help much appreciated. Attached is the "Contract" - removed the signatures, but you can see the whole contract. The booking form has no Ts&Cs or costs of any kind, just addresses, personal info and the vehicles.     EWC-Contract.pdf
    • The firm's shares fell more than 20% as investors worry that demand for its pricey exercise machines is waning.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Failed Guinness Mahon SIPP and Wellington Court Financial Services


Jcb2007
 Share

Recommended Posts

In 2015 I invested £45,200 in a SIPP operated by Guinness Mahon, which is linked to Dolphin, later German Property Group. GPG went into administration to Feb 2020. My SIPP was due to mature in April 2020.

 

I first took my claim to FSCS.

They rejected my claim, I appealed and still got rejected. Their reason was that Wellington CFS signatures were involved in my pension transfer into the SIPP. This was a surprise to me. 

 

I then emailed and called Wellington, several times, eventually receiving an email stating I did not exist in their records.

 

I then opened a case with FOS.

My case has not yet been assigned a case handler.  From what I learned from others caught up in GPG. Wellington are stating their signatures were used fraudulently. Yet there is evidence of them taking fees. 

 

If you want to read more there is a GPG creditors association Facebook site. You will find others on there in the same position.

I did write to Wellington CFS and never got a reply.

 

If you call their Ireland number you get an answer machine.

Their office in Devon, does pick up but this is just a receptionist, takes a message and alas no one gets back to you.

 

I also heard Wellington CFS is linked to Spain.

I think the best outcome is that Wellington go into administration, at this point FSCS will be the last resort. 

Edited by dx100uk
block of text spaced to paragraphs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thank you for starting a new thread and for telling us your story.

 

So you didn't have dealings with Wellington Court when you moved your funds from Scottish Widows to Guinness Mahon? My understanding is that anyone doing a pension transfer should have independent financial advice.

 

How much paperwork do you have and how much if any is from Wellington Court please?

 

HB

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check the Companies House website, Wellington Court Devon says it's the UK arm of Wellington Court FS. No directors are showing for some reason.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/BR018905

 

The entry for Wellington in Ireland shows Adriana Lozinska as director with an address in Reigate. Clicking on her name doesn't show any other companies.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/FC033818/officers

 

But if you type her name into the Cos House search box, you get a list that includes addresses in Devon and Spain.

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/search?q=adriana+lozinska

 

My hunch is that Adriana Lozinska is the person writing the emails that Simmonds has had.

 

HB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have posted this before on the other thread, but for the record.

 

WWW.MONEYMARKETING.CO.UK

The FCA has stopped a firm involved in transfers out of a local government pension scheme from engaging in such activity. 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Hi. Thank you for starting a new thread and for telling us your story.

 

So you didn't have dealings with Wellington Court when you moved your funds from Scottish Widows to Guinness Mahon? My understanding is that anyone doing a pension transfer should have independent financial advice.

 

How much paperwork do you have and how much if any is from Wellington Court please?

 

HB

 

I used a friend who was unregulated working for a company called Return On Capital. From what I now know, an unregulated body must use a regulated person to authorise the transfer from my then Scottish Widows pension. I have all the paperwork and nowhere does Wellington CFS appear. However FSCS said they found evidence of signatures. I can see fees taken but it shows Guinness Mahon only. FSCS won't compensate me as Wellington CFS are still trading and I had to first open a dialogue with them. As we know from other posts they don't respond.

Jb

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/11/2021 at 08:00, honeybee13 said:

That's very sad, Jb.

 

Did you see on Simmonds' thread that Wellington Court say they did consultancy work for GM? I'm wondering what that was.

 

HB

 

Yes, I saw.

 

I'm not as far forward with my FOS case, but a colleague of mine's Guinness Mahon SIPP case has just come to the conclusion by FOS, that Wellington (we jokingly refer to them Welly Boots) as accountable.

 

I let him know about this site as I expect he will get to the same point as Simmonds case and at some point me also.

 

My wife also invested in Guinness Mahon, not via Wellington and FSCS paid compensation.

 

Every case is different, it is a matter of waiting.

 

Meanwhile in Germany the administrators are dealing with the whole GPG mess,  which is behind the failed SIPP.  Just Google Germany Property Group or Charles Smethurst.

 

Jb

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Helinutz said:

Following this with interest.

Im in pretty much the same boat (although my figure is over 100K)

went through FSCS, they decided after a year that Wellington CFS signed off on it and were liable.

Contacted WCFS who eventually denied knowing me.

Then counted that with proof of £800 of fees paid to them for their role in the transfer.

They ignored me.

Contacted FOS who wrote to WCFS with an 8 week deadline to deal with it, they obviously didn't.

Now its with the FOS case officer and have been advised its a long process which could take anything up to a year.

Obviously due to the 85k cap with the Fscs, I would prefer it if WCFS were somehow forced into paying, but im not holding my breath on this.

Just for reference, there were 3 investments  in my Guinness Mahon SIPP, GPG (Dolphin) at 52K, ABC Car Parks at 22K and Olmsted at 28K.

The first 2 have gone to the wall with court cases in Germany and UAE respectively, the 3rd is allegedly still active but struggling to pay out its commitment and my return from that one was due in June 2020.

Welcome to the forum.

Please will you tell your story by starting a new thread. This is important because it means that people won't get confused where we have two or more issues on the same thread.

Also, the more new threads the better because that tends to be more attractive to the Google bots and it means that these issues go higher up in the Google ranking is when people search.

 

Your story will also tweet out on our Twitter feed

Please start a new thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Welcome to the forum.

Please will you tell your story by starting a new thread. This is important because it means that people won't get confused where we have two or more issues on the same thread.

Also, the more new threads the better because that tends to be more attractive to the Google bots and it means that these issues go higher up in the Google ranking is when people search.

 

Your story will also tweet out on our Twitter feed

Please start a new thread

Hi, are you are of this group ? 

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

Collective area where those of us owed money from German Property Group (GPG), formerly Dolphin Trust, to share...

Also to give you some hope, the FSCS paid back my wife's Guinness Mahon SIPP investment she only invested 25k though. 

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...