Tony Hetherington, the esteemed investigator for Financial Mail on Sunday, is renowned for his dedication to uncovering the truth and fighting for the rights of readers who have been left out of pocket. If you need to contact him, you can find the details below.
B.P. has reached out to Tony Hetherington for assistance in reclaiming their money from Wines Premier Cru Limited. The company, or their agent Rosevelt’s Limited, cold-called B.P. and convinced them to invest more than £100,000 in wines that were said to be held in an account for them. Although they received lists of wines they purportedly own, they have never actually received the wines. After requesting a refund, Wines Premier Cru returned a portion of the money, but the remaining balance has never been paid. It is important to note that B.P. invested a substantial amount of money in wines but never received the promised goods.
In response to B.P.’s inquiry, Tony Hetherington sheds light on the peculiar circumstances surrounding these two wine firms. One of the firms continued to trade even after its dissolution and was operated by an individual with a history of serious tax offenses. The other firm, Wines Premier Cru, delivered the wine to B.P. without receiving payment and subsequently reimbursed thousands of pounds that B.P. had actually paid to the first company.
The situation becomes more perplexing upon examination. In 2016, salesmen from Rosevelt’s Limited began cold-calling individuals, offering expensive wines as an investment. Despite being a new company, they claimed to be affiliated with Wines Premier Cru, which had been established since 2008. According to Dominic Hall, the proprietor of Wines Premier Cru, the partnership with Rosevelt’s Limited was unprofitable, as they failed to attract any new clients. He terminated the agreement. However, if Rosevelt’s Limited did not bring in any new clients, it begs the question of how B.P. became involved.
Dominic Hall clarified that he sold wine to Rosevelt’s Limited and never received any payment from B.P. Nevertheless, an invoice from Hall to Rosevelt’s Limited was discovered, dating back to April 6, 2018, itemizing wines under B.P.’s name at a value of £82,000. The plot thickens when it is revealed that Rosevelt’s Limited was in liquidation on April 6, 2018, and should not have been conducting business. The appointment of a liquidator had occurred over a year earlier, in February 2017, and the company was officially dissolved ten days after the suspicious invoice was issued. Essentially, Rosevelt’s Limited ordered wines worth £82,000, accepted delivery, but failed to compensate Wines Premier Cru, who granted them the wines on credit. To compound the confusion, Rosevelt’s Limited’s records showed that when it collapsed in 2017, it already owed Wines Premier Cru £5,000.
Apparent from these details, Dominic Hall’s business was already owed £5,000 but inexplicably delivered wines worth an additional £82,000. In the meantime, B.P. was unknowingly providing payments to Rosevelt’s Limited, believing they were acting on behalf of Hall’s company. Consequently, Rosevelt’s Limited ended up with both the wine and the money.
Upon questioning Hall about these discrepancies, he suggested that Rosevelt’s Limited only ceased trading in 2021, contrary to company records indicating its liquidation in 2017. Hall also acknowledged that although he was under no clear obligation, he decided to pay B.P. nearly £68,000 because he believed it was the only way B.P. would ever recover funds from Rosevelt’s Limited. Additionally, Hall emphasized that all payments were made to Rosevelt’s Limited, not Wines Premier Cru. As it stands, Hall maintains that he has paid B.P. all but approximately £11,000.
Hall could not provide an explanation for how he continued to interact with Rosevelt’s Limited despite its liquidation. However, he did mention that whenever Rosevelt’s Limited made payments for wine, he was instructed to store it in a bonded facility under the name of Mr. Jay Lance Stevens, the owner of Rosevelt’s Limited. Stevens, who hails from South London, had previously operated a company called Watches 7 Fifty Limited, which went into liquidation owing an estimated £27,000. He recently established a new venture called Rocking Horse London Limited, specializing in the trade of watches and jewelry. Stevens has a history of delinquent tax payments, with unpaid bills totaling £57,859 dating back to 2010.
Attempts to contact Stevens for comment on the matter have been unsuccessful.
In a final remark, Dominic Hall suggested that the best course of action to resolve this situation would be to involve the police fraud squad. This recommendation has merit.
In a separate case, Ms. L.W. shares her experience of receiving a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) seven months ago, informing her that if she made a payment of £744 to HM Revenue & Customs, her state pension would increase by over £5 per week. Ms. L.W. made the payment but encountered silence from the DWP when inquiring about its progress. Subsequent conversations with DWP representatives yielded no clarification on timing.
After Tony Hetherington intervened, the pension increase was finally implemented. The DWP issued an apology for the delay in processing the voluntary National Insurance contributions of Ms. L.W. Following this apology, her pension rose to over £184 per week, with over £200 received in arrears.
Lastly, M.B. brings up the issue of a telecoms company attaching a new line to a BT telegraph pole located on their land. According to the BT website, if an additional line is affixed to the pole for the benefit of a third party, the landowner is entitled to receive a wayleave payment. However, both BT and the telecoms company in question have pointed fingers at each other, leaving M.B. uncertain of who should make the payment.
Upon investigation, it was revealed that a previous owner of M.B.’s property had struck a deal with BT, receiving a lump sum payment in return. The contract stipulated that BT could add further cables to the pole without providing additional payment. However, it is crucial to note that this contract was signed only five days before M.B. completed the purchase of the property. Thus, the agreement in place at the time of M.B.’s property acquisition did not align with the terms agreed upon prior to completion. It is advisable for M.B. to revisit this matter with the assistance of their solicitor.
If you suspect you are a victim of financial wrongdoing, you can reach out to Tony Hetherington by mail at Financial Mail, 9 Derry Street, London W8 5HY, or via email at [email protected]. Please note that due to the high volume of inquiries, personal responses may not be possible. It is advised to submit copies of original documents, as they cannot be returned.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
