Posted by A Barnet based “vehicle matching” company has been wound up in the High Court following an investigation by Companies Investigation Branch of the Insolvency Service.
Motor Help UK Limited claimed to operate a “vehicle matching” business, involving the matching of sellers of motor vehicles to prospective buyers of those vehicles.
The company targeted sellers of vehicles who had advertised their vehicles for sale in UK newspapers, magazines and websites. Persons who had placed such advertisements were cold-called by the company and sold the vehicle matching service for £79 or £99.
The company obtained buyers principally by asking sellers if they were looking to purchase another vehicle once they had sold and by researching “car wanted” advertisements in newspapers, car magazines and websites. It was also possible for buyers to search the Company’s website and register online.
Potential sellers and buyers of vehicles on the company’s database were “matched” using a computerized vehicle matching system. Computerized matching took place once a week. Sellers of vehicles were matched to buyers by reference to the make and model of vehicle sought by buyers.
At the winding up hearing the Court heard that the company misrepresented its service. It claimed that it already had a number of enquiries from buyers looking for the type of vehicle the seller was selling; that it would only make sellers’ details available to buyers who could afford the seller’s asking price and who were in the seller’s region; that the company was able to arrange finance for buyers resulting in a refund of the seller’s fee and that it “guaranteed” to market the vehicle until it was sold.
The reality was that the company did not check its database to find out whether or not there were any matching buyers for the seller’s type of vehicle with the result that less than 50% of sellers were matched with buyers; that no check was carried out as to the amount of money a buyer was prepared to pay for a vehicle or whether a buyer could afford to purchase a vehicle; that the locations of buyers and sellers did not form part of the matching criteria; that the company did not arrange finance and therefore no-one got a refund and sellers’ vehicles were not marketed until sold because the company had no record of any vehicles being sold as a result of its “matching” process.
Source: Insolvency Service (National)
