Motor home rip off

Bex123 said:
They had a good business model that was able to refund loans perfectly - had the business chosen to use the funds to do so...
Click to expand...
Do the accounts bear this statement out?
My reading of the Administrator's reports lead me to believe that there were serious cash flow shortages.
The business model seemed to rely of a continuous supply of new investors to bring in new cash hence the desperation when the anonymous letter warning of potential redemption shortfalls was circulated in the year before administrators were appointed.
 
I do have sympathy for the investors as it APPEARED to be secure.
But not secure such as a Building Society or Bank which are regulated/guaranteed by the FSCS so a huge risk !


1609944470316.png
 
It was only as secure as the governance of the company - which as has been asserted by those who did invest was less than perfect.
Yes for many years interest and principal were paid but weren't guaranteed by anything more than one man's word.
It had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi scheme with the slightly redeeming feature of a charge on a depreciating asset - which no doubt added a degree of confidence.
It would appear that most of the investors were happy to take on the risk implied by the high interest rate and while the going was good many were very supportive of the company on widespread fora including financial websites.
Some managed to get out early enough to be unscathed, others were lucky that the security on their loan hadn't been stolen, destroyed or sold without their knowledge giving them some return of their capital.
Some have a chance to recover the mortgaged vehicle from a third party that been duped by the manager of the firm they invested it - a major breach of trust against them both.
A significant number have lost any chance of capital recovery because the vehicle they believed underwrote their loan had been stolen or destroyed. As far as we know these people were not informed of the loss and/or substitution of a replacement asset but continued to receive interest as if nothing had happened.

This company's business model managed to breach the trust of virtually everyone who dealt it in the last couple of years of its existence.
My sympathies are with all those affected and hope that they can all reach settlements - I fear that most of them will end up disappointed one way or another as their aspirations are diametrically opposed.
A real mess and as usual it will be the lawyers who make money whichever way it goes!
 
Last edited:
All I'd like to know is just how much money the director had out of the company....
 
Markd said:
@Bex123
My reading of the files lead me to believe that there were 120 more mortgages than vans on the fleet so its good to hear that there were in fact only 50-60 vans sold without mortgage redemption or amendment.

@Chunky
You mention police involvement in vehicle recovery - how does that work?
Aren't these civil actions?

It's also a case of investor beware as capital was at risk here if the business couldn't fund loan reimbursement and surrendered the 'security' instead - presumably this happened to you.
Click to expand...
We got our motorhome back and it’s now rented via our own company . The other investment we had was previously cashed in full .
HMRC are also investigating ; tax was deducted at source in many cases and then pocketed
 
Chunky said:
Millions .. his house , Porsches , Ferrari that were there when my family visited all the trappings etc
Click to expand...
At the time these may have helped convince investors about the success of the business others may have wondered whether their investment might be paying for them more directly!
There's a fine line between confidence and confidence trick 😀
 
Chunky said:
We got our motorhome back and it’s now rented via our own company . The other investment we had was previously cashed in full .
HMRC are also investigating ; tax was deducted at source in many cases and then pocketed
Click to expand...
Glad you got one lot of capital out and were able to exercise the charge on the asset your loan was secured against.
I'm not aiming to be rude but I think your description of the motorhome as being 'yours' is what he intended to engender rather than you merely being a source of operating capital.
The difference is academic of course when everything's going well but when it's not then it becomes important.
He does sound to have done alright himself while 'everyone' around him rues the day they met him?
Ripping off HMRC is not a great move as they are inclined to be fairly tenacious in recovering money owed.
 
If the HMRC can succesfully pursue any directors for owed tax from a bankrupt company..The same facility should be allowed to other claimants.
Yes HMRC are tenacious and I hope they succeeed..but what about others.
The man seems to have oceans of cash..surely that should be recoverable. ?
However it seems not with limited company status...What a mess for all (except Mr Hughes !!!)
 
TrevandJenny said:
The latest on regarding unbeatablehire is on BBC, Listed today.
.
www.bbc.co.uk

Motorhomes 'missing' after rental firm collapsed

Lenders face big losses after the company went bust owing £7m, while some vehicles are "missing".
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Updating Companies House records and informing investors doesn't seem to have been a high priority for the business 😀
By the same token some of the investors don't seem to have taken as much interest in the asset offered as security as perhaps they might have done.
Easy enough to say now of course and with generous interest being paid promptly it might have felt churlish to have asked him at the time.
With hindsight the trust people had in the businessman was misplaced.
 
This case, reported yesterday, shows very clearly that being an innocent buyer and buying in good faith do not counter legal ownership.
The fact that the UBH motorhome buyers did not find the chattel mortgages on the Companies House register is regrettable for them but it doesn't alter the fact that the motorhomes belong to the people who lent the company money with which to buy them.
This, comparable, case involves people who had no way of knowing that the land adjacent to their property was not theirs. Their solicitor didn't know, the vendors didn't know, the planning authority didn't know - for them there wasn't even something like Companies House to search for the information. But the land does belong to the Forestry Commission and the only option for the buyers is either to pay for it or to swap it for some land they do own.
No different from the UBH motorhome ownership.
www.dailymail.co.uk

Couple ordered to demolish £100k extension in planning blunder

EXCLUSIVE: Wayne Noke and his wife Natalie were granted planning permission for the construction at their sprawling home in the Hampshire New Forest last summer.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
You've posted into an old thread.

Interesting though, hopefully some sort of compromise will come out of it, assuming they actually made an honest mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top