General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I'm owed 10k from these guys, nothing has been said by Vantis the administrators.
Just got the shock of my life when went to www.betbrokers.com.
Anybody know anything?
Just got the shock of my life when went to www.betbrokers.com.
Anybody know anything?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 50
|
By:
see what you mean.
how can they launch again when they owe so many people money? |
|
By:
I don't think they would be relaunching as it's very tactful in the wording "launch" rather than relaunch.
The adminstrators must have sold the client base and the domain which was probably worth something, so anybody owed money should be in for a cut. |
|
By:
the same guy who ran berbrokers also had a company called affinity internet
i brought in at £4.75 went to £80 back down to 43p then went broke, got delisted off the stock exchange the guy name is wayne lockroom [ something like that ] |
|
By:
He can't be behind this?
|
|
By:
I don't understand law, but if Lads went bust tomorrow owing £100 million, somebody can't trad under Lads and not pay the people owed? please advise
|
|
By:
i believe that he is
|
|
By:
Wat again, wat about people owed money??
|
|
By:
they dont get paid
|
|
By:
But, how can he be OK and launch a new company under the same name a year later?
How does that work, please help me as I;m getting annoyed. |
|
By:
i dont know
|
|
By:
It can't be right, it goes back to my lads thread.
|
|
By:
u will probally get an answer if u posed the same question on
Tradefair & Financials forum |
|
By:
Do u know for sure that Lochmore? is behind this?
|
|
By:
pretty sure he was in charge of both companies
|
|
By:
If somebody now opens up a shop called woolworths and trades under that name it's worth something a lot, because the name is all they had.
So to by the name Betbrokers and the domain is worth something, so the administrators have funds to pay people, maybe not everythng, but they have something. |
|
By:
No, the new company???
|
|
By:
e
|
|
By:
wayne lochnor said late last year (little more than 10 weeks after they collapsed) that he was keen to relaunch the business
anyone googling around this, do not click on anything to do with netbetblog, their website is loaded with trojans |
|
By:
wayne lochner looks to be the spelling, but he may have little to do with this, who knows
|
|
By:
http://www.123people.co.uk/s/wayne+lochner
|
|
By:
I never used these guys but did they lay?
|
|
By:
Limited liability company = legalised robbery.
|
|
By:
Just a few weeks after betbrokers went into administration, Wayne Lochner was reported in the Racing Post as intending to start up again.
If you lose your clients' money, you just wind things up, walk away from the mess, and start all over again without any difficulties. |
|
By:
seems**ers to use the betbrokers name again though
their T&Cs said client funds were held in a segregated account - how come it was empty when everyone asked for their deposits back then? who is going to trust them after that? |
|
By:
Lochner told the RP funds were protected. The latest Vantis report and the article below suggest otherwise. And Vantis' fees will run into 6 figures, I believe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/2795693/Unclarity-remains-over-Betbrokers-funds.html |
|
By:
his name is wayne lochner. he is a pleasant guy to have a drink with, shrewd and very good in a meeting
i worked on the team that developed betbrokers - it never struck me as that brilliant an idea in the first place, so i am surprised someone is having another crack at it most people would accept that running a business involves taking risks. for example suppliers risk that they might not get paid but customers placing their capital with a betting company are not suppliers, rather they are putting the betting company in a position of trust clients' funds should have been placed in a client segregated funds account, and promptly returned to clients as soon as the business went tits up i got ripped off by a letting agent in a similar way 10+ years ago and will never forget the ** who did it. folks will be feeling the same about bb |
|
By:
vantis hoping to wind the company up tomorrow? does this have any legal implications? does it mean that vantis draw a line under the company after spending 14 months achieving nothing and extracting as much as they can in costs from the carcass?
http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/59209/pages/17511/page.pdf In the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) Companies Court No 15503 of 2009 In the Matter of BETBROKER LIMITED and in the Matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 A Petition to wind up the above-named Company of Vantis Business Recovery Services, 43-45 Butts Green Road, Hornchurch, Essex RM11 2JX, presented on 19 June 2009 by Glyn Mummery and Jeremy Stuart French (as Joint Administrators of Betbroker Limited), both of Vantis Business Recovery Services, 43-45 Butts Green Road, Hornchurch, Essex RM11 2JX, will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL, on 4 November 2009, at 1030 hours (or as soon thereafter as the Petition can be heard). Any person intending to appear on the hearing of the Petition (whether to support or oppose it) must give notice of intention to do so to the Petitioner or its Solicitors in accordance with Rule 4.16 by 1600 hours on 3 November 2009. The Petitioners Solicitor is Moon Beever, 24-25 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2PL, telephone 020 7637 0661, facsimile 020 7436 4663. (Ref JL/V00083-00003.) (943233) |
|
By:
Looks like it Eldrick. I don't recall any legal implications affecting other companies (e.g. Sporting Options) who likewise failed to ringfence funds. Seems the whole concept of 'ring-fencing' is just a load of hot air.
Interestingly, Ian Davies (the now-banned betfair forumite AKA Col Archaus Tory, who owns another betting exchange) has stated that no funds, whether held by trusteees or the operators themselves, are 100% safe, and that customers have to make a judgement call as to who they should trust. So what's the point of these 'ring-fencing' declarations? No point it would seem, except to mislead customers into thinking their funds are protected. They patently are not, yet no judicial proceedings ever seem to be brought against the miscreants. |
|
By:
T
|
|
By:
As far as I understand, when funds are genuinely "ring-fenced" it just means that the company itself can't use those funds to pay costs etc - so if everyone asked to withdraw their full balance at the same time, in theory the money should all be there.
However "ring-fenced" does not legally protect the money once a business goes into administration. There will be a number of creditors who are owed money, and it seems customers are often at the bottom of the pile when it comes to trying to get a slice of whatever's left. |
|
By:
Dear old Gordy bears a lot of the blame for the current system.
He and his cohorts of experienced 'business people' have made England's bankruptcy rules the softest in Europe, hence why companies here offer a way for German companies to open an office in the UK for the specific purpose of going bankrupt under our rules, as opposed to the far more stringent German rules. The rules on insolvency are far too lax and leave creditors in an impossible position. I see a lot of insolvency reports and you would not believe how many times creditors ( I don't include secured creditors such as the banks here of course) get nothing while the directors start up again the next week. Often they are able to operate the 'new ' business in exactly the same premises, with the same stock and vehicles etc, but with no debts having bought the assets of the defunct company from the receiver for pennies in the pound. the whole system is a farce and needs changing by Mr Osborne as soon as he gets his little feet under the table of No.11. |
|
By:
i see this name back
|
|
By:
Verdict: No bet.
|
|
By:
You can , if you want some information regarding a Company visit the site :-
WEBCHECK This is Companies House.......... Type the name of the Limited Company you want in search box.....click search, then click on the Company Number shown on top right of screen, then you get some BASIC info......THEN Click on "Order information" ( on right hand side of screen )......and you will get some details on documents lodged with CH and of CHANGES re Directors etc etc You can then obtain specific copies of such documents from CH ....BUT A CHARGE IS MADE THAT IS NOT TOO PUNITIVE ! NOTE : There is law relating to a DIRECTOR of a "dissolved" Company NOT BEING ALLOWED TO BECOME A DIRECTOR....ALSO , If it can be proved that the Company has traded ....WHEN IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TRADED ( Balance Sheet indicating this, plus any other appropriate indicators that Company should have ceased trading far earlier than it did etc ).......then the Liquidator can take appropriate action. If a Director of a Company has told clients/customers who have accounts that the money is "ring fenced" , then IMO ( for what it is worth), this is possibly grossly misleading ( possibly fraudulent ) IF it is NOT "ring fenced" etc etc Very complicated area of LAW IMO........Rarely do liquidators pursue Directors of dissolved companies.....probably as the cost of so doing effects how much fees they obtain after so doing!!!! Really should be a body specifically set up to investigate dissolved companies.....maybe already exists.....someone might know if there is or not.....otherwise possibly FRAUD SQUAD does this ....but not publicised if they do ! GL |
|
By:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service/about
Above body apparently has power to investigate etc etc |
|
By:
See "complaints-" ....section for above body.
|
|
By:
betbrokers1,,,see twitter,,,quite a few betting with them
|
|
By:
"Getting you on since 2017." dear me
|
|
By:
betbrokers1 anyone using
|