http://www.names.co.uk/acquisitions.html 
"Recently, we have acquired a flurry of companies including SmartChoiceNet, AcademyNet, Namesweb Limited and Simply.com Limited with domain databases ranging from 300 to 92,000. The terms for acquisition have been different in all cases and we are very flexible in the way we can acquire a business - be it a Sole Trader, Partnership, Limited Company or other entity."

Namesco first came to my attention when they purchased the registrar Simply.Com the sale of which was quite a surprise to a good few people especially as Namesco are only a reseller and not a certified registrar.  Simply traded on the good reputation it had built up and did a lot of trade in co.uk domain names which it offered at a good low price.

Every directory that mentions simply does so with words of praise.  This now acts as a magnet to the skin that is all that is left of Simply.  Users can still purchase the domains at the Simply.Com price but what happens next is very strange.  The domain ends up with MelbourneIT an Australian registrar and the company that Namesco resell for.

When the renewal time arrives a simple matter-of-fact email goes out and the price is increased from the Simply.Com price by more than 122%.  Users will then discover that they will have to pay £10 (about $21) to release the domain for transfer plus pay the renewal fee at the new company.  This is often more expensive than staying.

The "Namesco Group" do not warn you of of this possibility (unfair practice but not necessarily illegal) and refuse to enter into negotiation with you on the subject.  At time of writing the author has yet to get a straightforward answer from Namesco on this matter.

The company in question is apparently "Names.co Internet plc" but the author has been unable to find any public records or stock information on them.  This leads one to the conclusion that perhaps this is a bogus name, company or front.  If so then the author has a giant sized scoop in his lap and that doesn't happen very often so other possibilities were explored. 

In the investigation one name that came up a lot was that of Jody Sanders who styled him/her-self as a "Software Engineer/Systems Analyst".  We can not be sure what the exact connection of this person is to the company but the author deeply suspected this was the company until finding some stock records for the company and the purchase of Larchland Ltd which lead to other more interesting details and disproving the fake company theory it also transpires that this public Limited Company is not listed because it has re-formed as a Limited Company called Namesco (it's current incarnation) but also to "Names.co Internet plc today changes its name to Triple Plate Junction plc and is to remain listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange" which is a confusing move at best but it seems more of an action to carry over the stock value to this "gold exploration company".  Did you follow all that?

Also swallowed up in this constant mish-mash is/was a company called "Webcall.com Limited".

Whatever else it is that Namesco do they purchase other companies and then use the customer base to extend their reach.  This is a normal and ethical business practice but it seems at time of writing that this company uses the good name and customer base of purchased companies to slam these customers into the inflated prices waiting behind the scenes.  Whatever else is going on Namesco Limited with a domain database the size of 92,000 they could earn themselves at least £920,000 in £10 transfer fees alone and by raising prices by 122% who knows how much they stand to earn from their ability to control that many customers.

The simply website www.simplynames.net/about/index.shtml shows the contact address which is no longer the offices of simply.com but of Namesco:

Namesco Limited
Britannia Court,
5 Moor Street, 
Worcester, 
England. WR1 3DB 
United Kingdom

So it could be argued that a realy suspiciouse and sceptical customer might be able to work it out.  Interestingly this address is the same office that the company Phase8 and others trade from:

http://www.phase8.com/contact.shtml 
Britannia Court
5 Moor Street 
Worcester 
England
WR1 3DB 

http://www.net2.co.uk/contact-net2.htm 
net2, 
Britannia Court, 
5 Moor Street, 
Worcester, 
England. 
WR1 3DB

http://www.e-comshops.com/contact.html 
c/o Phase8
Britannia Court
5 Moor Street 
Worcester 
England
WR1 3DB
United Kingdom

These also give the same address
http://www.cheapnames.co.uk/
http://www.123domainnames.co.uk/contactus.htm
http://www.namesweb.co.uk/contact.html
http://auction.names123.com/info/privacy.php

Applicable Laws

All is not lost if you live in the UK as there are a number of laws which you may be able to invoke in your quest to avoid paying the tricksters.

• PRICES ACT 1974 and 1975
• TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968
• MISREPRESENTATION ACT 1967
• SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 
• SALE AND SUPPLY OF GOODS 1994 
• SALE OF GOODS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1995
• SUPPLY OF GOODS AND SERVICES ACT 1982
• UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977

Report the Scam

If you feel that what has happened is a con or you have lost out to similar bad practice then you should also contact http://www.ripofftipoff.net/e_cons.htm and hopefully save a few other people from falling into the same trap as yourself.

Whatever you do and whoever you tell you should raise the alarm when a you have been the victim of a scam.  

You local Citizen Advice or Government-Backed Trading Standards Group may also be able to provide support.

---

There are hundreds of fast ones being pulled everyday and our aim is to expose them all one by one. This is just the first of many reports we hope to produce.

Feel free to link to this page, quote this page or email it to other people. Our aim is to get this information out there as best we can. In-fact if you wish you are free to quote some or all of this report on your own Blog or homepage (just follow our guidelines and link to the original so that you visitors know where this has all come from).

This article was written for the scam stopper report on or arround Monday, March 28, 2005. It may be reprinted so long as the full text of the article is made available including this footer portion and so long as the text and links remain unchanged except for minor reformatting to fit your website.

The original copy of the article can be found here. This article may contain speculation and should not be substituted for getting professional advise.

---

 14 comments