Digital Direct

Hope you get your money back soon.

Just checked my "recent transactions" online. Result! I have a credit for £109 listed as "Disputed transaction".

This is the second chargeback I have done now and they've both been quick and smooth. It's an M&S mastercard by the way.

:D:D:D:D
 
Just checked my "recent transactions" online. Result! I have a credit for £109 listed as "Disputed transaction".

This is the second chargeback I have done now and they've both been quick and smooth. It's an M&S mastercard by the way.

:D:D:D:D

That's great news, how long did it take from posting the dispute to getting your money back?
 
I got a phone call today from the credit card company and they are refunding the money, although Sound and Vision have 45 days to dispute this, so I am very happy. :thumbsup:
 
Glad to hear some of you guys got sorted out, unfortunattly I got stuffed for the whole lot. A bit sad that the same retailer/directors will probally pop up under another guise somewhere and no doubt repeat ther poor buisness dealings-sad will be a long time before buying a PJ on line again:suicide: Thanks for all the comments
 
Ahh, I'm glad I googled them now! I certainly won't be ordering anything from them then! they're quite a bit cheaper than some for the amp I'm looking at but it isnt worth the risk looking at this thread.
 
Yes. They are back trading again (Digital Direct) like nothing ever happened. People should go to jail for this type of theft or fraud, but they never seem to. The company took all my money, went bankrupt, changed the holding company's name and went back into business. Shameful.
 
Yes. They are back trading again (Digital Direct) like nothing ever happened. People should go to jail for this type of theft or fraud, but they never seem to. The company took all my money, went bankrupt, changed the holding company's name and went back into business. Shameful.

What happened as far as you can make out?

The current website has
07.19.2010-19.42.18.png


Digital Direct GB Ltd is still listed on Companies House as being registered in 2002. Doesn't matter if they have a new parent; unless they change the company registered number, it is still the same legal entity. They can even change the name of Digital Direct if they wanted:- it's the registered number that is the key. If the new "owners" do not change the registered number, they will have liability for the debts. And a company cannot pass itself off as another, so if they have changed numbers, they cannot pass themselves off as Digital Direct GB Ltd. (assuming Companies House Web site is current and correct).
 
Yes. They are back trading again (Digital Direct) like nothing ever happened. People should go to jail for this type of theft or fraud, but they never seem to. The company took all my money, went bankrupt, changed the holding company's name and went back into business. Shameful.

In view of the serious allegations that you are making one has to ask if you know for a fact that the sequence of events is as you have described or are you just guessing
 
I must admit I do find the arrangement a bit confusing. From the administrators letter I received I got the impression that Digital Direct (GB) Ltd. is just a "trading style", and the actual name of the company was VBA Ltd.

However I also noticed that Digital Direct (GB) Ltd. is listed on the companies house web site....

Name & Registered Office:
DIGITAL DIRECT (GB) LIMITED
19 MATHER STREET, KEARSLEY
BOLTON
LANCS
BL4 8AT
Company No. 04602745


Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 27/11/2002

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7499 - Non-trading company

Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2009 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2011
Last Return Made Up To: 27/11/2009
Next Return Due: 25/12/2010

Last Members List: 27/11/2009


The letter I received stated that VBA Ltd. had gone into administration and companies house confirm this:

Name & Registered Office:
VBA LIMITED
44 HIGHER MARKET STREET
FARNWORTH
BOLTON
LANCASHIRE
BL4 9BB
Company No. 03295373


Status: In Administration
Date of Incorporation: 20/12/1996

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
5245 - Retail electric h'hold, etc. goods

Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2008 (MEDIUM)
Next Accounts Due: 28/02/2010 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 20/12/2009
Next Return Due: 17/01/2011

Last Members List: 20/12/2009

The letter also stated that all it's assets had been purchased by a company called Elitemark Ltd. but that they weren't liable for any previous orders or deposits. When I called Digital Direct (I actually got through for once) I was told my order would not be fulfilled and to register a chargeback with my credit card company to get my deposit back as they weren't liable (which I had already done anyway).

Look how new this company is:

Name & Registered Office:
ELITEMARK LIMITED
CARLYLE HOUSE 78
CHORLEY NEW ROAD
BOLTON
LANCASHIRE
BL1 4BY
Company No. 07233907

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 23/04/2010

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 30/04
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 23/01/2012
Last Return Made Up To:

According to the letter I received from the administrators, Elitemark Ltd. has the same directors as VBA Ltd. So you can infer from that whatever you want.

It seems as though the legal "owner" of the business has technically changed (although run by the same people) but that the name Digital Direct (GB) Ltd. is still being used as a "trading style". What I don't understand is why it is listed on companies house. Maybe it's just a shell company.

Either way, it does seem as though the company has been brought back to life by the same directors without regard to any previous liabilities. I remember seeing people doing things like this on "That's Life", "Rogue Traders" and "Watchdog" etc. and while it appears to be legal it does appear to be a bit immoral.
 
It seems as though the legal "owner" of the business has technically changed (although run by the same people) but that the name Digital Direct (GB) Ltd. is still being used as a "trading style". What I don't understand is why it is listed on companies house. Maybe it's just a shell company.

Either way, it does seem as though the company has been brought back to life by the same directors without regard to any previous liabilities. I remember seeing people doing things like this on "That's Life", "Rogue Traders" and "Watchdog" etc. and while it appears to be legal it does appear to be a bit immoral.

One cannot use "limited" in the trading style if that is not the name of the company as that is misleading.

It is not illegal for the directors of a failed company to buy the assets from the Administrator and set up again but if they have acted unlawfully in the running of the previous company the Administrator may consider forwarding the details to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
 
If any one wants hard evidence of there specific trading practices then I have a PJ that was described initially as new, then as a demo and turned up with over 1800 hours on it, plus they continually lied to me on the phone. Just in case there is any absence of doubt in there dealings with me. Poorly run company that went bust and started up again with the same name-appearance-directors etc (if the previous information is correct) seen it before and I guess it will happen again, the law is an ass
 
You expect this sort of thing from some dodgy outfit being run from a bedsit but Sound and Vision's retail store in Farnworth is pretty big. Bought a plasma from them a few years back, they have a big warehouse nearby too.

I for one won't be touching them with a bargepole if what has been alleged here is true.

And if they are an assured advertiser on here then then clarity should be sought.
 
Notice the new company was set up 2 months before the old one went into administration. Knowingly taking peoples money and what they were going to do. They are legal criminals. I'm pretty sure tha same thing happend with EmpireDirect.
 
Hmmm, anyway, I just noticed on the companies house web site, Digital Direct's "nature of business" categoy...

"Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 7499 - Non-trading company"

So I reckon they've just registered it to protect the name so no-one else can nick it, although you might have thought they would change it so they could start afresh without an "untarnished" reputation (check out the reviews at reviewcentre.com and you might wonder why they didn't ditch Digital Direct and use a new name!).
 
You could always call your trading standards office and lodge a complaint.
 
Poorly run company that went bust and started up again with the same name-appearance-directors etc (if the previous information is correct) seen it before and I guess it will happen again, the law is an ass

The law isn't an ass as it's quite staight forward. Company directors have to comply with the Companies Act as well as the laws of the land and if they don't they stand the risk of being prosecuted for unlawful trading, trading whilst knowingly insolvent, fraud and any number of other things.

We can't have a situation where people who's companies have failed in business but have done so honestly are restricted from running another company and it isn't the law that's an ass but the companies that supply them as far too many are so desperate to make sales that even after they have suffered a big bad debt loss they will supply the new company on credit terms and perhaps suffer another bad debt if company number 2 folds.

If the Administrators feel that for whatever reason the individuals who were behind the company have done wrong and are deemed to be unfit to be company directors they will inform the DTI (or whatever they are called nowadays) who will conduct an investigation.
 
I have never heard a good thing about them.

There's a lot of law quoting that borders on defending what can't be defended. The issue is as an 'assured' trader members here should automatically expect a certain level of service that AVF has in effect vouched for.

The signs have been there for a long time. I hope the impression I get that it's ok for these people to take peoples' money and go into administration is tolerable because it's within the boundaries of general law is the wrong impression.

To me it reflects badly on AVF and their other (probably reputable) affiliates.
 
The issue is as an 'assured' trader members here should automatically expect a certain level of service that AVF has in effect vouched for.

I'll suggest to Stuart that in future all advertisers have to submit monthly management accounts, creditor ageings and bank statements so that we can monitor the ongoing financial performance of every advertiser :rolleyes:
 
Notice the new company was set up 2 months before the old one went into administration. Knowingly taking peoples money and what they were going to do. They are legal criminals. I'm pretty sure tha same thing happend with EmpireDirect.

it's perfectly legal to do that, and it's usually legal for those companies to keep on trading with the same directors, even if the first company with the same directors stops trading, and as a limited liability company, the new company isn't responsible for the debts of the old

if there is something that the powers that be don't like, an individual can be banned from being a director for a period of time, such as 3 years, but that's only if there is suspicion that the individual didn't handle the company right. in saying that, i know someone who did all sorts of dubious things with a reasonable size company that went bankrupt and for some reason he wasn't banned from being a director, even though the police investigated for fraud

what isn't legal is knowingly trading a company that's insolvent

the problem is that plenty of people set up a second (or third, fourth, etc) limited company for a new business, whilst the existing business is doing perfectly well. it may be that they want to protect the old business in case the new business doesn't do well, they might just want to keep things separate for other reasons. not everyone sets up a second company because the think the old one might not last. to some degree it's a bit like you looking for another job when you think your current employer might close down, in that the directors need to find a new source of income if the old business isn't going well. they still have to pay mortgages etc too, and perhaps are less likely to go to the job centre or get a normal job if the business doesn't work out

it is a pretty common thing for people to start a new business just before the old one folds. the thing is, most directors don't want the old company to fold and do what they can to prevent it, but when things go bad they have to throw in the towel, and the law can impose that on companies to stop them incurring further debts whilst trading insolvently

it's also not uncommon for the new company with the same directors to buy the assets of the old one. essentially the administrators job is to sell the assets for as much as they can. this sometimes isn't easy finding someone to buy everything, so if the old directors give a decent offer to buy it up, they are likely to take it, and whatever they pay goes to the debtors. sometimes if that didn't happen, the administrator might get a lot less for the assets if no-one else is interested in them
 
it's perfectly legal to do that, and it's usually legal for those companies to keep on trading with the same directors, even if the first company with the same directors stops trading, and as a limited liability company, the new company isn't responsible for the debts of the old

But in this case the web site states it is trading as Digital Direct GB Ltd and according to companies house, that is still under the same registered number that was created in 2002.

Chances are that they haven't got around to changing the web site to the newly formed companies name. They could probably trade as "Digital Direct" under new ownership (and no debts), but I think there is an issue with saying they're still Digital Direct GB Ltd. Happy to be enlightened if I've got the wrong end of the stick!
 
But in this case the web site states it is trading as Digital Direct GB Ltd and according to companies house, that is still under the same registered number that was created in 2002.

Chances are that they haven't got around to changing the web site to the newly formed companies name. They could probably trade as "Digital Direct" under new ownership (and no debts), but I think there is an issue with saying they're still Digital Direct GB Ltd. Happy to be enlightened if I've got the wrong end of the stick!

i haven't looked at the details of this case in particular, but if you either cease trading and the name can't be used, or you trade in administration, in which case it's "technically" named as "XXX company limited - in administration", so customers and debtors know. trading with a company in administration is quite safe however as your debts are guaranteed by the administator

a shop could go bust and be taken over the next day by a new company that buys the stock and trades out of the same property. they might not bother repainting initially. it's a bit different in taking over a website though, it should be fairly simple to amend text to show it's a different company. perhaps the old website just wasn't shut down
 
You could always call your trading standards office and lodge a complaint.

Well I did email Bolton trading standards at the time (when I was getting no joy reaching anyone at Digital Direct to discuss my order) but got no response.
 
I'll suggest to Stuart that in future all advertisers have to submit monthly management accounts, creditor ageings and bank statements so that we can monitor the ongoing financial performance of every advertiser :rolleyes:

It's nothing at all like that and I don't believe anything was said to warrant such sarcasm.

I think listening to the OP rather than coming on here spouting legality to defend a revenue stream would be a more stand up way to operate.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom