Tweet
Landbanking investments lack solid foundations
I was called out of the blue by Consolidated Land UK (CLUK), which claimed it had sent me details of its investment strategies before Christmas. If it did, I never received it. The Cluk caller, who seemed to think Middlesex was in the West Midlands, promised me "explosive growth" if I invested in land without planning permission. What do you think?
MS, Middlesex
Tony: Leaving aside whether you would want to invest with a firm selling land that employs someone with such a weak knowledge of UK geography, this is landbanking - selling farmland on the hope of a planning go-ahead.
Others have also told of unsolicited CLUK calls where someone, apparently reading from a script, makes claims about land values including "eight to 10 times growth", and "planning permission is a dead cert".
But the "eight to 10 times" gainers could be CLUK, which is not (and does not need to be) regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Landbankers typically buy agricultural land for around £8,000 an acre and sell it at £10,000 for a 10th of an acre.
No landbanker has yet produced the claimed profits but several have hit the financial buffers, leaving investors with unsellable land. And property demand is now at a low, with developers sitting on huge parcels of land with planning permission.
CLUK, set up in June 2006, is run by Stephen Ronald Watkins, 52, its sole director. He claims to have worked in the legal profession, in "corporate leadership", to have run campaigns for the Financial Times and to have telecoms experience. But Companies House filings show CLUK's first accounts due in April 2008 have yet to be filed, while the annual return due in July 2007 has still to be sent in. Companies House says there is a "proposal to strike off" against CLUK, so investors could be left dealing with a firm whose status remains uncertain.
Pinning down those holiday insurers
I booked a holiday to Crete along with a friend. Three days before we left, her father-in-law died (she was his only living relation). So the trip was cancelled - I could not go on my own as we were sharing a room and transport. The Greek owners of the flat we were going to rent understood our plight and said we owed them nothing. I claimed on my Europ Assistance policy for my £227 air fare. It first asked for medical records for the deceased, but, after I sent these in, it turned my claim down because I was not a close relative. Please help.
JM, Kent
Tony: Claims on travel policies for cancellations due to death in the family can be tough. Insurers try to prove the dead person had a pre-existing medical condition and might have died in time to ruin your holiday. And the relationship to the deceased is rarely spelt out clearly, with some taking a tough line.
The Financial Ombudsman Service says it all comes down to the small print. It upheld a holiday cancellation claim from a housekeeper to a Catholic priest as someone who, although not strictly connected other than by employment, was in a quasi-familial role. It turned down a cancellation claim when a pet dog died - animals do not count.
But here, initially, all went well with your claim. Europ Assistance asked for medical details of the deceased. And although it then tried to refuse your claim because he died of a known pre-existing condition, you convinced the insurer that it was wrong - his death could not have been foreseen. Europ then changed tack and said your relationship was not close enough to the deceased, even though you were forced to cancel due to his death.
Europ says its small print would bar a claim. But it now agrees you were misled and wrongly treated. It will pay the full £227 - it has foregone the £65 excess.
People in plaster cast out of easyJet flights
My children and I were prevented from flying home from Belfast in July because my son's leg was in plaster. Airport staff said passengers with broken limbs had to have a medical certificate stating they were fit to fly, and that this was made clear in the terms and conditions we agreed to with our online booking. But when we flew from Luton to Belfast earlier, also with his leg in plaster, there was no problem. Can you sort this?
MM, Bedfordshire
Tony: If you had been stopped from flying at Luton, then this policy would have some consistency. Capital Letters read easyJet's terms and could find nothing about legs in plaster. But there is a reference to the Carrier's Regulations which state that passengers with broken limbs need a medical certificate - this is a Civil Aviation Authority stipulation, not an easyJet rule. However, your son had his plaster cast after an operation to remove pins, not because he had a broken limb. So, even if you had read all the rules, it would not have been clear that your son's condition needed a certificate.
After the refusal to allow you to fly, you took your son to Antrim hospital, where his cast was removed. But there was still difficulty the next day at the airport where officious officials continued to give you a hard time.
EasyJet's initial response was to tell you that, while the staff at Belfast Airport might not have handled your circumstances as well as they might, they were, nevertheless, correct.
But when we pointed out the inconsistency of allowing you to fly one way, it decided to refund the full £230 costs of your flights as a goodwill gesture. It will also investigate why the Luton staff allowed you to travel. It now needs to clarify the wording in the Carrier's Regulations - perhaps a catch-all phrase about checking any medical conditions before flying rather than trying to cover all possible conditions.
Should I accept Asda's gift voucher offer?
I recently shopped online with Asda. When the items were delivered there was no till receipt so that I could check what I paid for. After several calls, Asda has admitted it cannot find the records I needed. It has apologised and offered a £20 gift voucher. Should I accept?
RP, Sheffield
Tony: Yes. Asda has behaved well. The £20 it is offering is a generous gesture. And as you sent in your order online, surely you must have a copy of what you bought.
My kitchen dreams became a nightmare
In November, I paid £1,648 for five kitchen appliances from online trader Biasco. I was quoted four weeks' maximum delivery. This did not happen. I cancelled but I have not received a refund. Can you help?
CM, Northants
Tony: This is a fiasco. You moved into an old house which needed new kitchen gear urgently. Biasco's website proclaims weekly deliveries from manufacturers. You were within your rights when you demanded your money back when the items failed to arrive on time (or at all, as it turned out). You then went to John Lewis to equip your cooking area.
Biasco is owned by RTD (UK) which, according to a recorded message, "is no longer trading". As you paid with a Visa debit card, your best hope is now to try the still largely uncharted waters of Visa Chargeback.
RTD (UK)'s director is William Hugh McKie, 45, of West Sussex. He has previously been a director of nine companies, in a variety of business areas, that have been dissolved. He is the director of another company where there is a proposal to strike off.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
More...
