Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
    • Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA.   Take the Consideration  period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"].  You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink fro their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But  heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering  their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance.  I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury".  It wasn't tantamount,it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.🙂
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Failed Guinness Mahon SIPP and Wellington Court Financial Services


Jcb2007
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 837 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...